This is ridiculous, you take extreme examples to prove your point. So let's see, you can still read about all this and worse on the internet, do we still have p

This is ridiculous, you take extreme examples to prove your point. So let's see, you can still read about all this and worse on the internet, do we still have people taking arsenic en masse to cure baldness? No. Because most people are responsible and giving them the freedom to do what they want with their body is more important than anything else. Plus, if someone is ignorant enough to drink arsenic to cure baldness, he'll probably find other ways to hurt himself anyway, FDA or no FDA. So let's go back to the FDA, is it so effective? Here is the FDA authorizing a drug that killed lots of people http://www.undergroundhealth.com/fda-approved-prescription-drugs-kill-hundreds-of-thousands-of-people-annually/ http://www.undergroundhealth.com/fda-approved-prescription-d... Also, the time the FDA takes to approve a good drug can take more than 10 years, how many people die because of this unseen consequence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration#Alleged_problems_in_the_drug_approval_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_... Not to forget its reluctance to approve drugs for political reasons (canabis). So let's see, many people die because of wrongly approved drugs and many die as it takes too long to approve good ones because of the FDA. Now let's imagine a world with no FDA, many people would still die, but at least they'd have the choice to do so on their own decision and not have to wait on a nanny state bureaucracy to tell them what's good or bad for them and many times wrongly so. Why not let people freely decide what they can do to their own body when not doing so still kills a lot of people too? Plus, allowing so would make it much faster to detect when a drug works or not and save way more lives. If you don't even own your own body, what do you own?