What? That is an incredibly strange notion. So by default, everything should be banned, and it should only be legal if you can show it's safe? That is not how it works. A ban is an authoritarian action that has to be enforced at gunpoint, always keep that in mind. It is not only a very extreme stance to take, it is a violent one. A ban should only apply on things that are shown to be bad and harmful.
> So by default, everything should be banned, and it should only be legal if you can show it's safe?
...Yes?
If I want to manufacture/import and sell a car, I have to show it passes safety regulations.
If I want to open a restaurant, I have to obtain permits and show that food are stored and processed in an approved fashion.
If I want to build and sell a house, I have to prove that it won't collapse on itself, spontaneously catch fire, or electrocute its residents.
Every one of these points is, yes, enforced at gunpoint, because so many people have died in the past in gruesome, preventable accidents that we have collectively decided "Well, fuck it, we will make everyone prove what they are selling is safe, and we'll enforce it at gunpoint!"
That said, (hopefully) nobody arrests a pair of seven-year-olds for selling lemonade on the corner. You see, these gunpoints can be actually quite reasonable; they have centuries of experience.
The reason that we've had so many people hurt by nutritional supplements is that they're allowed to add anything until it's proven to be unsafe. In the medical field, which has strict rules today, it was the era of dangerous and ineffective "patent medicine" that caused our existing policies to be created.
If you're going to advocate change, don't you think it's important to understand historical and modern examples of the people you're going to kill?
My position is that the FDA's role should be strictly limited to testing products for labeling fraud (i.e., that ingredients are as they appear on the labeling) and maybe doing tests and releasing those results to the public so consumers can make informed decisions. They should have no regulatory authority beyond those things.
I don't buy antibacterial soaps, but I'm concerned about this decision because it seems overreaching. I get the tragedy of the commons aspect, though, so am a bit unsure of that.
However, I agree with original position taken by one of the parent posters: there's a very politically dangerous position implicitly being supported in the US now, which is the default is that citizens are not competent to do anything, and that they have to show that they are, as opposed to the alternative, which is to assume that they are competent, and that the burden of proof should be to show that they aren't. What people are implicitly buying into, without meaning to seem hyperbolic, is a totalitarian state, where the default is lack of rights that you have to earn, rather than a default of rights that the state has to take away.
Sure, along time ago medicine was full of quack remedies, etc. But what do we have now? A corrupt system run by monopolies in all corners, and unaffordable by most citizens.
If people take nutritional supplements, that's their decision and their responsibility. If a supplement manufacturer adulterates their products, the problem is fraud, not the ability of the consumer to make the decision.
People do all sorts of stupid things. Preventing them from doing so is not the responsibility of the government.
I keep going back to the example of taxes, which is a good parallel. Imagine that the government, a year from now, mandates that no one can do their own taxes anymore, and that only individuals with a specific degree and license, requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars, and years of training, can do any taxes. What would people think of that? There would be an outcry, and legitimate concerns about corruption and collusion. But we are completely fine with the government telling us what to eat, and how to wash our hands, and what drugs we should be putting into our bodies, and what not.
The same government that classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance, so dangerous that no one should possess it. Absolutely no problem with government regulation of health decisions. Totally trustworthy. (btw, I've never used cannabis either, so that's not my skin in the game)
I am certain that the FDA, with its ban on certain substances, has caused more deaths and misery than it has ever prevented. Not to mention financial losses.
Before you ask accusory questions, why not refine your own position and brush off the smugness?
Uhh... Pretty much the entire war on drugs? I am surprised you even had to ask. There is much more though, as you can find in this comment, for example:
Okay, what happens if I try to sell you random substances and the authorities dispatch police officers to stop me and I do not comply because I want to exercise my right to trade with you? I can tell you. Violence.
If you disagree with me again, I am going to punch you, but it's not violence because I'm not doing it if you don't do it again ;)
So you don't deny that enforcing a ban requires violence, thus a ban is an extreme and violent stance to take and only makes sense if there is evidence that harm can be prevented, which was my initial statement.
It's thinking like this that leads to disasters like Flint. How many people have to die or get injured before we start caring in America? Apparently way too many for most of the stupid idiots in this country to count to.
