2 ms·

> This kind of damage is more likely to occur in a black market setting But less of it, since making it illegal would greatly reduce demand. Unless you can co

by derleth 14y ago

> This kind of damage is more likely to occur in a black market setting But less of it, since making it illegal would greatly reduce demand. Unless you can come up with a reason why supplements are similar enough to illegal drugs it wouldn't. > Consider also that suppressing supplements entirely also equally suppresses the benefit that consumers may enjoy from their use Empirically, that is a very minor concern, if it is one at all.

Gormo 14y ago
> But less of it, since making it illegal would greatly reduce demand It would reduce the expression of demand, certainly, but not the actual desires of individuals that produced that expression; or to put it another way, will reduce the fulfillment of demand while the underlying unfulfilled demand still exists. This yields a net reduction in total happiness, which is counter to your apparent utilitarian ethos. > Empirically, that is a very minor concern, if it is one at all. Empirically? What does assessment of subjective value have to do with empirical data, apart from recognizing that individuals' subjective value empirically exists and is the source of demand? Apart from that, apart from your apparent utilitarianism - the criteria of which remain yet unsatisfied in this discussion - what's the moral basis your assertion that forcibly denying the extant happiness of many is justifiable in order to reduce the potential unhappiness of few, especially considering that the former is not strictly necessary in order to achieve the latter, and that forcing a single uniform policy indiscriminately upon all is merely a contrivance of convenience?
- derleth 14y ago
  My moral basis is preventing fraud and punishing people who commit fraud. > forcing a single uniform policy indiscriminately upon all is merely a contrivance of convenience No. If you want to claim to promote health, your products need to be shown to promote health. Supplement makers have been able to get around that very basic moral law using loopholes and bought-off politicians. I want an end to that.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    > My moral basis is preventing fraud and punishing people who commit fraud. You appear to be going far beyond dealing with fraud, and instead wish to suppress activity that's being undertaken without any deceit. > If you want to claim to promote health, your products need to be shown to promote health. That's fine. Note, of course, that the vast majority of supplement products contain explicit disclaimers on their labels (e.g. "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" and "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease") that make allegations of actual fraud quite spurious. And, of course, actual fraud of the kind described in the article - e.g. selling a bottle labeled "Vitamin C" that contains no actual vitamin C - is entirely illegal with or without FDA intervention. However, if I want to purchase a bottle of foo, honestly labeled as "foo" without making any unsustainable promises, and use the contents of that bottle based upon my own understanding of the properties of "foo", that's entirely my prerogative, and it's entirely my right to assume whatever risks the use of foo entails. (Of course, there is the issue of defining exactly what it actually means to "promote health".)
    - derleth 14y ago
      > You appear to be going far beyond dealing with fraud, and instead wish to suppress activity that's being undertaken without any deceit. 'Deceit' does not start and end with the technical definition of fraud. > Note, of course, that the vast majority of supplement products contain explicit disclaimers on their labels They shout their ads and whisper their disclaimers. Why should we ignore their shouting? > However, if I want to purchase a bottle of foo, honestly labeled as "foo" without making any unsustainable promises, and use the contents of that bottle based upon my own understanding of the properties of "foo", that's entirely my prerogative, and it's entirely my right to assume whatever risks the use of foo entails. Why should you be able to sell something that you lead others to believe is good for them when it isn't? Selling dandelions by marketing them as pretty flowers is fine. Selling them by marketing them as wine making material is also fine, as you can, in fact, make wine out of dandelions. Selling them by claiming dandelion wine is good for what ails you is lying. Can you honestly not see that last step?

by derleth 14y ago

Gormo 14y ago

> But less of it, since making it illegal would greatly reduce demand It would reduce the expression of demand, certainly, but not the actual desires of individuals that produced that expression; or to put it another way, will reduce the fulfillment of demand while the underlying unfulfilled demand still exists. This yields a net reduction in total happiness, which is counter to your apparent utilitarian ethos. > Empirically, that is a very minor concern, if it is one at all. Empirically? What does assessment of subjective value have to do with empirical data, apart from recognizing that individuals' subjective value empirically exists and is the source of demand? Apart from that, apart from your apparent utilitarianism - the criteria of which remain yet unsatisfied in this discussion - what's the moral basis your assertion that forcibly denying the extant happiness of many is justifiable in order to reduce the potential unhappiness of few, especially considering that the former is not strictly necessary in order to achieve the latter, and that forcing a single uniform policy indiscriminately upon all is merely a contrivance of convenience?

derleth 14y ago
My moral basis is preventing fraud and punishing people who commit fraud. > forcing a single uniform policy indiscriminately upon all is merely a contrivance of convenience No. If you want to claim to promote health, your products need to be shown to promote health. Supplement makers have been able to get around that very basic moral law using loopholes and bought-off politicians. I want an end to that.
- Gormo 14y ago
  > My moral basis is preventing fraud and punishing people who commit fraud. You appear to be going far beyond dealing with fraud, and instead wish to suppress activity that's being undertaken without any deceit. > If you want to claim to promote health, your products need to be shown to promote health. That's fine. Note, of course, that the vast majority of supplement products contain explicit disclaimers on their labels (e.g. "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" and "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease") that make allegations of actual fraud quite spurious. And, of course, actual fraud of the kind described in the article - e.g. selling a bottle labeled "Vitamin C" that contains no actual vitamin C - is entirely illegal with or without FDA intervention. However, if I want to purchase a bottle of foo, honestly labeled as "foo" without making any unsustainable promises, and use the contents of that bottle based upon my own understanding of the properties of "foo", that's entirely my prerogative, and it's entirely my right to assume whatever risks the use of foo entails. (Of course, there is the issue of defining exactly what it actually means to "promote health".)
  - derleth 14y ago
    > You appear to be going far beyond dealing with fraud, and instead wish to suppress activity that's being undertaken without any deceit. 'Deceit' does not start and end with the technical definition of fraud. > Note, of course, that the vast majority of supplement products contain explicit disclaimers on their labels They shout their ads and whisper their disclaimers. Why should we ignore their shouting? > However, if I want to purchase a bottle of foo, honestly labeled as "foo" without making any unsustainable promises, and use the contents of that bottle based upon my own understanding of the properties of "foo", that's entirely my prerogative, and it's entirely my right to assume whatever risks the use of foo entails. Why should you be able to sell something that you lead others to believe is good for them when it isn't? Selling dandelions by marketing them as pretty flowers is fine. Selling them by marketing them as wine making material is also fine, as you can, in fact, make wine out of dandelions. Selling them by claiming dandelion wine is good for what ails you is lying. Can you honestly not see that last step?