Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace
At 3:10 AM 3/15/96, Bill Frantz wrote:
Mark Miller and I had a discussion about the restrictions on commercial speech a few months ago. I contended that these restrictions (generally that you can prove your claims) are good for markets because they provide startup companies (and other newcomers to the market) with a small amount of positive reputation capital that they would otherwise have to invest to obtain.
Mr. Frantz, unless you can prove your claims here, forthwith, I must inform you that they are in violation of the Truth in Speech Act of 1996. Please retract them, now. (Yoy can of course find the complete description of how citizen-units ascertain the veracity of their claims at their local Ministry of Truth office. Minitru is always to help citizen-units on their quest for truth.) Do you see the problem? Personally, I don't care if you choose to have some bunch of people called the "Food and Drug Administration" telling you which substances you may buy, and in which quantities, but I care greatly that you (the general you) wish to stop me from making my own decisions, or listening to those I choose to trust, over the FDA. This is what it all boils down to. Think about it. Be careful of the utilitarian point of view that the "FDA saves lives." (It has also cost a lot of lives, by denying effective treatments for needless years of extra butt-covering tests just so no bureacrat will ever have even a single Flipper-kid on his watch.) Mexico has no FDA. A trip to the pharmacies of Tijuana is instructive. A friend of mine was just here. On a business trip to SF and LA, he drove all the way down to TJ to buy a "personal supply" of a nootropic drug for his mildly-retarded son, a drug the FDA has not approved but which Mexicans and Europeans have been buying for years. U.S. Customs, aware of such tragedies, waves people through who are carrying "personal supplies" of (non-narcotic) drugs. We should learn from this kind of "anarchy" the Mexicans enjoy. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Mexico has no FDA. A trip to the pharmacies of Tijuana is instructive. A friend of mine was just here. On a business trip to SF and LA, he drove all the way down to TJ to buy a "personal supply" of a nootropic drug for his mildly-retarded son, a drug the FDA has not approved but which Mexicans and Europeans have been buying for years. U.S. Customs, aware of such tragedies, waves people through who are carrying "personal supplies" of (non-narcotic) drugs.
The reason FDA has not approved this drug is most probably because it does not make mildly retarded boys less retarded. But of course, it's not up to the state to protect people from wasting their money on snake oil. It becomes more difficult to uphold a pure market philosophy when it comes to poisonous snake oil or, as is often the case with potent drugs, effective oil but which will kill you from side effects after a delay. FDA has a very good reputation of not 'recommending' drugs with (delayed) adverse effects outweighing the beneficial ones. But what the hell, let the pharmaceutical companies build up their own reputation. And let anyone call himself a medical doctor (of School Medicine, Naprapathy, Healing, Zone Therapy, Quackery or whatever). Most diseased persons will then carefully check the mag strips on the gallipots with their pocket readers for the secret key signatures of Abbot or Parke-Davis, and PDA-check the signatures of Stanford or Harvard University on the doctors's digital diplomas (which will include some physical descriptions) for authenticity. As usual, lots of coming opportunities for reputation agencies and authentication services. Until this happens, trust FDA. Asgaard
Asgaard <asgaard@sos.sll.se> writes:
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Mexico has no FDA. A trip to the pharmacies of Tijuana is instructive. A friend of mine was just here. On a business trip to SF and LA, he drove all the way down to TJ to buy a "personal supply" of a nootropic drug for his mildly-retarded son, a drug the FDA has not approved but which Mexicans and Europeans have been buying for years. U.S. Customs, aware of such tragedies, waves people through who are carrying "personal supplies" of (non-narcotic) drugs.
The reason FDA has not approved this drug is most probably because it does not make mildly retarded boys less retarded. But of course, it's not up to the state to protect people from wasting their money on snake oil. It becomes more difficult to uphold a pure market philosophy when it comes to poisonous snake oil or, as is often the case with potent drugs, effective oil but which will kill you from side effects after a delay. FDA has a very good reputation of not 'recommending' drugs with (delayed) adverse effects outweighing the beneficial ones.
This is not true. Today it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a new drug to the U.S. market. I speak from personal experience: my late mother used to use Rowatinex to relieve kidney symptoms. It's widely available in Europe, but the Irish manufacturer doesn't want to tell it here because the cost of getting an FDA approval would be more than what they would make selling it. Hence, it had to be smuggled in. :-) Many over-the-counter drugs that became popular before the FDA probably could't be brought to the market now. --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (3)
-
Asgaard -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
tcmay＠got.net