The government shouldn't regulate ineffective drugs

That varies from case to case. I know more than my doctor about a few diseases. I know less than my doctor (and the FDA) about all the others. Frankly I don't see how that's so hard for you to follow.

That comes at no surprise to me, because this post and your last few ones leave me with the impression that you misunderstand me on purpose for rhetorical effect. That's fine if you're having fun, but it's eroding my interest in explaining my position.

No they wouldn't---because truthful and relevant information is a public good, and the marketplace underprovides public goods. I already explained that in my last post, which I know you have read because you already answered it. Further evidence that you misunderstand me on purpose.

It's not hard to follow at all:

you can make your own pharmaceutical decisions

because you know more about your medical condition than your doctor,

yet you're perfectly fine with the FDA telling consumers in general what drugs they should take, even though they know as much about their own medical conditions as you do of your own (or they could, and if they don't it's their own damn fault).

You just miss the point that consumers are in the same position with regard to the FDA as you are to your doctor.

If they are (or can be) smarter than the FDA, then why even bother having the FDA in the business of dispensing opinions,

After all, if the FDA's opinions are so valuable, then people will be willing to pay for those opinions.

I sympathize with your frustration. I often run into the problem where I understand somebody's argument better than that person does. I suspect this might be one of those times.

Providing truthful information may be a public good, but who gets to decide whose truth and whose good?

Certainly, the proponents of Laetrile would question the truthfulness and objectivity of the FDA, yet you're willing to say not only that the FDA is right, but that the proponents of Laetrile shouldn't even be allowed to state their case -- even though you're more than willing to let them sell their product.

It can't be because the FDA is so smart -- after all, you're smarter than your doctor, and that didn't require any training on your part at all.

I never said I always do. I can know more about it if I inform myself. Sometimes I decide to inform myself, sometimes I don't. My point is that this choice is ultimately mine, not my doctor's or the FDA's.

There's no "yet" about it. I think people should have both options: do their own research and be their own authority, or let others do it for them and defer to theirs.

I am aware of that. That's why I support Obamacare, which will force me to pay my share in everyone's medical bills. Indeed, I don't support it, I oppose it for not going far enough; I prefer Edward Kennedy's "Medicare for all" plan. Under both plans, though, the government forces me to pay my share in everyone's medical bills. And when I go to the doctor, whose bills everybody in my now-mandatory insurance pool pays, I'll have the option of deferring to her advice---or not. That's exactly the role I want for the FDA. I emphatically do get the point that consumers are in the same position regarding the FDA as regarding their doctors.

Not on the free market they won't. Positive externality. Market failure. Government corrects it. We've been over this territory.

Ideally, a well-funded organization of independent researchers, appointed by an administration elected by the general public and dedicated to the general welfare. This view may sound fictitious when a President Santorum may soon appoint a faith healer as FDA chief. But until that happens, the fiction is realistic enough to justify the FDA being in the business of dispensing pharmaceutical opinions.

They should be free to make their case. They just shouldn't be free to commit fraud.

Judging by your and Setanta's description, Laetrile may not be able to make their case without committing fraud. If so, they shouldn't be able to make their case. But that's not because it's their case, but because it's fraud.

Considering that you're a natural rights utilitarian and a carnivorous vegetarian, I guess I shouldn't be surprised to discover that you're a socialist libertarian.

If it's fraud, then why not just handle it like a typical case of fraud?

I've bypassed the responses in this thread, largely because Thomas has done a fine job in representing my views.

"I am not a crook" Richard Nixon, 1973

Nixon was President. He was, of course, Evil Personified, an imperialist, reactionary, conniving, amoral, disingenuous, Machiavellian, rabid sweaty weasel in a cheap pinstriped suit.

Chris Clark