What Do Dem's need to do...

[CDB]

Just so you guys don't think I'm a complete extremist, understand that I'm not against government standards. I simply think people should understand the reason why they are less than effective more often than not, and why in principle and in an ideal worlds there should be none. This leads to a more practical conclusion that they shouldn't be handled by the federal government. Rather state and local governments are better equipped to be more intimately aware of local concerns and values which are going to more closely match the values of each individual within the local community. Also the local standards are easier to change once enacted, so they can develop with the economy and changing values of those within it a lot easier than a federal one size fits all standard.

The biggest mistake Austrians make is that they don't account for the fact that there seems to be a demand for government, or in economic terms some kind of top down negative feedback to work in conjunction with the bottom up order of the economy.

 

[PC1]

................


That's not true. If the government sets a standard most people just aim for that. Plus the government in a lazy enforcer of standards anyway. .............

CDB...........

Once again, well written and well explained. Your above quote refers to my quote regarding market forces allowing for home owners to pay a home builder a premium price for construction above building standard. Actually that is true and happens all the time. Be it insulation, plumbing, hvac...... some people even have their homes sprinklered in the event of a fire.

This is a very minor point however and is irrelevant to the other points you make.

I know we've been talking about government regulations pretty generally. However here in MA, I am a licensed unrestricted construction supervisor. So I'm very familiar with State building code and some of it's history, it's impact since becoming law, etc.

This system is probably among the most effective possible example of a government mandated system of regulation working well, perhaps it even stands alone in that respect. It was an excellent idea, and code has improved over time.

It works because it's executed locally on a building by building basis. The plan needs approval as well as progress approvals throughout the construction process.

Having said that, the point you make about contractors only aiming as high as building standard unless being paid a premium is also true. I can almost guarantee you that if you purchase a new "spec" house from a developer/contractor, you will find "only" building standard throughout, unless you catch him early on in the process to work out a higher spec : )

In this case though, building standard is pretty good.

Thanks, & be well.

 

[CDB]

Having said that, the point you make about contractors only aiming as high as building standard unless being paid a premium is also true. I can almost guarantee you that if you purchase a new "spec" house from a developer/contractor, you will find "only" building standard throughout, unless you catch him early on in the process to work out a higher spec : )

This is true. What a mostly Austrian like myself would point to is that with the government establishing a minimum standard and no true market feedback to determine what is necessary and what really isn't, what people do want and what they don't, a higher necessary overall cost is the result, for both the standard and what most would consider necessary safety protocols as well as the premium ones. It's back to that coat analogy I used a while back. Most people settle on the government set standard, the market for the higher standard is reduced because of this and because the costs of maintaining that minimum standard have driven up the overall costs in the industry. As a result the higher standards will move out of reach of all but the most affluent. Also, incentives for developing better methods are somewhat stifled and no one considers the opportunity costs of lost innovation.

 

[PC1]

...............................The point was to show that not all liberal plans are bad, and that some government involvement is not only good but necessary. In no way was it saying all liberal plans are good. Nor did it say all conservative plans are bad..........................

I think most people can agree on this. Some government regulations are needed. Some feel the government has gone too far and is too intrusive.

As Nancy Pelosi has (or has just this week) said, God bless America.

:rofl:

 

[PC1]

This is true. What a mostly Austrian like myself would point to is that with the government establishing a minimum standard and no true market feedback to determine what is necessary and what really isn't, what people do want and what they don't, a higher necessary overall cost is the result, for both the standard and what most would consider necessary safety protocols as well as the premium ones........................

In the case of construction though, code was established through the state board of building regulations and supervisors. These are licensed architects, engineers, etc. I'm confident that over time, we have a high correlation between what code dictates for building standard and a safe home.

I own a home built by a contractor/developer on a "spec" basis. It complies with building code, and by code it's deemed "safe" for inhabitation by my family and I. It is insulated and structurally sound for the soil conditions, snow load (live & dead loads, etc.) There is market feedback for homes built in compliance with state building code, it's the secondary real estate market. I or someone like me may after having lived in a house for 5, 10 or however many years may decide to move and put my house on the market. If significant premiums were factored into the code when my house was built that would cause me to want a higher price than say a similar house 5 years older that was built under less stringent standards, I'd end up having to reduce my asking price. Conversely, if code was too loose, my house would have structural problems that would be evident to a home inspector and I'd likewise have to seek a concession.

I'm not out to trifle with you in the least. I just feel that in the case of building code, it's a very VERY good thing and has proven it's worth over time.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

You missed the entire point of that story.


The point was to show that not all liberal plans are bad, and that some government involvement is not only good but necessary. In no way was it saying all liberal plans are good. Nor did it say all conservative plans are bad. What it says is you can't say stupidly that everyone should rely purely on themselves and there shouldn't be any government involvement. There are MANY things that are in the best interests of the people and the worst interests of corporations and that is where the government needs to step in. Regulation of the pharmaceutical industry is a good example. The existance of anti-trust laws is another. Law enforcement is another.

Null the point is all of the plans are old school plans of the democratic party not new ideas and some of them have failed. Look ......I think most people agree that some government regulation is necessary. They want to make sure there houses are built correctly and the food they eat is safe. The problem is it has gone too far in many cases and in others they do a piss poor job of enforcing things. CBC made some good counter points against government regulation. Look at the FDA. The FDA's function is to make sure drugs are safe for the most part. There is a considerable amount of evidence that in they are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry. You have cases of them sweeping evidence that certain drugs are harmful under the carpet, keeping drugs or natural substances off the market that could have beneficial health applications but because they are natural and can't be patented or they are cheap you never see them. The FDA continually puts dangerous drugs for fat loss on the market yet takes something like ephedrine which is safe and effective off the market.

In reality, it isn't "left is good and right is bad" or "left is bad and right is good". Some things are best right, and some are best left, and some are best somewhere in between. YOU need to open your mind to some centrist views.



You all seem to think that I'm a liberal. The only reason I seem that way is because everyone here is so far to the right it isn't even funny. You're all seeing things as black and white, and not stopping to actually evaluate things on their real world merit rather than labelling them and categorizing them as liberal or conservative.

You aren't doing a very good job in explaining your ideas and they aren't all that well thought out. For example, when it was clear that the government paying for peoples daycare was a form of welfare, you wanted government to force employers to pay for daycare. Again you say that's not an example of free money. What do you think would happen to the the employer if they had to do this? They wouldn't be able to hire as many people, offer as high a salary, or it might even force them out of business. So the single mom might loose her job or be even poorer because she is getting paid less. Null you are not a centrist and you keep falling back to the typical liberal mind set of every one who doesn't agree with you has a closed mind or is ignorant. I think if we asked you were you stand on many issues you would be to the left not the center.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

EDIT: Note - you said those concepts were "old school" democrat. I have news for you, if you go 100% neo-conservative, then their plan is to actually remove a great many of those "old school" liberal things that you take for granted.

I am not a neo conservative. I am an old school conservative with some libertarian. Are you going to provide some evidence to what you said that's not from a left wing conspiracy site? Otherwise you are just using the typical liberal homeless children throw the elderly out in the cold scare tactic.

 

[CDB]

In the case of construction though, code was established through the state board of building regulations and supervisors. These are licensed architects, engineers, etc. I'm confident that over time, we have a high correlation between what code dictates for building standard and a safe home.

To be honest I can't argue this, because I honestly don't know anything about home building in MA. I can however give you an example model that I am familiar with that would better illustrate what I'm getting at because I think we're missing each other's points at times. Let's look at water standards.

There are certain substances which are harmful in high amounts, like arsenic and mercury. Let's say you have substance X. It's negative health effects start to become noticed at say 300 parts per million in the water supply. Now we establish a government standard that says water can't have higher than that concentration. Let's also say that the water supply is totally privatized and bottled just to save time and make the issues clearer. The established standard imposes a cost on the industry that the consumers must pay. The increase in cost doesn't necessarily fit in with everyone's value scale, but people who don't mind taking the chance of a higher concentration of substance X don't have the choice to get a cheaper version of water and spend the saved money is some other way. That means less money they can spend on everything else they might value, which imposes opportunity costs on all of society, lost possibilities.

Now the government comes in a decides to make water even safer with X at a concentration of 150 parts per million. There's no perceivable health benefit, but technically the water is safer. The costs go up, people who were more than willing to buy the water at the previously established safety standard now have no choice but to buy the premium product, the cycle continues.

What the universal government standard doesn't recognize, and that Austrian theories on economics does recognize, is that not everyone can afford the higher standard, and not everyone wants the higher standard for whatever reason. By forcing the decision on them you take way their choice, and in the process their value structure has to be shifted to accomodate the higher mandatory cost and the price structure of the whole economy, because of this and other such standards, is distorted.

I think where we part ways and may just have to agree to disagree is that I think it's wrong to impose standards on people, even if they end up helping them. I think it's wrong to dictate to people their choices, be it whether or not to use drugs, what type of fire protection they have in their home, what type of car they drive, etc. I think it's wrong morally, ethically, and economically. One person may be willing to accept a lower standard in one particular instance than myself. That's their decision to make, and it's a simple fact of reality as I see it that you have to deal with and allow for the fact that people will make decisions you don't agree with and decisions which may in fact be incredibly stupid. You may think a person who accepts a lesser standard for fire protection in their home than you would is wrong, but you can't be aware of what he values and why he makes his decisions in the way he does, why he structures his values the way he does. By imposing the higher cost of a minimum standard across the boards, people who are willing to accept a lesser standard, whether you or I agree with their decisions, are forced to comply or shut out of the option altogether if they can't afford it. Or, they vote themselves a right to that option and force you and I and everyone else in society to subsidize it for them.

By forcing people to accept a standard out of line with their values you restrict the variety of options on the market and distort the price structure of those that remain. These prices, painful as they may be to look at sometimes, are the only true source of information by which people can accurately judge costs and arrange their values accordingly.

To give an example closer to home, try this as well. Part of my job has me dealing with a mortgage company. There's a law apparently recently passed that requires if people live in a flood zone that mortgage companies must escrow the flood coverage. This is causing a lot of people to default on loans. Sometimes it's because they can't afford the coverage, sometimes it's because they can't work it into their budget on a month to month basis as escrow requires. Sometimes the massive shortage it causes in their escrow accounts causes them to default. A one size fits all option ends up screwing some people and depriving some people of the choice to chance it or pay for their own insurance. Now I'm well aware of the practical problem that if such people do get wiped out by a flood they almost invariably start begging the goverment for help. That help is equally wrong and introduces a further distortion into the market, making other bear the cost of the risks of living in a flood zone. Then further people are technically in flood zones but haven't seen a flood of any kind in a century or more. They still get the short end of the stick. These determinations so far as I can gauge are made by FEMA, and getting your property remapped or some kind of exception made apparently is damn near impossible, even if the request is more than reasonable.

The codes in MA may in fact have worked, and if so cool beans. They're local enough to change and apparently flexible enough to adapt. That just isn't the case with most government regulations. And the higher the level at which the regulation is instituted, the more cumulative the distortion effect throughout the economy, the more choices have been restricted. Every improvement in well being has an associated cost. I believe it's just flat out wrong to stop people from making what I would consider less than ideal choices and to force them to accept my standards, or through the increased imposed cost shut them out of the option entirely or force someone else to pay for it. Just because they don't have my standards, just because they don't have common sense standards, they should still be free to choose, and should bear the costs of those choices.

I think the biggest problem is that we live in a society where people increasingly want more choices and higher standards, but less responsibility and no costs at all. And as for Nullifidian, I can't argue with him anymore. Disagreement doesn't frustrate me, but when someone misses the point of your argument entirely and offers no justification or argumentation in support of their position, that does frustrate me.

 

[Nullifidian]

The FDA's function is to make sure drugs are safe for the most part. There is a considerable amount of evidence that in they are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry. You have cases of them sweeping evidence that certain drugs are harmful under the carpet, keeping drugs or natural substances off the market that could have beneficial health applications but because they are natural and can't be patented or they are cheap you never see them. The FDA continually puts dangerous drugs for fat loss on the market yet takes something like ephedrine which is safe and effective off the market.

You picked the wrong area to guess about. The FDA is in big pharma's pocket?!?! Are you mad?! I work for one of the top 5 and let me tell you straight out: WE ARE THE FDA'S BITCH. I have an uncle who is the global head of production compliance at Pfizer: PFIZER IS THE FDA'S BITCH. The FDA, on a regular basis, bends multiple pharma companies over a stool and rapes them with a rusty chainsaw. You want to know just how often? Go to fda.gov and check out the warning letters. A ton are issued every friggin month. Many times for extremely paultry things. No the FDA isn't even close to in big pharma's pocket. That's the media playing tricks on you.


Do you know why some drugs don't get approved? In order to be approved a drug must either be for a theraputic need that is not currently being met, or it must prove itself to be superior in some way to existing drugs for that theraputic area. Superior means either safer, more effective, or both. In order to prove this, a company must do multiple phases of animal testing to show enough evidence for safety that it get approved for human testing. Then it goes through 4 phases of human clinical trials testing maximum safe dose, minimum effective dose, etc. for varying groups of people. This takes many years, especially for some areas, like oncology and AIDS treatments. The larger the amount of people who will benefit from a drug, the more people who have to be in the clinical trials and the stricter the rules are for showing "efficacy."

Along the way to drug approval, if anything goes wrong: you makes a mistake or two on a trial protocol, any data at all gets lost for any reason, any data is collected that is not verifyable, an investigator turns out to be corrupt in some way, etc. Your drug is foooooked. Oh sure, when the **** hits the fan, it doesn't mean necessarily the end of the world. Typically it just means you have to repeat a trial or two, or perhaps come up with an entirely new trial design, and maybe even run an entire phase over again. That comes down to a crapload of money and that's when a pharma company makes a judgement call on whether they have a cash to continue and whether or not it will be worth it to. Sometimes they decide to fold on that project.

 

[jarhead]

Ok null, then explain the FDA's ephedra ban. Which by their own incedence/use standard is SAFER then aspirin?

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I agree the FDA is not in big pharma's pocket. (We can agree Nulli )

From what I understand the FDA is run by a bunch of socialist wannabe's who, in their words, are trying to "harmonize" their laws with that of the EU and the UN when it comes to diet and supplementation. That is scary. I know the european jackasses were actuallly trying to make dietary vitamins a non-OTC supplement!!!

It's time for the bodybuilders to start infiltrating the FDA!

 

[jarhead]

I agree the FDA is not in big pharma's pocket. (We can agree Nulli )

From what I understand the FDA is run by a bunch of socialist wannabe's who, in their words, are trying to "harmonize" their laws with that of the EU and the UN when it comes to diet and supplementation. That is scary. I know the european jackasses were actuallly trying to make dietary vitamins a non-OTC supplement!!!

It's time for the bodybuilders to start infiltrating the FDA!

Yeah something needs to be done with the fda! They really don't seem to be making rational decisions and it's getting worse. How long before creatine is banned or vitamins or even protein powders?

 

[Nullifidian]

Ok null, then explain the FDA's ephedra ban. Which by their own incedence/use standard is SAFER then aspirin?

Ephedra was banned due to production problems. Every brand that was tested had radically unpredictable active ingredient amounts in each pill. In some cases it was very little. In some cases it was as high as 10 times the listed amount of 1 of the ingredients. Though rare, it is literally impossible for a consumer to be able to determine on his/her own whether a pill is overdosed or underdosed. As a result it is impossible for a consumer to know what is a safe dose. When someone goes to take an ephedra pill, if they get an overdosed one they could have a serious adverse event. This is deemed unacceptable and I agree.


The FDA did not ban ephedra because it in and of itself is dangerous. It isn't.

 

[CDB]

Ephedra was banned due to production problems. Every brand that was tested had radically unpredictable active ingredient amounts in each pill. In some cases it was very little. In some cases it was as high as 10 times the listed amount of 1 of the ingredients. Though rare, it is literally impossible for a consumer to be able to determine on his/her own whether a pill is overdosed or underdosed. As a result it is impossible for a consumer to know what is a safe dose. When someone goes to take an ephedra pill, if they get an overdosed one they could have a serious adverse event. This is deemed unacceptable and I agree.


The FDA did not ban ephedra because it in and of itself is dangerous. It isn't.

Point is, even if you agree with the conclusion which I do, that inaccurate dosing information can lead to dangerous consequences, the government solution is a complete ban which is stupid. This is one area where if it's not already included DHSEA could have been revised to include penalties and testing for accurate label information regarding dosing. Rather than taking the route that leaves the choice open, and relatively cheap with costs that can be passed on directly to the consumers of the product, the government issues a complete ban.

 

[Nullifidian]

Point is, even if you agree with the conclusion which I do, that inaccurate dosing information can lead to dangerous consequences, the government solution is a complete ban which is stupid. This is one area where if it's not already included DHSEA could have been revised to include penalties and testing for accurate label information regarding dosing. Rather than taking the route that leaves the choice open, and relatively cheap with costs that can be passed on directly to the consumers of the product, the government issues a complete ban.

The ban is because standardization procedures do not actually exist which are accurate enough to produce reliable active ingredient percentages. The only way thus to ensure accurate dosing is to test each and every PILL (dosages varied even within a single batch) and to actually throw out any pills which are not within an acceptable range. This is cost prohibitive and no supplement company agreed to this. That of course was expected, so it was then banned.

The thing is, the FDA banned it until a reliable standardization procedure could be used. CONGRESS banned it for good. Congress, as usual, are full of friggin idiots.


Not sure if you folks know this but the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990, which scheduled steroids, was opposed by not only the FDA but even the DEA as well.

 

[CDB]

The thing is, the FDA banned it until a reliable standardization procedure could be used. CONGRESS banned it for good. Congress, as usual, are full of friggin idiots.

What I think you're missing that a lot of us are trying to get at is that there's not only no way to stop those idiots from exercising power in stupid and abusive, the system actually encourages it which is why the government should have as little power as possible. Those same idiots are the ones who vote standards and restrictions on entitlements away, and there's no way to stop that.

Not sure if you folks know this but the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990, which scheduled steroids, was opposed by not only the FDA but even the DEA as well.

As did the AMA if I recall correctly. Thing is, do you see how that once the law passes even the agencies that opposed it originally now support its expansion? Once again, that's the nature of the system and there's no way to stop it. It's the same with wealth transfers, however small and reasonable they may be at first they'll grow over time beyond any reasonable bounds, which is why the best thing is to deny the government the power to begin with. The free market doesn't lead to what everyone would consider a perfect solution, but in the end it is the fairest in which as many options are open to as many people as possible at the various costs they can afford, and each individual, along with anyone who is voluntarily willing to help him, bears the costs and responsibilities and reaps the rewards of his decisions.

 

[Nullifidian]

What I think you're missing that a lot of us are trying to get at is that there's not only no way to stop those idiots from exercising power in stupid and abusive, the system actually encourages it which is why the government should have as little power as possible. Those same idiots are the ones who vote standards and restrictions on entitlements away, and there's no way to stop that.


As did the AMA if I recall correctly. Thing is, do you see how that once the law passes even the agencies that opposed it originally now support its expansion? Once again, that's the nature of the system and there's no way to stop it. It's the same with wealth transfers, however small and reasonable they may be at first they'll grow over time beyond any reasonable bounds, which is why the best thing is to deny the government the power to begin with. The free market doesn't lead to what everyone would consider a perfect solution, but in the end it is the fairest in which as many options are open to as many people as possible at the various costs they can afford, and each individual, along with anyone who is voluntarily willing to help him, bears the costs and responsibilities and reaps the rewards of his decisions.

Actually the government can change and will give us freedoms back, IF you make the issue big enough. Start a movement to get this issue taken care of and make sure congress knows that the movement will be voting for candidates based solely on this issue. That is what is called a "special interest group." While in the minority, most people vote on multiple issues. So even if most people disagree with you, a candidate can still get elected by siding with you on your issue because most people consider a lot of other things when voting, not just your issue. That's how the Republicans gained control of congress back during the Clinton administration: the NRA voted the Dems out because of the assault weapons ban.


So if you really feel strongly about an issue, start a movement and have it voted back to the way you want it.

 

[CDB]

Actually the government can change and will give us freedoms back, IF you make the issue big enough. Start a movement to get this issue taken care of and make sure congress knows that the movement will be voting for candidates based solely on this issue. That is what is called a "special interest group." While in the minority, most people vote on multiple issues. So even if most people disagree with you, a candidate can still get elected by siding with you on your issue because most people consider a lot of other things when voting, not just your issue. That's how the Republicans gained control of congress back during the Clinton administration: the NRA voted the Dems out because of the assault weapons ban.
So if you really feel strongly about an issue, start a movement and have it voted back to the way you want it.

You're missing the point, Null. The same economic forces, or the absence of them, leads to a fatal flaw in the government system that leads to bigger and bigger costs and more and more restrictions over time. These people do not give up power, it's not in their interest to do so. Plus their time horizon is very present oriented. Elected officials have no hard stake in the long term capital value of the nation, they do however have an interest in milking as much as possible out of the system for themselves and their friends for as long as possible. Forming an interest group isn't enough, they can get raw votes by giving stuff away to people, that's not an issue. You have to be willing and able to give something to them besides votes, and in the end their decision to support your freedom must piss off fewer people than it grattifies. Any new bill wouldn't really curtail the government's power too, it would merely reallocate it in a way that wonderful for me but leaves someone else somewhere picking up the tab for my choices, which is equally wrong.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

You picked the wrong area to guess about. The FDA is in big pharma's pocket?!?! Are you mad?! I work for one of the top 5 and let me tell you straight out: WE ARE THE FDA'S BITCH. I have an uncle who is the global head of production compliance at Pfizer: PFIZER IS THE FDA'S BITCH. The FDA, on a regular basis, bends multiple pharma companies over a stool and rapes them with a rusty chainsaw. You want to know just how often? Go to fda.gov and check out the warning letters. A ton are issued every friggin month. Many times for extremely paultry things. No the FDA isn't even close to in big pharma's pocket. That's the media playing tricks on you.


Do you know why some drugs don't get approved? In order to be approved a drug must either be for a theraputic need that is not currently being met, or it must prove itself to be superior in some way to existing drugs for that theraputic area. Superior means either safer, more effective, or both. In order to prove this, a company must do multiple phases of animal testing to show enough evidence for safety that it get approved for human testing. Then it goes through 4 phases of human clinical trials testing maximum safe dose, minimum effective dose, etc. for varying groups of people. This takes many years, especially for some areas, like oncology and AIDS treatments. The larger the amount of people who will benefit from a drug, the more people who have to be in the clinical trials and the stricter the rules are for showing "efficacy."

That may be the case most of the time but there are certain companies that get favorable treatment. Take anti depressants. Initial studies showed that most of the time in they barley showed to be more effective than a placebo. The companies also found a side effect in some people that they didn't want to be known. The side effect was suicidal behavior. The drugs were approved and there was no mention of the side effect. Today psychiatrists are handing the drugs out like candy and there have been many cases of people killing themselves and in some cases others who are taking the drugs. There was a class action law suite about this. Congress has been looking into it as well. The same charges were made about the FDA more recently with drugs like celebrex.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

That's how the Republicans gained control of congress back during the Clinton administration: the NRA voted the Dems out because of the assault weapons ban.

The dems got voted out because Clinton was putting out a bunch of leftist policies like socialized medicine and people didn't want it. It wasn't because of the NRA null.

 

[CDB]

That may be the case most of the time but there are certain companies that get favorable treatment. Take anti depressants. Initial studies showed that most of the time in they barley showed to be more effective than a placebo. The companies also found a side effect in some people that they didn't want to be known. The side effect was suicidal behavior.

Now from what I know of this I'm more willing to give the FDA a pass on that one. When people who are depressed commit suicide it might not be as easy to pin the cause on the drug as one would think without very careful study over a long period of time. I mean, they're depressed. It's like trying to pin down whether or not a drug causes heart attacks when your initial sample is full of people who are already at a higher risk of having a heart attack.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The thing is, the FDA banned it until a reliable standardization procedure could be used. CONGRESS banned it for good. Congress, as usual, are full of friggin idiots.

In a short article in MD a few month ago, it said doctors are starting to prescribe caffeine and ephedrine to obese people. Taking into account going to see the doctor my guess is, it ends up costing a hell of allot more than simply going to the store and paying 20 bucks for it. It's another example of proving the point of government regulation not being very effective.
Also the FDA didn't say that ephedra is safe but the label claims are way off or they wanted strict enforcement of label claims. On their web site the FDA says

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced today that the final rule on dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids is effective immediately. The rule, which was published on February 11, 2004 in the Federal Register, declares dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids (ephedra) adulterated because such supplements present an unreasonable risk of illness or injury. But FDA has determined that ephedra presents an unreasonable risk of illness or injury. It has been linked to significant adverse health effects, including heart attack and stroke.

The FDA banned ephedra not congress.

 

[Nullifidian]

That may be the case most of the time but there are certain companies that get favorable treatment. Take anti depressants. Initial studies showed that most of the time in they barley showed to be more effective than a placebo. The companies also found a side effect in some people that they didn't want to be known. The side effect was suicidal behavior. The drugs were approved and there was no mention of the side effect. Today psychiatrists are handing the drugs out like candy and there have been many cases of people killing themselves and in some cases others who are taking the drugs. There was a class action law suite about this. Congress has been looking into it as well. The same charges were made about the FDA more recently with drugs like celebrex.

Suicide is obviously an adverse event and as such all were reported in the studies with anti-depressants. And in fact, if you look at the label insert of ANY anti-depressant you will see suicide listed under not only adverse events but suicidal behavior is listed under possible side effects. The only thing the companies didn't do is list it clearly on the front and on the commercials. The FDA since has corrected this by issuing a demand that all anti-depressants post this clearly on the bottle/box and say it explicitly in any and all commercials.


Btw, inducing suicidal behavior still hasn't been proven with any of the drugs in question, and in any case suicidal behavior only occured within the first week or 2 of treatment. The theory is that if it does cause suicidal behavior it has to do with the rebalancing of chemicals in their brain during that time period.


As for the ban, my bad, it isn't banned it seems afterall. Not indefinitely. It is banned until such a time as a supplement manufacturer can verify with the FDA a method of production that ensures exact dosages.




Oh and why would you bother getting a prescription for Ephedrine HCL? It is an over the counter drug. Friggin cheap as hell too. It's like 60 pills for $7 or thereabouts. That's a heck of a lot cheaper than $20. Caffeine is $5 for 100 pills, and Aspirin is about that price too. Total cost is still cheaper than $20, it lasts longer, it is safer, and it is way more effective.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Now from what I know of this I'm more willing to give the FDA a pass on that one. When people who are depressed commit suicide it might not be as easy to pin the cause on the drug as one would think without very careful study over a long period of time. I mean, they're depressed. It's like trying to pin down whether or not a drug causes heart attacks when your initial sample is full of people who are already at a higher risk of having a heart attack.

I agree with you in the sense that when your dealing with someone with mental problems it's difficult to tell what the cause was. It's the which came first the chicken or the egg type question. Obviously if someone was suicidal to begin with than you can't say it's the drugs fault. That being said, there is a difference between being depressed and suicidal behavior. The suicidal behavior is occurring in cases were people had no prior history of it. What they are seeing with anti depressants is that in some cases it is totally changing the persons personality when they start taking the drug. One woman's daughter was just a little bit down but in no way suicidal. The minute she started taking them she totally changed. She become withdrawn and paranoid when she wasn't previously. I believe she hung her self shortly after that. There are many cases like this. The drug company knew that this could happen in some people taking it but it swept it under the carpet. This caused Doctors not to know about the side effects and so patents were not warned about it. In the case of the girl her mom kept telling the doctor that there is something wrong since she started taking the medication. He ended up increasing the dosage. Had they known about the side effect she would have been taken off the anti depressants. In Europe anti depressants now have the warning that they can cause suicidal behavior and I believe they just started doing it here as well.

 

[MaDmaN]

Now see what I started,I had no idea this would get 123 posts.I have to admit after the first 3 responses im lost but im getting quite the education..My wife says im such a **** starter.

 

[Nullifidian]

I agree with you in the sense that when your dealing with someone with mental problems it's difficult to tell what the cause was. It's the which came first the chicken or the egg type question. Obviously if someone was suicidal to begin with than you can't say it's the drugs fault. That being said, there is a difference between being depressed and suicidal behavior. The suicidal behavior is occurring in cases were people had no prior history of it. What they are seeing with anti depressants is that in some cases it is totally changing the persons personality when they start taking the drug. One woman's daughter was just a little bit down but in no way suicidal. The minute she started taking them she totally changed. She become withdrawn and paranoid when she wasn't previously. I believe she hung her self shortly after that. There are many cases like this. The drug company knew that this could happen in some people taking it but it swept it under the carpet. This caused Doctors not to know about the side effects and so patents were not warned about it. In the case of the girl her mom kept telling the doctor that there is something wrong since she started taking the medication. He ended up increasing the dosage. Had they known about the side effect she would have been taken off the anti depressants. In Europe anti depressants now have the warning that they can cause suicidal behavior and I believe they just started doing it here as well.

In some cases, drugs companies tried to sweep it under the carpet, yes. They hid it from the FDA. Had the FDA been aware of it, they sure as heck would have forced them to put it on the label bright and clear. In fact, IIRC, there have been several warning letters and worse sent to various makers of anti-depressents for failure to properly report serious adverse events to this regard.

Seriously, VG, you need to read up more on how the drug approval and AEVR process works. When you know how the process works from a firsthand perspective, there is absolutely no way you could ever think that the FDA would ever look the other way about anything. They love their power over us too much. Most inspectors are anal retentive pricks with a serious power complex. They LOVE it when they find something even remotely wrong. In fact, it is virtually impossible to have an inspection or audit without the inspecting writing you up for something. Usually it is something stupid like "inconsistant terminology in documentation". WHat that particular one means is like if in a test script for a piece of software you write "the application closes" in one script and "the application quits" in another script. They mean exactly the same thing and even someone who is braindead knows that, but the FDA demands consistant terminology across all documentation. use "quit" or "closes", one or the other, not both.


Btw, here's the decree from the FDA:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Suicide is obviously an adverse event and as such all were reported in the studies with anti-depressants. And in fact, if you look at the label insert of ANY anti-depressant you will see suicide listed under not only adverse events but suicidal behavior is listed under possible side effects. The only thing the companies didn't do is list it clearly on the front and on the commercials. The FDA since has corrected this by issuing a demand that all anti-depressants post this clearly on the bottle/box and say it explicitly in any and all commercials.

They did this as a result of the law suit null.

Btw, inducing suicidal behavior still hasn't been proven with any of the drugs in question, and in any case suicidal behavior only occurred within the first week or 2 of treatment. The theory is that if it does cause suicidal behavior it has to do with the rebalancing of chemicals in their brain during that time period.

You are missing the point....again. The point is the doctors, the patient, or the people around the patient didn't know about it. What do you say to the family... if she just waited two weeks to kill her self she would be fine? The drug company knew about this and the FDA knew about it, yet nothing was done until they were hit with a class action lawsuit. There is also a problem with stopping anti depressants cold turkey.

As for the ban, my bad, it isn't banned it seems afterall. Not indefinitely. It is banned until such a time as a supplement manufacturer can verify with the FDA a method of production that ensures exact dosages.

It is my understanding that the FDA banned the sale of ephedra. Ephedrine HCL can be sold because it is marketed as a bronchial expectorant. As I posted before on the FDA's web site it says that they believe "ephedra presents an unreasonable risk of illness or injury. It has been linked to significant adverse health effects, including heart attack and stroke. " It doesn't say anything about "It is banned until such a time as a supplement manufacturer can verify with the FDA a method of production that ensures exact dosages". Post a link to this if you can.

Oh and why would you bother getting a prescription for Ephedrine HCL? It is an over the counter drug. Friggin cheap as hell too. It's like 60 pills for $7 or thereabouts. That's a heck of a lot cheaper than $20. Caffeine is $5 for 100 pills, and Aspirin is about that price too. Total cost is still cheaper than $20, it lasts longer, it is safer, and it is way more effective.

Because people don't know about it and think it's totally banned. Also, for a doctor to prescribe something for fat loss the patent has to be morbidly obese. They aren't typically the type of people who frequent supplement stores.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Btw, here's the decree from the FDA:

Invalid Link Removed

Again this was a redult of the lawsuit.

 

[Nullifidian]

The thing is VG, the information was already on the label inserts. All doctors had to do was read it. They didn't because they are too friggin lazy. You are supposed to have 3, count them 3 sets of people are are supposed to read the label insert. 2 of the 3 should in all instances be able to spot stuff like this.

1) The doctor who prescribes it in the first place
2) The pharmacist; there's a reason they have to have a pharmacology degree
3) The patient; no they shouldn't be expected to have to understand it, but the information is nonetheless available to them and they don't even have to ask for it, they are given it along with the drug.

The doctors in those cases should have known the dangers already because they should have at least read the darn insert. They didn't and people died because of it. This is called medical malpractice. Cut and dry. The blaim lies clearly on the doctor.


However, since it seems there are a lot of lazy doctors out there, the FDA stepped in and said, ok since you are so lazy and are killing a bunch of people through your laziness, we'll require that all pharmaceutical companies put big fat warning signs with flashing lights on these drugs and big disclaimers in the advertisements.




As for ephedra, nothing is EVER flat out banned forever with the FDA. If you can prove efficacy and safety with ANY compound and have it properly documented, they'll allow it on the market. For example, if Merck could prove what exactly causes the heart problems with Vioxx and could say with certainty which people would not be affected, then Vioxx would be put back on the market with a revised label and probably a big warning pointing out the specific contraindication. Whenever a product is removed, if you find a way to correct the reason it was removed, they let it back onto the market. Thalidomide is a good example of this. It caused birth defects and was turned down for approval. Then later it was discovered effective for use in treatment of certain cancers and the FDA started to approve the use of it in some clinical trials again. Yes it is now being used for a different purpose, but it is being used again nonetheless.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Seriously, VG, you need to read up more on how the drug approval and AEVR process works. When you know how the process works from a firsthand perspective, there is absolutely no way you could ever think that the FDA would ever look the other way about anything.

I know how it works null. In this case you are flat out wrong. The WSJ had a story about corruption in the FDA in regard to anti depressants. The story was about one of the FDA own research annalist said that anti depressants were too high of a risk to use on children and adolescents.They ignored him. Again the drug trials of anti depressants showed that suicidal behavior could be a side effect and the FDA knew this as well. Yet, in the mid 1980's the FDA said there was no evidence to support the claims and did nothing to look into it. The use of anti depressants in the mid 80's to now has increased dramatically. With that increase there were more and more cases of severe psychological reactions to taking the drug and or severe withdrawn causing the same type of behavior when the drugs were stopped. More and more people were seeing the same things. They complained to the FDA and they did nothing. Then there was a class action law suite and various media outlets began covering the issue. Then guess what happened? After all that it was this year that they just added the suicidal behavior warning to the drugs. On top of that there are problems the studies. For example, only 3 out of 15 studies showed the Anti. Depressants were safe to use in children and adolescents. yet they get approved for use. The Lancet and BMJ also concluded studies showing they were safe and effective were had major flaws and were actually harmful.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The doctors in those cases should have known the dangers already because they should have at least read the darn insert. They didn't and people died because of it. This is called medical malpractice. Cut and dry. The blaim lies clearly on the doctor.


However, since it seems there are a lot of lazy doctors out there, the FDA stepped in and said, ok since you are so lazy and are killing a bunch of people through your laziness, we'll require that all pharmaceutical companies put big fat warning signs with flashing lights on these drugs and big disclaimers in the advertisements.

I agree with you that frequently doctors don't really research drugs side effects they are prescribing. As for your other assertion about the FDA stepping in again you are wrong. They didn't even start looking into it until about a year to year and a half ago.

As for ephedra, nothing is EVER flat out banned forever with the FDA. If you can prove efficacy and safety with ANY compound and have it properly documented, they'll allow it on the market.

Null you said

It is banned until such a time as a supplement manufacturer can verify with the FDA a method of production that ensures exact dosages".

The best of my knowledge what you said isn't true. The FDA said on it's web site

But FDA has determined that ephedra presents an unreasonable risk of illness or injury. It has been linked to significant adverse health effects, including heart attack and stroke.

It other words they pulled it because they believe it harmful. Now if I am wrong on this and they are simply waiting for the supplement companies to come up with a processing method to ensure label claims post the link or the story. If you go by what the stories of the supplement companies said, they did bring people in to prove that it was safe and the FDA didn't want to hear it. I think if you were right the supplement companies would have done this already. It is also my understanding the ephedrine HCL can not be combine with anything such as caffeine and can not be sold as a sports supplement.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

WSJ story for anyone interested

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Nullifidian]

It other words they pulled it because they believe it harmful. Now if I am wrong on this and they are simply waiting for the supplement companies to come up with a processing method to ensure label claims post the link or the story. If you go by what the stories of the supplement companies said, they did bring people in to prove that it was safe and the FDA didn't want to hear it. I think if you were right the supplement companies would have done this already. It is also my understanding the ephedrine HCL can not be combine with anything such as caffeine and can not be sold as a sports supplement.

In order to be released again, you have to have clinical trials done proving safety. Efficacy isn't an issue IIRC for dietary supplements. So in order for ephedra to be let back on shelves, they have to show it is safe to use. They did not do this. Their experts showed them seriously flawed trials with insufficient documentation. People really don't understand just how mind-bogglingly huge the amount of documentation you have to send to the FDA in order to get approval. WHen I say truckloads, I am literally talking about over a dozen 18 Wheeler's filled to the brim with paper. No that isn't an exaggeration, that's just the documentation for a single megatrial (megatrials are run for any drug with a large target base). In order to get ephedra back on shelves, they are going to have to basically do it like a new drug approval. File for human testing, send the protocols into the FDA, and then begin extensive HUGE clinical trials. The truth is, supplement companies don't wnat to invest that kind of money into it because they won't even hold a patent. The real truth is, they don't have an effective standardization procedure that can refine ephedra to an exact dosage.


Oh and about anti-depressants and your accusation of FDA corruption:

The clash illustrates the FDA's challenge in balancing the need for prompt warnings about potential side effects from drugs against the risk of discouraging the use of helpful medicine. Although critics have accused the FDA of a cover-up to protect a lucrative market for drug makers, the events suggest a more complex situation, in which the agency took the initiative in uncovering much of the data but hesitated to make a declaration that was sure to alarm many patients and doctors.

Even in the article, it says this was NOT a case of corruption at all.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The truth is, supplement companies don't wnat to invest that kind of money into it because they won't even hold a patent. The real truth is, they don't have an effective standardization procedure that can refine ephedra to an exact dosage

You intailly said the reason it was pulled was because of exact dossages. The reason the FDA had it pulled was because it was unsafe.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Even in the article, it says this was NOT a case of corruption at all.

Corruption was my interpretation based on the other things I mentioned. It did say this as well

The FDA's handling of Dr. Mosholder's conclusions is drawing fire from Capitol Hill, and committees in both the House and Senate are investigating. "You don't just ask someone to clam up," says Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "If there's any doubt, they ought to put out the caution to the public at large, not try to muzzle it."

The fact is they didn't let him present his conclusions. You can take that however you want. Do you think people would be more or less likely to use the drugs with a warning about suicidal behavior on them?
It also says

In June 2003, British authorities, who had been conducting their own review, announced that Paxil shouldn't be used to treat depression in children under 18. The FDA issued a similar recommendation shortly afterward.

Which proves your previous post about this as untrue.

 

[goldylight]

My wife says im such a **** starter.

Thats better than a **** pusher:icon_lol:

 

[jarhead]

The fda banned ephedra because they deemed it unsafe as VG pointed out. This was fueled almost entirely by the media attributing it to the unfortunate deaths of a few athletes. The sad part is the toxicology tests were inconclusively at best at showing ephedra even present, much less contributing to the deaths of these atheletes. Thousands of years this herb has been used safely for hundreds of years and the fda says it's unsafe? MY hairy white ass.

 

[PC1]

..............................................
I think where we part ways and may just have to agree to disagree is that I think it's wrong to impose standards on people, even if they end up helping them. I think it's wrong to dictate to people their choices, be it whether or not to use drugs, what type of fire protection they have in their home, what type of car they drive, etc. I think it's wrong morally, ethically, and economically. One person may be willing to accept a lower standard in one particular instance than myself. That's their decision to make, and it's a simple fact of reality as I see it that you have to deal with and allow for the fact that people will make decisions you don't agree with and decisions which may in fact be incredibly stupid. You may think a person who accepts a lesser standard for fire protection in their home than you would is wrong, but you can't be aware of what he values and why he makes his decisions in the way he does, why he structures his values the way he does. ...................

The problem with this is that no man is an island. A person may be willing to live with less fire protection in their home, and a much weaker structure insofar as studs and floor joists are concerned, and even forego the cost of smoke detectors. Who answers the call when there's a fire? The local fire department of course. Are they required to rush into a poorly designed and built house to try and save the cheap and/or stupid father's children? Should the children be forced to pay for the father's freedom of choice with their lives? What about the neighbors if that house is in a densely settled neighborhood? Get 3 idiot/cheapskate brothers building substandard homes on postage stamp sized lots, each a fire hazard, each one catching fire because of the "freedom" of poor choice made by all of them. 3 adjacent structures catch fire and go up in a blaze, what of the risk to the abutting neighbors, each of whom purchased houses built to what architects and engineers would generally deem "safe and inhabitable", but were unaware of the fire hazards of those living next door because there is no standard building code? Are the neighbors to pay that price as well?

What if someone wants to save $ by buying the old Ford Pinto, the one with the gasoline tank that ruptures and explodes onto it's passengers upon being rear ended? What if I'm walking along a street with my family, some vehicle accidently plows into the Pinto, exploding their gas tank, incinerating it's occupants and blowing the whole exploding mess onto myself and my family? I have to pay the price of the cheapskates/idiots freedom of choice with my life and that of my family?

The person who is adverse to water purity standards doesn't HAVE to use city/town water. They can always hire a well company to dig a well and drink whatever comes up. The cheap/idiot father willing to risk drinking harmful elements like arsenic in his water might not care, but what about his wife/children? Who looks out for them? Aside from being cheap/stoopid, what if he's equally unscrupulous, owns a computer with some desk top publishing software and is able to fake a certificate upon a family who makes an offer to purchase his house 5 years down the road? No building standard, no original certificate of occupancy from the town?

You may feel it's your right to sit in your house and drink, smoke crack, shoot smack, and pop LSD. Yet if I live next door to you, I and my family may be at risk of you running into my home wildly hallucinating that my wife, kids and I are the 4 riders of the apocalypse, and blast us all with your shotgun. Is that a price that I or anyone else should be willing to bear for your freedom of choice?

It isn't always by our own choice, nonetheless it's still true that many aspects of our lives intersect with each other in our society. That's where certain minimum standards benefit everyone, even if one or some would prefer not they not be imposed. In our democratic republic, If society at large feels the laws are too restrictive or too loose, we can elect new politicians or file legal suit to change them.

If you want to talk about what's right and wrong insofar as "ethics and morality", look at both sides of the coin, and broaden your perspective to include the repurcussions of someone's freedom of choice to make poor decisions.

Your brand of libertine philosophy works only in a vacuum. In thinking through the possibilities of the examples above, most of which you site, it falls way short.

Your economics is admittedly interesting, but your politics leaves a lot to be desired.

:nono:

Be well.

 

[Nullifidian]

You intailly said the reason it was pulled was because of exact dossages. The reason the FDA had it pulled was because it was unsafe.

The FDA only bans things for 2 reasons:

1) They are unsafe
2) They are not effective

SUpplements don't have to meet efficacy, so any supplement that is banned, they will say simply it was unsafe. Official statements don't go into every friggin infraction and how they came to the conclusion it was unsafe.

Variable active ingredients qualifies as unsafe.


At this point, you are only arguing because you don't like losing arguments. The thing is this isn't an argument. It is a presentation of facts, and the fact is there is no way to standardize ephedra dosages in each pill and that is the reason the FDA deemed ephedra unsafe. End of story.



As for the FDA and anti-depressants. The FDA has been under pressure for years for not releasing drugs early enough into the market. They are notorious sticklers for proof of efficacy and safety surpassing those in Europe. As a result they are slower. Now imagine this scenario. The FDA takes the doctors word and issues the warning. Now imagine if it turned out the doctor was wrong and there was no link between anti-depressants and suicide. Now you have a whole bunch of people who stopped medication or aren't going to receive medication who desperately need it. That was what the FDA was worried would happen, so they felt the best course of action was to wait for more evidence. If no evidence appeared, or if evidence appeared to the contrary, they wouldn't act on the Dr.'s findings. But what happened was that more evidence DID appear and so at that point they did act on his findings.

You have no idea just how many overzealous inspectors they have in the FDA who make rather wild claims and demand public hearings. Most of them are just powerhungry people who want the spotlight. You see, in the FDA, you climb the ranks by finding the most dirt and discovering and issuing the biggest penalties.

 

[CDB]

Who answers the call when there's a fire? The local fire department of course. Are they required to rush into a poorly designed and built house to try and save the cheap and/or stupid father's children?

No, which is how another market force enters into the picture. I would have no trouble privatizing local fire departments so they could issue code reccomendations and deny service to anyone who didn't abide by them. By providing the fire department as a free service people are relieved of that cost and factoring it into their considerations of what they can and can't afford, and those who work for the fire departments have to run into all buildings, regardless of whether or not they meet any standard, either because of stupidity or lack of government enforcement of existing rules, and they don't know beforehand which it is. When it's handled by the private market not only is the cost borne by those who are directly benefitting, there are a myriad of layers of insurance agencies, builders, buyers, neighbors and courts that could and would require the adoption of those standards.

Should the children be forced to pay for the father's freedom of choice with their lives? What about the neighbors if that house is in a densely settled neighborhood?

Another market force. The contractor who initiially developed the area could work fire standards into his contract to build to begin with, as could the people who were set on buying his homes, the fire department that serves those homes, the insurance companies that cover those homes, the neighbors who would sue if their homes were damaged... I think you're missing the fact that there are other ways than government fiat to ensure such standards get met. Even when it comes to enacting a government regulation there are ways to make sure the costs are dealt with in more equitable fashion that just enacting one size fits all standards.

For example that previous intance I mentioned in my last post of a requirement for flood covereage. Undoubtably some people got screwed by it, but far fewer than get screwed if the government decided to provide flood coverage. Just take that regulation away from FEMA and apply it at a local level and you have a solution that's even closer to ideal.

Look at the development of Underwriters Labs the century before last. There was a demand on the part of the market to ensure safety standards regarding electricity and the market answered. In fact many of the codes issued by the government were late in the game, UL had issued such reccomendations already and the government regs just mirror the Underwriters reccomendations. Plus in order to maintain UL listings manufacturers must submit to inspections and continuing tests. Like anything else the process that spurs the development and enforcement of standards isn't immune to market forces.

Further more when the Lab fucks up and gives a reccomendation that turns out to be wrong in terms of safety they can and have been sued. People recover damages and restitution. The government almost universally claims sovereign immuintity from such legal actions, so there's another plus to the market solution. If a market entity messes up, it can be forced to pay some sort of damages and restitution. When the government messes up and sets a poor standard or provides a dangerous product, no matter how severe the screw up is people rarely even lose a job, much less pay restitution of any kind. In fact, and this is the perverse nature of the government, the very agency that screws up ends up getting more money and a bigger budget so it can 'address the problem.' That's like buying a toaster, having it turn out to be defective and burn your house down, and then being forced to buy a 'better' model toaster from the same company.

Not only is the government not immune from the defects of market based solutions, say being bought off by one large client, it is immune from the forces that minimize those defects. It's the worst of both worlds.

Get 3 idiot/cheapskate brothers building substandard homes on postage stamp sized lots, each a fire hazard, each one catching fire because of the "freedom" of poor choice made by all of them. 3 adjacent structures catch fire and go up in a blaze, what of the risk to the abutting neighbors, each of whom purchased houses built to what architects and engineers would generally deem "safe and inhabitable", but were unaware of the fire hazards of those living next door because there is no standard building code? Are the neighbors to pay that price as well?

Other what I've written than above, would you rather they had no homes at all, or that you had to help buy them with government subsidized mortgages because the costs were too high?

What if someone wants to save $ by buying the old Ford Pinto, the one with the gasoline tank that ruptures and explodes onto it's passengers upon being rear ended? What if I'm walking along a street with my family, some vehicle accidently plows into the Pinto, exploding their gas tank, incinerating it's occupants and blowing the whole exploding mess onto myself and my family? I have to pay the price of the cheapskates/idiots freedom of choice with my life and that of my family?

Life can suck, can't it? But your example proves my point actually. Safety isn't some magic trump card. If it were no one would be allowed to drive, period. If they were allowed, sidewalks would somehow be seperated a lot more safely from roads. I don't think you're suggesting everyone be forced to ride in a Hummer with a top speed of five miles an hour and ten foot high, three foot thick concrete lane and road/sidewalk dividers, and all pedestrians wear fire retardant clothes, are you? If not then you're admitting through action if not word that there are other factors that are considered in all decisions besides safety. What people seem to want are products that are reasonably safe or safe enough within the bounds of all their considerations. This is the fatal flaw in all government regulations: they are by nature divorced from the market forces that determine just those cost benefit trade offs.

The person who is adverse to water purity standards doesn't HAVE to use city/town water.

But they do HAVE to pay for it. That's the problem, the distorted value and price structure that results.
]

Aside from being cheap/stoopid, what if he's equally unscrupulous, owns a computer with some desk top publishing software and is able to fake a certificate upon a family who makes an offer to purchase his house 5 years down the road? No building standard, no original certificate of occupancy from the town?

Now that's outright fraud, which I'm sure you're aware all Libertarians like myself say is and should be illegal. You're assuming that if the government doesn't take the function of providing proof that certificate is valid, no one will, which is flatout wrong. In fact by making the service available 'for free' the demand for, and thus the supply of alternatives is reduced.

You may feel it's your right to sit in your house and drink, smoke crack, shoot smack, and pop LSD. Yet if I live next door to you, I and my family may be at risk of you running into my home wildly hallucinating that my wife, kids and I are the 4 riders of the apocalypse, and blast us all with your shotgun. Is that a price that I or anyone else should be willing to bear for your freedom of choice?

No. Other than being a hysterical situation that doesn't reflect the broader reality, it's the price that you and everyone else should be willing to bear for your freedom of choice. Please explain to me what exactly is stopping you from going to an area with like minded people to ensure your environment and neighbors more accurately match your desires? High costs and a lack of alternatives, that's what. What's the primary force in the market that drives costs up in all areas and destroys alternatives? Government. Without government involvement communities do have the right to band together and decide to set their own standards as to what type of neighbors they want. Want to live in this neighborhood? These are the fire codes your house must meet, these are standards of behavior we find acceptable, these are the repurcussions if you don't abide by the rules. This is not the same process as enacting such standards into law, because then choice is removed for everyone.

If you want to talk about what's right and wrong insofar as "ethics and morality", look at both sides of the coin, and broaden your perspective to include the repurcussions of someone's freedom of choice to make poor decisions.

Oh I have. I used to be more liberal than Null. In the end it became clearer and clearer that such reasoning didn't work and didn't reflect reality.

Your brand of libertine philosophy works only in a vacuum. In thinking through the possibilities of the examples above, most of which you site, it falls way short.

Not really. I never claim perfect end results, just better ones. You seem to always assume the opposite, regardless of whether or not it's true. For example, a man named Sam Peltzman did an exaustive study of US drug regulation and came to the conclusion that in its efforts to keep us safe from harmful drugs, the government caused more harm by not allowing more beneficial drugs on the market. Manufacturers have removed draw strings from the hoods of their coats in some areas to avoid lawsuits from kids strangling themselves, but that leaves kids who buy the same coat in colder climates with the ears getting frostbitten. It is those who enact the one size fits all laws that aren't acknowledging we don't live in a vacuum, because they don't acknowledge the differences among us and the need to work them out in the most equitable fashion. They just impose their one standard, whether it's good or not, reasonable or not, effective or not, and say "live with it."

 

[CDB]

The FDA only bans things for 2 reasons:

1) They are unsafe
2) They are not effective

I hate to inform you but you just contradicted yourself. Originally you said:

Do you know why some drugs don't get approved? In order to be approved a drug must either be for a theraputic need that is not currently being met, or it must prove itself to be superior in some way to existing drugs for that theraputic area. Superior means either safer, more effective, or both.

So a drug that is just as safe as another, but slightly less effective but also less costly doesn't pass the test. This means people are being denied more affordable alternatives which they may find effective enough and more in line with what they want in other ways.

SUpplements don't have to meet efficacy, so any supplement that is banned, they will say simply it was unsafe. Official statements don't go into every friggin infraction and how they came to the conclusion it was unsafe.

They should. How dare the FDA demand the truckloads of testing it does and then give such paltry information in return on how and why it made its decisions. This is the lack of accountability that is at the very heart of problems with government regulation.

At this point, you are only arguing because you don't like losing arguments. The thing is this isn't an argument. It is a presentation of facts, and the fact is there is no way to standardize ephedra dosages in each pill and that is the reason the FDA deemed ephedra unsafe. End of story.

No way to standardize them that the FDA approved of, or no way period? There's a difference.

You have no idea just how many overzealous inspectors they have in the FDA who make rather wild claims and demand public hearings. Most of them are just powerhungry people who want the spotlight. You see, in the FDA, you climb the ranks by finding the most dirt and discovering and issuing the biggest penalties.

And this is supposed to be a benefit? I find it hard to digest that even you agree with that.

 

[CDB]

How much you guys want to bet this becomes the longest fucking thread in AM history?

 

[Nullifidian]

I hate to inform you but you just contradicted yourself. Originally you said:

That's not a contradiction. Just now I was talking about the reasons for BANNING not the reasons for approval.

So a drug that is just as safe as another, but slightly less effective but also less costly doesn't pass the test. This means people are being denied more affordable alternatives which they may find effective enough and more in line with what they want in other ways.

Cost is determined by each company seperately. Cost is not something determined by the FDA or even evaluated to my knowledge. For the FDA to require a lower price on a particular drug would be a violation of anti-trust laws; it's called "price fixing." As for affordable to the public, that's why patents run out; so generics can become available.

They should. How dare the FDA demand the truckloads of testing it does and then give such paltry information in return on how and why it made its decisions. This is the lack of accountability that is at the very heart of problems with government regulation.

ALL of the information is widely available. The statement that you read however is just an official press release. It is a blurb. Blurbs don't contain detail no matter who says them. The exact results can be found, but their website is rather cumbersome to search through. You'd have better luck calling the FDA directly and requesting the detailed findings.

No way to standardize them that the FDA approved of, or no way period? There's a difference.

The FDA isn't concerned with "no way period." They are only concerned with what they are shown and they weren't shown any viable means of standardization. Now that it is banned, it will undergo far more scrutiny in order to be put back on shelves. So in order to be re-approved, they are going to have to have clinical trials. The supplement companies did this to themselves, don't blaim the FDA for the private sector cutting corners.

And this is supposed to be a benefit? I find it hard to digest that even you agree with that.

No it isn't a benefit, I didn't say it was. I never said the FDA was a perfect organization. They have a lot of stupid requirements on documentation, etc. that do not in any way shape or form help anyone and only serve to increase costs and time to delivery. However, do not for one second deny that they serve an invaluable purpose. Without them there would quite literally be no way to prevent tons of dangerous and deadly drugs from hitting the marketplace.


CDB, your belief in market self-regulation is ridiculous. Take a look at the past if you want an example of a market without regulation, and you'll see the rich cheating the poor, price fixing, monopolization, people literally selling poisons as medical remedies, and every underhanded scum sucking evil business practice you can imagine. Perhaps you like the idea of going into the store to purchase sandwich and winding up with a few ounces of rat dropping on it and maybe some lye in there for good measure. Afterall, health inspectors are a public service.

 

[MaDmaN]

Thats better than a **** pusher:icon_lol:

LMAO Good one :rofl:

 

[CDB]

Cost is determined by each company seperately. Cost is not something determined by the FDA or even evaluated to my knowledge.

Once more you completely miss the point. The testing the FDA requires adds to the costs which either get passed on directly to the consumer or everyone in general in the form of higher taxes. The restriction that a drug be as or more effective than other drugs already on the market means that alternatives are artificially limited.

No it isn't a benefit, I didn't say it was. I never said the FDA was a perfect organization. They have a lot of stupid requirements on documentation, etc. that do not in any way shape or form help anyone and only serve to increase costs and time to delivery. However, do not for one second deny that they serve an invaluable purpose. Without them there would quite literally be no way to prevent tons of dangerous and deadly drugs from hitting the marketplace.

For one, yes there would, and there are plenty of economists that have demonstrated this already and I'm not going to rehash arguments that have been put to you that you simply ingore. Try this on for size since you seem to be oblicvious to almost anything anyone writes: I AM NOT AGAINST THE FDA ON A PRACTICAL LEVEL, only an ideological one. The practical solution would not be to simply abolish the FDA, but abolish it and have each state form their own similar body. There's nothing inherently better about a national organization of this type when compared to one established at a lower level, and there are in fact many drawbacks to a national agency imposing across the board standards. Establishing it on a lower level in each state actually allows for a market in government. States can learn from each other, adopt those standards that work better and discard those that don't, and it's easier to enact change. The overall effects on the economy are the same in principle but are less destructive and easier to deal with because the imposed costs and price distortions are more localized and thus tend to be less severe.

CDB, your belief in market self-regulation is ridiculous. Take a look at the past if you want an example of a market without regulation, and you'll see the rich cheating the poor, price fixing, monopolization, people literally selling poisons as medical remedies, and every underhanded scum sucking evil business practice you can imagine.

The problem is you're so indoctrinated you won't even face the fact that you're flat out wrong on a lot of these issues, and that even if you were right the methods you choose to employ are self destructive to the very ends you value. I decided to go beyond my public school education and eventually found out a lot of the things I was taught were plain false. You seem comfortable in your leftist version of reality, however disconnected from the real world it is. Underwriters Labs and similar entities arose out of a market demand, not by government fiat. The price fixing and monopolization you speak of did not largely exist, which if you gave five minutes of thought and read a book or two that challenged those ideas, you might start to realize.

Let's take monopolies. When you look at the price indexes for the industries which were originally targeted for antitrust legislation in this country, these 'monopolies' were lowering prices faster than the broader indexes. The 'problem' was that this was making smaller businesses less competitive so they lobbied for special protections. True monopolies can't exist without government support because they always fall to competition, cartels alway dissinegrate for the same reason and also because of internal competition. For example with a monopoly no one's going to complain if a massive trust decided to raise prices because competing companies are going to either be able to raise prices in concert or undercut their competitor and get their business. The main driving force behind anti trust legislation were smaller business men who simply couldn't compete and so lost business. They were very quick of course to voice their complaints to their congressmen at the time.

The 'problem' arises when less efficient business can't match the productivity of more efficient companies. They say the other company isn't competing 'fairly' and get special protection, more commonly known as Anti Trust Legislation. Thomas DiLorenzo is an economist that has done a lot of research on this matter specifically. Perhaps if you gave a few minutes of your time and read a little of his work you'd change your mind on a few things as I did.

 

[PC1]

No, which is how another market force enters into the picture. I would have no trouble privatizing local fire departments so they could issue code reccomendations and deny service to anyone who didn't abide by them.

As a practical matter, when the call comes in to the privatized fire department in this idealistic society you're proposing, because your house, or your neighbor's house is on fire and seconds can mean lives, I could see it being more than a little cumbersome for the fire fighters to make sure they have the address correctly and not that of a neighbor, be able to identify the type of construction, possibly needing to retrieve the set of plans, and make an on the spot judgment call over and above what they normally need to do because of additional concerns over the type of construction and safety concerns of their crew. And in your rebuttal at least thus far, you haven't addressed in any of your examples, how a spouse or children are assured any reasonable standard of safety or quality against a cheap/ignorant father's freedom of choice to save $ by lowering safety of standards? Lawsuits after the fact are way too little, way too late. Market forces alone don't cut it here, which is why uniform standards of building code came into existence in the first place.

Life can suck, can't it? But your example proves my point actually. Safety isn't some magic trump card. If it were no one would be allowed to drive, period.

Yes, life can suck. But in this example, it's pretty easy to see that by either compelling Ford Motor Company to improve it's design of the Pinto or take it off the road altogether, that possibility of disaster is thwarted. Another instance where everyone wins.

But they do HAVE to pay for it. That's the problem, the distorted value and price structure that results.

Maybe you didn't understand the water example. Cities and towns who offer public water/sewage generally charge water/sewer fees to recoup costs based on the monthly, quarterly, etc., consumption in cubic feet of water. They also usually charge a special assessment for the cost of the meter and initial hookups. You or I as a homeowner have the option of foregoing that, digging a private well and installing a private septic system. One doesn't HAVE to utilize those town resources, and so doesn't have to pay those associated costs.

Now that's outright fraud, which I'm sure you're aware all Libertarians like myself say is and should be illegal. You're assuming that if the government doesn't take the function of providing proof that certificate is valid, no one will, which is flatout wrong. In fact by making the service available 'for free' the demand for, and thus the supply of alternatives is reduced.

Yes it's fraud. However by compelling homebuilders to provide a certificate of occupancy indicating that the house is built to uniform code standards, including those set for drinking water, this possibility for fraud is reduced. If you want to privatize that, the problem I see is who sets the standards? You as a consultant know that many differing opinions exist among professionals from any walk of life. Building code isn't perfect, it's a compromise like anything else in life. But statistics show that safety has increased with it's implementation. Bottom line is that it works.

No. Other than being a hysterical situation that doesn't reflect the broader reality, it's the price that you and everyone else should be willing to bear for your freedom of choice. Please explain to me what exactly is stopping you from going to an area with like minded people to ensure your environment and neighbors more accurately match your desires? High costs and a lack of alternatives, that's what.

Hysterical? I wonder if Sharon Tate's family would think it's hysterical, or doesn't "reflect the broader reality"?

If I wanted to relocate my family based on a job opportunity, and as luck would have it, a house right next door to you was coming on the market (largely because YOU like to drink, smoke crack, shoot smack and pop LSD and engage in bizarre behavior under the influence of hallucinogens in your libertine society), how would I know that? Am I to trust that the seller, or any of your neighbors would disclose that during sale negotiations? Fat chance. Would free markets provide that private investigators be allowed to snoop on all of us and keep information about our private behavior in order to provide assurance to all of us when buying a home? Or would you seek to sue the P.I. for doing that, since it is an invasion of your privacy and libertine rights to do and act as you please?

Not really. I never claim perfect end results, just better ones. You seem to always assume the opposite, regardless of whether or not it's true.

The "better results" you claim live only in a vacuum of ivory tower, textbook style imagination. At the inception of this country's existence, we used to not have laws about building code, car safety, prohibition of drug use, etc. The problem is, some people in our society are selfish, crooked, greedy and unscrupulous. Laws against that behavior came into existence to protect the majority of us from the minority of them because of problems associated with not having laws and minimum standards. They're imperfect, they result in loss of freedom of choice. But they're generally accepted because most people prefer them over not having them.

Libertine "sounds" educated, enlightened, and sopisticated. But it's just an ivy league vocabulary word for impractical, selfish, and irresponsible.

Stick to economics bro. You're more convincing in that arena.

:thumbsup:

 

[CDB]

As a practical matter, when the call comes in to the privatized fire department in this idealistic society you're proposing, because your house, or your neighbor's house is on fire and seconds can mean lives, I could see it being more than a little cumbersome for the fire fighters to make sure they have the address correctly and not that of a neighbor...

And the government is going to somehow be magically more efficient at this? The post office loses more of my mail than FedEx or UPS ever has. As is usual the things you mention will be worked out beforehand, not when the fire starts. You're saying the free market will be less efficient than the government, which is demonstrably not true.

And in your rebuttal at least thus far, you haven't addressed in any of your examples, how a spouse or children are assured any reasonable standard of safety or quality against a cheap/ignorant father's freedom of choice to save $ by lowering safety of standards? Lawsuits after the fact are way too little, way too late. Market forces alone don't cut it here, which is why uniform standards of building code came into existence in the first place.

They came into existence in many cases as mirrors of standards that were already in place on the free market. As for the wife and children there is no guarantee except that which she gives herself in making a choice not to marry a putz.

Yes, life can suck. But in this example, it's pretty easy to see that by either compelling Ford Motor Company to improve it's design of the Pinto or take it off the road altogether, that possibility of disaster is thwarted. Another instance where everyone wins.

Granted that migh be true in isolated instances. That doesn't negate the overall effect the policies have, nor does it eliminate possible market solutions.

Maybe you didn't understand the water example. Cities and towns who offer public water/sewage generally charge water/sewer fees to recoup costs based on the monthly, quarterly, etc., consumption in cubic feet of water. They also usually charge a special assessment for the cost of the meter and initial hookups. You or I as a homeowner have the option of foregoing that, digging a private well and installing a private septic system. One doesn't HAVE to utilize those town resources, and so doesn't have to pay those associated costs.

That's an example of common sense, an option to opt out. Common sense isn't very common in government, especially on the federal level. Plus it doesn't address the fact that much of those functions gets handled by off budget entities which aren't really competitive enterprises. They live off of government subsidies and not only distort the price structure but because they have a government subsidy they drive out competition and become essentially monopolists over time.

Yes it's fraud. However by compelling homebuilders to provide a certificate of occupancy indicating that the house is built to uniform code standards, including those set for drinking water, this possibility for fraud is reduced. If you want to privatize that, the problem I see is who sets the standards?

Each individual buyer and seller, and anyone else who has a say in the decision. Who sets the standards now? There's no guarantee Joe Politician won't nominate his incompetent brother in-law to head up whatever committee sets the standards, and everyone deals with his mistakes. If you look at the federal government that's invariably how things work. The politicians don't make the laws and standards, they take the authority and give it to a nonelected entity which often may be operating off budget, which means even though it's largely funded by tax dollars it isn't reported, and usually becomes the chief way politicians dole out patronage.

You as a consultant know that many differing opinions exist among professionals from any walk of life. Building code isn't perfect, it's a compromise like anything else in life. But statistics show that safety has increased with it's implementation. Bottom line is that it works.

Thing is everytime I've seen a claim of such standards making people safer it's been in light of a previous trend towards greater safety anyway, with no recognizable acceleration of such a trend after the government standards were enacted.

Hysterical? I wonder if Sharon Tate's family would think it's hysterical, or doesn't "reflect the broader reality"?

She may not, what does that have to do with whether or not it's a real and present danger to the vast majority of people out there?

If I wanted to relocate my family based on a job opportunity, and as luck would have it, a house right next door to you was coming on the market (largely because YOU like to drink, smoke crack, shoot smack and pop LSD and engage in bizarre behavior under the influence of hallucinogens in your libertine society), how would I know that?

You're ignoring the fact that in a free market this is a concern for which the sellers of houses will have to answer. Plus they would have the freedom to exclude such people from buying the house originally, as would existing neighborhood organizations. Right now one thing missing that should be available in a free sociey is the freedom do disassociate from undesirable people. Now this freedom also has its costs, people are going to make stupid decisions as to who they do and don't want to associate with and you'll get some all black and all white neighborhoods for example, but in the end it's the government that removes the incentive to ensure quality people live there and actively persecutes people for discriminating against someone.

Am I to trust that the seller, or any of your neighbors would disclose that during sale negotiations? Fat chance. Would free markets provide that private investigators be allowed to snoop on all of us and keep information about our private behavior in order to provide assurance to all of us when buying a home? Or would you seek to sue the P.I. for doing that, since it is an invasion of your privacy and libertine rights to do and act as you please?

How does an investigation by one person disrupt my rights? If I bought the house on the assumption that I didn't use drugs and they catch me with a crystal meth lab in the basement, they have every right to evict me. There are laws, contract laws, that are adequate in binding the people who have legitimate interests in this or that standard being maintained while not forcing choices and restrictions on other people.

The "better results" you claim live only in a vacuum of ivory tower, textbook style imagination. At the inception of this country's existence, we used to not have laws about building code, car safety, prohibition of drug use, etc. The problem is, some people in our society are selfish, crooked, greedy and unscrupulous. Laws against that behavior came into existence to protect the majority of us from the minority of them because of problems associated with not having laws and minimum standards. They're imperfect, they result in loss of freedom of choice. But they're generally accepted because most people prefer them over not having them.

And I've studied those issues, some in depth. The founder of Johns Hopkins was an opium addict, how horrible we didn't get him in prison with all the junkies where he belonged. I have never denied people in society can be selfish, crooked, etc. What you seem intent on denying is that there's any possible way any problem can be dealt with without government stepping in on some level and issuing a blanket statement on what is and is not acceptable. The 'problems' associated with drug use are more often than not created and aggravated by their prohibition. Those laws came into existence quite often because of ignorance, and in the specific case of drugs racism. There's a reason why cocaine (blacks), marijuana (latinos) and opium (chinese) are still illegal while the prohibition of alcohol, regardless of its relative dangers when compared to the listed drugs, lasted a very, very short while.

Libertine "sounds" educated, enlightened, and sopisticated. But it's just an ivy league vocabulary word for impractical, selfish, and irresponsible.

Stick to economics bro. You're more convincing in that arena.

This is economics, I don't know why I'm not getting that across well enough. The problems that arise from the setting of this or that standard are economic, because the cost of maintaining that standard has to be paid by someone, and it rarely is the people most directly involved in the transaction for the good to which the standard is applied.

 

[Nullifidian]

CDB, the issue isn't always efficiency, it's reliability and fairness. Private businesses nearly always cheat their customer as much as they can get away with. Your vision of a world is an ideal one where no one is greedy, no one is unscrupulous and everyone follows the rules. In someplace us folks like to call the real world, most people will lie cheat and steal as much as they can without getting caught. They will especially do this if it isn't even against the law.

Private Fire Department? Are you for real? Next you'll say private Police force and private court system. Oh yeah, that would really work. No, there wouldn't be any corruption at all! No, you wouldn't be able to literally buy your way out of any infraction. No, that wouldn't happen.


CDB, your system has been tried before. As mentioned, when the country was founded there were no government restrictions at all.



As for you saying the FDA shouldn't be Federal, that is most decidedly stupid. If you have it state by state then there is no standard. Since each state will have different codes of regulations, that means if pharma companies want to sell drugs in those states, they'd have to file with all 50. That would seriously hurt business. CDB, it was bad enough when pharma had to do that in Europe, when every country had their own system of regs there was no global standard, only local. Now that there are standards in Europe, you only have to file with one agency to get approved in all of Europe. It saves time, it saves money, and because it is faster and more efficient, it saves lives. We've seen your world of seperate states each with seperate drug regulatory authorities, and it was a costly mess.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The FDA only bans things for 2 reasons:

1) They are unsafe
2) They are not effective

SUpplements don't have to meet efficacy, so any supplement that is banned, they will say simply it was unsafe. Official statements don't go into every friggin infraction and how they came to the conclusion it was unsafe.

Variable active ingredients qualifies as unsafe.


At this point, you are only arguing because you don't like losing arguments. The thing is this isn't an argument. It is a presentation of facts, and the fact is there is no way to standardize ephedra dosages in each pill and that is the reason the FDA deemed ephedra unsafe. End of story.

Null go back and read what you initially said. I have posted it again a few times. Lets try this again. You said ephedra was banned

It is banned until such a time as a supplement manufacturer can verify with the FDA a method of production that ensures exact dosages".

The FDA said nothing about this at all. The FDA said it causes strokes and heart attacks. I asked you to post a link or a story that shows that the reason why the FDA pulled ephedrine was simply because of the dosage issue. Have you done this? No.Now your trying to tell me I lost this argument? It's not even an argument null. I asked you to provide evidence on the issue and you haven't done it.

As for the FDA and anti-depressants. The FDA has been under pressure for years for not releasing drugs early enough into the market. They are notorious sticklers for proof of efficacy and safety surpassing those in Europe. As a result they are slower. Now imagine this scenario. The FDA takes the doctors word and issues the warning. Now imagine if it turned out the doctor was wrong and there was no link between anti-depressants and suicide. Now you have a whole bunch of people who stopped medication or aren't going to receive medication who desperately need it. That was what the FDA was worried would happen, so they felt the best course of action was to wait for more evidence. If no evidence appeared, or if evidence appeared to the contrary, they wouldn't act on the Dr.'s findings. But what happened was that more evidence DID appear and so at that point they did act on his findings.

You have no idea just how many overzealous inspectors they have in the FDA who make rather wild claims and demand public hearings. Most of them are just powerhungry people who want the spotlight. You see, in the FDA, you climb the ranks by finding the most dirt and discovering and issuing the biggest penalties.

As I said a few times Nul. The FDA knew a head of time about the link. They said there was no link in the mid 80's when they hadn't even looked into it. It took them close to 20 years to admit there was a link and that was because of the law suite, media, and the brits put the warning on their labels. The doctor was not allowed to present his evidence to the FDA. It wasn't that he had the power alone to put a warning out there. Again you claimed

the FDA stepped in and said, ok since you are so lazy and are killing a bunch of people through your laziness, we'll require that all pharmaceutical companies put big fat warning signs with flashing lights on these drugs and big disclaimers in the advertisements.

That wasn't true. Now you are saying something else.

 

[PC1]

........And the government is going to somehow be magically more efficient at this? The post office loses more of my mail than FedEx or UPS ever has. As is usual the things you mention will be worked out beforehand, not when the fire starts. You're saying the free market will be less efficient than the government, which is demonstrably not true.

In my own experience, I'm not aware of even 1 instance where the post office has lost a piece of mail I've sent out. I have had UPS damage merchandise during handling and delivery, not that it really matters to this discussion..... but since you've mentioned it

:trout:

.................. As for the wife and children there is no guarantee except that which she gives herself in making a choice not to marry a putz.

The wife, I can agree........ and what about the children? In your libertine society, it would appear to be the luck of the draw?

You know, my parents were idiots but by some miracle, I was blessed with a fascination for the mechanics of the human body, the inclination to want to study medicine, and had the grey matter and drive to develop a cure for childhood leukemia. But that cheap bastid, my father, that fvcking libertarian, put our family into a fire hazard of a house practically built out of popsicle sticks so he could save his money and spend it on his booze and dope. Despite showing early signs of prodigious talent in grade school, I went to sleep one night only to never awake because the damned fool was drunk and stoned,
"in the privacy of his own home", as he used to say, and flicked a roach into the corner of his garage. 10 minutes later, my entire family had been incinerated.

I was supposed to be the guy who develops a cure for your kids leukemia, but I'm sorry, I'm not around these days and the next medical prodigy won't be along for another 14 years or so, and unfortunately, your kid's only got about 2 years left in this world. Sorry.

Granted that migh be true in isolated instances. That doesn't negate the overall effect the policies have, nor does it eliminate possible market solutions.

I think I'm getting somewhere with you now. :icon_lol:

BTW, Who said ALL government is good? I'm only saying that in some instances it can and does more good than harm.

.......Thing is everytime I've seen a claim of such standards making people safer it's been in light of a previous trend towards greater safety anyway, with no recognizable acceleration of such a trend after the government standards were enacted.

In the case of building standards, they've been developed and implemented over time. It doesn't matter to me if people within government or within private industry develop them. Bottom line is that here in MA, and probably within all states that have adopted similar standards, they've become part of the law of the land, and statistics bear out that deaths from fire in homes and buildings is down since those standards have been implemented and enforced. I don't see how anyone other than a stubborn fool can argue thats a bad thing.

....She may not, what does that have to do with whether or not it's a real and present danger to the vast majority of people out there?

"She" is dead. If the name doesn't ring a bell, Sharon Tate was one of the victims of the Charles Manson cult murders. This example simply serves to underscore the point that we have laws against people using hallucinogens, even in the privacy of their own homes, because it serves a greater good.

.......You're ignoring the fact that in a free market this is a concern for which the sellers of houses will have to answer.

YOU'RE ignoring the fact that once a victim is harmed or DEAD, there is no answer. Be it through negligence or willful intent, having an imposed standard building code is an effective means of preventing injuries and deaths.

.......... I have never denied people in society can be selfish, crooked, etc. What you seem intent on denying is that there's any possible way any problem can be dealt with without government stepping in on some level and issuing a blanket statement on what is and is not acceptable.

I don't believe I have said that anywhere in this thread? I've simply stated a few instances where government has worked and done some things well. I'm what most people would say is a small "c" conservative who thinks that our government is too big, too invasive, and too much in the business of wealth redistribution. Yet I can also acknowledge the good in some things they do. You on the other hand seem to be espousing that market forces can and will always do a better job. And the problem is that in too many cases, people have been irrepairably harmed or have died waiting for that to happen. You haven't presented anything in the cases we've been discussing to make me think any differently.

We live in a constitutional republic and elect our government officials democratically. In instances where people collectively decide reform is needed, we elect new politicians to do so. We will always be hearing stories about government corruption, scandal, special appointments and favors, etc. And we'll be hearing the same things at the corporate level. Because people are people.

So far, more people see the value in having a government impose some minimum safety standards in places where our daily lives intersect with each other, knowing that it doesn't work perfectly, nor anywhere near perfectly. Most people think it works o.k. ......... unless you're Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, or any other staunch Kerry supporter

:lol: