Replies

Your naivete is almost mind-boggling. How many experimental drugs do not make it through FDA approval? Thousands and thousands. Why, you axe? Oh, that's right, because some of them have nasty side effects (like death and other pesky things like liver failure and heart attacks). I suppose you want hundreds of people to die trying out medicines-not-yet-ready-for-primetime. And surely no companies would try to profit from people desperate to have any sort of hope and offer an "experimental" compound to treat autism that is made of horse manure and owl feathers.

One of the foundational truths of capitalism is that the buyer must have perfect information. That simply is not the case in the complicated world of pharmaceutical compounds and medical conditions. Your argument has a number of holes in it, each big enough to drive a double-wide through.

This is a remarkable statement to read on a conservative forum. You are saying that we must be regulated because it is for the better good of the people. Are you sure you didn't copy your statement from a socialist forum? Nowhere in your little tirade did I see one statement about personal responsibility? Am I confused or did that used to be a conservative tenet? Are you going to substitute firearms instead of prescription drugs in the next tirade?

And if anybody thinks our Big Government programs haven't gotten insane, look at this graph:

Note that what cost $1 in 1967 would cost $6.00 in 2006. Even with an 6-fold division and a population that has increased by one third the numbers make you want to cry.

Yeah, I like your idea better. Just bring out the drugs, the drug companies test ‘em real good, right? They are honest at least.

If a few die here or there no big deal, we will find out about it down the road, and if we are lucky before we take that same drug.

Picking out drugs is no different than buying groceries...

Nowhere in your little tirade did I see one statement about personal responsibility?

I don't think "personal responsibility" is the answer to every question even though I'm a conservative. I'm sure there's a lot of pork in the FDA and I'm sure that there's ways we could trim their budget and have it run more efficiently and smoothly. It could most likely benefit from a narrowing of its mission. I don't think abolishing every federal agency is the answer to the country's ills.

And why would I substitute firearms in the next post? Is there any analogous argument there? No, of course not. Average everday people are perfectly capable of educating themselves about firearms and safety. It is a non-starter. The average person is not able to educate themselves on a novel compound for the treatment of Parkinson's based on nothing other than its name.

You are saying that we must be regulated because it is for the better good of the people.

Conservatives are for limited government. That does not preclude the establishment of necessary government agencies for the welfare of the public.