January 06, 2004

Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? Part CCCCLXXXI

Sisyphus Shrugged bangs its head against the wall as it finds the Washington Post editorial page engaged in a not-atyical act of shallow stupidity:

Sisyphus Shrugged: A case in point for why silly ol' regulations are beside the point: the Washington Post, on the ephedra ban.

But while the ban was a wise and necessary move, market forces had already largely worked in the case of ephedra. The combination of state laws banning or restricting ephedra sales, the threat of costly lawsuits, and bad publicity have all but killed the ephedra market...

Me personally, I'm perfectly OK with defining aggressive government regulation and a healthy tort system as Market Forces, but I'm not all that sure the nice folks at the editorial page do.

Posted by DeLong at January 6, 2004 02:59 PM | TrackBack

Comments

At lease the editorial write has the grace to point out that the real problem is the abusrd 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which puts the burden on the FDA to prove that the product is unsafe, rather than on the manufacturer to prove that the product is safe and has some positive value.

I wonder if the writer feels the same way about the wonderful way the market forces worked to police the mutual fund industry, or the excellent market forces at work in our ability to enjoy yummy downer cattle?

Posted by: Masaccio on January 6, 2004 03:42 PM

____

So in the view of the Washigton Post, a state ban on ephedra is a market force? Why oh why can't we have a better press corp?

Posted by: Charles Kinbote on January 6, 2004 04:07 PM

____

So in the view of the Washigton Post, a state ban on ephedra is a market force? Why oh why can't we have a better press corp?

Posted by: Charles Kinbote on January 6, 2004 04:12 PM

____

Where is the sense of proportionality? Ephedra use has killed 14 people, in the time it has been tracked, so it needs to be outlawed? Hmm, maybe we should outlaw electricity...

Posted by: Jeff on January 6, 2004 06:53 PM

____

It should be noted that the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act was passed by the sanctimonious Orrin Hatch. Apparently he agrees with Jeff: electricity and murderous drugs have an equivalent degree of utility in the marketplace, and should be regulated in the same offhand manner.

Posted by: masiccio on January 6, 2004 07:31 PM

____

I consider myself to be the best judge of what i ingest. I'd support regs to regulate quality and purity, but to demonize a substance because it's killed 14 people...that seems rather specious. I'm sure you trace that many deaths to almost any substance, or thing, that you could name. I don't feel the need to nannied, I'm an adult.

Posted by: Jeff on January 6, 2004 10:19 PM

____

Brad,

FYI, Sisyphus Shrugged is a she, for the future.

Posted by: and_ham on January 7, 2004 07:42 AM

____

Brad,

FYI, Sisyphus Shrugged is a she, for the future.

Posted by: and_ham on January 7, 2004 07:43 AM

____

Ephedra has removed 14 people from the gene pool already, and I personally don't object if someone volunteers to be the 15th. The parents tend to mourn, but then they have those selfish genes.

Dr. Lynn Goldberg here in town works with teenage athletes on things like steroid use, ephedra use, etc. From what he reports, they do need to be nannied. In fact, most of them are legally minors, and beyond that they apparently don't have a lick of sense and certainly aren't the type to pull the herbal PDR down off the shelf and look things up. Their research is at about the level of "The little greens seem a little stronger than the little yellows."

Some kids do it for sports but a lot just do it for vanity -- they want to look buff.

Jeff says: "Hmm, maybe we should outlaw electricity..." and "I'm sure you trace that many deaths to almost any substance, or thing, that you could name".

Jeff, in what sense are you an adult? Those arguments would get shot down in a good 9th grade class.

Posted by: Zizka on January 7, 2004 11:43 AM

____

Zizka, I find your comment a bit offensive. You say you don't care about what people do with or to themselves, then go on to say that teenagers need to be nannied, a non-sequiter. You may want to polish your own debating skills, as you didn't refute anything I said, you only maligned me personally.
I'm 41, and I used to be the free citizen of a Republic, before I found myself quite against my wishes transformed into a subject of an Empire.
Explain to me why it is in the province of governmental power to attempt remove all individual choice of what is to be considered acceptable risk in life, from an adult, if you will, instead of merely being insulting.

Posted by: Jeff on January 8, 2004 02:19 PM

____

Post a comment
















__