Discussion:
[OT] Right Out of Science Fiction
Add Reply
Alan Baker
2020-06-06 17:24:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
I actually did a term paper in College on the origin of the police.
The police in America were originally formed explicitly to keep "them"
(whoever "they" were, and some of the time "they" had rather pink
skins) in line.
It wasn't until the automobile became common that the police began
regularly interacting with, in a negative sense, the middle classes.
But it's been a long time since then, and it has long since been time
to outgrow their original purpose.
The War on Some Drugs (TM) in the USA has been ongoing since 1906.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
Lynn
Lynn, the logical conclusion to that act being a bad thing AT THE TIME
would be legalising the sale of snake oil and of plenty of products that
contain KNOWN toxic ingredients, with a best case of "the survivors of
the people killed by such terrible products are able to sue the
companies out of business", and a HEAVY dose of "caveat emptor--but by
the way, you'll NEVER get accurate information on who's selling true
therapeutic products and who's selling deadly poison because it's less
expensive to produce". The only people who'd stand a /moderately/
reasonable chance of always being warned off the
ineffective-at-best-and-deadly-at-worst drugs would be the ones who have
personal relationships with enough of the senior execs close enough that
they'd privately pass a cautionary statement about the next drug that
was going to hit Walgreens's shelf. The vast majority of those who could
even have 50% faith that they were buying what they thought they were;
would be millionaires.
To paraphrase someone from somewhere else: typically you don't bother
making something illegal unless someone has already proceeded to do it
and gotten caught but been unable to be prosecuted.
Though going back to my own thoughts: admittedly, cannabis and
/possibly/ cocaine were only forbidden because out-groups were their
main users, with a side supporting group that was out to ban them
because they felt that any drug that made a healthy person feel
increased pleasure should be banned--that second group, of course, also
taking aim at alcohol and to an extent at caffeine.
It is my understanding that the marijuana law was aimed at black
people. Like many other laws, the actual intent was to give police an
excuse to arrest people by outlawing something commonly used by that
group that was not popular among others.
'One of Richard Nixon's top advisers and a key figure in the Watergate
scandal said the war on drugs was created as a political tool to fight
blacks and hippies, according to a 22-year-old interview recently
published in Harper's Magazine.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had
two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic
policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April
cover story published Tuesday.

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to
be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to
associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then
criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,"
Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break
up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening
news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."'

<https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html>
Scott Lurndal
2020-06-08 16:26:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
Lynn
So, we still /have/ an entire industry selling (you can remove the
initial "in" if you like, as I am sure /some/ of them are good for
/something/ -- potassium, for example)
"ineffective-at-best-and-deadly-at-worst products which /cannot/ be
regulated because they are "traditional folk remedies" and so excluded
by law.
FDA oversight was removed by congress upon lobbying by the snakeoil salesmen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_Education_Act_of_1994
Mike Van Pelt
2020-06-08 19:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
So, we still /have/ an entire industry selling (you can remove the
initial "in" if you like, as I am sure /some/ of them are good for
/something/ -- potassium, for example)
"ineffective-at-best-and-deadly-at-worst products which /cannot/ be
regulated because they are "traditional folk remedies" and so excluded
by law.
FDA oversight was removed by congress upon lobbying by the snakeoil salesmen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_Education_Act_of_1994
As I recall, one of the reasons for this is that, in a typical
bureaucratic "grab as much power as we possibly can for pure
power's sake" move, the FDA was trying to require you to get a
doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
h***@gmail.com
2020-06-09 04:53:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Scott Lurndal
So, we still /have/ an entire industry selling (you can remove the
initial "in" if you like, as I am sure /some/ of them are good for
/something/ -- potassium, for example)
"ineffective-at-best-and-deadly-at-worst products which /cannot/ be
regulated because they are "traditional folk remedies" and so excluded
by law.
FDA oversight was removed by congress upon lobbying by the snakeoil salesmen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_Education_Act_of_1994
As I recall, one of the reasons for this is that, in a typical
bureaucratic "grab as much power as we possibly can for pure
power's sake" move, the FDA was trying to require you to get a
doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins.
got a source to back that claim up?
I couldn't find it in a brief google
Quadibloc
2020-06-09 08:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Scott Lurndal
So, we still /have/ an entire industry selling (you can remove the
initial "in" if you like, as I am sure /some/ of them are good for
/something/ -- potassium, for example)
"ineffective-at-best-and-deadly-at-worst products which /cannot/ be
regulated because they are "traditional folk remedies" and so excluded
by law.
FDA oversight was removed by congress upon lobbying by the snakeoil salesmen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_Education_Act_of_1994
As I recall, one of the reasons for this is that, in a typical
bureaucratic "grab as much power as we possibly can for pure
power's sake" move, the FDA was trying to require you to get a
doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins.
got a source to back that claim up?
I couldn't find it in a brief google
The Wikipedia article to which a link is given mentions the Nutrition
Advertising Coordination Act of 1991, which is the basis for that claim.

John Savard
h***@gmail.com
2020-06-09 14:06:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Scott Lurndal
So, we still /have/ an entire industry selling (you can remove the
initial "in" if you like, as I am sure /some/ of them are good for
/something/ -- potassium, for example)
"ineffective-at-best-and-deadly-at-worst products which /cannot/ be
regulated because they are "traditional folk remedies" and so excluded
by law.
FDA oversight was removed by congress upon lobbying by the snakeoil salesmen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_Education_Act_of_1994
As I recall, one of the reasons for this is that, in a typical
bureaucratic "grab as much power as we possibly can for pure
power's sake" move, the FDA was trying to require you to get a
doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins.
got a source to back that claim up?
I couldn't find it in a brief google
The Wikipedia article to which a link is given mentions the Nutrition
Advertising Coordination Act of 1991, which is the basis for that claim.
"One of these acts, the Nutrition Advertising Coordination Act of 1991 would have tightened the regulations regarding supplement labeling."

That's a long way off
" the FDA was trying to require you to get a doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins."

It does mention an add run by various supplement companies that ""featured the actor Mel Gibson being raided and arrested by FDA agents because he was taking vitamin C supplements."

But that's hugely different from the act actually doing it

The summary of the act from https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/1662?s=1&r=2
is
"Amends the Federal Trade Commission Act to deem a food advertisement misleading if it expressly or by implication characterizes the level of any nutrient, the relationship of any nutrient to a disease or a health-related condition, or the amount of any nutrient in a serving or portion of the food, unless the characterization is in accordance with specified provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Deems a food advertisement misleading if it contains a claim that fails to: (1) disclose the level of fat or saturated fat when a claim characterizes the level of cholesterol; (2) disclose the level of cholesterol when a claim characterizes the level of saturated fat; (3) disclose the level of total fat when a claim is made that the food is high in dietary fiber; or (4) include clearly and conspicuously the statement, "See product label for complete nutrition information."

While summaries of laws aren't always complete it includes the actual text which (to a scan with extremely limited legal training - 1 semester of law for engineers back in the 90s) looks like what it says

So it looks much more likely that the supplement companies were worried that truth in advertising laws would be aimed their way and went on a preemptive attack to keep being able to lie
Guess they felt that "ïf you aren't deficient in the you'll just piss it out" or "if you're training for at least 8 hours a day this might let you put on a touch more muscle mass" wasn't going to help their sales
Quadibloc
2020-06-09 14:20:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Scott Lurndal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_Education_Act_of_1994
As I recall, one of the reasons for this is that, in a typical
bureaucratic "grab as much power as we possibly can for pure
power's sake" move, the FDA was trying to require you to get a
doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins.
got a source to back that claim up?
I couldn't find it in a brief google
The Wikipedia article to which a link is given mentions the Nutrition
Advertising Coordination Act of 1991, which is the basis for that claim.
"One of these acts, the Nutrition Advertising Coordination Act of 1991 would have tightened the regulations regarding supplement labeling."
That's a long way off
" the FDA was trying to require you to get a doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins."
Oh, yes. But you were saying that he didn't give any information.

The Wikipedia article, in fact, contained all the information needed to form a
balanced assessment of why Congress took action to limit the powers of the FDA,
whether the rationale for doing so was valid or not.

That's different from criticizing him for inaccurately characterizing what
really happened.

John Savard
h***@gmail.com
2020-06-10 04:25:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Scott Lurndal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_Education_Act_of_1994
As I recall, one of the reasons for this is that, in a typical
bureaucratic "grab as much power as we possibly can for pure
power's sake" move, the FDA was trying to require you to get a
doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins.
got a source to back that claim up?
I couldn't find it in a brief google
The Wikipedia article to which a link is given mentions the Nutrition
Advertising Coordination Act of 1991, which is the basis for that claim.
"One of these acts, the Nutrition Advertising Coordination Act of 1991 would have tightened the regulations regarding supplement labeling."
That's a long way off
" the FDA was trying to require you to get a doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins."
Oh, yes. But you were saying that he didn't give any information.
No, I asked for a source to back the claim up
'> > > > > As I recall, one of the reasons for this is that, in a typical
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
bureaucratic "grab as much power as we possibly can for pure
power's sake" move, the FDA was trying to require you to get a
doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins.
got a source to back that claim up?'
That's pretty clearly asking for a source backing up the claim that the FDA was trying to require a doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins
Post by Quadibloc
The Wikipedia article, in fact, contained all the information needed to form a
balanced assessment of why Congress took action to limit the powers of the FDA,
whether the rationale for doing so was valid or not.
Irrelevant to my question
Also it really doesn't, it doesn't say what the heightened restrictions on supplement advertising were under any of the proposed legislation. The one piece of legislation it references (the 91 act which failed to pass) looks like it was solely concerned with food, not supplements
Post by Quadibloc
That's different from criticizing him for inaccurately characterizing what
really happened.
Quaddie, either completely leave your separate reality behind so you're interacting with us from the same dimension we are in or go completely in there
This half and half stuff is just silly
Mike Van Pelt
2020-06-10 18:12:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
As I recall, one of the reasons for this is that, in a typical
bureaucratic "grab as much power as we possibly can for pure
power's sake" move, the FDA was trying to require you to get a
doctor's prescription for perfectly ordinary vitamins.
got a source to back that claim up?
I couldn't find it in a brief google
My claim was "As I recall..." I do assert that that is my
recollection at the time this was going on. I don't know what
I could back that up with, at it was a few years pre-WWW.

I do recall a good bit of public grumbling from "those sorts of
medical professionals" that the RDA was plenty good enough, and
people shouldn't take more than the RDA, with strong hints
that they shouldn't be allowed to.

I also recall "health food stores" (yeah, dumpster-fire-loads of
outright quackery and newage-crystal-woo-woo to be found there)
getting cracked down on for just mentioning to pregnant women
that a good folic acid supplement is associated with lower
incidence of neural tube defects, such as spina bifida. Or even
posting a copy of the abstract of the JAMA article saying so
next to the "Folic Acid" section of their offerings.

Given that, say, the RDA of 400 IU of Vitamin D is the amount
determined to be sufficient to prevent ricketts, determined
empirically before much was known of biochemistry, under the
assumption that Vitamin D has no other function in the body, I'm
glad they aren't preventing me from buying 2000 IU or 5000 IU
pills. Especially in the days of Covid19.

Granted, idiots can get themselves into trouble taking stupidly
high amounts of many vitamins, but the same is true of water.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Loading...