Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If you follow that chain of reasoning we might as well legalize meth and put that next to medicines as well. Also tinned food with poisons, or expired meat.

This is one of the huge problems with a laissez faire approach - people aren’t sophisticated on mass, don’t know the implications of their choices, and thus why wouldn’t we want regulation when helpful to prevent misguidance? The article cites a case where hundreds of toddlers were injured in a similar situation.

Not all of these products are pure placebo, and depending on what’s wrong with you, placebos can be dangerous. Imagine a placebo to take a fever down, for example, which turns out not to reduce a fever at all.




Comparing something with no effect to something as harmful as meth is entirely disingenuous.

At some point we have a right to treat ourselves as we see fit. Taking your fever example. Shall it also be illegal to try to get through a fever without any medication? After all, you're apparently a danger to yourself at that point.


There's a difference between saying "here's a thing that makes no difference; take it if it amuses you" and saying "this is as effective at treating your condition as the other medicines you find nearby, so you don't need any of them." Whether or not homeopathy is a good thing, or better or worse than conventional medicine, it isn't the same as conventional medicine, and shouldn't be presented as such.


The other sibling addresses your second paragraph, but for your first I suggest with this line of reasoning it’s a very slippery slope. To me it’s a bog standard libertarian argument, which I believe to be very myopic.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: