ALERT! Bad Supplement Bill

Diet and Nutrition
21

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
derek wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Had you guys actually read the legislation, you would not have needed to hit the “panic button.” The bill does not ban supplements. Rather, it requires supplement companies to report when a person has a serious adverse effect to a supplement. In other words, supplement companies will be required to report when someone dies from taking a supplement.

What’s wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is that it’s like anything else in the screwed up logic of “protecting the consumer”. Yes there are good points like cleanliness standards, standard of labelling etc. but look at what is already banned. Hell, look at our taxes. Does anyone for a second think that if our confiscatory tax rate existed in it’s current form 100 years ago, there would not be a revolt?

People like you accept one thing without complaint. Then another, then another. By the time you realize it, everything that we had enjoyed (or had the freedom of choice to enjoy) is illegal. And all in the name of consumer saftey. That’s what’s wrong with that.

Best. Over. Exaggeration. Ever.[/quote]

How. Many. Examples. Do. You. Need. To. Prove. You. Are. Ignorant?

My wife’s diner? Her boss (Aunt) owns the building and the whole strip connected to it. Smoking is banned inside the diner.

  1. Let’s recap… She is the OWNER.

  2. She worked her whole life in order to buy the place.

  3. She OWNS the diner outright.

  4. The town thinks it knows how to run her diner better than she does.

  5. They banned smoking in a PRIVATELY owned building where you DO NOT have to go in if you don’t want to.

  6. She has lost $$$ due to the fact the local gov’t knows what’s best for the public.

Need. Any. More. Proof?

22

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
derek wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Had you guys actually read the legislation, you would not have needed to hit the “panic button.” The bill does not ban supplements. Rather, it requires supplement companies to report when a person has a serious adverse effect to a supplement. In other words, supplement companies will be required to report when someone dies from taking a supplement.

What’s wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is that it’s like anything else in the screwed up logic of “protecting the consumer”. Yes there are good points like cleanliness standards, standard of labelling etc. but look at what is already banned. Hell, look at our taxes. Does anyone for a second think that if our confiscatory tax rate existed in it’s current form 100 years ago, there would not be a revolt?

People like you accept one thing without complaint. Then another, then another. By the time you realize it, everything that we had enjoyed (or had the freedom of choice to enjoy) is illegal. And all in the name of consumer saftey. That’s what’s wrong with that.

Best. Over. Exaggeration. Ever.[/quote]

Do you realize we as Americans pay between 30% and 45% or our yearly income in taxes. Do you think that happened all at once? Or maybe incrementally like everything else.

Remember the Boston Tea Party? If not, go read a book or two.

If you are OK with that tax rate, never mind, go stick your head back in the sand.

23

[quote]derek wrote:
If you are OK with that tax rate, never mind, go stick your head back in the sand.
[/quote]

Forcing corporations to report is EXACTLY what the government SHOULD be doing, as opposed to banning supplements whenever there is an ill-informed public outcry. Reporting allows the market to more effectively deal with those who sell crap.

24

[quote]nephorm wrote:
derek wrote:
If you are OK with that tax rate, never mind, go stick your head back in the sand.

Forcing corporations to report is EXACTLY what the government SHOULD be doing, as opposed to banning supplements whenever there is an ill-informed public outcry. Reporting allows the market to more effectively deal with those who sell crap.[/quote]

Well said.

25

From Jack Kemp.

Presently the American economy, despite its resilience and our nation’s entrepreneurial acumen, is suffering from a 75-year hangover remaining from a number of failed and failing socialist projects. The most evident examples are our ailing and out-of-date entitlement programs, our confiscatory tax code and increasing regulatory burden. As such, it is not enough to maintain the status quo. We must reform these systems, remove barriers and eliminate as much of this dead-weight loss from our economy as possible.

America’s worst index category was the “fiscal burden” of government, due to Washington’s rapidly growing spending and one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Excessive regulation is another reason the United States failed to the make the top 10.

CalLaw can call me a kook all he wants but the proof is there if he’s willing to debate the issues.

26

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:

Best. Over. Exaggeration. Ever.

LMAO. I was going to give a serious reply, but I prefer your approach![/quote]

I wonder how TC and Shugart feel about the increasing federal regulation that’s occured on behalf of public “safety”. I’d bet a good portion of thier sales have been damaged by it. And therefore we ALL have been affected.

27

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Forcing corporations to report is EXACTLY what the government SHOULD be doing, as opposed to banning supplements whenever there is an ill-informed public outcry. Reporting allows the market to more effectively deal with those who sell crap.[/quote]

This is really a tough one to call. While what you say sounds perfect, I don’t think that is all that really will happen.

If you look at ephedra as an example, the FDA used reports of happenings that included ephedra, then used that to justify banning it without actually doing any real research.

The problem was often that people were doing crazy things… and ephedra was in the mix as well.

What is going to happen in reality, I fear, is that just about any natural supplement will start to show up on a lot of incident reports, which will justify the regulation of those supplements as potentially dangerous.

Yes, there are dangerous supplements, but I don’t think the ultimate goal is to identify them and remove them, though nobody would probably argue with such a goal. The ultimate result will instead be to remove supplements that seem effective or are in widespread use and compete with commercially developed drugs.

Since when have consumers been safe to trust in drugs over supplements?

The issue is that the scope of the ruling can be greatly stretched and the FDA has a track record of getting rid of consumer choices instead of requiring that consumers be fully informed when making their choices.

28

[quote]vroom wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Forcing corporations to report is EXACTLY what the government SHOULD be doing, as opposed to banning supplements whenever there is an ill-informed public outcry. Reporting allows the market to more effectively deal with those who sell crap.

This is really a tough one to call. While what you say sounds perfect, I don’t think that is all that really will happen.

If you look at ephedra as an example, the FDA used reports of happenings that included ephedra, then used that to justify banning it without actually doing any real research.

The problem was often that people were doing crazy things… and ephedra was in the mix as well.

What is going to happen in reality, I fear, is that just about any natural supplement will start to show up on a lot of incident reports, which will justify the regulation of those supplements as potentially dangerous.

Yes, there are dangerous supplements, but I don’t think the ultimate goal is to identify them and remove them, though nobody would probably argue with such a goal. The ultimate result will instead be to remove supplements that seem effective or are in widespread use and compete with commercially developed drugs.

Since when have consumers been safe to trust in drugs over supplements?

The issue is that the scope of the ruling can be greatly stretched and the FDA has a track record of getting rid of consumer choices instead of requiring that consumers be fully informed when making their choices.[/quote]

Great points Vroom!

29

[quote]derek wrote:
How. Many. Examples. Do. You. Need. To. Prove. You. Are. Ignorant?

My wife’s diner? Her boss (Aunt) owns the building and the whole strip connected to it. Smoking is banned inside the diner.

  1. Let’s recap… She is the OWNER.

  2. She worked her whole life in order to buy the place.

  3. She OWNS the diner outright.

  4. The town thinks it knows how to run her diner better than she does.

  5. They banned smoking in a PRIVATELY owned building where you DO NOT have to go in if you don’t want to.

  6. She has lost $$$ due to the fact the local gov’t knows what’s best for the public.

Need. Any. More. Proof?[/quote]

So you’re saying nobody has ever died from second hand smoke? EVER? That’s basically what you are saying with that post.

They didn’t ban smoking in restaurants to piss off your aunt or to flex some governmental muscle, or base it on a couple studies without doing research. They did it to protect society from a well known and documented issue. If you are a smoker, I could see how you wouldn’t agree with the issue. I personally can’t stand it and won’t even eat in any restaurant that has a smoking section anymore.

Overall I understand your point. Just because I said you exaggerated doesn’t mean you aren’t right. Quit jumping to conclusions. It just makes [i]you[/i] look ignorant.

30

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Had you guys actually read the legislation, you would not have needed to hit the “panic button.” The bill does not ban supplements. Rather, it requires supplement companies to report when a person has a serious adverse effect to a supplement. In other words, supplement companies will be required to report when someone dies from taking a supplement.

What’s wrong with that?

[/quote]

This bill sets off my libertarian radar a bit because it looks like the government is fishing for information to ban stuff in the future.

Here is the definition of adverse event as applicable to nonprescription drugs:

(1) ADVERSE EVENT- The term adverse event’ means any health-related event associated with the use of a nonprescription drug that is adverse, including–
(A) an event occurring from an overdose of the drug, whether accidental or intentional; (B) an event occurring from abuse of the drug;
(C) an event occurring from withdrawal from the drug; and (D) any failure of expected pharmacological action of the drug.

So, if someone abuses a drug, that needs to be reported. Then what? Get enough reports of abuse and the nanny government will come in and ban it?

Here is the definition of adverse event as applicable to supplements:

(2) SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENT- The term serious adverse event’ is an adverse event that–
(A) results in-- (i) death;
(ii) a life-threatening experience; (iii) inpatient hospitalization;
(iv) a persistent or significant disability or incapacity; or (v) a congenital anomaly or birth defect; or
`(B) requires, based on reasonable medical judgment, a medical or surgical intervention to prevent an outcome described under subparagraph (A).

Again, I would question the causation problem. If someone takes 2 HOT-ROX along with 2 Spike, washes it down with an espresso, and subsequently develops an irregular heartbeat, is that an “adverse event?” I’d say yes. Was it caused by the supplements? Well, yes, combined with a tremendous amount of stupidity on the part of the user. These products have clear warnings not to take them with other stimulants or weight-loss supplements.

I would hate for these products to be pulled because some moron didn’t know how to use them.

31

Peice by peice, day-by-day the USA and a number of other nations begin to resemble an Orwellian depiction of the future i.e 1984. Big Brother is ‘taking care of your best interests’. Soon enough, you will have no choice left at all.

And the blind masses shall accept it, the few who oppose it will be silenced. It has begun and now the question remains, will you too blindly accept it ?

32

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
derek wrote:
How. Many. Examples. Do. You. Need. To. Prove. You. Are. Ignorant?

My wife’s diner? Her boss (Aunt) owns the building and the whole strip connected to it. Smoking is banned inside the diner.

  1. Let’s recap… She is the OWNER.

  2. She worked her whole life in order to buy the place.

  3. She OWNS the diner outright.

  4. The town thinks it knows how to run her diner better than she does.

  5. They banned smoking in a PRIVATELY owned building where you DO NOT have to go in if you don’t want to.

  6. She has lost $$$ due to the fact the local gov’t knows what’s best for the public.

Need. Any. More. Proof?

So you’re saying nobody has ever died from second hand smoke? EVER? That’s basically what you are saying with that post.

They didn’t ban smoking in restaurants to piss off your aunt or to flex some governmental muscle, or base it on a couple studies without doing research. They did it to protect society from a well known and documented issue. If you are a smoker, I could see how you wouldn’t agree with the issue. I personally can’t stand it and won’t even eat in any restaurant that has a smoking section anymore.

Overall I understand your point. Just because I said you exaggerated doesn’t mean you aren’t right. Quit jumping to conclusions. It just makes [i]you[/i] look ignorant.[/quote]

Despite my libertarian nature I support smoking bans. This is very different from supplement regulation simply because of the fact that smoking affects others. This is a question of your rights end where my nose begins. If a person wants to lock himself in his home and smoke 10 packs a day, go for it. Just don’t subject me and my family to second-hand smoke. Oh, and don’t come crying to the government to pay your medical bills when you develop emphysema. Fuck the smokers.

As to whether this hurts business, does it really? I personally will not patronize a place that allows smoking because the “smoking section” is just a joke. I would say that my wife and I go out more since smoking’s been banned. If a person feels the need to smoke during a meal, they are free to step outside.

33

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
derek wrote:
How. Many. Examples. Do. You. Need. To. Prove. You. Are. Ignorant?

My wife’s diner? Her boss (Aunt) owns the building and the whole strip connected to it. Smoking is banned inside the diner.

  1. Let’s recap… She is the OWNER.

  2. She worked her whole life in order to buy the place.

  3. She OWNS the diner outright.

  4. The town thinks it knows how to run her diner better than she does.

  5. They banned smoking in a PRIVATELY owned building where you DO NOT have to go in if you don’t want to.

  6. She has lost $$$ due to the fact the local gov’t knows what’s best for the public.

Need. Any. More. Proof?

So you’re saying nobody has ever died from second hand smoke? EVER? That’s basically what you are saying with that post.

They didn’t ban smoking in restaurants to piss off your aunt or to flex some governmental muscle, or base it on a couple studies without doing research. They did it to protect society from a well known and documented issue. If you are a smoker, I could see how you wouldn’t agree with the issue. I personally can’t stand it and won’t even eat in any restaurant that has a smoking section anymore.

Overall I understand your point. Just because I said you exaggerated doesn’t mean you aren’t right. Quit jumping to conclusions. It just makes [i]you[/i] look ignorant.[/quote]

You began by insulting me. I appologize if my retort injured you.

And no, I do not smoke. Why is it that the town can force those things on a private business. If you do not aprove of smoking while you eat your bacon, then go somewhere else. Are you forced to eat at Millies Diner? No. If you eat there and can’t stand the smoke, then never go there again. That’s how the free-market works. If she allows smoking and loses business because of it, then so be it. It’s a private business. Unlike schools, post office town hall etc.

34

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:

So you’re saying nobody has ever died from second hand smoke? EVER? That’s basically what you are saying with that post.

[/quote]

Wow! What a stretch!

35

[quote]t3h_Squirr3l wrote:
Peice by peice, day-by-day the USA and a number of other nations begin to resemble an Orwellian depiction of the future i.e 1984. Big Brother is ‘taking care of your best interests’. Soon enough, you will have no choice left at all.

And the blind masses shall accept it, the few who oppose it will be silenced. It has begun and now the question remains, will you too blindly accept it ? [/quote]

To live in the greatest country in the world?

Fuck yes I will.

36

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
derek wrote:
How. Many. Examples. Do. You. Need. To. Prove. You. Are. Ignorant?

My wife’s diner? Her boss (Aunt) owns the building and the whole strip connected to it. Smoking is banned inside the diner.

  1. Let’s recap… She is the OWNER.

  2. She worked her whole life in order to buy the place.

  3. She OWNS the diner outright.

  4. The town thinks it knows how to run her diner better than she does.

  5. They banned smoking in a PRIVATELY owned building where you DO NOT have to go in if you don’t want to.

  6. She has lost $$$ due to the fact the local gov’t knows what’s best for the public.

Need. Any. More. Proof?

So you’re saying nobody has ever died from second hand smoke? EVER? That’s basically what you are saying with that post.

They didn’t ban smoking in restaurants to piss off your aunt or to flex some governmental muscle, or base it on a couple studies without doing research. They did it to protect society from a well known and documented issue. If you are a smoker, I could see how you wouldn’t agree with the issue. I personally can’t stand it and won’t even eat in any restaurant that has a smoking section anymore.

Overall I understand your point. Just because I said you exaggerated doesn’t mean you aren’t right. Quit jumping to conclusions. It just makes [i]you[/i] look ignorant.

Despite my libertarian nature I support smoking bans. This is very different from supplement regulation simply because of the fact that smoking affects others. This is a question of your rights end where my nose begins. If a person wants to lock himself in his home and smoke 10 packs a day, go for it. Just don’t subject me and my family to second-hand smoke. Oh, and don’t come crying to the government to pay your medical bills when you develop emphysema. Fuck the smokers.

As to whether this hurts business, does it really? I personally will not patronize a place that allows smoking because the “smoking section” is just a joke. I would say that my wife and I go out more since smoking’s been banned. If a person feels the need to smoke during a meal, they are free to step outside.[/quote]

I agree Mike.

Actually smoking was a really bad example for the topic of this thread, because it does affect others.

Seat belts would be a better example of something mandated rather than giving the individual a choice.

37

How about we stop arguing and start figuring out how we can shove pointy sticks up big pharm’s asshole. Chris Shugart already has:
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1183938

then how about we figure out what the rest of us should do.

38

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
I agree Mike.

Actually smoking was a really bad example for the topic of this thread, because it does affect others.

Seat belts would be a better example of something mandated rather than giving the individual a choice.[/quote]

Seat belt laws are a funny thing because ultimately people who don’t wear them cause our insurance premiums to increase. Here’s my proposal: If a cop pulls you over and you’re not wearing a seat belt you get a “no penalty” ticket - no fine, no points on your license. However, your violation gets reported to your insurance company which then raises your rates. It’s the perfect free market solution. You still have a choice as to whether or not you wear a seat belt, but you will ultimately pay for your risky behavior through increased insurance premiums while those of us who wear seat belts can enjoy lower premiums. Same reason why I think the government should tax the hell out of cigarettes. Smoke all you want, but 20, 30, 40 years from now don’t make the taxpayers foot the bill for your oxygen tank that you’ll need to drag around because you have lung cancer or emphysema. And don’t give me some BS that this is unfair and that there’s no proven health risk to smoking. When you apply for life insurance, the main determinant of your premium, aside from age, is whether you’re a smoker or non-smoker. Smoker’s, of course, pay more. The free market says that smokers are at a higher risk of death than non-smokers. If we could somehow incorporate this same risk analysis into government health benefits things would be fairer for the taxpayers. Thus ends my libertarian rant.

39

More chicken little from T-Nation. This is never going to happen and I love the falsified stories about “200 a bottle for vitamin E in Europe” I lived there for half of 2006 and could find every vitamin/supplement in the grocery store. It’s just made up.

40

How about we stop arguing and start figuring out how we can shove pointy sticks up big pharm’s asshole. Chris Shugart already has:
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1183938

then how about we figure out what the rest of us should do.