Marc Emery on the Police State

[segnosaur]

One of Stephen Harper's most outrageous campaign promises when he ran for election in 2005 was to strip away the legal rights of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Canadians to marry by "revisiting" previous legislation.

Ok, first of all, while it is true that the conservatives did propose 'revisiting' the issue, their suggestions were defeated in the house of commons, and it is no longer conservative policy to eliminate gay marriage. (Heck, even the Liberal party was, at one time, opposed to gay marriage.)

Secondly, the conservative position is not so anti-gay as you might assume. While their policy at one time was against 'gay marriage', they supported the concept of 'civil unions', which would have granted homosexual couples full rights under the law.

Thirdly, the issue of "rights" is not so black and white as you make it. Yes, gay people should have the right to get married. However, that does come into conflict with certain religious rights. What if, for example, a gay couple wishes to get married in a catholic church? Will the church have the right to say 'no', or will they be forced to allow the use of their facilities?

In fact, at the time the Liberals were proposing gay marriage there was a large group of MPs who were planning on voting against the changes for that very reason.

For better or worse, there haven't been any legal precadents to clearly define the issue. (There was one case where a catholic school was forced to allow a homosexual student to take his boyfriend to a dance, despite the catholic church's anti-gay stance. There was a second case where a lesbian couple sued a Knights of Columbus hall for canceling their reception there. In both these cases it was found that the religious organizations were in the wrong.. however, there were other legal issues which keep these cases from being good preciedents.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Hall

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1129?hub=Canada

Lastly, I never claimed that the conservatives were perfect. The issue is, are they any more or less 'pro-freedom' than the NDP. The conservatives may have been wrong (or anti-freedom) to complain against gay marriage, but the NDP are anti-freedom when they seek to limit my ability to spend my money as I see fit (due to high-taxes/social spending). Gay marriage affects the rights of 5% of the population. High taxes affect 100%.

[segnosaur]

Are you defending the official practice of moral and social engineering?

Don't know why you'd think I'm defending either.

I'm against both types of 'engineering'. I was simply challenging your statement that moral engineering is automatically worse than social engineering.

These were already covered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, who were free to pick any product off any shelf and test it for both its veracity and its quality. Bill C-51 smacks of corporate opportunism and collusion between corporate lobbyists and government officials to tilt the playing field. The government has added an enormous cost to the price of doing business by stacking the odds against small producers.

Once again, how are they doing that? By trying to guarantee that your product actually works?

Should I have the legal right to add rat poison to food products (without any sort of product warning), since any sort of requirement that prevents the sale of unsafe or improperly labeled products is requiring the government to be my "nanny"?

Am I actually supposed to take this literally?

Yes you should.

Over and over again, I've seen the term 'nanny' used, suggesting that people were complaining that the government shouldn't get involved in business to consumer transactions. If you don't think the government should be involved at all, then (in theory) I could sell milk to children laced with rat poison, with the argument that people should be aware of the risks and make their own decisions about my product.

If you think the government should get involved, then at what level? Testing for safety? What about proper labeling? False claims?

[normanchateau]

Ok, first of all, while it is true that the conservatives did propose 'revisiting' the issue, their suggestions were defeated in the house of commons, and it is no longer conservative policy to eliminate gay marriage.

You asked for evidence that the Harper Conservatives were a threat to civil liberties. Thank you for acknowledging that their futile attempt to take away certain people's right to marry was indeed a threat to civil liberties.

Why do you suppose it is no longer Harper Conservative policy to oppose gay marriage? How about the following?

(1) He has a minority government and not a hope of stripping away their right to marry in this parliament

(2) He wants to win a majority so must pretend that he is no longer a social conservative

(3) Religious nuts and homophobes will vote for him anyway as there is no serious political party in Canada to the right of CPC

[segnosaur]

The point is, that if we are not free to consume what we want to consume we do not even "own" ourselves.

And if we cannot freely express our opinions (as we've seen happening with human rights commissions) we are not 'ourselves' either.

And if we do not have the ability to spend my money as I see fit, then I am not myself either (and the hours and hours that I spend working

Sorry, but your claims about how we don't "own" ourselves simply because we can't take drugs is nothing but empty rhetoric. The human condition does not simply involve the limits of our human body. If not, we'd be no better than the primates we evolved from. We are different because we we have a greater capacity to express ourselves, to recognize and interact with others, and to generate questions.

Still waiting to hear how the NDPs policies that involve taking tax money from me and limiting what I can do economically are enhancing my 'freedoms'.

Also, still waiting to see that properly conducted scientific study which shows that people can perform better when under the influence of marijuana.

Also, waiting to see where exactly in C-51 you are prevented from consuming 'natural' medications.

The government "owns" our bodies and our minds, if they have authority over what we eat and what medicines we take.

I see... so, are you interested in getting rid of any laws regarding food or drug safety? After all, if you are so convinced that we should have ultimate authority over food and medicines we use, then should I have the right to sell poison-laced milk, with the argument that 'people have the right to consume my product'?

We shouldn't be punishing everyone because some people might have problems with some drugs.

At no point in this thread have I suggested I agree with the current marijuana laws. In fact, I suggested it would probably be a good idea to modify them. The issue is one of freedom... and having one freedom becomes insignificant if we must give up several other significant freedoms in return.

[segnosaur]

You asked for evidence that the Harper Conservatives were a threat to civil liberties. Thank you for acknowledging that their futile attempt to take away certain people's right to marry was indeed a threat to civil liberties.

First of all, the optimal word in your post is the word "was". As in the past.

Secondly, I've never claimed the conservatives were perfect. Only that the potential for their abuse of freedom was likely less than that of the NDP.

Thirdly, I've noticed something... out of all of my response, the only thing you referred to was my acknowledgment of the conservative's actions. What about the rest of the post? What about the potential conflict between religious rights vs. gay rights? Do you simply not consider religious rights worth protecting? Or is it just easier for you to ignore the issue?

Why do you suppose it is no longer Harper Conservative policy to oppose gay marriage? How about the following?

(1) He has a minority government and not a hope of stripping away their right to marry in this parliament

(2) He wants to win a majority so must pretend that he is no longer a social conservative

(3) Religious nuts and homophobes will vote for him anyway as there is no serious political party in Canada to the right of CPC

Or how about a combination of acceptance by the majority of the conservative party, along with a recognition that voters opinions had changed? (Remember, prior to the gay marriage law, a majority of Canadians also were opposed to gay marriage.)

[normanchateau]

What about the potential conflict between religious rights vs. gay rights? Do you simply not consider religious rights worth protecting? Or is it just easier for you to ignore the issue?

You raise an interesting point, i.e., the conflict between religious rights and gay rights. Of course both sets of rights deserve protection. I don't know of any churches which are forced to marry lesbians. Do you?

Stephen Harper deals with the potential conflict by favouring one group over another. When Stephen Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of gays and lesbians, he did so on the grounds that it would potentially interfere with his religious rights. While Stephen Harper supports legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their religious beliefs, he opposes hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. Do you think his position is rational or do you think it's based on his extreme religious beliefs?

[Pliny]

Yes, its true there is nothing legally stopping me from doing this too so the Libertarians that are busily defending C-51 are correct and likely feeling quite smug about it too.

Like I said, with Libertarians like these constantly defending the state's right to interfere with our freedoms who needs tyrants?

What Libertarians are defending Bill C51?

[Pliny]

You raise an interesting point, i.e., the conflict between religious rights and gay rights. Of course both sets of rights deserve protection. I don't know of any churches which are forced to marry lesbians. Do you?

Stephen Harper deals with the potential conflict by favouring one group over another. When Stephen Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of gays and lesbians, he did so on the grounds that it would potentially interfere with his religious rights. While Stephen Harper supports legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their religious beliefs, he opposes hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. Do you think his position is rational or do you think it's based on his extreme religious beliefs?

I think Harper is a Christian, isn't he? Do you know the denomination? What are his "extreme" religious beliefs?

I would oppose any hate crime legislation myself.

[eyeball]

The government has added an enormous cost to the price of doing business by stacking the odds against small producers.

Once again, how are they doing that? By trying to guarantee that your product actually works?

In my case they'd force me to make a claim that I never made before. I simply listed the mineral content and nutritional analysis of my product and let my customers take it from there.

Over and over again, I've seen the term 'nanny' used, suggesting that people were complaining that the government shouldn't get involved in business to consumer transactions. If you don't think the government should be involved at all, then (in theory) I could sell milk to children laced with rat poison, with the argument that people should be aware of the risks and make their own decisions about my product.

As I said, the government is already involved through the CFIA and other federal/provincial agencies. Bill C-51 is simply one more layer of bureacracy - a straw that's broken many a back.

If you think the government should get involved, then at what level? Testing for safety? What about proper labeling? False claims?

If this new bill sets a new standard for government involvement and protection then you might as well have the state wipe your nose for you too.

[DrGreenthumb]

The government has added an enormous cost to the price of doing business by stacking the odds against small producers.

In my case they'd force me to make a claim that I never made before. I simply listed the mineral content and nutritional analysis of my product and let my customers take it from there.

As I said, the government is already involved through the CFIA and other federal/provincial agencies. Bill C-51 is simply one more layer of bureacracy - a straw that's broken many a back.

If this new bill sets a new standard for government involvement and protection then you might as well have the state wipe your nose for you too.

Its just more crap from conservatives who would defend anything this asshole government does. Like anyone is going to intentonally poison their customers with rat poison. Only a conservative would make such an idiotic argument. Even small companies survive by thier reputation and eventually brand recognition. Reports of "company A" products being contaminated would quickly cause the financial ruin of "company A" We don't need C-51 to protect us from bad products, the free market will take care of that all on its own. The only people C-51 protects is the large already wealthy companies who will no longer have to compete with the small producers who will not be able to afford to comply with the bill. These conservatives do not support the free market, they support protectionism for the wealthy. Again it is no surprise that Pharma Tony(clement) , Canada's biggest drug dealer, introduced this bill. If he shuts down most of the natural health products and nutritional supplements, more Canadians will become ill and be told by doctors that they must purchase PharmaTony's drugs to treat their symptoms.

[segnosaur]

Like anyone is going to intentonally poison their customers with rat poison. Only a conservative would make such an idiotic argument.

Who said they'd intentionally poison them? Even if any contamination is not deliberate, it still can have unfortunate consequences.

By the way, I used 'rat poison' as basically a way to identify any potential dangerous contaminant. There have been many examples of herbal products containing dangerous compounds, some natural, some not. Some were due to accidental contamination due to improper controls, others were due to deliberate attempts to alter the product.

By the way, here are some examples of problems with 'safe' herbal products:

http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/nettle06_02.html Nature's Way Products, Inc. ... is recalling four lots of its 100 count Nature's Way brand Nettle capsules because the product contains excessive amounts of lead.

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjm/v37n1/arq09.pdf The presence of toxigenic moulds represents a potential risk of mycotoxin contamination and considering the worldwide increased use of herbal products as alternative medicines, it is necessary setting standards for toxigenic moulds in crude herbal drugs in order to reduce the risks for consumers’ health.

Or how about http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/12/...e=related_story An Associated Press investigation shows that spiked herbal impotency pills are emerging as a major public health concern

Even small companies survive by thier reputation and eventually brand recognition. Reports of "company A" products being contaminated would quickly cause the financial ruin of "company A"

Except here's the problem.... by your own admission, companies that make those "natural" health care products are small... they don't exactly have strong brand recognition.

A company can easily create/sell products that are unsafe, and if/when they get run out of business, they can easily turn around and sell the same stuff under a different name. For some people the chance to make a quick buck is more important than long term financial growth. (In fact, the 3rd reference I gave above illustrates this point perfectly. The 'contaminates' that were added were done so deliberately, but without the customer's knowledge.)

Seems like some 'natural' product companies didn't get the memo about product safety.

We don't need C-51 to protect us from bad products, the free market will take care of that all on its own.

Do you feel that way about ALL products? Should we eliminate any and all product testing requirements? What about inspecting restaurants for cleanliness? Should a large pharmacutical company like Phiser be able to sell any type of drugs it wants without them being tested for safety?

Hey, its totally fine if you feel that way... I just want to see how consistent you are.

The only people C-51 protects is the large already wealthy companies who will no longer have to compete with the small producers who will not be able to afford to comply with the bill. These conservatives do not support the free market, they support protectionism for the wealthy.

First of all, I find it ironic that you suggest that the conservatives are trying to 'protect' the wealthy over this issue. Many of those sellers of 'natural' drugs are probably much more wealthy than the thousands of share holders who have only a few shares of various drug companies in their retirement plan.

Secondly, where exactly do you get the idea that the 'small producers' will not be able to afford to comply with the bill? Please point out in C-51 exactly where they will have to pay unexpectedly large expenses.

Again it is no surprise that Pharma Tony(clement) , Canada's biggest drug dealer, introduced this bill. If he shuts down most of the natural health products and nutritional supplements, more Canadians will become ill and be told by doctors that they must purchase PharmaTony's drugs to treat their symptoms.

Ummm... you do realize Clement actually divested himself of his shares in drug companies a long time ago?

And you DO realize the hypocricy of blaming Clement for having some sort of financial reason for bringing in this bill, while ignoring the fact that

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear how the NDPs policies that involve taking tax money from me and limiting what I can do economically are enhancing my 'freedoms'.

Also, still waiting to see that properly conducted scientific study which shows that people can perform better when under the influence of marijuana.

Also, waiting to see where exactly in C-51 you are prevented from consuming 'natural' medications.

[segnosaur]

The government has added an enormous cost to the price of doing business by stacking the odds against small producers.

You know, you've made various claims before about how 'herbal' business is going to be horribly affected by c-51, but I've never actually seen real proof. (It was claimed that you had talked to people in the government to find out the effect, but that doesn't make much sense... after all, why would low level government worker know how to interpret the effects of a bill that hasn't even passed final reading.)

If this new bill sets a new standard for government involvement and protection then you might as well have the state wipe your nose for you too.

Once again (since you seem to be ignoring the question)... if you think this bill has the government offering too much protection, then do you think the government should have any say in product safety or fraudulent claims? Should I be able to run a restaurant that has rats and mice in the kitchen? Should a drug company be able to sell untested medication? Or is your concern only for bill C-51 and 'natural' health care products.

[guyser]

A company can easily create/sell products that are unsafe, and if/when they get run out of business, they can easily turn around and sell the same stuff under a different name. For some people the chance to make a quick buck is more important than long term financial growth. (In fact, the 3rd reference I gave above illustrates this point perfectly. The 'contaminates' that were added were done so deliberately, but without the customer's knowledge.)

That is not as easy as you make it sound, allowing of course for a very minor player in the game.For one the marketplace does in some ways sefl regulate. As a storeowner one has to have reasonable assurance that the product is safe.

A small company needs to rent space, and a landlord wont do it without certificates of insurance, thereby indemnifying the landlord and potential lawsuits .

[segnosaur]

A company can easily create/sell products that are unsafe, and if/when they get run out of business, they can easily turn around and sell the same stuff under a different name. For some people the chance to make a quick buck is more important than long term financial growth.

That is not as easy as you make it sound, allowing of course for a very minor player in the game.For one the marketplace does in some ways sefl regulate. As a storeowner one has to have reasonable assurance that the product is safe.

A small company needs to rent space, and a landlord wont do it without certificates of insurance, thereby indemnifying the landlord and potential lawsuits .

Yeah, but we're not necessarily talking about natural health products sold at retail stores or some company that has an easily identifiable location, etc. We're talking about manufacturers, many of whom are "minor players", and who may not even sell their stuff through normal retail channels (instead, selling things on line, or through private sales. True, Wal-Mart might be careful about selling dangerous stuff at its stores, but I doubt a web hosting company is going to care too much if someone puts up an online herbal health store.)

A 'pure' libertarian would probably agree that self-regulation is the way to go (not only for product safety but for workplace safety, etc.) This is one of the areas that I tend to disagree with Libertarians however; I think

Yes, self regulation does work in many cases, but many individuals will be willing to risk their reputation to make a quick buck. And the nature of the alternative health care market (smaller companies with limited capitalization, no name brand recognition, and often individually owned) limits the ability of the market to self regulate.

[eyeball]

You know, you've made various claims before about how 'herbal' business is going to be horribly affected by c-51, but I've never actually seen real proof. (It was claimed that you had talked to people in the government to find out the effect, but that doesn't make much sense... after all, why would low level government worker know how to interpret the effects of a bill that hasn't even passed final reading.)

I've only claimed that several small home-based companies like mine will be out of business. Big corporate-based companies on the other hand will do just fine thanks. I don't know about the receptionist I talked too, but the high level CFIA manager in my region she connected me to seemed pretty certain about the effect C-51 would have on me. Bureacrats such as her probably helped put the legislation together in the first place.

Once again (since you seem to be ignoring the question)... if you think this bill has the government offering too much protection, then do you think the government should have any say in product safety or fraudulent claims? Should I be able to run a restaurant that has rats and mice in the kitchen? Should a drug company be able to sell untested medication? Or is your concern only for bill C-51 and 'natural' health care products.

Like I said the government already has lots of say about the issues you have and already offers lots of public protection through existing agencies, like the federal CFIA and provincial health authorities. If they've been ineffective at doing their jobs then that's a different issue but it raises the question why should this new regime be any better?

Why don't you answer a few questions for a change. Why should a food suddenly become a drug just because its in a capsule instead of a teaspoon, and why are you, a part-time Libertarian, so eager to add more regulations to an already over-regulated country?

[segnosaur]

I've only claimed that several small home-based companies like mine will be out of business. Big corporate-based companies on the other hand will do just fine thanks. I don't know about the receptionist I talked too, but the high level CFIA manager in my region she connected me to seemed pretty certain about the effect C-51 would have on me.

There are so many things that could be wrong... perhaps you misunderstood what the CFIA manager said. Perhaps the manager didn't know themselves. (You said they 'seemed' pretty certain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were accurate.) Heck, for all I know you aren't even being honest with me (since you obviously have a vested interest in seeing C-51 defeated). So, I'm basically getting 3rd hand descriptions based on testimonials from people who may or may not be 'experts', and who may or may not be basing their opinions on accurate date.

In that case perhaps you can point out the relevant sections of C-51 that are going to drive up your costs and drive you out of business.

Like I said the government already has lots of say about the issues you have and already offers lots of public protection through existing agencies, like the federal CFIA and provincial health authorities.

You still haven't answered the question... are you against any and all safety regulations (basically putting the requirement on the user to know the risks) or is it just C-51 that you're concerned about?

Why don't you answer a few questions for a change. Why should a food suddenly become a drug just because its in a capsule instead of a teaspoon,

Well, first of all, bill C-51 doesn't classify 'natural medicines' as drugs... it creates a kind of brand new class.

Secondly, when you do any sort of work (with drugs or with food), you always risk contamination. The process of griding up and putting that garlic into the capsule can be a problem. (In fact, earlier on I gave a reference where 'herbal' viagra was laced with real viagra.) And just because you may take steps to ensure your stuff is clean, not everyone does.

A good analogy would be food... we have laws to prevent 'bad' food from being sold; however, that doesn't negate the need for additional checks on restaurants to make sure the food that was safe when it came from the farm is actually handled safely during preparation.

Lastly, there is the issue of claims... if you buy a bag of "essance of seaweed" or whatever cr*p people like to use, its not necessarily making any claims as to its abilities. But if its on a package, with a label that says "this will cure all your ills", then not only to you have to worry about safety, you have to worry about false claims.

Lastly, while

and why are you, a part-time Libertarian, so eager to add more regulations to an already over-regulated country?

Oh, could it be because people have gotten ill and died by using such 'natural' medicines? Sometimes, they get sick or die because of something in the 'natural' medicine itself. Sometimes, they get sick or die because they stop taking properly prescribed medicines and go with an ineffective 'natural' cure instead.

Some examples:

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth...e4-151339bc833a

...55-year-old Michael Berggren died in a single-vehicle rollover after unwittingly taking prescription estazolam in a herbal sleep medicine...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/12/...e=related_story

Some men in their 30s who went to emergency rooms after taking herbal sex pills were presumably otherwise healthy, but they showed the transitory side effects of the active ingredients in regulated impotency pharmaceuticals, such as difficulty seeing clearly or severe headaches, records show.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jht.../05/nboy05.html

A BABY died from a rare disorder after being denied conventional care by his parents who held strong beliefs in alternative medicine, an inquest was told yesterday.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Nagpur/...how/2688359.cms

he Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Wednesday directed the state government to file a report of forensic analysis about adverse effects of the homeopathic tonic ‘Sati-F' which was reported to be responsible for deaths of three persons.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-g...4117959740.html

She had died within three days of sepsis (bacterial infections) which had caused bleeding in her lungs and airways....Her father, Thomas Sam, who practised and taught homeopathy, had applied homeopathic remedies...A forensic pathologist, Ella Sugo, told the court a micro-organism which was commonly found in broken skin, was isolated in Gloria's blood, urine, skin and eyes. (note: antibotics might have been able to save this child, yet the father was applying ineffective homeopathic treatments)

When you take something that's labeled an 'alternative medicine', you think that its undergone the same type of scrutiny that real medicine has gone. Most people assume the stuff is A: Safe and B: effective. Often, it is neither.

[eyeball]

I'm willing to bet the list of 'real medicine' that's undergone official scrutiny that's still proven worthless as well as deadly is just as long or longer.

The section of C-51 that kills me is this one.

5. (1) No person shall manufacture, process, label, package, sell, import for sale or advertise a food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit, safety or origin.

Powder in a capsule seems to get people excited these days, I guess they just 'naturally' get all sorts of erroneous impressions. The CFIA manager I talked with said there is no way I'll be able to simply say suggested serving, two to three capsules a day. I'll have to say take two or three capsules a day and when I do I'll have to justify why.

Of course nothing is stopping me from complying with the new regulations. I'm perfectly free to try to operate at a scale that makes all the testing and labelling affordable. My liberty is still intact - my right to go out of business has been maintained if not assured.

[Pliny]

A 'pure' libertarian would probably agree that self-regulation is the way to go (not only for product safety but for workplace safety, etc.) This is one of the areas that I tend to disagree with Libertarians however; I think

Yes, self regulation does work in many cases, but many individuals will be willing to risk their reputation to make a quick buck. And the nature of the alternative health care market (smaller companies with limited capitalization, no name brand recognition, and often individually owned) limits the ability of the market to self regulate.

Yes Libertarians would tend to disagree with you. It is because the following is true.

I'm willing to bet the list of 'real medicine' that's undergone official scrutiny that's still proven worthless as well as deadly is just as long or longer.

Once a drug or medicine or herbal remedy is approved by government it is almost impossible to prove it is worthless or damaging or even deadly. Official sanctions remove individual scrutiny and responsibility to self.

While it is true that "some" (not "many") individuals will be willing to risk their reputation to make a quick buck those individuals do not disappear and are more dangerous with official sanctions than left to market forces that would kill a product as soon as the public found out. Government approval exempts the public from having to even question a product.

Another thing is that government approval of a drug means they will support it and subsidize it when the public would never pay for it. As a matter of fact many items and drugs available today would be long gone but for the psychological comfort of knowing something has the stamp of "government approval".

[segnosaur]

I'm willing to bet the list of 'real medicine' that's undergone official scrutiny that's still proven worthless as well as deadly is just as long or longer.

First of all, I doubt very much whether there are any real drugs that have been proven worthless... companies spend huge amounts of money to actually have some sort of effect. (If you have a list of ineffective drugs, I'd like to see it... even if there are some, the list of ineffective drugs would pale in comparison to the list of ineffective 'natural' products.)

Now, you are right in that many approved drugs have ended up having serious (or even deadly) side effects... thalidomide and phen phen come immediately to mind.

The difference is that real drugs actually do have the chance to actually help people. The vast, vast majority of 'natural' cures do absolutely nothing (over and above the placebo effect) to actually cure anything. Most people will accept a small risk (even if its deadly) if there is a chance it will greatly improve their lives. Most people will not be willing to accept a similar risk if there is no chance it will help.

And before you start claiming that natural medicine works, I'd suggest you look up the terms double blind study, control group, peer review, and the placebo effect. Yes, I'm sure there are ton of anecdotes about how people get cured from herbs, etc. But then there are also anecdotes about people being cured by Peter Popoff and other religious figures. When proper double blind studies are done with actual control groups, most 'natural medicine' is shown to be no more effective than, well, doing nothing. (Note however that I did say most 'nautral medicine is ineffective. There are a some cases where plants have indeed been used as the basis for successful treatment. However, this does not mean that all alternative treatments are effective.)

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not 'date'.

The section of C-51 that kills me is this one.

5. (1) No person shall manufacture, process, label, package, sell, import for sale or advertise a food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit, safety or origin.

Powder in a capsule seems to get people excited these days, I guess they just 'naturally' get all sorts of erroneous impressions. The CFIA manager I talked with said there is no way I'll be able to simply say suggested serving, two to three capsules a day. I'll have to say take two or three capsules a day and when I do I'll have to justify why.

Given the fact that I'm only hearing about this 'interpetation' third hand, I don't quite agree with what you claim it means.

You can probably continue to say "take 2 or 3 capsules". You just can't say "take 2 or 3 capsules to cure disease X" if there's never been any actual scientific studies that show your capsules actually cure disease X. That's what's meant by 'character' and 'merit'.

Edited August 18, 2008 by segnosaur

[Argus]

You raise an interesting point, i.e., the conflict between religious rights and gay rights. Of course both sets of rights deserve protection. I don't know of any churches which are forced to marry lesbians. Do you?

Stephen Harper deals with the potential conflict by favouring one group over another. When Stephen Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of gays and lesbians

In reality, bill c-250 also made it a crime to "incite hatred" of gays, and the definition for how one incited hatred against gays is broad enough to encompass almost all religious texts. The bill made it a possibility that gay advocates could move to have priests, rabbis and imams arrested if they lecture on their religious beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality, and possibly even challenge the legality of those religious books.

[Pliny]

First of all, I doubt very much whether there are any real drugs that have been proven worthless... companies spend huge amounts of money to actually have some sort of effect. (If you have a list of ineffective drugs, I'd like to see it... even if there are some, the list of ineffective drugs would pale in comparison to the list of ineffective 'natural' products.)

If your contention is that there are a lot of natural products that are ineffective one must ask the question why they exist. Is it entirely because of the placebo effect? The government allows innocuous agents to be sold. You can go and look at the OTC medicines at your local pharmacy. What they can't be is effective because they would then have to be classified a medicine. Now there are all kinds of claims regarding vitamins and health. They are essential to health and the Codex Alimentarius is seeing to it that you can only buy innocuous doses of vitamins and any larger doses than those will require a prescription. The Codex Alimentarius has been adopted in Europe and they have been pushing for it in North America.

Some drugs have absolutely no use for the condition they are prescribed for but they do have side effects. We cannot forget the placebo effect in the administration of these drugs either.

Now, you are right in that many approved drugs have ended up having serious (or even deadly) side effects... thalidomide and phen phen come immediately to mind.

The difference is that real drugs actually do have the chance to actually help people. The vast, vast majority of 'natural' cures do absolutely nothing (over and above the placebo effect) to actually cure anything.

It is by design that natural cures do absolutely nothing to actually cure anything. It is impossible to legally make that claim unless medically administered. Even then Doctors never guarantee cures. They prefer the word "manage" or "help" over "cure".

One of the most useless things I have seen is the yearly flu vaccine. It has not made one iota of difference in the death rate caused by flus and could even entirely miss the strain of virus that is prevalent in a given flu season. Most people I know that get them get the flu anyway. Why is that pushed so heavily? It is easy to see the stats since they begun administering flu vaccines. I checked them about a year ago. I imagine they are still available to anyone who wants to google them.

Most people will accept a small risk (even if its deadly) if there is a chance it will greatly improve their lives. Most people will not be willing to accept a similar risk if there is no chance it will help.

And before you start claiming that natural medicine works, I'd suggest you look up the terms double blind study, control group, peer review, and the placebo effect. Yes, I'm sure there are ton of anecdotes about how people get cured from herbs, etc. But then there are also anecdotes about people being cured by Peter Popoff and other religious figures. When proper double blind studies are done with actual control groups, most 'natural medicine' is shown to be no more effective than, well, doing nothing. (Note however that I did say most 'nautral medicine is ineffective. There are a some cases where plants have indeed been used as the basis for successful treatment. However, this does not mean that all alternative treatments are effective.)

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not 'date'.

Given the fact that I'm only hearing about this 'interpetation' third hand, I don't quite agree with what you claim it means.

You can probably continue to say "take 2 or 3 capsules". You just can't say "take 2 or 3 capsules to cure disease X" if there's never been any actual scientific studies that show your capsules actually cure disease X. That's what's meant by 'character' and 'merit'.

WE have along way to go regarding medicine, in my view and the crux of the matter is that the western medical industry is attempting to set up a monopoly. Should medicine be a monopoly? They exclude many things because they haven't done their own "double blind" tests which have been peer reviewed, and it seems they are today more interested in shoring up their control over the industry than improving health. It was twelve years before they would seriously consider evening testing the treatment of ulcers by eliminating heliobactar pylori. It reoslved about 90% of ulcers. David Suzuki's show, The Nature of Things, also stated that heliobactar pylori was a factor in in some stomach and pancreatic cancers. I have heard not a peep about it for several years however I do hear things like a new drug is giving hope to some cancer patients in that 3% of those treated have a 50% better chance of surviving for a year longer than those not treated with the same drug. I imagine the HP virus surprised a lot of researchers since the medical establishment denied that a virus could be a contributing factor in the cause of cancer. All research is centred on drugs and and radiation - not a cure but something that will "manage" the disease.

I have my issues with the medical establishment as you see and I haven't gotten to the worst of it.

[eyeball]

WE have along way to go regarding medicine, in my view and the crux of the matter is that the western medical industry is attempting to set up a monopoly....

I have my issues with the medical establishment as you see and I haven't gotten to the worst of it.

I'd say the issue you raised IS the worst of it. Setting up a monopoly in any industry requires state intervention on behalf of the people/corporations attempting to do so. I can't think of anything that is more counter-libertarian myself.

Edited August 18, 2008 by eyeball

[segnosaur]

If your contention is that there are a lot of natural products that are ineffective one must ask the question why they exist. Is it entirely because of the placebo effect?

Pretty much yeah, its the placebo effect.

The placebo effect also explains why people believe in faith healers and other such nonsense.

Actually, there are several factors that come into play here:

- The placebo effect... the body heals itself in many cases, but people take some worthless herb and they mistakenly attribute their feeling better to the effects of the herb

- Lack of 'personal touch' in western medicine. Doctors often rush their patients though, giving them a prescription and sending them on their way. Even if the drugs are effective, the patient feels slighted. On the other hand, many 'alternative' health care practitioners are better at connecting with their patients. Even though the actions of the 'alternative' healer did nothing to help, the fact that many will talk more with their patients makes people happier.

- Scientific ignorance. People just don't know/understand basic science, like double blind studies, peer review, etc. Thus, they can easily be swayed by false claims made by many practictioners

I should also add that there is the issue that some plants/natural remedies can lead to cures. The best example is probably willow bark being used for pain relief (the basis of aspirin). The problem is, when one such natural cure works, people mistakenly believe that every natural cure works.

The government allows innocuous agents to be sold. You can go and look at the OTC medicines at your local pharmacy. What they can't be is effective because they would then have to be classified a medicine.

Not sure what exactly your point is here.

Over-the-counter drugs (such as aspirin, etc.) ARE effective and HAVE been classified as 'medicine' (although medicine that's available without prescription.)

Some drugs have absolutely no use for the condition they are prescribed for but they do have side effects. We cannot forget the placebo effect in the administration of these drugs either.

Yes, sometimes drugs are prescribed when they are ineffective. (Prescribing antibiotics for viral infections comes to mind). But the problem is not that of the drugs themselves, but in the actions of the doctors. However, the solution to mis-prescribing medication is not to allow even more useless drugs to be taken (e.g. herbals), but to stop the mis-prescribing in the first place.

It is by design that natural cures do absolutely nothing to actually cure anything. It is impossible to legally make that claim unless medically administered.

Again, I'm not sure what exactly you're claiming.

Right now, people can make claims about how well their 'natural cures' work, even if not medicinally administered. That's the problem, and something that hopefully C-51 will prevent.

Even then Doctors never guarantee cures. They prefer the word "manage" or "help" over "cure".

You're right in that they never (or at least should never) "guarantee cures". But whether they use the word 'cure' depends on the context. I'm sure most doctors won't hesitate to use the word 'cure' over, for example, using antibiotics to successfully fight bacterial infection.

One of the most useless things I have seen is the yearly flu vaccine.

Quite incorrect. The flu vaccine has been credited with saving thousands of lives, especially among the elderly (where they may stop 30-70% of cases.)

See:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-r...s-07/index.html

http://www.usask.ca/pediatrics/services/influenza.pdf

It has not made one iota of difference in the death rate caused by flus...

Seems like science disagrees with you...

From: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7581/1241 ... Vaccinating care home staff against influenza can prevent deaths, health service use, and influenza-like illness in residents during periods of moderate influenza activity.

From: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1373 ... influenza vaccination was associated with significant reductions in the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza and in the risk of death among community-dwelling elderly persons.

... and could even entirely miss the strain of virus that is prevalent in a given flu season.

Yes, it is true that researchers do have to guess the strain of flu that will be the biggest problem fairly early (to give time to actually develop the vaccine) and that they can often guess wrong...

However:

- Although they sometimes guess wrong, they also sometimes guess right, and the vaccine ends up being very effective in preventing the flu. Look at it this way, would you ignore a lottery where half the tickets were winners just because you only had a 50% chance of hitting the jackpot?

- Even if they don't select the best strains to use in the vaccine, that does not mean that the vaccine is worthless. Even preventing the flu in a minority of cases is still better than not having any prevention. It should also be noted that many strains of flu are 'related'. Even if they use the wrong strain, it may still give partial immunity to the 'main' strain.

Most people I know that get them get the flu anyway.

Ah, the whole 'anecdote' thing. The same reasoning behind people who claim smoking isn't dangerous because they 'know someone who smoked all their life and lived over 100 years'.

How do you mean 'most people' get the flu anyways? How many friends are you talking about? dozens? Hundreds? You ever develop actual statistics? And more importantly, are you sure your friends had the flu? There are many common diseases that give similar symptoms to the flu (even though the virus has no relation). Even food poising can give the same type of fever and chills people associate with the flu.

Why is that pushed so heavily? It is easy to see the stats since they begun administering flu vaccines. I checked them about a year ago. I imagine they are still available to anyone who wants to google them.

Well, I did a google search based on influenza, vaccine, death rate, and effectiveness and found plenty of studies in various peer reviewed articles which show their effectiveness.

Just curious, what sites are you looking at? There are many 'anti-vaccination' sites that are based on bad science.

WE have along way to go regarding medicine, in my view and the crux of the matter is that the western medical industry is attempting to set up a monopoly. Should medicine be a monopoly?

Not sure why exactly you consider it a 'monopoly'. There are many respectable 'peer reviewed' journals that a proper experiment can be written up in. We have hundreds of companies that make drugs, diagnostic equipment, etc. We have thousands of researchers in private and academic settings. We have hundreds of thousands of doctors with practices. Where's the monopoly?

They exclude many things because they haven't done their own "double blind" tests which have been peer reviewed,

Hey, if you have any idea of how to prove something works and isn't due to the placebo effect, I'd love to hear it. It may be a flawed system, but its the best we have.

and it seems they are today more interested in shoring up their control over the industry than improving health. It was twelve years before they would seriously consider evening testing the treatment of ulcers by eliminating heliobactar pylori. It reoslved about 90% of ulcers.

You're right... western medicine didn't find the right treatment of ulcers right away. But that doesn't necessarily mean that every little folk remedy is actually going to be beneficial.

For every case of an effective folk remedy or 'natural cure' that was ignored by science, I can find one (probably many more than 1) natural cure which is ineffective.

All research is centred on drugs and and radiation...

And surgery (surgical techniques have greatly improved over the past decade). And public health issues (such as effects of smoking, or diet in death rates). And Diagnostics (new blood tests, detection methods, etc.)

Scientists research that stuff because it leads to better health. What exactly would you recommend they study?

[segnosaur]

I'd say the issue you raised IS the worst of it. Setting up a monopoly in any industry requires state intervention on behalf of the people/corporations attempting to do so. I can't think of anything that is more counter-libertarian myself.

Except its not setting up a monopoly.

Early on I provided a list of over a hundred drug companies. No monopoly there.

And as I've said before, there will be nothing from you selling your snake oil to whomever wants to buy it, so there's still no monopoly. You just can't claim it does something when there is no proof that it does. The size of the 'alternative health care' market is large enough that, if they wished, companies could easily finance proper double blind studies and have them published in peer reviewed papers if they wanted to provide evidence about their effectiveness.

I guess its much easier to complain about "monopoly" than it is to actually, I don't know, prove your stuff actually works. So much for science. I guess you have no need of that, eh?

By the way, you still haven't answered the question... are you in favour of eliminating all regulations regarding health and safety (for food products, for drugs, and everything else), or is it just C-51 (and natural health product regulation) that you're concerned about? I've asked that question many times and you've never answered it. Since I've asked any questions that you've posed, the least you can do is answer mine.

[Pliny]

Pretty much yeah, its the placebo effect.

The placebo effect also explains why people believe in faith healers and other such nonsense.

What do you mean by other such nonsense? The attitude that anything not proven is nonsense is one of my complaints. Western medicine is too myopic in that sense. Chinese acupuncture was pooh-poohed for decades.

Actually, there are several factors that come into play here:

- The placebo effect... the body heals itself in many cases, but people take some worthless herb and they mistakenly attribute their feeling better to the effects of the herb

- Lack of 'personal touch' in western medicine. Doctors often rush their patients though, giving them a prescription and sending them on their way. Even if the drugs are effective, the patient feels slighted. On the other hand, many 'alternative' health care practitioners are better at connecting with their patients. Even though the actions of the 'alternative' healer did nothing to help, the fact that many will talk more with their patients makes people happier.

- Scientific ignorance. People just don't know/understand basic science, like double blind studies, peer review, etc. Thus, they can easily be swayed by false claims made by many practictioners

I should also add that there is the issue that some plants/natural remedies can lead to cures. The best example is probably willow bark being used for pain relief (the basis of aspirin). The problem is, when one such natural cure works, people mistakenly believe that every natural cure works.

OK

Not sure what exactly your point is here.

Over-the-counter drugs (such as aspirin, etc.) ARE effective and HAVE been classified as 'medicine' (although medicine that's available without prescription.)

I was thinking specifically of cold remedies at the time.

Yes, sometimes drugs are prescribed when they are ineffective. (Prescribing antibiotics for viral infections comes to mind). But the problem is not that of the drugs themselves, but in the actions of the doctors. However, the solution to mis-prescribing medication is not to allow even more useless drugs to be taken (e.g. herbals), but to stop the mis-prescribing in the first place.

Again, I'm not sure what exactly you're claiming.

Right now, people can make claims about how well their 'natural cures' work, even if not medicinally administered. That's the problem, and something that hopefully C-51 will prevent.

You're right in that they never (or at least should never) "guarantee cures". But whether they use the word 'cure' depends on the context. I'm sure most doctors won't hesitate to use the word 'cure' over, for example, using antibiotics to successfully fight bacterial infection.

Antibiotics are less and less successful.

Quite incorrect. The flu vaccine has been credited with saving thousands of lives, especially among the elderly (where they may stop 30-70% of cases.)

See:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-r...s-07/index.html

http://www.usask.ca/pediatrics/services/influenza.pdf

Seems like science disagrees with you...

From: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7581/1241 ... Vaccinating care home staff against influenza can prevent deaths, health service use, and influenza-like illness in residents during periods of moderate influenza activity.

From: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1373 ... influenza vaccination was associated with significant reductions in the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza and in the risk of death among community-dwelling elderly persons.

Yes, it is true that researchers do have to guess the strain of flu that will be the biggest problem fairly early (to give time to actually develop the vaccine) and that they can often guess wrong...

However:

- Although they sometimes guess wrong, they also sometimes guess right, and the vaccine ends up being very effective in preventing the flu. Look at it this way, would you ignore a lottery where half the tickets were winners just because you only had a 50% chance of hitting the jackpot?

- Even if they don't select the best strains to use in the vaccine, that does not mean that the vaccine is worthless. Even preventing the flu in a minority of cases is still better than not having any prevention. It should also be noted that many strains of flu are 'related'. Even if they use the wrong strain, it may still give partial immunity to the 'main' strain.

Ah, the whole 'anecdote' thing. The same reasoning behind people who claim smoking isn't dangerous because they 'know someone who smoked all their life and lived over 100 years'.

How do you mean 'most people' get the flu anyways? How many friends are you talking about? dozens? Hundreds? You ever develop actual statistics? And more importantly, are you sure your friends had the flu? There are many common diseases that give similar symptoms to the flu (even though the virus has no relation). Even food poising can give the same type of fever and chills people associate with the flu.

Well, I did a google search based on influenza, vaccine, death rate, and effectiveness and found plenty of studies in various peer reviewed articles which show their effectiveness.

Just curious, what sites are you looking at? There are many 'anti-vaccination' sites that are based on bad science.

The only statistic that needs to be looked at is the annual death rate from influenza. I haven't noticed a significant drop that would indicate a positive intervention.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchiv...008/bigpi20.htm

Not sure why exactly you consider it a 'monopoly'. There are many respectable 'peer reviewed' journals that a proper experiment can be written up in. We have hundreds of companies that make drugs, diagnostic equipment, etc. We have thousands of researchers in private and academic settings. We have hundreds of thousands of doctors with practices. Where's the monopoly?

An analogous interpretation of what you are saying is that Macdonald's, being the only restaurant around, doesn't hold a monopoly because there are thousands of them. Where's the monopoly?

The monopoly in the health care industry is held by government who determine what treatments they will pay for the AMA ensures Doctors comply with government regulation. The fee schedule is set by government and Doctors will perform those duties that offer them the best return. There is no choice or option allowed to the consumer.

Hey, if you have any idea of how to prove something works and isn't due to the placebo effect, I'd love to hear it. It may be a flawed system, but its the best we have.

Whatever is touted by science must be true. In the sixties replacing saturated fats with hydrogenated oils and transfats was healthy and it wasn't until the nineties that hydrogenated oils and transfats were worse than the things they were supposed to substitute. I had read in the seventies they were not good but of course those claims were bogus according to mainstream medicine. I quit buying margarine around 1978.

Do you think what I have to say about "how to prove something works and it isn't due to the placebo effect" would ever be given consideration? You wouldn't love to hear it you would love to criticize it.

You're right... western medicine didn't find the right treatment of ulcers right away. But that doesn't necessarily mean that every little folk remedy is actually going to be beneficial.

For every case of an effective folk remedy or 'natural cure' that was ignored by science, I can find one (probably many more than 1) natural cure which is ineffective.

And surgery (surgical techniques have greatly improved over the past decade). And public health issues (such as effects of smoking, or diet in death rates). And Diagnostics (new blood tests, detection methods, etc.)

Scientists research that stuff because it leads to better health. What exactly would you recommend they study?

I would recommend they not be so myopic. Perhaps they could try and improve on the cure rate of the placebo effect.