By the way, if it is OK for the government to outlaw drugs that are safe but probably not effective, why isn't it OK for them to outlaw cigarettes?

Because cigarettes aren't medicine?

Oh Magoo, you've done it again.

It is OK for them to. That doesn't mean they should or shouldn't.

It's the sort of issue that is decided within the chaos of a democratic system. It's remarkable how much attitudes and the law have changed during my lifetime. No reason to think it wont change more

More importantly, they're highly addictive and banning them would lead to all kinds of black markets and organized crime, which doesn't happen when sugar pills and homeopathic "medicine" gets banned.

Doubt anyone with an IQ over 140 would offer an answer like that. But people who would hike and ski everyday if they had a guaranteed income, rather than study molecular biology to help cure diseases, probably would.

Always glad to help.

My reply above wasn't referring to your reasonable answer. But to address your point, the ban could come in gradually. And even if it didn't come in gradually, your downsides still don't weigh heavily enough to make up for the upsides.

Bizarrely a small amount of homeopathy is still funded by the NHS in the UK (it's an historical thingy I think). A few years ago they halved the spending which was when it became a news story. Some objected to NHS homeopathy on principle but I suggested they should fully embrace homeopathic concepts on the NHS by continuing to halve the funding for it until it was undetectable.

Probably one of the big reasons to ban scam meds is that they confuse the marketplace and might cause people to not get proper treatments. I know my grocery store has all kinds of homeopathic/herbal bull**** stocked right next to the legit otc meds.

Doesn't seem obvious that these groups are mutually exclusive.

But your question seemed to be "why does the government ban harmless but ineffective drugs but allow harmful things like cigarettes". It is literally because cigarettes are not sold as medicine. There are different standards for being able to sell things like food than for drugs and another set of standards for recreational things like cigarettes and alcohol. Cigarettes don't have to be efficacious in treating anything because they are not medicine. Drugs don't have to be harmless (and they generally aren't, look at a drug's side effect profile), but their harm has to be weighed against their benefit. And the harm and benefit has to be weighed against other drugs that treat the same thing.

So why shouldn't drug companies be allowed to market safe but useless drugs? Why should they? How do they disclose to the consumer that the drug is useless? Are they allowed to use slick marketing to try to convince that this drug should be used? Is the FDA still classifying certain drugs as efficacious and safe enough? Would there be a multi-tiered system for drugs that are safe but not effective? How about drugs that are effective but not safe? Shouldn't gamblers be allowed to use those drugs too (FEELIN LUCKY)?

why the **** has all this prescription drug talk not been excised yet?

do your goddamn ****ing job, mods. that is, if you can take time away from perpetuating this AIDS derail. jesus ****ing christ

THIS

This post raises an important question - does David really believe his IQ is over 140?

This is why we don't have riots in Vegas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDgn53uI0qk

Not quite police shooting unarmed black. But police brutality. Arresting nurse for trying to do her job and protect the patient against a warrant-less search.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...fusing-to-give

More indication that more training is needed instead of used military gear...

probably more appropriately posted in "trump's america" thread

not hating tho, i read that earlier and it's some incredible bull****. mindblowing that the nurse isn't considering legal action. sure, let's just enable these psychotic *******s to violate peoples' rights with impunity.

She has an administrator on the phone who is also telling the police officer that a blood draw is not permitted.

I don't think the officer has lost his job...yet. She will probably sue them civilly. And she should. And she should win. There is not one thing she did wrong. She followed her boss and the law. Instead she is being chased by the police, handcuffed and arrested. Brutal. Brutality.

0 ****s given about STL?

It's in Law and Order

Yawn another cop found not guilty

Officer who shot Walter Scott in South Carolina gets 20 years in prison

This is the guy who was caught on video shooting this dude from several yards away and still managed to get a hung jury in state court:



Federal charges come through where dumbass citizens failed.

Sounds like he took plea deal where he didn't even know what he was pleading guilty to.

I hate seeing this thread bumped, but in this case seems like justice served.