For an introduction, readers should at least scan the following two webpages:
(Doonesbury caraciture) http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com...hive/2014/9/14
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/0...event-smoking/
How can the FDA possibly know what the benefits of smoking are compared to its cost? Could not the costs of regulating smoking possibly be 120% (or any number greater than 100%)? I would expect that the FDA if challenged to prove their discount (i.e., 70% of the cost of smoking) could not show that their assessment is not much better than guessing.
Actually, a point is that the cost of having something like the FDA may outweigh its benefits. We can't possibly know that absent the free market, in which case there would be no FDA anyway.
(Doonesbury caraciture) http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com...hive/2014/9/14
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/0...event-smoking/
How can the FDA possibly know what the benefits of smoking are compared to its cost? Could not the costs of regulating smoking possibly be 120% (or any number greater than 100%)? I would expect that the FDA if challenged to prove their discount (i.e., 70% of the cost of smoking) could not show that their assessment is not much better than guessing.
To prevent misunderstanding on where I stand on smoking, let me explain: I do believe that babies die because people smoke. Fires! Explosions! Many months ago Texas had a great explosion. Perhaps you remember that one. Maybe someone smoked in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't know, but it can have happened that way. I also don't know how many babies got killed, but at least one could have died there. So, I am indeed opposed to smoking. How many babies could have lived longer in the future if we had smoked much less?
Actually, a point is that the cost of having something like the FDA may outweigh its benefits. We can't possibly know that absent the free market, in which case there would be no FDA anyway.
Comment