Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
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.
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)?