|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 29 2017 08:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 03:09 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 03:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
A case that can be looked up now is Hydroxycut. Shit killed people. I used it before they got caught and I'm lucky it was only here and there that I used it. if you had looked up the ingredients like a rational person you would have known there were risks. amphetamine derivatives/analogues were known to be in the pills. who buys random pills without researching the ingredients? hydroxycut is actually an example where they were selling what they advertised. the product worked. it just also happened to have a serious risk profile and be susceptible to abuse. I didn't forget about you buddy. Hydroxycut recalled their product and was off the market for a year because...? PEOPLE WERE DYING. They may have sold what they labeled, but that doesn't excuse the fact that without FDA oversight, they could put in whatever they wanted. "This product is not approved by the FDA" is what they have to put so that the FDA does not get sued. They fixed their formula and came back. Sales are still strong afaik. People expect the shit they buy to not kill them. Having to do diligent research on everything you purchase is asinine to expect. their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. this is beyond obvious but "legality" is a social construction not a transcendental imperative. calling something "chemicals" widespread yet only something i ever see from people who have no understanding of biochemistry yeah there are consumer protection laws but the whole pharmaceutical industry is built on telling people that drug X will fix their problem without worrying too much about the potential side effects. that it comes w a doctor's orders isnt much of a safeguard. food is chemicals too but i dont see too much concern over marking products with high fructose corn syrup that the added HFCS is contributing to their early mortality and deteriorating their quality of life in numerous ways from weight gain to hormonal changes to sensory perception.
Because this is America.
In Europe the use of HFCS is actually restricted for a reason.
|
On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 03:09 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 03:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
A case that can be looked up now is Hydroxycut. Shit killed people. I used it before they got caught and I'm lucky it was only here and there that I used it. if you had looked up the ingredients like a rational person you would have known there were risks. amphetamine derivatives/analogues were known to be in the pills. who buys random pills without researching the ingredients? hydroxycut is actually an example where they were selling what they advertised. the product worked. it just also happened to have a serious risk profile and be susceptible to abuse. I didn't forget about you buddy. Hydroxycut recalled their product and was off the market for a year because...? PEOPLE WERE DYING. They may have sold what they labeled, but that doesn't excuse the fact that without FDA oversight, they could put in whatever they wanted. "This product is not approved by the FDA" is what they have to put so that the FDA does not get sued. They fixed their formula and came back. Sales are still strong afaik. People expect the shit they buy to not kill them. Having to do diligent research on everything you purchase is asinine to expect. their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too.
as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public.
|
On July 29 2017 06:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 06:45 Toadesstern wrote:On July 29 2017 06:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 29 2017 06:37 Nevuk wrote:
Really? Yet he's okay with Trump's language? I honestly don't get what the outrage was about that. Was there anything that was worse than what Trump says because I'd say the only difference is consistency here and that he said those things about Bannon. Change Bannon to Obama or anything else really and people on the right would have cheered for not catering towards pc culture, saying it how it is and all that stuff. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if Scaramucci looked at other stuff like that and thought people, at least on the right, would like him for being... idk, frank? Yeah I agree. "Grab em by the pussy" is in the same field as "Suck my cock" in terms of foul language, as far as I can tell.
Well, one of those was a private conversation that ended up on record, and the other was a clear and public statement in front of a bunch of reporters. I'm no Trump apologist but it's pretty different.
There's no way that "Chief WH PR guy tells people to suck his cock in official briefing" isn't a new level of straight-out-of-southpark. It's utterly crazy that we're at a point where that can be normalised, much less normalised by "well the President is nearly as bad".
That said, the point about sticking it to the PC police if he were ranting about Obama is very likely true
|
On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 03:09 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
if you had looked up the ingredients like a rational person you would have known there were risks. amphetamine derivatives/analogues were known to be in the pills. who buys random pills without researching the ingredients? hydroxycut is actually an example where they were selling what they advertised. the product worked. it just also happened to have a serious risk profile and be susceptible to abuse. I didn't forget about you buddy. Hydroxycut recalled their product and was off the market for a year because...? PEOPLE WERE DYING. They may have sold what they labeled, but that doesn't excuse the fact that without FDA oversight, they could put in whatever they wanted. "This product is not approved by the FDA" is what they have to put so that the FDA does not get sued. They fixed their formula and came back. Sales are still strong afaik. People expect the shit they buy to not kill them. Having to do diligent research on everything you purchase is asinine to expect. their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public.
Disrespect or not having to check everything you buy at every moment for substances that will kill you?
We have rules to allow society to function in a productive manner.
|
Does anyone else feel like people skip pages or posts and we're just all repeating the same things over and over?
|
I remember being a young child (10 or so) and "All Natural" was a big thing. I then watched a cartoon that mentioned sulfur gas and how it exists in low levels in farts, and in high levels it could make it hard/impossible to breathe. Then I thought. "Hmm a natural gas is deadly, so "Natural" in no way means "safe".
I can't believe there are so many otherwise functioning adult humans that don't make that connection in their lives.
On July 29 2017 08:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Does anyone else feel like people skip pages or posts and we're just all repeating the same things over and over?
Happens, especially after something like the healthcare vote when it gets flooded and people come and go.
Sometimes it helps to show people arrive at similar conclusions through different lines of thinking, other times you just grit through it.
|
United States43728 Posts
On July 29 2017 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 03:09 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 03:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
A case that can be looked up now is Hydroxycut. Shit killed people. I used it before they got caught and I'm lucky it was only here and there that I used it. if you had looked up the ingredients like a rational person you would have known there were risks. amphetamine derivatives/analogues were known to be in the pills. who buys random pills without researching the ingredients? hydroxycut is actually an example where they were selling what they advertised. the product worked. it just also happened to have a serious risk profile and be susceptible to abuse. I didn't forget about you buddy. Hydroxycut recalled their product and was off the market for a year because...? PEOPLE WERE DYING. They may have sold what they labeled, but that doesn't excuse the fact that without FDA oversight, they could put in whatever they wanted. "This product is not approved by the FDA" is what they have to put so that the FDA does not get sued. They fixed their formula and came back. Sales are still strong afaik. People expect the shit they buy to not kill them. Having to do diligent research on everything you purchase is asinine to expect. their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Didn't someone just post how cigarettes kill half of it's users if used as intended?
And they spent an awful lot of money buying their special treatment. And insisting that cigarettes don't cause cancer.
|
On July 29 2017 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:01 Godwrath wrote:
Pretty sure Igne doesn't have a problem with the label telling you it will fucking kill you, like a pack of cigarettes does here. It will kill me, but i can buy it if i want to. Anyways he was talking about that many of those products don't actually have what they advertise in the label. Yeah, I mean both Tobacco Products and Alcohol products are not required to tell you what is in them either. But my point was more to the whole not letting people sell products intended (or unavoidably, depending on your perspective) to kill people. Admittedly it's a reasonably short list of products that so efficiently kill it's consumers and avoid being banned.
Well, they need to tell you that there is tobacco or alcohol in it, and usually what amount of alcohol, and those are usually the dangerous things in there. I must admit that it has been a while since i actually looked at a pack of cigarettes, but i think they need to also tell you if other stuff but tobacco is in there. Alcohol is foodstuffs, and thus they have to tell you exactly all the things that are in it (At least that is how it works in Germany).
Tobacco also comes with giant warning signs "This will fucking kill you" "This kills other people near you" "Here, have a look at this disgusting lung tumor that you might get when you take this"
Alcohol doesn't have those, but i would be fine if it did. Though alcohol tends to only kill you if you drink way too much of it, either directly through you being stupid when drunk, or indirectly through the results of alcoholism. As far as i know a responsible consum isn't that dangerous, but i am also not very informed in this regard.
I am generally not a fan of bans as solutions to this kind of situation, they don't seem to work very well, and historically only lead to more problems like organized crime. Information and taxes seem to be working, though. The amount of smokers gets smaller every generation.(This does not mean that tobacco companies are not disgusting. Their business model is to get people addicted when they are stupid teenagers, and then profit off of them killing themselves very slowly. But i digress)
|
|
|
On July 29 2017 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
I didn't forget about you buddy.
Hydroxycut recalled their product and was off the market for a year because...? PEOPLE WERE DYING. They may have sold what they labeled, but that doesn't excuse the fact that without FDA oversight, they could put in whatever they wanted. "This product is not approved by the FDA" is what they have to put so that the FDA does not get sued. They fixed their formula and came back. Sales are still strong afaik.
People expect the shit they buy to not kill them. Having to do diligent research on everything you purchase is asinine to expect. their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. Disrespect or not having to check everything you buy at every moment for substances that will kill you? We have rules to allow society to function in a productive manner.
please. why are you browsing the amphetamine weight loss aisle for a chemical weight loss solution if you arent willing to look up whats in it and how it works? if you want warnings go ahead and put them on there. if you want restricted marketing im all for it. marketing is mostly just socially accepted lying. ban it. lets do it.
a LABEL should tell you whats in it. we arent talking about sneaking cocaine and heroin into "soft drinks" here. we are talking about requiring supplement manufacturers to clearly tell the customers what chemicals are in the product they are selling.
|
Who needs a Chief of Staff when you have no staff?
|
On July 29 2017 08:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Does anyone else feel like people skip pages or posts and we're just all repeating the same things over and over?
If the thread is moving quickly, there may be 10-20 posts while you are typing yours. That just happened to me, for example.
|
United States43728 Posts
On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 03:09 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
if you had looked up the ingredients like a rational person you would have known there were risks. amphetamine derivatives/analogues were known to be in the pills. who buys random pills without researching the ingredients? hydroxycut is actually an example where they were selling what they advertised. the product worked. it just also happened to have a serious risk profile and be susceptible to abuse. I didn't forget about you buddy. Hydroxycut recalled their product and was off the market for a year because...? PEOPLE WERE DYING. They may have sold what they labeled, but that doesn't excuse the fact that without FDA oversight, they could put in whatever they wanted. "This product is not approved by the FDA" is what they have to put so that the FDA does not get sued. They fixed their formula and came back. Sales are still strong afaik. People expect the shit they buy to not kill them. Having to do diligent research on everything you purchase is asinine to expect. their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public.
I think you misunderstood my point about chemicals. I'm well aware that everything we consume is made of chemicals and I'm certainly not one of the crowd that insists that chemicals are bad and that I only eat natural things without chemicals.
My point was simply that distinguishing between the right to put natural things in your body and synthetic things in your body is absurd. You seemed to suggest that plant extracts should be allowed as a unique category, I was responding to that.
|
I really don't understand this argument. What do you actually disagree on?
It reads like
"Things should have labels on!"
"NO! Things should be labelled!"
Plus some mumbo-jumbo about big pharma being evil.
|
On July 29 2017 08:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales
Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. Disrespect or not having to check everything you buy at every moment for substances that will kill you? We have rules to allow society to function in a productive manner. please. why are you browsing the amphetamine weight loss aisle for a chemical weight loss solution if you arent willing to look up whats in it and how it works? if you want warnings go ahead and put them on there. if you want restricted marketing im all for it. marketing is mostly just socially accepted lying. ban it. lets do it. a LABEL should tell you whats in it. we arent talking about sneaking cocaine and heroin into "soft drinks" here. we are talking about requiring supplement manufacturers to clearly tell the customers what chemicals are in the product they are selling.
It's the "how it works" that's the concern, because the only way to know how something works is through clinical testing and a some kind of body that can handle that on a regular basis.
Chemical A + Chemical B != effects of A + effects of B
|
On July 29 2017 08:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales
Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. Disrespect or not having to check everything you buy at every moment for substances that will kill you? We have rules to allow society to function in a productive manner. please. why are you browsing the amphetamine weight loss aisle for a chemical weight loss solution if you arent willing to look up whats in it and how it works? if you want warnings go ahead and put them on there. if you want restricted marketing im all for it. marketing is mostly just socially accepted lying. ban it. lets do it. a LABEL should tell you whats in it. we arent talking about sneaking cocaine and heroin into "soft drinks" here. we are talking about requiring supplement manufacturers to clearly tell the customers what chemicals are in the product they are selling.
New question:
You have an amphetamine weight loss aisle? Is this actually a thing?
|
United States43728 Posts
On July 29 2017 08:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales
Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. Disrespect or not having to check everything you buy at every moment for substances that will kill you? We have rules to allow society to function in a productive manner. please. why are you browsing the amphetamine weight loss aisle for a chemical weight loss solution if you arent willing to look up whats in it and how it works? if you want warnings go ahead and put them on there. if you want restricted marketing im all for it. marketing is mostly just socially accepted lying. ban it. lets do it. a LABEL should tell you whats in it. we arent talking about sneaking cocaine and heroin into "soft drinks" here. we are talking about requiring supplement manufacturers to clearly tell the customers what chemicals are in the product they are selling.
Have you ever actually met a member of the public? This is a level of delusion right up there alongside Republican "offering healthcare plans that only cover specific things in specific situations that will never be right for 99.9% of the public is fine because surely nobody would ever buy a healthcare plan without first fully educating themselves on what every line of it means and they would never just assume good faith on the part of the insurer so there's no problem and we don't know why 10% of the public have bought this plan but we're sure that they certainly did so intentionally and definitely aren't being taken advantage of".
There is a basic covenant that the seller of a product isn't deliberately trying to fuck you that only exists due to regulatory pressure. People assume good faith when they purchase things. They click "I agree" on the ToS of apps. This idea that the invisible hand of the perfectly informed perfectly rational consumers will immediately fix everything if only enough choice is offered is nonsense.
Consumers aren't good at consuming. They rely significantly upon experts to curate their choices. The regulatory touch should be minimalist but it needs to fucking exist.
|
On July 29 2017 08:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 05:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 29 2017 03:09 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
if you had looked up the ingredients like a rational person you would have known there were risks. amphetamine derivatives/analogues were known to be in the pills. who buys random pills without researching the ingredients? hydroxycut is actually an example where they were selling what they advertised. the product worked. it just also happened to have a serious risk profile and be susceptible to abuse. I didn't forget about you buddy. Hydroxycut recalled their product and was off the market for a year because...? PEOPLE WERE DYING. They may have sold what they labeled, but that doesn't excuse the fact that without FDA oversight, they could put in whatever they wanted. "This product is not approved by the FDA" is what they have to put so that the FDA does not get sued. They fixed their formula and came back. Sales are still strong afaik. People expect the shit they buy to not kill them. Having to do diligent research on everything you purchase is asinine to expect. their new formula doesnt contain ephedra anymore. it wasn't fixed so much as rendered impotent. the product doesnt work anymore, despite the sales Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Didn't someone just post how cigarettes kill half of it's users if used as intended? And they spent an awful lot of money buying their special treatment. And insisting that cigarettes don't cause cancer.
I mean if you think the fraction of their profits they've paid is being held responsible for them selling death in a box I guess?
On July 29 2017 08:12 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2017 08:01 Godwrath wrote:
Pretty sure Igne doesn't have a problem with the label telling you it will fucking kill you, like a pack of cigarettes does here. It will kill me, but i can buy it if i want to. Anyways he was talking about that many of those products don't actually have what they advertise in the label. Yeah, I mean both Tobacco Products and Alcohol products are not required to tell you what is in them either. But my point was more to the whole not letting people sell products intended (or unavoidably, depending on your perspective) to kill people. Admittedly it's a reasonably short list of products that so efficiently kill it's consumers and avoid being banned. Well, they need to tell you that there is tobacco or alcohol in it, and usually what amount of alcohol, and those are usually the dangerous things in there. I must admit that it has been a while since i actually looked at a pack of cigarettes, but i think they need to also tell you if other stuff but tobacco is in there. Alcohol is foodstuffs, and thus they have to tell you exactly all the things that are in it (At least that is how it works in Germany). Tobacco also comes with giant warning signs "This will fucking kill you" "This kills other people near you" "Here, have a look at this disgusting lung tumor that you might get when you take this" Alcohol doesn't have those, but i would be fine if it did. Though alcohol tends to only kill you if you drink way too much of it, either directly through you being stupid when drunk, or indirectly through the results of alcoholism. As far as i know a responsible consum isn't that dangerous, but i am also not very informed in this regard. I am generally not a fan of bans as solutions to this kind of situation, they don't seem to work very well, and historically only lead to more problems like organized crime. Information and taxes seem to be working, though. The amount of smokers gets smaller every generation.(This does not mean that tobacco companies are not disgusting. Their business model is to get people addicted when they are stupid teenagers, and then profit off of them killing themselves very slowly. But i digress)
Outside of cigarettes themselves the warning can simply be "Not a safe alternative to cigarettes". Not sure if they still do, but they used to say "Smoking may be hazardous to your health"
No they can put any amount of additives in them and not mention anything on the label. In fact, most cigarettes aren't even tobacco.
Alcohols warnings are even less specific and less prominent and are not required to include ingredients. Alcohol percentage is something they put on the label by choice.
Again, my point is it's a joke to say that these companies are held responsible.
|
On July 29 2017 08:21 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 05:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Point is, that with the FDA gone, you'll get people prescribing and selling opiates as a cure to opiates. This happened at the turn of the 20th century. Doctors were prescribing cocaine to get rid of cocaine addiction. FDA was the result of that. As was stated previously, the process and institution could use an overhaul and streamlining effort, but to wish for it to be disbanded makes no sense. i never said get rid of the FDA . . . You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements. At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. Disrespect or not having to check everything you buy at every moment for substances that will kill you? We have rules to allow society to function in a productive manner. please. why are you browsing the amphetamine weight loss aisle for a chemical weight loss solution if you arent willing to look up whats in it and how it works? if you want warnings go ahead and put them on there. if you want restricted marketing im all for it. marketing is mostly just socially accepted lying. ban it. lets do it. a LABEL should tell you whats in it. we arent talking about sneaking cocaine and heroin into "soft drinks" here. we are talking about requiring supplement manufacturers to clearly tell the customers what chemicals are in the product they are selling. New question: You have an amphetamine weight loss aisle? Is this actually a thing?
Yeah, the US has these megastores with aisles of products that are all basically the same thing with multiple brands and labels.
You don't know what a "Supermarket" is until you've seen one in the US.
|
United States43728 Posts
On July 29 2017 08:18 Belisarius wrote:
I really don't understand this argument. What do you actually disagree on?
It reads like
"Things should have labels on!"
"NO! Things should be labelled!"
Plus some mumbo-jumbo about big pharma being evil.
My argument is that regulatory pressure is needed to limit what products are presented to the consumer because consumers sometimes fuck themselves over due to ignorance.
Igne's argument seems to be that if you make the information available to consumers then they'd never do that and if they do then it's their fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
