Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
    #10540292 - 06/19/09 11:12 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
You could start a campaign to get the FDA to require fillers to be disclosed. I think that would be preferable to suing a drug company, wouldn't you? Consider the: the FDA has the right to demand that fillers be disclosed (it's within their charter) so if you convince them, they will do it. But suing Merck would only work if you have had some sort of injury due to fillers not being disclosed. Otherwise the court would wonder why you're wasting their time. And if you have had some sort of injury, then you'd probably have a better chance campaigning to the FDA than suing Merck. You'd certainly spend less on lawyer's fees.

Regulatory bodies like the FDA are far from perfect, but I don't see how getting rid of them and relying on lawsuits would actually improve things. Different, yes, but I'm not convince it would be better.





I don't understand why you are acting like the choice is between lawsuits and regulatory bodies.  Again, how are you proposing the regulatory bodies enforce things?  Dictatorship?  I've never understood why people have this distaste for lawsuits that seems to melt away when the government is the plaintiff- I would think giving damages to the actual victims and having them maintain their first amendment rights would be preferable.

And no, you do not need to suffer personal injury to have a cause against the company. 1.  I have allready said that all material facts should be disclosed about a product and that private causes of action should be provided for.  2.  Relevant information not being disclosed that would have changed the purchaser's descision to purchase or that causes injury is allready actionable at common law.  3.  Statutory consumer protection legislation provides equitable relief, costs, and statutory damages even in the case of no actual damages where a product's advertising is misleading or deceptive or the product is misrepresented or defective.

The FDA may have the right to order disclosure, but so what?  Why should we give them our rights so that they may dole out what they wish back to us, retaining what they wish.


Tobacco has been regulated by the FTC forever and the result is the situation we have now: nobody knows whats in the damn things, the products are deceptivly marketed with outright lies, and people are powerless to stop them cuz of the federal law and regulation.



Other than the incorrect assertion that a suit may only lie when a personal injury is sustained you've offered no reason why giving the power to the people to know what they are buying and stop harmful practices is a worse situation.  Further, I think you should bear the burden of showing why giving another federal regulatory body the ability to prohibit disclosure of ingredients, protect companies that misrepresent their products, and take whatever rights they liek from us is preferable.


What is the advantage and why should a federal agency have the authority to tell a compnay they need not disclose a carcinogen or harmful additive?  Why should they have the authority, further, to impede honest trade in tobacco?

There is no justification for removing the people's rights and handing it to some agency to determine whether you need to know about some carcinogen or whether a company can proffer a particular advertisement (regardless of its truth).


Quote:

THC Titan said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Your only response to my detailed post is an appeal to incredulity and a straw man argument.  If you prefer an alternative at least carry your own burden instead of just misrepresenting people's positions and acting like its a joke without showing why.




What are you talking about, this is exactly what you said about less oversight and more accountability:

Quote:

If we had no federal regulations on tobacco you would allready know all the ingredients and you would no longer have companies shielded from having to disclose them as they are now.  You would no longer have companies able to lie to the public in advertising light ciggerettes, like they do now.  You would no longer have companies able to lie to the public in advertising tar and nicotine content with flawed analysises, like they do now.




You people over-use the strawman argument more ironically and more ineptly than most people I have ever seen.




Explain how not having federal regulations equates to not having any regulations?


Better yet, explaine how removing regulatory authority equates to an absence of oversight?  I don't see how you could be saying anything but these two things, and none of them you've explained.


You misrepresent the situation as a lack of regulation rather than federal law prohibiting such and barring fair practices, and then you claim my post endorses an absence of oversight and fail to demonstrate how.


I'm still waiting for an explanation for why you claim the free market has failed in making the ingredients avaialble to consumers when it was the very type of activity you advocate to correct the problem that was responsible (federal regulatory law) for these ingredients being unavailable and people being unable to stop such practices or recover any damages incurred thereby.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: johnm214]
    #10540362 - 06/19/09 11:22 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Well, now I'm not really sure what you're advocating, John. I thought you were saying that we could do away with the FDA and just have citizen-initiated lawsuits?

I think many of the complaints levelled at the FDA are justified, but they aren't problems inherent to government regulation; they are implementation problems.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
    #10540705 - 06/20/09 12:34 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
You could start a campaign to get the FDA to require fillers to be disclosed. I think that would be preferable to suing a drug company, wouldn't you?




nope, in fact given that the FDA allows the release of drugs
that have the side effects that are worse than the ailments they
treat, can cause blindness, strokes, heart attacks and death in
addition to drugs that serve no function for what they were
claimed to do, I think it's a better idea to move for the
elimination of the FDA, from where I'm sitting, it's the most
corrupt agency in government, I also move to hold drug
manufacturers responsible for any harm these drugs may cause,
not just some little civil suit, I'm talking manslaughter and
even murder charges against corporate officers, chemists or whom
ever signed off on the release and to hold those in the FDA
accountable in the same manner

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
    #10540828 - 06/20/09 01:06 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Well, now I'm not really sure what you're advocating, John. I thought you were saying that we could do away with the FDA and just have citizen-initiated lawsuits?

I think many of the complaints levelled at the FDA are justified, but they aren't problems inherent to government regulation; they are implementation problems.






yes, what leads you to think I'm not advocating this with respect to tobacco?




And again, you dislike lawsuits, how are you proposing the FDA enforce anything?



You say implementation problems, but all these regulations always screw the consumer out of rights they previously had.  If you want disclosure why not just require it?  Demonstrably relevant additives would be covered allready at common law and especially under consumer protection laws, but why not just require disclosure? 


Your doing the opposite of requiring disclosure- your giving an agency the ability to decide what needs to be disclosed and the ability to take your rights away.  The ability to shield companies with dishonest and harmful practices from compensating their victims and being ordered to stop such things.  Then you get things like carcinogens that need not be disclosed, ads that are entirely false, lables that are lies, et cet. People get hurt, ripped off, mislead, and you can't do shit about it.



And again, you've not shown the advantage to taking our rights away and giving them to the feds to do with what they will.  Why does granting the FDA authority seem better than simply passing laws that require honesty, disclosure, and provides mechanisms to stop contrary practices and make whole the victims?



You've also not explained what beyond a visceral distrust leads you to not like private actions.  From your posts you seem to endorse government suits and injunctions, why does this change when a private plaintiff exists?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: johnm214]
    #10540957 - 06/20/09 01:45 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

And again, you dislike lawsuits, how are you proposing the FDA enforce anything?




Oh, I'm happy for them to use lawsuits or whatever. I just don't like the idea that the burden of enforcing regulations be placed upon the citizenry. Very few people have the time, money and inclination to sue a multinational drug company. The FDA do, because it's their job. They also carry enough clout that they can avoid a lawsuit in many cases.

Quote:

If you want disclosure why not just require it?  Demonstrably relevant additives would be covered allready at common law and especially under consumer protection laws, but why not just require disclosure?


 

But that is regulation. What you're asking can be easily achieved by getting the FDA to pass a "full disclosure" rule. In fact, I'm not sure how you could achieve full disclosure without something like the FDA. Consumer protection laws alone are not enough to get full disclosure, because they conflict with trade secrets. Coca-Cola isn't required to disclose their secret ingredients, because they don't make any health claims and there aren't any indications that their secret ingredients are dangerous.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't just declare "full disclosure!" and expect it to solve the issue once and for all. The issue is more complicated than that.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
    #10542231 - 06/20/09 11:36 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Very few people have the time, money and inclination to sue a multinational drug company. The FDA do, because it's their job.




and so a multinational company pays a fine of $200k and they
just consider it a business expense, it's a drop in the bucket
for these multibillion dollar companies, if action for criminal
prosecution were taken instead maybe some kind of change would
happen




Quote:

Consumer protection laws alone are not enough to get full disclosure, because they conflict with trade secrets. Coca-Cola isn't required to disclose their secret ingredients, because they don't make any health claims and there aren't any indications that their secret ingredients are dangerous.




yet as pointed out earlier, heinz can now make health claims
even though the lycopene that they're making the claims on are
destroyed in the processing, so how exactly do these laws
protect consumers as opposed to corporate interests, seems that
cigarettes dont make any health claims, is not food but they
were forced to disclose the 500 ingredients that may be used

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #10544050 - 06/20/09 06:43 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

and so a multinational company pays a fine of $200k and they
just consider it a business expense, it's a drop in the bucket
for these multibillion dollar companies, if action for criminal
prosecution were taken instead maybe some kind of change would
happen





But criminal prosecution requires a crime to have taken place. If not, a citizen-initiated lawsuit is still going to result in a $200k fine so I don't see how the FDA is at fault here.

Quote:

yet as pointed out earlier, heinz can now make health claims
even though the lycopene that they're making the claims on are
destroyed in the processing, so how exactly do these laws
protect consumers as opposed to corporate interests, seems that
cigarettes dont make any health claims, is not food but they
were forced to disclose the 500 ingredients that may be used




This is because the FDA isn't very good at their job. It seems like you agree with me that more regulation is required, not less.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
    #10544072 - 06/20/09 06:50 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
But criminal prosecution requires a crime to have taken place. If not, a citizen-initiated lawsuit is still going to result in a $200k fine so I don't see how the FDA is at fault here.




fraud regarding the drugs that dont work, surely they knew the results after all the testing, unless they werent testing them, of course then it's another crime as well, of course we have murder/manslaughter for all the drugs that have been killing people, seems like it wouldnt be difficult to turn them all into criminals


civil litigation could result in millions in damages for each
injured party, not like some class action where 32k people split
a million dollar settlement, unfortunately big pharma is pretty
wll protected in the US



Quote:

This is because the FDA isn't very good at their job. It seems like you agree with me that more regulation is required, not less.




more regulation? I'm an abolitionist, regulation only makes the people it's supposed to serve suffer

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #10544127 - 06/20/09 07:09 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

civil litigation could result in millions in damages for each
injured party



Only if you are injured.

Quote:

unfortunately big pharma is pretty
wll protected in the US



Like I said, suing a drug company is never a fun prospect. I think it should be the last resort, not the first one.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
    #10544836 - 06/20/09 10:24 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

civil litigation could result in millions in damages for each
injured party



Only if you are injured.




are you of the belief that it's uncommon, ED drugs causing
blindness, anti-inflammatory that kill people, anti-depressants
and drugs that help you quit smoking that have you committing
suicide, liver damage is even more common, hell, even the
junkies could sue the pharmaceutical companies

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #10544868 - 06/20/09 10:30 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

But you weren't talking about things like that. You said 'fillers'.

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
list the ingredients the way they're listed on pill bottles? oh
wait, they're not always listed, usually it's an active
ingredient and possibly another, it certainly doesnt list all
the fillers... where's our labeling?




If you have been injured by fillers, then of course you can sue and get them to disclose fillers. But if you have not been injured, on what grounds can you sue? The court would think you're just wasting their time.

On the other hand, the FDA do have the right to demand that fillers be disclosed. They have a better chance of achieving that goal than you do by suing a drug company.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
    #10545177 - 06/20/09 11:38 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

I'm talking about the drugs in general and the corruption of the
FDA and how would you distinguish as to whether it's a binder,
filler or the active drugs that did harm, all that shit should be
listed regardless just as it is with food

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #10545558 - 06/21/09 01:03 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

how would you distinguish as to whether it's a binder,
filler or the active drugs that did harm




Using science of course. How else?

Quote:

all that shit should be
listed regardless just as it is with food




So you agree, we need more regulation?


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
    #10546352 - 06/21/09 07:27 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Tobacco
( 1 2 3 all )
Phluck 3,047 57 10/20/02 01:11 AM
by Xlea321
* The False Promise of Gun Control
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,772 23 04/16/03 05:53 PM
by pattern
* "Cheeseburger Bill" approved protection for fast food Indus. daussaulit 1,890 9 03/11/04 06:01 PM
by TheOneYouKnow
* 40 Reasons For Gun Control
( 1 2 all )
Ellis Dee 5,888 31 10/08/13 02:05 AM
by Therian
* Bill O'Reilly Interviews Rosie O'Donald mjshroomer 1,908 12 03/28/03 01:44 PM
by mjshroomer
* gun control
( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )
Anonymous 15,387 223 10/08/03 12:45 AM
by Rose
* Fda, Cipro, Greed! (what the fuck, fda corrupt?) nugsarenice 4,126 15 09/20/05 03:43 PM
by Los_Pepes
* Canada: MP Group Sought U.S. Help To Derail Pot Bill wingnutx 1,192 8 08/19/03 05:31 PM
by wingnutx

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,441 topic views. 3 members, 3 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.019 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 12 queries.