Lose Weight Now, Ask the Government How

New at Reason: Jacob Sullum digests FDA chief Mark McClellan's Susan Powter-style critique of ephedra's dietary usefulness.

Comments

[s.m. koppelman]

To repeat my lonely comment on the thread promoting his appearance on Wisconsin Public Radio...

If Mr. Sullum is so firm in his position against prohibitions on drugs and supplements, why does he expend so much energy arguing that everything from ephedra and hamburgers to cocaine and heroin is harmless? Why doesn't he just say he's against prohibition, the dangers of any substance be damned?

Given the exceptions made for over-the-counter pseudophedrine and for raw maa huang sold by Chinese-medicine practicioners, I agree this particular ban is silly, but why not leave it at that? Why bother cherry-picking "research" done on behalf of the ephedra industry to "prove" there's no causal link between ephedra and the deaths attributed to it? Why the red herrings of deaths from tightly regulated prescription drugs that he himself complains shouldn't be controlled? Why the redder herring of comparing it to acetamenophen, which is taken not by a few million Americans regularly but hundreds of millions?

Why make the specious argument that since ephedra has been used for thousands of years by the Chinese, it's obviously safe? The ancient Greeks drank urine for medicinal purposes. Westerners used leeches to "suck out" disease until not long ago. Kava kava was considered safe because Polynesians used it for centuries "safely". Once modern doctors got a good look at it when it becamne popular here a few years back, they discovered that the yellow color it gave its users' eyes and skin resembled the look of severe liver damage because -- whoops! -- it was causing severe liver damage.

But no matter. If you're arguing that there should be no regulation, period, then just stop there. Quoting press releases and bad science to make the case everything is harmless should be unnecessary if you have the courage of your convictions.

Or is Mr. Sullum just another amiable pothead who's painted himself into a corner with Vulcan Logic that he doesn't really believe?

[Les]

Has Mr. Sullum actually said that "there should be no regulation, period" in regards to over the counter and/or illicit drugs?

[Citizen]

sm, another possiblity is that there is more than one reason why he is protesting this ban. If you want to convince someone that X is true, you're argument had better by more substantial than simply reiterating "X is true." I, like Jacob, don't really care why anyone agrees with me, just that they do.

Why the red herrings of deaths from tightly regulated prescription drugs that he himself complains shouldn't be controlled?

To show that it is the FDA that is doing the cherry-picking. They're caving to unwarranted public pressure. If people were really concerned about "saving lives" then, they'd battle drug abuse/misuse, not the drug itself. The point is that when used in improper ways, anything can be unsafe, including those tightly-regulated "safe" dugs. Obviously Jacob isn't actually advocating a ban on asprine - I think it's called reductio ad absurdum.

[MP]

s.m. -

If your disgreement with someone is based on fundamental philisophical differences, then you can debate until the end of time without ever coming to agreement. If Jacob was to just attack this foolish FDA ruling by saying "regulation is bad", an FDA supporter would just say "regulation is good" and he'd be at an impass. An argument against a particular position will carry much more weight when you directly attack that position, rather than simply saying that one's fundamentals are wrong and thus everything derived from one's fundamentals is also wrong.

It serves no purpose to constantly get into a debate that, in the case of regulation and the FDA, calls into question the whole existence of the FDA. Instead, more people will pay attention and be persuaded if you can undercut the particular issue at hand.

The FDA ban on Ephedra is ludicrous. You may not like all of the points that Jacob raises, but most are very sound. It seems clear based on my own reading on the topic that this substance is very safe when not used to excess by people without certain pre-existing conditions. The numbers and the research bare this out.

The supplement industry is under constant attack by the government, for reasons I still fail to understand. I predict we are only a few years away from seeing pro-hormones come under regulation as a controlled substance, without any sound reasoning whatsoever. It seems that simply because they behave like steriods, they should be treated as such. (Which, BTW, I continue to fail to understand why steriods are classified as controlled substances.)

I think it is far more substantive for Jacob to say that such and such regulation is worthless for these specific reasons, then to just continually rail on the (fairly worthless) FDA.

[rst]

who's painted himself into a corner

Who's painted themselves into a corner? The fatality rate vs. usage is far too small to justify a ban. The belief that ephedra at its proscribed dosage is any worse for you than larger-than-average amounts of caffeine has no scientific basis. It's speed. It is a quality drug for weight loss, and it is being banned because of the stupidity of professional athletes and wannabe anorexics who can't read labels.

I like this new direction public health is going. Regular people dying breeds statistics. Limited purpose public figures dying breeds regulation.

[SteveInClearwater]

When someone says, "This is dangerous", I ask, "Compared to what?"

I did not read anything by Jacob that suggests Ephedra is 'harmless'. Rather he asks, "Comparitively, how harmful is it?"

Estimated 3 billion doses per year and a possible 150 related deaths in a decade?

That's 'harmless' compared to a long, long list of other substances and activities. But it's not 'without harm'.

Before we take someone and put them into a cage for choosing to market this product to a large and willing adult populace, we need a bigger level of harm, for sure.

That being said, no matter how harmful we can define a product, if there's a strong demand for it, then criminal prohibition laws against its sale and/or use will only exacerbate the potential harms associated with it.

[s.m. koppelman]

I wouldn't have a problem with Mr. Sullum's multiple arguments against the ephedra ban if they jibed with his own policy recommendations. Mr. Sullum regularly makes the case that *no* ingestible or injectable substances should be illegal or have their sale regulated, cocaine and heroin included, and that any harm that comes from them is due to choices made freely by consumers who should know their limits.

Which is fine and dandy. So why bother arguing that the stuff is safe?

I guess a consumer could go out and buy a big bag of maa huang leaves and brew up a gallon jug of ephedra tea or cook it down into ephedra bonbons or do the same with a big bottle of decongestant, but what I think the FDA was trying to address here -- lamely, perhaps -- was the sale of the stuff in inadvisably high-dosage form. Though you can buy all the Tylenol and NoDoz you want over the counter, you generally have to take a whole lot more than the recommended 2 tablets 4 times daily to wreck your kidneys or give yourself a stroke respectively. No pharma company has the cojones to try to sell 5-gram jumbo acetamenophen jawbreakers or caffeine gobstoppers, but the "dietary ephedra" makers were out there selling the ephedra equivalent.

Is ephedra "harmless" with no causal link established, as Sullum argues one minute, or were the recent spate of high-profile athletes' deaths attributed to it due to "foolish" consumers who didn't pay heed to known risks?

Pick a stance and stick to it, kids.

[SteveInClearwater]

SMK: Is ephedra "harmless" with no causal link established, as Sullum argues one minute, or were the recent spate of high-profile athletes' deaths attributed to it due to "foolish" consumers who didn't pay heed to known risks?

SinC: Both. Harmless relative to a long list of other ingestable substances commonly used, and yes, the "spate" (there were just three I know of) of high profile athletes were likely being foolish in using higher levels while also engaging in very strenuous workouts while at the same time being insufficiently hydrated.

Hardly a sufficient reason to make any and all use and distribution a criminal offense.

Oh, can you provide a cite (or two) of Jacob calling for 'no regulation' whatsoever of any drug or substance?

[Scott Maxwell]

First you point out that, even if one accepts the FDA's mission and powers as maximizing the wellness of the people by regulating what they ingest, the FDA's actions are disproportionate to any demonstrable hazard and may even be counter to their supposed goals in that weight loss and improved exercise for millions of people may have vastly greater benefits than a tiny number of adverse reactions. You point out that intense exercise, widely used and accepted fo better health, has killed far more people by raising their blood pressure and heart rates than ephedra. And you note that appropriately targeted regulation of recommended dosages and warning labels would alleviate most of the risks while still allowing people to choose individually.

Once you've demonstrated that the FDA is capable of such ham-handed obtuse overregulation, *then* you ask what it is about the FDA that leads it to act against the interests of the people, and how it could be changed to improve its performance. And whether a complete restructuring and downsizing of its authority might be in the public interest.

So addressing "is this authority being used wisely?" is a step to getting people to think about "is this authority even necessary, or would less power do more good?"

[s.m. koppelman]

Citations.. citations.. You're not going to make me buy the guy's books, are you? I'm not sure this will do, but it'll have to tide you over. I'm not bothering with marijuana-legalization stuff since there's no surprise there:

Mr. Sullum arguing the safety of PCP and along with it, an end to prohibition of it as well as crack cocaine:

http://www.reason.com/sullum/010303.shtml

Our man Jake pointing out the problems created by prohibition and regulation again, this time in re: the devil nicotine:

http://reason.com/sullum/070502.shtml

On fatty foods, with bonus points for arguing that people who don't want to consume hydrogenated fats could simply read labels. Cool. Mr. Sullum's for mandatory labeling:

http://reason.com/sullum/060702.shtml

...and yet another call for an unconditional end to the war on drugs, mentioning pot, LSD and crack cocaine, and in the context of the "drugs fund terror" ads being criticized, heroin too.

http://reason.com/sullum/020802.shtml

Can anyone cite a case where Mr. Sullum argues in favor of the regulation of any ingestible or injectable substance aside from his usual sleight-of-hand in which he argues substance X shouldn't be regulated because, gosh, substance Y is much more dangerous and isn't regulated and then in another column or article argues that substance Y shouldn't be regulated?

Don't get me wrong. I generally agree with his arguments for the end of the drug war. It's just sort of lame to pad those arguments with sops to other policies that he normally rails against.

[josh]

smk: "Pick a stance and stick to it, kids."

Well, pop, maybe we ARE sticking to one stance and you're not getting it. Sullums' (and my) point is that the FDA is willing to lie in order to scare people into supporting regulation. The FDA is flat out wrong from a variety of angles.

If we "pick a stance," as you say, then wouldn't we be implicitly agreeing with the other unmentioned lie? Just sticking with drugs aren't so bad or regulation is bad doesn't tell the whole story. The story is that no lie is too big for the nanny looking to obtain more power. You can't seperate the two.

"Or is Mr. Sullum just another amiable pothead who's painted himself into a corner with Vulcan Logic that he doesn't really believe?"

Ah, here we get to the real meat of your issue with Sullum. My guess is you're against regulation, but you hate people who consume products you dissaprove of. You (I'm still guessing, here) get off from being on a moral high-horse because the drugs you take are legal.

That's how you're coming off, anyway. I hope I'm wrong.

Josh, another amiable, logic-loving pothead

[SteveInClearwater]

Thanks for the cites. I don't think they fully define Sullum as being 'against all regulation whatsoever', but I appreciate your taking the time to point me there. I understand his position better now and he may well preefer less regulation than I or you would.

That being said, the regulation should be limited to proper labeling and source information about a product or service. After that, it's on the consumer to be responsible for what they put into their own body.

That would include not being able to use irresponsible drug use as a legitimate defense against subsequent criminal actions. It would also mean not being able to file civil suit against a manufacturer provided the proper labeling was present.

[JSM the Ephedra User now Outla]

What McClellan should have said:

"We still don't know just how harmful ephedra poses to the user, if any, but we have had enough special interest pressure to proceed with banning the herb for your own good."

Either way, its all bullshit, but honest bullshit is still better!

[J Mann]

Good article, but Sullum shouldn't have used the DAWN data to provide comparative death rates for other drugs.

After skimming the DAWN report for 1999, (link below), it looks like the numbers DAWN is reporting are the number of times Valium, et. al. were "mentioned" on a death report where the death was caused in part by the use of an illegal drug or the improper use of a legal drug. So if you OD on heroin but are also taking Benadryl, that's a "mention" for Benadryl.

What Sullum needs are actual death rates linked to the *proper* (on-label) use of Valium, Benadryl, etc.

[J Mann]

Whoops, here's the DAWN link.

http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/99me_annual.pdf

[Will Spencer]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." -- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

Most everything in life is dangerous.

Protecting us from this reality is not the job of government.

Protecting people I don't know from themselves is not the way I want my tax dollars spent.

[Murray Ralph]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 82.146.43.155
URL: http://www.debt-consolidation-low-rates.biz
DATE: 02/28/2004 01:34:09
Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God.