So run the clinical trial, advertise the product as untested and dangerous-to-lethal in the meantime, and let people make their own choices?
In huge oversimplification some crazy or fraudulent people will claim it cures blindness or cold sores, some other people will believe them and will have to deal with the real danger-to-lethal consequences, with the rest of society paying for their medical care afterwards.
Pretty effective.
In Australia throwing a few diseased lungs on the packs and increasing public awareness has seen usage drop from 35% of the population in 1980 to 11% today.
Not all the drop is purely related to advertising, price increases and restricting sale to out of sight locked access in shops have also helped.
https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1...
That's exactly correct bart, it reduced smoking by over two thirds and kept it that way.
> still doesn't stop 11% of people from doing so.
Like seatbelts, vaccines, and all other health and safety procedures that also don't have a 100% total absolute success rate .. nor never claimed to.
Who wants to wrap people in bubble wrap and lock them away from the world? Are you advocating for that?
On the books, totally worth it.
Australia is a democracy with many small parties and several quasi independant larger party (three main large parties) members, there's been scope for almost anyone to campaign to repeal anti-smoking policy by either running directly or by lobbying their local of federal rep.
People have campaigned for hunting, for cannabis, for many things .. so far no one, to my knowledge, has campaigned to repeal the anti smoking policies.
Are they not addictive? Then it seems a stretch to compare them to cigarettes.
It's a cure for lyme disease, impotence, ALS, chronic fatigue, cancer and aging. Trials are pending but what are you waiting for, do you want to die for lack of trying? 10k/dose.
Nice name choice for your example; I was thinking of paracetamoxyfrusebendroneomycin myself, yours is better.
My mum bought into a lot of homeopathy and Bach flower remedies. Thought she was doing me and dad a favour by getting both, and even "secretly" gave dad doses of the latter (and I was a kid so didn't have much say), so I was fortunate both categories were basically nothing.
But her and dad?
One of the Bach flower remedies was "for memory"… she got Alzheimer's about 20 years younger than her mother.
When my dad was dying of cancer, there was some mineral he thought he was short of (magnesium?), and he didn't realise the homeopathic pills labelled "magnesium" didn't actually contain any magnesium.
IMO, prevent use of addictive ingredients, but beyond that inform, don't forbid.
That said, I think we would get most of the benefit of regulation if we just required an advisory consultation with your GP before you could buy a product whose safety wasn't established. A lot of the danger of overregulation rests on trivial inconvenience vs outlawing experimentation, and I think something like that could split both groups. "Yes, I want to enable experimental mode on my body."
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/resea...