A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

RivenV

Couldnt read it all but my 2-cents..

We already live in a police state, do we really need someone regulating more & more of what can, can't, will, won't be done?

We're all able to make our own judgement calls. If someone chooses to try something, let them. The world has been this way since the dawn of time: everyone can make their own choice based on what is provided. We CAN say yes or no, depending on what we want and/or need.

Nature provides and Technology has just taken it to the next level of chemical nature. If one chooses to go the chemical way, let them: it's their choice. I personally, stick to what nature intended as natural - avoiding artificiality that I feel may harm me in any way. Someone else may prefer chemicals to aid them. So be it.

Do you actually know what a police state is?

Maybe the kind of place where things like this happen?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/dont-appear-to-be-clenching-your-buttock

I don't think we live in a police state... but I think that our civil liberties have certainly eroded as time has gone on. I think it's dangerous to empower certain agencies (like the FDA) with the ability to tell us what we can and cannot choose to put in our bodies. I believe someone posted a scenario earlier about "What if it was your grandmother/mother/sibling/etc. who was putting dangerous chemicals in their body; wouldn't you want someone to tell them they shouldn't do that?" Maybe I would, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell them that they can't. I apply this thought process to trans fats, supplements, conventional medicine, and illegal drugs. Maybe some of the things that people choose to do with their lives aren't so healthy, but it is their life, their body, and their choice. They get to live with the consequences of their actions, for good or for ill.

stumblinthrulife

Try re-reading: all that was stated is why regulate something when all have the choice to either take it or not.

Some prefer natural - and that doesn't allude to any altered state of mind from certain compounds provided by nature that may breakdown into another chemical state - natural or synthetic.

And yes, I am well aware of what a police state is. Just not everyone is aware of how much regulation is already out there apparently.

I just find it ironic that you are using a publicly available, uncensored global communication tool to criticize the government of what you believe to be a police state. I can only assume you will be arrested and incarcerated shortly.

I think my ex-pat Egyptian and Chinese colleagues would find your comment quite amusing.

stumblinthrulife

Couldnt read it all but my 2-cents..

We already live in a police state, do we really need someone regulating more & more of what can, can't, will, won't be done?

We're all able to make our own judgement calls. If someone chooses to try something, let them. The world has been this way since the dawn of time: everyone can make their own choice based on what is provided. We CAN say yes or no, depending on what we want and/or need.

Nature provides and Technology has just taken it to the next level of chemical nature. If one chooses to go the chemical way, let them: it's their choice. I personally, stick to what nature intended as natural - avoiding artificiality that I feel may harm me in any way. Someone else may prefer chemicals to aid them. So be it.

Do you actually know what a police state is?

Maybe the kind of place where things like this happen?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/dont-appear-to-be-clenching-your-buttock

I don't think we live in a police state... but I think that our civil liberties have certainly eroded as time has gone on. I think it's dangerous to empower certain agencies (like the FDA) with the ability to tell us what we can and cannot choose to put in our bodies. I believe someone posted a scenario earlier about "What if it was your grandmother/mother/sibling/etc. who was putting dangerous chemicals in their body; wouldn't you want someone to tell them they shouldn't do that?" Maybe I would, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell them that they can't. I apply this thought process to trans fats, supplements, conventional medicine, and illegal drugs. Maybe some of the things that people choose to do with their lives aren't so healthy, but it is their life, their body, and their choice. They get to live with the consequences of their actions, for good or for ill.

Interestingly, we have similar views, but they have lead us to different conclusions.

I would like to see these things regulated and tested for safety and efficacy. Not outlawed.

If someone wants to sell St. John's Wort, that's fine by me. But I want to know that it's safe for human consumption. And if they want to claim that it can treat depression, I want clinical studies showing as much. In the absence of that, they are just selling a safe for consumption garden weed and if people want to consume it, that's their choice.

And yes, that extends to currently outlawed drugs. If someone rich enough to do so would like to kick back in his mansion and mainline heroin, I feel he should be able to. But he should be able to feel 'safe' to do so knowing that it won't have been cut with brick dust and floor cleaner.

Regulate it and tax it, I say.

RivenV

Couldnt read it all but my 2-cents..

We already live in a police state, do we really need someone regulating more & more of what can, can't, will, won't be done?

We're all able to make our own judgement calls. If someone chooses to try something, let them. The world has been this way since the dawn of time: everyone can make their own choice based on what is provided. We CAN say yes or no, depending on what we want and/or need.

Nature provides and Technology has just taken it to the next level of chemical nature. If one chooses to go the chemical way, let them: it's their choice. I personally, stick to what nature intended as natural - avoiding artificiality that I feel may harm me in any way. Someone else may prefer chemicals to aid them. So be it.

Do you actually know what a police state is?

Maybe the kind of place where things like this happen?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/dont-appear-to-be-clenching-your-buttock

I don't think we live in a police state... but I think that our civil liberties have certainly eroded as time has gone on. I think it's dangerous to empower certain agencies (like the FDA) with the ability to tell us what we can and cannot choose to put in our bodies. I believe someone posted a scenario earlier about "What if it was your grandmother/mother/sibling/etc. who was putting dangerous chemicals in their body; wouldn't you want someone to tell them they shouldn't do that?" Maybe I would, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell them that they can't. I apply this thought process to trans fats, supplements, conventional medicine, and illegal drugs. Maybe some of the things that people choose to do with their lives aren't so healthy, but it is their life, their body, and their choice. They get to live with the consequences of their actions, for good or for ill.

Interestingly, we have similar views, but they have lead us to different conclusions.

I would like to see these things regulated and tested for safety and efficacy. Not outlawed.

If someone wants to sell St. John's Wort, that's fine by me. But I want to know that it's safe for human consumption. And if they want to claim that it can treat depression, I want clinical studies showing as much. In the absence of that, they are just selling a safe for consumption garden weed and if people want to consume it, that's their choice.

And yes, that extends to currently outlawed drugs. If someone rich enough to do so would like to kick back in his mansion and mainline heroin, I feel he should be able to. But he should be able to feel 'safe' to do so knowing that it won't have been cut with brick dust and floor cleaner.

Regulate it and tax it, I say.

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

jonnythan

Couldnt read it all but my 2-cents..

We already live in a police state, do we really need someone regulating more & more of what can, can't, will, won't be done?

We're all able to make our own judgement calls. If someone chooses to try something, let them. The world has been this way since the dawn of time: everyone can make their own choice based on what is provided. We CAN say yes or no, depending on what we want and/or need.

Nature provides and Technology has just taken it to the next level of chemical nature. If one chooses to go the chemical way, let them: it's their choice. I personally, stick to what nature intended as natural - avoiding artificiality that I feel may harm me in any way. Someone else may prefer chemicals to aid them. So be it.

Do you actually know what a police state is?

Maybe the kind of place where things like this happen?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/dont-appear-to-be-clenching-your-buttock

I don't think we live in a police state... but I think that our civil liberties have certainly eroded as time has gone on. I think it's dangerous to empower certain agencies (like the FDA) with the ability to tell us what we can and cannot choose to put in our bodies. I believe someone posted a scenario earlier about "What if it was your grandmother/mother/sibling/etc. who was putting dangerous chemicals in their body; wouldn't you want someone to tell them they shouldn't do that?" Maybe I would, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell them that they can't. I apply this thought process to trans fats, supplements, conventional medicine, and illegal drugs. Maybe some of the things that people choose to do with their lives aren't so healthy, but it is their life, their body, and their choice. They get to live with the consequences of their actions, for good or for ill.

People should be allowed to put whatever they want in their bodies.

However, corporations should not be able to market and sell anything they want, unchecked and unregulated. Those are two very different concepts.

rml_16

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

RivenV

Couldnt read it all but my 2-cents..

We already live in a police state, do we really need someone regulating more & more of what can, can't, will, won't be done?

We're all able to make our own judgement calls. If someone chooses to try something, let them. The world has been this way since the dawn of time: everyone can make their own choice based on what is provided. We CAN say yes or no, depending on what we want and/or need.

Nature provides and Technology has just taken it to the next level of chemical nature. If one chooses to go the chemical way, let them: it's their choice. I personally, stick to what nature intended as natural - avoiding artificiality that I feel may harm me in any way. Someone else may prefer chemicals to aid them. So be it.

Do you actually know what a police state is?

Maybe the kind of place where things like this happen?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/dont-appear-to-be-clenching-your-buttock

I don't think we live in a police state... but I think that our civil liberties have certainly eroded as time has gone on. I think it's dangerous to empower certain agencies (like the FDA) with the ability to tell us what we can and cannot choose to put in our bodies. I believe someone posted a scenario earlier about "What if it was your grandmother/mother/sibling/etc. who was putting dangerous chemicals in their body; wouldn't you want someone to tell them they shouldn't do that?" Maybe I would, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell them that they can't. I apply this thought process to trans fats, supplements, conventional medicine, and illegal drugs. Maybe some of the things that people choose to do with their lives aren't so healthy, but it is their life, their body, and their choice. They get to live with the consequences of their actions, for good or for ill.

People should be allowed to put whatever they want in their bodies.

However, corporations should not be able to market and sell anything they want, unchecked and unregulated. Those are two very different concepts.

I respectfully disagree. If there's a market for a product, and a company wants to produce that product to make money in that market, who is really at fault? If no one was buying, that company would shortly meet its end, wouldn't it?

RivenV

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

jonnythan

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

I really don't see much of a black market for royal jelly or whatever they put in Advocare.

Right now the supplement industry is basically unregulated. You can sell pretty much anything you want, with whatever health claims you want. It's a multi-billion industry where monied corporate interests are trying hard to come up with the next chemical to sell tot he public by telling them it'll make them healthier. It's these corporate interests trying hard to exploit people who are not in a position to know better or to separate marketing from science that need to be regulated.

rml_16

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

People have a choice between regulated, taxed and tested heroin and black market heroin?

jonnythan

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

Because it's a specious choice. People looking at the wall of supplements at Walmart are not in a position to test them for safety or efficacy. It's literally impossible.

RivenV

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

I really don't see much of a black market for royal jelly or whatever they put in Advocare.

Right now the supplement industry is basically unregulated. You can sell pretty much anything you want, with whatever health claims you want. It's a multi-billion industry where monied corporate interests are trying hard to come up with the next chemical to sell tot he public by telling them it'll make them healthier. It's these corporate interests trying hard to exploit people who are not in a position to know better or to separate marketing from science that need to be regulated.

I understand what you're saying that some people may be exploited since they don't take the time to learn or know any better. But whose fault is that? The company for producing snake oil, or the consumer for not making informed decisions? I'm aware that companies do sometimes use less-than-savory tactics to encourage people to buy their products. ... But no one is forcing anyone's hand, here. No one is holding these poor, disenfranchised folks at gun point and telling them they must purchase these things.

RivenV

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

People have a choice between regulated, taxed and tested heroin and black market heroin?

-_-

No. People have a choice to purchase or not to purchase products from various markets, illegal or above-board.

jonnythan

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

I really don't see much of a black market for royal jelly or whatever they put in Advocare.

Right now the supplement industry is basically unregulated. You can sell pretty much anything you want, with whatever health claims you want. It's a multi-billion industry where monied corporate interests are trying hard to come up with the next chemical to sell tot he public by telling them it'll make them healthier. It's these corporate interests trying hard to exploit people who are not in a position to know better or to separate marketing from science that need to be regulated.

I understand what you're saying that some people may be exploited since they don't take the time to learn or know any better. But whose fault is that? The company for producing snake oil, or the consumer for not making informed decisions? I'm aware that companies do sometimes use less-than-savory tactics to encourage people to buy their products. ... But no one is forcing anyone's hand, here. No one is holding these poor, disenfranchised folks at gun point and telling them they must purchase these things.

It's not about whose fault it is. I don't care to blame anyone. I see an industry that's totally dysfunctional and exploitative, and totally unregulated for safety and efficacy.

There's a better way.

wheird

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

Because it's a specious choice. People looking at the wall of supplements at Walmart are not in a position to test them for safety or efficacy. It's literally impossible.

Yep. We aren't saying that people shouldn't have the choice of what to put in their bodies, just that if a company wants to sell a product, they should be required to maintain certain standards. Such as the supplement containing what they say and in the dosage they claim, the stated benefit being backed by testing, and any side effects listed.

RivenV

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

Because it's a specious choice. People looking at the wall of supplements at Walmart are not in a position to test them for safety or efficacy. It's literally impossible.

I'm aware they cannot test them for safety or efficacy. However, they can inform themselves, can't they? We live in an amazing world today with peer-reviewed studies and other sources of information which they could choose to read, instead of grabbing a handful of vitamins which may or may not be beneficial to them.

rml_16

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

People have a choice between regulated, taxed and tested heroin and black market heroin?

-_-

No. People have a choice to purchase or not to purchase products from various markets, illegal or above-board.

True. But the subject of heroin came up and the idea put forth was that everything should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The argument against it was people already have a choice between the black market and the regulated stuff. But they don't, really. None of that stuff is regulated. Including the supplements.

So you can buy it and take your chances or not buy it at all. I personally have no interest in it, but the people who DO want to buy it might like the choice of knowing some of it is at least regulated so that the company can get in trouble for false claims.

RivenV

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

I really don't see much of a black market for royal jelly or whatever they put in Advocare.

Right now the supplement industry is basically unregulated. You can sell pretty much anything you want, with whatever health claims you want. It's a multi-billion industry where monied corporate interests are trying hard to come up with the next chemical to sell tot he public by telling them it'll make them healthier. It's these corporate interests trying hard to exploit people who are not in a position to know better or to separate marketing from science that need to be regulated.

I understand what you're saying that some people may be exploited since they don't take the time to learn or know any better. But whose fault is that? The company for producing snake oil, or the consumer for not making informed decisions? I'm aware that companies do sometimes use less-than-savory tactics to encourage people to buy their products. ... But no one is forcing anyone's hand, here. No one is holding these poor, disenfranchised folks at gun point and telling them they must purchase these things.

It's not about whose fault it is. I don't care to blame anyone. I see an industry that's totally dysfunctional and exploitative, and totally unregulated for safety and efficacy.

There's a better way.

I agree there's a better way. I just don't think that regulation and taxation are that way. (Perhaps I should have prefaced this all by saying I prefer a laissez-faire approach to markets and economics.)

stumblinthrulife

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

I really don't see much of a black market for royal jelly or whatever they put in Advocare.

Right now the supplement industry is basically unregulated. You can sell pretty much anything you want, with whatever health claims you want. It's a multi-billion industry where monied corporate interests are trying hard to come up with the next chemical to sell tot he public by telling them it'll make them healthier. It's these corporate interests trying hard to exploit people who are not in a position to know better or to separate marketing from science that need to be regulated.

I understand what you're saying that some people may be exploited since they don't take the time to learn or know any better. But whose fault is that? The company for producing snake oil, or the consumer for not making informed decisions? I'm aware that companies do sometimes use less-than-savory tactics to encourage people to buy their products. ... But no one is forcing anyone's hand, here. No one is holding these poor, disenfranchised folks at gun point and telling them they must purchase these things.

What about the little old couple who get conned out of their retirement funds by someone running a ponzi scheme? What about them? After all, no one held a gun to their head and forced them to buy. Instead they were convinced to buy into something by someone telling lies about the potential benefits.

Other than scale, what's the difference?

RivenV

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

People have a choice between regulated, taxed and tested heroin and black market heroin?

-_-

No. People have a choice to purchase or not to purchase products from various markets, illegal or above-board.

True. But the subject of heroin came up and the idea put forth was that everything should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The argument against it was people already have a choice between the black market and the regulated stuff. But they don't, really. None of that stuff is regulated. Including the supplements.

So you can buy it and take your chances or not buy it at all. I personally have no interest in it, but the people who DO want to buy it might like the choice of knowing some of it is at least regulated so that the company can get in trouble for false claims.

I can appreciate that some people might enjoy some extra regulation; I am not one of them. Simple trial and error by the consumer would determine if a company is making false claims, though; then the consumer could simply choose not to support that business anymore by not purchasing the garbage it produces. I also don't care much for the vitamins/supplements we're talking about, and I agree that people should weigh their options carefully when considering their health. I just don't think that regulation and taxation is a good option for facilitating that.

RivenV

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

I really don't see much of a black market for royal jelly or whatever they put in Advocare.

Right now the supplement industry is basically unregulated. You can sell pretty much anything you want, with whatever health claims you want. It's a multi-billion industry where monied corporate interests are trying hard to come up with the next chemical to sell tot he public by telling them it'll make them healthier. It's these corporate interests trying hard to exploit people who are not in a position to know better or to separate marketing from science that need to be regulated.

I understand what you're saying that some people may be exploited since they don't take the time to learn or know any better. But whose fault is that? The company for producing snake oil, or the consumer for not making informed decisions? I'm aware that companies do sometimes use less-than-savory tactics to encourage people to buy their products. ... But no one is forcing anyone's hand, here. No one is holding these poor, disenfranchised folks at gun point and telling them they must purchase these things.

What about the little old couple who get conned out of their retirement funds by someone running a ponzi scheme? What about them? After all, no one held a gun to their head and forced them to buy. Instead they were convinced to buy into something by someone telling lies about the potential benefits.

Other than scale, what's the difference?

That's a sad story. Reality is harsh. Maybe they should have done some more research.

stumblinthrulife

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

People have a choice between regulated, taxed and tested heroin and black market heroin?

-_-

No. People have a choice to purchase or not to purchase products from various markets, illegal or above-board.

True. But the subject of heroin came up and the idea put forth was that everything should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The argument against it was people already have a choice between the black market and the regulated stuff. But they don't, really. None of that stuff is regulated. Including the supplements.

So you can buy it and take your chances or not buy it at all. I personally have no interest in it, but the people who DO want to buy it might like the choice of knowing some of it is at least regulated so that the company can get in trouble for false claims.

I can appreciate that some people might enjoy some extra regulation; I am not one of them. Simple trial and error by the consumer would determine if a company is making false claims, though; then the consumer could simply choose not to support that business anymore by not purchasing the garbage it produces. I also don't care much for the vitamins/supplements we're talking about, and I agree that people should weigh their options carefully when considering their health. I just don't think that regulation and taxation is a good option for facilitating that.

Good plan. Next time I die of E.Coli from some tainted Chinese chicken, I'll buy chicken from a different country next time. Oh wait, there's no regulation, so they don't have to publish the origin of the chicken any more. Darn.

jonnythan

That's a sad story. Reality is harsh. Maybe they should have done some more research.

Fortunately we can make it a little less harsh. We can outlaw murder, we can enforce food safety regulations, we can make cars safer.

rml_16

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

People have a choice between regulated, taxed and tested heroin and black market heroin?

-_-

No. People have a choice to purchase or not to purchase products from various markets, illegal or above-board.

True. But the subject of heroin came up and the idea put forth was that everything should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The argument against it was people already have a choice between the black market and the regulated stuff. But they don't, really. None of that stuff is regulated. Including the supplements.

So you can buy it and take your chances or not buy it at all. I personally have no interest in it, but the people who DO want to buy it might like the choice of knowing some of it is at least regulated so that the company can get in trouble for false claims.

I can appreciate that some people might enjoy some extra regulation; I am not one of them. Simple trial and error by the consumer would determine if a company is making false claims, though; then the consumer could simply choose not to support that business anymore by not purchasing the garbage it produces. I also don't care much for the vitamins/supplements we're talking about, and I agree that people should weigh their options carefully when considering their health. I just don't think that regulation and taxation is a good option for facilitating that.

My main concern is safety. It's a matter of companies putting things in supplements that are potentially harmful to pepole and not listing the ingredients because they don't have to and they're claiming what they're selling is something other than what it is.

I just don't think death or severe illness should be a consequence of stupid choices by clearly gullible people.

I don't like the amount of regulation we have and I'd like to see less overall. But I do think there are specific areas where regulation is not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't want to see the government telling people what they can and cannot eat (sodium, trans fats, Big Gulps), but I want to at least KNOW what I'm ingesting.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

Couldnt read it all but my 2-cents..

We already live in a police state, do we really need someone regulating more & more of what can, can't, will, won't be done?

We're all able to make our own judgement calls. If someone chooses to try something, let them. The world has been this way since the dawn of time: everyone can make their own choice based on what is provided. We CAN say yes or no, depending on what we want and/or need.

Nature provides and Technology has just taken it to the next level of chemical nature. If one chooses to go the chemical way, let them: it's their choice. I personally, stick to what nature intended as natural - avoiding artificiality that I feel may harm me in any way. Someone else may prefer chemicals to aid them. So be it.

Do you actually know what a police state is?

Thank god somebody asked that question.

RivenV

That's a sad story. Reality is harsh. Maybe they should have done some more research.

Fortunately we can make it a little less harsh. We can outlaw murder, we can enforce food safety regulations, we can make cars safer.

Where does it end? When we do stop protecting people from their own choices?

jwdieter

That's a sad story. Reality is harsh. Maybe they should have done some more research.

Fortunately we can make it a little less harsh. We can outlaw murder, we can enforce food safety regulations, we can make cars safer.

Where does it end? When we do stop protecting people from their own choices?

Never and always. If you want to go find rat poison, eat it, and die, you can do that in 5 minutes. But you'll be making an informed decision, because there will be a label.

WendyTerry420

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

rml_16

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

Right, but at least they know they're smoking crack.

This isn't about protecting people from stupidity. It's about offering people information so they can make an in formed choice. I like to make informed choices, but if there's no information available, there isn't a way to make an informed choice.

jwdieter

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

Robbery and murder shouldn't be illegal, because laws against robbery and murder obviously don't stop these things from happening.