Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace

At 3:10 AM 3/15/96, Bill Frantz wrote:

>Mark Miller and I had a discussion about the restrictions on commercial
>speech a few months ago.  I contended that these restrictions (generally
>that you can prove your claims) are good for markets because they provide
>startup companies (and other newcomers to the market) with a small amount
>of positive reputation capital that they would otherwise have to invest to
>obtain.

Mr. Frantz, unless you can prove your claims here, forthwith, I must inform
you that they are in violation of the Truth in Speech Act of 1996. Please
retract them, now.

(Yoy can of course find the complete description of how citizen-units
ascertain the veracity of their claims at their local Ministry of Truth
office. Minitru is always to help citizen-units on their quest for truth.)


Do you see the problem?

Personally, I don't care if you choose to have some bunch of people called
the "Food and Drug Administration" telling you which substances you may
buy, and in which quantities, but I care greatly that you (the general you)
wish to stop me from making my own decisions, or listening to those I
choose to trust, over the FDA.

This is what it all boils down to. Think about it.

Be careful of the utilitarian point of view that the "FDA saves lives." (It
has also cost a lot of lives, by denying effective treatments for needless
years of extra butt-covering tests just so no bureacrat will ever have even
a single Flipper-kid on his watch.)

Mexico has no FDA. A trip to the pharmacies of Tijuana is instructive. A
friend of mine was just here. On a business trip to SF and LA, he drove all
the way down to TJ to buy a "personal supply" of a nootropic drug for his
mildly-retarded son, a drug the FDA has not approved but which Mexicans and
Europeans have been buying for years. U.S. Customs, aware of such
tragedies, waves people through who are carrying "personal supplies" of
(non-narcotic) drugs.

We should learn from this kind of "anarchy" the Mexicans enjoy.

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> Mexico has no FDA. A trip to the pharmacies of Tijuana is instructive. A
> friend of mine was just here. On a business trip to SF and LA, he drove all
> the way down to TJ to buy a "personal supply" of a nootropic drug for his
> mildly-retarded son, a drug the FDA has not approved but which Mexicans and
> Europeans have been buying for years. U.S. Customs, aware of such
> tragedies, waves people through who are carrying "personal supplies" of
> (non-narcotic) drugs.

The reason FDA has not approved this drug is most probably because
it does not make mildly retarded boys less retarded. But of course,
it's not up to the state to protect people from wasting their money
on snake oil. It becomes more difficult to uphold a pure market
philosophy when it comes to poisonous snake oil or, as is often the
case with potent drugs, effective oil but which will kill you from
side effects after a delay. FDA has a very good reputation of not
'recommending' drugs with (delayed) adverse effects outweighing the
beneficial ones. But what the hell, let the pharmaceutical companies
build up their own reputation. And let anyone call himself a medical
doctor (of School Medicine, Naprapathy, Healing, Zone Therapy, Quackery
or whatever). Most diseased persons will then carefully check the
mag strips on the gallipots with their pocket readers for the secret
key signatures of Abbot or Parke-Davis, and PDA-check the signatures of
Stanford or Harvard University on the doctors's digital diplomas (which
will include some physical descriptions) for authenticity. As usual,
lots of coming opportunities for reputation agencies and authentication
services.

Until this happens, trust FDA.


Asgaard

Asgaard <asgaard@sos.sll.se> writes:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
> > Mexico has no FDA. A trip to the pharmacies of Tijuana is instructive. A
> > friend of mine was just here. On a business trip to SF and LA, he drove all
> > the way down to TJ to buy a "personal supply" of a nootropic drug for his
> > mildly-retarded son, a drug the FDA has not approved but which Mexicans and
> > Europeans have been buying for years. U.S. Customs, aware of such
> > tragedies, waves people through who are carrying "personal supplies" of
> > (non-narcotic) drugs.
>
> The reason FDA has not approved this drug is most probably because
> it does not make mildly retarded boys less retarded. But of course,
> it's not up to the state to protect people from wasting their money
> on snake oil. It becomes more difficult to uphold a pure market
> philosophy when it comes to poisonous snake oil or, as is often the
> case with potent drugs, effective oil but which will kill you from
> side effects after a delay. FDA has a very good reputation of not
> 'recommending' drugs with (delayed) adverse effects outweighing the
> beneficial ones.

This is not true. Today it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a new
drug to the U.S. market. I speak from personal experience: my late mother used
to use Rowatinex to relieve kidney symptoms. It's widely available in Europe,
but the Irish manufacturer doesn't want to tell it here because the cost of
getting an FDA approval would be more than what they would make selling it.
Hence, it had to be smuggled in. :-)

Many over-the-counter drugs that became popular before the FDA probably could't
be brought to the market now.

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps