Featured An Example of Government Overreach

I'd agree, up to a point, except for the fact that Oz is among the most underhanded, dirtiest of huckster types, winning trust through his personality, and then using it to hype products that have absolutely no known value for what they claim to be able to do. There is no scientific research on the effectiveness of these "weight loss" products Oz shamelessly endorses, knowing full well the claims can't be supported with facts.

I agree, the government is far too involved in limiting access to effective medications, but these aren't effective, and they aren't medications.

Back in the days of the Old West, what Oz does was known as a "traveling medicine show," with the "Doc" loading up pure whiskey in a "medicine bottle" and selling it to all the frontier wives and spinsters for whatever ailed them. Now they don't have to buy horses, wagons, or whiskey. They can put some powder in a gelatin capsule and call it whatever they want and make a fortune.

 

In your opinion is there any situation concerning business where the government has the right to step in and alter or stop a particular practice?

 

Even in cases of deceptive advertising? :tonofbricks:

 

Just consider how many would advertise if this concept were enforced.

Consider that "deceptive" would include what the product CAN'T do, that is implied, as well as what the claims are that it CAN/WILL do.

IMHO, the above would eliminate virtually every ad on TV, if not actually kill advertising as a profession.

 

So deceived and defrauded consumers are preferable?

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising

 

Profits before people and honesty.

 

I agree, Rolf. Some things are criminal in nature, and that's one job of a limited government. Instead of calling him before Congress, he should have been interrogated by the FBI.

 

Is this going to keep the gullible safe??
Perhaps a few forays into "Doc Jones Snake Oil Cure-all" and/or "This is Too Good Too Be True" purchases, and they will learn to be a bit more discerning; and if not what do you do now????

If this is going to be implemented at all, it needs to be on a state level, NOT federal!!!

The camel has not only gotten his nose in the tent, but his whole body except for the back legs, and he is desperately trying to complete the entrance --- he doesn't need any more encouragement!:BangHead:

 

No. The gullible are just that, gullible. Tell them not to stick a table knife in an electrical receptacle, and they'll see if you really mean it.

National companies require national regulation. Too many chances for variances across state lines for local enforcement to be consistent.

It's part of the free and fair trade responsibility of a limited government. It fits, and should be used.

 

National companies can abide by the laws in the states they do business in. We do not need centralized federal oversight. And the feds have not shown themselves to be fair arbiters of our rights, I don't see how anyone could want them involved.

 

Then I guess I only qualify as an "independent thinker."

If you value regulation and oversight of my profession, of doctors, of lawyers, etc., by government agencies, then it is disingenuous not to value it for advertisers and "health supplement" manufacturers.

 

It's pretty obvious FDA isn't doing its job letting all these "health supplements" companies say anything they want without proof about their probably-useless if not outright harmful products.

Remember Dexa-Trim? Speed in a bottle, because as a "supplement" it couldn't be regulated.

 

When any government agency fails to perform its appointed duties, Congress has a responsibility to find out why. That's what McCaskill did in calling Oz before her committee. I don't like McCaskill, but in this case she was right.