Ephedra ban - at last

[Blondin]

I found this article interesting for several reasons:
Ephedra Ban Puts Herb Industry on Notice (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/ephedra)
"We have a tremendous burden of proof in order to take supplements off of the market," Thompson said Tuesday in announcing the ban on a supplement that has been linked to 155 deaths and dozens of heart attacks and strokes. But he stressed that "we crossed the t's and dotted the i's" so that the ephedra ban should stand up in court if challenged.
Is it just me or is there something bass-ackwards going on here?
:confused:

[BTox]

Originally posted by Blondin
Is it just me or is there something bass-ackwards going on here?
:confused:

By bass-ackwards do you mean the burden of proof needed by FDA to get a dangerous supplement off the market? If so, I agree, and thank DSHEA for that. And Clinton for signing it in 94...

[Blondin]

Yeah. Sorry, I guess I didn't make my position very clear.
I find it surprising that the product wasn't withdrawn long before there were "155 deaths and dozens of heart attacks and strokes". I would have thought that as soon as there was *ANY* evidence that a product might be unsafe the prudent thing to do would be to suspend sales and conduct some tests to be sure.
Equally amazing (to me, anyway) is the fact that people are "stocking up" before the ban takes effect:
Federal Agency's Ban Spurs Ephedra Sales (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031231/ap_on_he_me/ephedra_sales_2)
Is this an indication in a lack of confidence in the FDA or an unhealthy fixation with body shape?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Blondin

Is this an indication in a lack of confidence in the FDA or an unhealthy fixation with body shape?

It's an indication of stupidity in my book. The good news is ephedra sales were significantly down over the last year as news became widespread and states began to ban sales. This is the last hurrah, hopefully.

[corplinx]

Yes, overdosing or misusing Ephedra is bad. So lets ban it. Finally, someone has banned this after killing 155 people who misused it! Thank goodness for government telling darwinism to take a backseat to overregulation!

[Tmy]

The problem with ephedra makers is that they dont haven enough congressmen in their pockets.

155 deaths. Big deal.................so who wants to take a smoke break?

[toad]

Originally posted by corplinx
Thank goodness for government telling darwinism to take a backseat to overregulation!

I agree! Can't we please just get the government to take care of everything? I mean, it really hurts when I have to actually *shuddering* think. OWOWOWOW....my poor little pea brain. And god forbid we should actually thin the herd of stupid anyway. Let's do see that they're protected from themselves. Won't someone please think of the stupid? C'mon! Raise the cheer. Hurray for gov't...saving sheep daily.

[BTox]

Originally posted by corplinx
Yes, overdosing or misusing Ephedra is bad. So lets ban it. Finally, someone has banned this after killing 155 people who misused it! Thank goodness for government telling darwinism to take a backseat to overregulation!

It's not that simple. They have evidence that using it as directed can be harmful as well.

[Zero]

Some people consider any regulation to be overregulation: those people do not want to be citizens, they are happy being consumers. The point of American government is to give voice to the people, elsewise the rich and powerful become kings in all but name. The government IS supposed to look out for the interests of the people...you want the government police to arrest murderers, so of course you want the to regulate drugs that can kill you.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zero
The government IS supposed to look out for the interests of the people...

The federal government has two purposes, regulating commerce between states and foreign affairs. You must be thinking of some other country.

[BTox]

Originally posted by corplinx


The federal government has two purposes, regulating commerce between states and foreign affairs. You must be thinking of some other country.

Are you saying the federal government should get out of the business of approving drugs and food ingredients and assuring safe manufacture, etc?

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx


The federal government has two purposes, regulating commerce between states and foreign affairs. You must be thinking of some other country. The government exists for money and war? You must be kidding.

No, I've read your posts, you are just ill informed, and probably an unfriendly person to boot..

[Blondin]

Originally posted by toad


I agree! Can't we please just get the government to take care of everything? I mean, it really hurts when I have to actually *shuddering* think. OWOWOWOW....my poor little pea brain. And god forbid we should actually thin the herd of stupid anyway. Let's do see that they're protected from themselves. Won't someone please think of the stupid? C'mon! Raise the cheer. Hurray for gov't...saving sheep daily.

Yes who needs governments going around making laws that medicines or "supplements" have to be safe and effective? We should all be able to decide that for ourselves. Let the snake oil industry market whatever it wants and we, the consumer, will judge the efficacy and safety levels. If people start dying or contracting cancer or something then we'll just stop buying that product.
:p

[HarryKeogh]

more people died in the past few hours as a result from smoking cigarettes than in the last 20 years from using ephedra. at least ephedra, in the vast majority of users has positive benefits...weight loss. well, smoking too, once the cancer sets in.

if the government were to ban everything that is potentially dangerous when misused there would be a lot of empty store shelves.

also see this thread
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33109&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

[Zero]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
more people died in the past few hours as a result from smoking cigarettes than in the last 20 years from using ephedra. at least ephedra, in the vast majority of users has positive benefits...weight loss. well, smoking too, once the cancer sets in.

if the government were to ban everything that is potentially dangerous when misused there would be a lot of empty store shelves.

also see this thread
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33109&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 I dunno...seems like your argument is that we should ban tobacco too.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
I dunno...seems like your argument is that we should ban tobacco too.

We should, but that was the topic of another thread. Ephedra has been beaten to death here, pardon the pun. The "vast majority" do not have real benefits, there is no evidence it works at all long term (more than 6 months). It is not "potentially dangerous when misused" it is dangerous when used as directed. Hence the ban.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Zero
I dunno...seems like your argument is that we should ban tobacco too.

Because the deaths in the ephedra cases I'm assuming happened shortly after the drug was taken, and were immediate in terms of being strokes or something like that, I can see why it would be perceived differently than tobacco.
If you could drop dead from a couple cigarettes then the FDA might step in.
However, we have a pretty fair tolerance for things that kill us over a long period of time. If we didn't, cheeseburgers would probably be banned as well.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


We should, but that was the topic of another thread. Ephedra has been beaten to death here, pardon the pun. The "vast majority" do not have real benefits, there is no evidence it works at all long term (more than 6 months). It is not "potentially dangerous when misused" it is dangerous when used as directed. Hence the ban. Uh huh...the point is that it isn't abuse that causes harm, ithe harm is inherent in use. It is an unsafe product, and our legal system has stepped in time and again to take unsafe products off the market. This is really a nonissue, since decades of legal precedant back up this ruling.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zero
The government exists for money and war? You must be kidding.

No, I've read your posts, you are just ill informed, and probably an unfriendly person to boot..

No, I just have read something called the constitution, you should try reading it or maybe taking a civics class at your high school sometime.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...the point is that it isn't abuse that causes harm, ithe harm is inherent in use.

The deaths were caused by misuse of the products. Yes, if you take high doses of ephedra for long periods of time it can cause damage to your cardiovascular system. I've never seen an ephedra based product without such a warning though.

If the problem is that the labeling isnt clear enough, why not mandate new labeling requirements versus banning a product that has been used safely for decades?

This is the nanny government in its worst form. Reacting to a media manufactured crisis and stepping in over constitutional limits to help out Joe Sixpack because hes too retarded to follow the label on a bottle of Stacker 2.

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx


No, I just have read something called the constitution, you should try reading it or maybe taking a civics class at your high school sometime. I've been out of high school for awhile...when you get to high school, take it for me, would you?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zero
I've been out of high school for awhile...

Your not fooling anyone junior. Anyone with a high school education should know the purposes of the federal government as mandated by the constitution.

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx


Your not fooling anyone junior. Anyone with a high school education should know the purposes of the federal government as mandated by the constitution. Care to state them for us? I can, off the top of my head, and have been able to since Saturday morning cartoons...please, enlighten us!!

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zero
Care to state them for us? I can, off the top of my head, and have been able to since Saturday morning cartoons...please, enlighten us!!

I already did, you asserted incorrectly that "The government IS supposed to look out for the interests of the people".

The federal government is there basically for regulating interstate commerce and foreign affairs. The president is the representative of the 50 states. This is all basic civics.

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx


I already did, you asserted incorrectly that "The government IS supposed to look out for the interests of the people".

The federal government is there basically for regulating interstate commerce and foreign affairs. The president is the representative of the 50 states. This is all basic civics. Wrong, wrong, and wrong...care to actually READ the Constitution? You claim that out government exists for business and war, while the Constitution actually lays out the purpose of government...last chance, chum...

Why does the Consititution, and the government on which it is based, exist?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zero
Wrong, wrong, and wrong...care to actually READ the Constitution?


Its obvious that:
A. you never have
B. you have never read about why the first continental congress was held which led to the articles of confederation which preceded the constitution

You seem to think the constitution empowers the federal government. However, as it is written, it empowers the _individual_ and enumerates very few powers for the federal government.

Banning ephedra shows how far off the course we have veered.

I think you are thinking the constitution was written during the New Deal. However, prior to the New Deal the federal government mostly delivered mail, regulated interstate commerce (sparingly), and primarily conducted foreign affairs.

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx



Its obvious that:
A. you never have
B. you have never read about why the first continental congress was held which led to the articles of confederation which preceded the constitution

You seem to think the constitution empowers the federal government. However, as it is written, it empowers the _individual_ and enumerates very few powers for the federal government.

Banning ephedra shows how far off the course we have veered.

I think you are thinking the constitution was written during the New Deal. However, prior to the New Deal the federal government mostly delivered mail, regulated interstate commerce (sparingly), and primarily conducted foreign affairs. You are obviously either a coward, or you honestly believed that you answereed my question...which one is it? I assume that you are so lost in your Rush Limbaugh brainwashing that you cannot read, and yet the answer is so simple that even a 'hillbilly heroin' addict should be able to cut and paste an answer...can you?

The Constitution, why does it exist? According to the Constitution itself?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zero
You are obviously either a coward, or you honestly believed that you answereed my question...which one is it? I assume that you are so lost in your Rush Limbaugh brainwashing that you cannot read, and yet the answer is so simple that even a 'hillbilly heroin' addict should be able to cut and paste an answer...can you?

The Constitution, why does it exist? According to the Constitution itself?

Now you are backpedaling and trying to change subjects by bringing up Rush Limbaugh. Its too obvious a ploy for this forum though so don't think you fooled anyone.

I think what you are getting at is the preamble of the constitution (which isn't law itself and is basically prose):
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now the typical fallacy that people without any sort of civics education or self-study make is that the "general welfare" bit in the preamble gives the government power to do things like force you to wear a helmet under penalty of law or ban a diet pill that people kill themselves by overdosing on.

The founders themselves scoffed at such interpretation of the rosy language that isn't even law.

Read James Madison:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

On one side is myself and James Madison and on the other side is you with misconceptions and ignorance. Here's your sign. thank you, drive though. Game over slick.

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx


Now you are backpedaling and trying to change subjects by bringing up Rush Limbaugh. Its too obvious a ploy for this forum though so don't think you fooled anyone.

I think what you are getting at is the preamble of the constitution (which isn't law itself and is basically prose):


Now the typical fallacy that people without any sort of civics education or self-study make is that the "general welfare" bit in the preamble gives the government power to do things like force you to wear a helmet under penalty of law or ban a diet pill that people kill themselves by overdosing on.

The founders themselves scoffed at such interpretation of the rosy language that isn't even law.

Read James Madison:





On one side is myself and James Madison and on the other side is you with misconceptions and ignorance. Here's your sign. thank you, drive though. Game over slick.

Wow, dips***, you may have actually read, and misinterpreted, the Cosnstitution...better than most of the retards that agree with you...frankly, I am semi-impressed...your arguments are wrong, but at least based on some interpretation of the Consitution...BRAVO!!

The Preamble certain shows general intent, does it not? Or else, of course, you show general disresspect towards the intent of the ENTIRE Consititution?

I know this must hurt you and your fellow fake conservatves, but it must be done....


The general intent, was to outline the "origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution " That intent was to :
1)establish justice
2) insure domestic tranquillity
3)provide for the common defence
4)promote the general welfare,
5)secure the blessings of liberty


Why don't you read this:
Preamble (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/#f2)

When you are done, you can skip the "general welfare" and go straight to the overall message, which is simple that the most poserful cannot simply walk all over the rest of us. Terms like "justice" and "tranquility" ensure that us 'common folk' can insist that the 'powerful' among us are as accountable to the law as the basest criminal. The REAL point of the ephedra issue is that the rich companies do not have the right to sell us poisons. That is because our Constitution is intended to empower individuals against the predations of the powerful.

[fishbob]

155 deaths and dozens of heart attacks and strokes Why have the lawsuits not put the Ephedra suppliers out of business yet? Breast implantees were awarded bazillions of dollars, shouldn't the victims of Ephedra do even better? And then the Ephedra people certainly can't keep producing the stuff, can they?

No ban needed.

[corplinx]

Zero, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. (Yes, I ripped this off from an Adam Sandler flick so may God, who doesn't exist, have mercy on my soul too)

Ad Hominem:
"Wow, dips***, you may have actually read, and misinterpreted, the Cosnstitution...better than most of the retards that agree with you"

Another Fallacy:
"The Preamble certain shows general intent, does it not? Or else, of course, you show general disresspect towards the intent of the ENTIRE Consititution?"

Ad Hominem:
"I know this must hurt you and your fellow fake conservatves, but it must be done...."

Now you try to support your position by pointing to a subjective extrapolation of the prose that precedes the constitution:
"When you are done, you can skip the "general welfare" and go straight to the overall message, which is simple that the most poserful cannot simply walk all over the rest of us. "

Another gem that holds up to no scrutiny:
"The REAL point of the ephedra issue is that the rich companies do not have the right to sell us poisons."

What as opposed to poor companies or a sole proprietor? You reveal a anti-class bias in this statement which shows you aren't thinking clearly. For you its an us vs. them issue. For me its a "does the governement have the authority to do this?". You also label ephedra a poison indiscretely which makes me wonder if you really understand ephedra. Did you know the water you drink contains arsenic? Its not a poisonous though in the dosage you get. Really, you are reaching hard on this one. Metabolife, Pro-Image, Stacker 2. These supplements picked their own dosage for ephedra. None of these companies have gone out of business because of lawsuits. Why? Because ephedra is mostly harmless when used as the label says.

And the final gem of misunderstanding of the very basic foundations of American government:
"That is because our Constitution is intended to empower individuals against the predations of the powerful"

Wrong again. The constitution wasn't made to protect you from your neighbor who makes more money than you. The only protections against "the powerful" in the constitution are the limits on the power of government and the authorization to form a military which protects from foreign powers.

By backing the ephedra ban, you give in to the school of though that corrodes protection from our government. If I want to take Stacker 2 and lose ten pounds before swimsuit season, its none of your business.

[epepke]

It seems that most people here would be perfectly happy living in the future world of Demolition Man.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Zero
I dunno...seems like your argument is that we should ban tobacco too.

no, the opposite. I'm intelligent enough (just barely) to realize that smoking is a foolish thing to do.

Originally posted by BTox
It is not "potentially dangerous when misused" it is dangerous when used as directed. Hence the ban.

then there would have been a lot more incidents. Primatene is an OTC drug which contains ephedrine. Millions of Americans use this drug every day to treat asthma, including thousands of children.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by corplinx
Yes, overdosing or misusing Ephedra is bad. So lets ban it. Finally, someone has banned this after killing 155 people who misused it! Thank goodness for government telling darwinism to take a backseat to overregulation!

Corp, this crap gave my wife, who was following the recommended uses, SERIOUS heart palpitations and could have killed her. While I agree that the banning is an infringement on the rights of people who want to take it, I take a great deal of offense to the "darwinsm" comment. The stuff is dangerous. Period. Misuse is not needed for it to become deadly.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


Corp, this crap gave my wife, who was following the recommended uses, SERIOUS heart palpitations and could have killed her. While I agree that the banning is an infringement on the rights of people who want to take it, I take a great deal of offense to the "darwinsm" comment. The stuff is dangerous. Period. Misuse is not needed for it to become deadly.

Yes, but you don't see people trying to get the peanut banned since a few people have bad reactions to them.

If your wife had a heart palpitation from using the product, then my guess is she quit taking it. If she had gone on taking it and developed heart fatigue and died, that would be darwinism.

[Some Friggin Guy]

As I said, I agree that the banning is overboard, however something did have to be done to educate the public. The fact is, my wife had the problems she had partly because when she was taking the stuff, it was new and her doctor couldn't even get information on it (I don't remember the name of the exact suppliment). In addition, the suppliment had ephedra in it as three seperate ingredients under three different names!

Now, I would have settled for some kind of warning label so people knew what they were getting into.

[corplinx]

Why educate the public about ephedra? Any ephedra based product I have ever seen had accurate labeling describing the consequences of taking it (because the makers don't want to get sued, duh).

We aren't exactly living in an Upton Sinclair story here. Information is more freely available than ever. If you want to know if ephedra is harmful, you can use something called google at your local library.

Why can't the government let consumers make up their own mind in a day and age when information is more available than ever?

The old excuse for this sort of regulation was that consumers make good faith purchases but don't have access to information. That excuse doesn't hold water any more but the government still reacts the same.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Normally, I would agree with you on this, Corp. I really would, but the situation involving my wife kind of threw a spin on the whole labelling issue I never had before.

Think of it this way: (And this is totally hypothetical)

Say you are allergic to peanuts. Now, you are very careful to avoid peanuts in in all foods, naturally. A new snack bar comes out and you look at the label. It doesn't have "peanuts" listed anywhere on the label. It has three items listed, however, that you aren't familiar with and can't find info on. Still, since it doesn't say peanuts, you eat it and the next thing you know, you're in the hospital. For six months, you don't know what happened, and since the doctors can't find any information on the items in the ingredients, they don't have any idea what caused your reaction. Turns out, the items listed were peanuts, peanut oil and peanut shells, but they were using Chinese names to make it sound more exotic.

This was the case with my wife. Google produced NOTHING on the listed ingredients for 6 months, at which point, they found out they were all names used for ephedra or ephedra derivations. The major difference between the example and what happened to my wife is that in the example, you knew of a reaction you would have to peanuts. It was a pre-existing condition. With my wife, the doctors thought she was starting to have heart arythmia or another actual medical condition, as opposed to a reaction to something she was taking. In essence, the manufacturers of the suppliment lied on their label (by misrepresenting and using foreign names for a substance) and the FDA couldn't touch them. The reason they couldn't touch them is while "ephedra" never appeared on the label, they also never claimed to be ephedra-free.

[gnome]

Another point of view:

The purpose of product safety laws is not so much to "nanny" the consumer, in my opinion. As corplinx has argued, perhaps you do have the civil right to be a dumb ass.

It is the seller that I feel deserves the attention--not only profiting off of the stupidity of others, but having the incentive to promote such stupidity to bolster their sales, and the resources to do so effectively.

Multiply this and you surely have a problem. Are we constitutionally bound to allow this? What solutions are available?

Personally I don't think it's overstepping our bounds to require reasonable safety standards of sellers. In today's market the average citizen does not have the time nor the resources to investigate the safety of products individually. Yes, private organizations would form that will assist consumers, since there would be a demand for that--but it would just shift the problem up one level. You wind up either regulating the private inspectors, or requiring the public to individually investigate the private inspectors to determine their reliability.

I am not one to say that the situation as it is could not change for the better. But I would argue against the idea of scrapping the entire concept.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Yeah. At last. How long before the first ephedra-related drive by shooting?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Blondin

Equally amazing (to me, anyway) is the fact that people are "stocking up" before the ban takes effect:
Federal Agency's Ban Spurs Ephedra Sales (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031231/ap_on_he_me/ephedra_sales_2)
Is this an indication in a lack of confidence in the FDA or an unhealthy fixation with body shape?

More amazing than that are the stores still selling it, knowing that it is dangerous. (do I smell a possible lawsuit?)

[Ashi]

They also need to ban Primatine Mist, Sudafed, Afrin, NyQuil, Novafed, Chlor-Trimeton, Comtrex, Afrinol and all of the other over the counter medications that contain any form of ephedrine.

:rolleyes:

[SRW]

Originally posted by Ashi
They also need to ban Primatine Mist, Sudafed, Afrin, NyQuil, Novafed, Chlor-Trimeton, Comtrex, Afrinol and all of the other over the counter medications that contain any form of ephedrine.

:rolleyes:

Now if they ban these how in the world will the makers of crystal get the ingredients to make meth?