3 ms·

This assumes that Federal government regulation is the only kind and the only way to restrain people from selling dangerous products. Products could receive pri

This assumes that Federal government regulation is the only kind and the only way to restrain people from selling dangerous products. Products could receive private endorsements in a way similar to a UL listing for electronics. States would still be able to regulate products. There would be differences in their implementation and we could learn from the outcomes of those differences. Finally, we could offer no direct regulation, but states could place strong penalties for any harms caused by dangerous products which include not only fines that could simply bankrupt a company, but criminal charges by choosing to identify the individuals responsible for neglecting safety measures. This isn't how we do things and to some these ideas seem like madness, but it's hard to argue that our existing system doesn't harbor its own brand of lunacy. Putting everything in the hands of an central government is a path we've chosen, but it's not the only path.

autoexec 3y ago
> Products could receive private endorsements in a way similar to a UL UL is partially funded by taxpayer money in the form of grants, is itself regulated by the US government (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-A/section-1910.7 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVI...) and for decades it was even tax-exempt! That's not a great example of some random but trustworthy body selflessly protecting the masses without the involvement or oversight of government. > Finally, we could offer no direct regulation, but states could place strong penalties for any harms caused by dangerous products And if you get seriously sickened by a product you then must have the resources to prove in court against a massive corporation that it was a specific drug, from one specific company that made you sick and that there's no chance it was any of the other totally unregulated and untested drugs from random sources that you've taken over the course of your lifetime that caused the problem. You'd also have to somehow trace a drug back to a manufacturer who could pop-up and vanish at a moments notice since nobody is keeping track of anything. Not ideal... > to some these ideas seem like madness, but it's hard to argue that our existing system doesn't harbor its own brand of lunacy. Putting everything in the hands of an central government is a path we've chosen, but it's not the only path. We've fought tooth and nail for what few protections we have today while pharmaceutical companies have worked tirelessly to exploit and undermine that same system of regulations. With so much at stake, it makes sense that people would hesitate to throw away what progress we have made to try some new unproven thing, but you're right that our current system has its flaws so changes need to happen. What's important is that the end result of those changes makes us all safer and makes it harder for companies to get away with abuses. As far as leaving everything up to individual states, I know that if I were a drug manufacturer it would be a hell of a lot less of a burden if I only had one set of rules to follow, only had to allow one group of inspectors into my facilities, only had one set of licensees I had to acquire and maintain, only had one place I had to report side effects and submit approvals to etc. Putting everything in the hands of one centralized agency that covers the entire nation is a huge win for drug companies and consumers who don't need to worry that the drug they pick up on one state isn't held to the same standards as a drug they pick up in another. Sometimes centralization is simply the most efficient way to handle something and it'd take a lot to demonstrate that decentralization would be an improvement for pretty much anybody.
- naijaboiler 3y ago
  some people are so anti-centralization that they will contort inane arguments. Imagine arguing for buyer beware for drugs. yeah we tried that before. There's a reason term "snake oil" exists in our vocabulary

autoexec 3y ago

> Products could receive private endorsements in a way similar to a UL UL is partially funded by taxpayer money in the form of grants, is itself regulated by the US government (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-A/section-1910.7 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVI...) and for decades it was even tax-exempt! That's not a great example of some random but trustworthy body selflessly protecting the masses without the involvement or oversight of government. > Finally, we could offer no direct regulation, but states could place strong penalties for any harms caused by dangerous products And if you get seriously sickened by a product you then must have the resources to prove in court against a massive corporation that it was a specific drug, from one specific company that made you sick and that there's no chance it was any of the other totally unregulated and untested drugs from random sources that you've taken over the course of your lifetime that caused the problem. You'd also have to somehow trace a drug back to a manufacturer who could pop-up and vanish at a moments notice since nobody is keeping track of anything. Not ideal... > to some these ideas seem like madness, but it's hard to argue that our existing system doesn't harbor its own brand of lunacy. Putting everything in the hands of an central government is a path we've chosen, but it's not the only path. We've fought tooth and nail for what few protections we have today while pharmaceutical companies have worked tirelessly to exploit and undermine that same system of regulations. With so much at stake, it makes sense that people would hesitate to throw away what progress we have made to try some new unproven thing, but you're right that our current system has its flaws so changes need to happen. What's important is that the end result of those changes makes us all safer and makes it harder for companies to get away with abuses. As far as leaving everything up to individual states, I know that if I were a drug manufacturer it would be a hell of a lot less of a burden if I only had one set of rules to follow, only had to allow one group of inspectors into my facilities, only had one set of licensees I had to acquire and maintain, only had one place I had to report side effects and submit approvals to etc. Putting everything in the hands of one centralized agency that covers the entire nation is a huge win for drug companies and consumers who don't need to worry that the drug they pick up on one state isn't held to the same standards as a drug they pick up in another. Sometimes centralization is simply the most efficient way to handle something and it'd take a lot to demonstrate that decentralization would be an improvement for pretty much anybody.

naijaboiler 3y ago
some people are so anti-centralization that they will contort inane arguments. Imagine arguing for buyer beware for drugs. yeah we tried that before. There's a reason term "snake oil" exists in our vocabulary