[ExI] POL: DHEA ban

[Technotranscendence]

On Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:29 PM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote:
> On 5/5/07, Technotranscendence wrote:
> <snip>
>> As a general question to you:  Do you see any scope for free choice
at
>> all in life?  Or does it all come down to whatever the politicians
tell
>> you is okay?
>
> The general principle I follow is that society should
> help the weaker members of society.

And the way to do this is by letting politicians have more power over
the choice of all society's members?

This leaves aside how one decides who are the weaker members of society
and how they may be helped.  There are serious difficulties that many
overlook in deciding these two things.

> The ramifications of that, of course, leads to much
> complication. And I don't want to discuss all the
> differing political systems which might try to achieve
> this objective. :)

But I would hope you would admit that some political systems are better
at achieving this objective than others.  Of course, you probably
believe that ever more regulation -- ever more dimunition of the free
choice of all society's members (save those who have power over the
rest: the political class) -- somehow achieves this result.

> In the specific case of buying drugs OTC, many
> people do not have the knowledge, experience,
> ability, time or inclination to investigate every
> product that might be offered.

Nor do politicians or other regulators (or doctors, for that matter).
What would happen in a free society is people, in general, would either
educate themselves or rely on other means of getting the information (or
information substitutes*) to make the right decisions.  Yes, this would
not be perfect, but banning ever more substances or putting them under a
perscription only regime is not perfect either.  In fact, the latter
only means that the "weaker members of society" might not be able to
afford the formerly OTC substances.

It also means some people who might be well informed and able to make
decisions, but who lack money or fear reprisals (fines, jail time, etc.)
will not be able to obtain formerly OTC substances -- even if they know
and are willing to shoulder the risks.  Finally, since the price of
these formerly OTC substances will rise -- both their label price or the
overall cost of getting them (e.g., if I want DHEA and they ban it, I'll
probably have to use more costly means to obtain it, such as the gray or
black markets) -- this means everyone in society will have LESS wealth
to devote to other things.  If, e.g., I have less money to use for
non-DHEA purposes, other things being equal, I won't buy other things,
donate as much money to charity, or leave as big a tip when I go out to
eat.  This will likely directly harm the "weaker members of society."

> Even with the present regulatory system, the drug
> fraud industry is still huge.

Yes, it is.  Some of it seems to have, too, in the most heavily
regulated drug makers.  How many people did Vioxx kill?

> Billions of dollars are involved. For many endeavours,
> including drug testing, it is more efficient to have it
> done by a central organization.

Actually, no.  The actual record of the centralized control regime seems
to that overall choice is decreased and insiders in the industry are
able to keep competitors out.  How so on the latter?  The costs of
bringing a drug to market -- in both terms of dollars and in terms of
time -- have increased so that only big players -- not the weaker
members of society -- have a good shot at making newer or better drugs.
This decreases the innovativeness of the industry as a whole -- with all
its attendant results on consumer choice, including the choice of the
weaker members of society.  (This is why drugs to treat or cure rare
conditions -- including rare conditions that the weaker members of
society suffer -- don't get much if any attention.  The cost to bring
them to market kind of imposes an entry tax that makes them unprofitable
to develop and study in the first place.)

And, if that worked, why didn't socialism in general work?  Why don't,
e.g., scientists adopt the same system in regards to science experiments
in all fields?  Why not have a FDA-like organization to certify findings
in genomics, physics, mathematics, economics, geology, etc.?  Why not
the same in computers or software?

> I don't agree with the view sometimes proposed in the
> more extreme libertarian circles that the weaker
> members of society deserve to get ripped off by the
> sharper crooks and con-men. (i.e. The attitude that
> it's their own fault if they are not as clever as me).

I consider myself an extreme libertarian, but I don't think it's an
issue of desert here.  The problem is how do you either get people to
become smarter so that they make better choices or, at least, have a
means of dealing with their lack of smartness.  The best way seems to be
to have a free society -- meaning one with no regulation at all.  Yes,
some crooks and con-men will still prey on others.  They can be
legislated away; such types will always find a way to survive in any
system.  However, one can minimize the damage they do.

> Everybody is weak in some areas and relies on
> legislation to protect them in some of their dealings.

Actually, that "[e]verybody is weak in some areas" is a good argument
NOT to use "legislation to protect them in some of their dealings."  Are
not politicians and regulators weak?  Might they either not know
something (the ignorance problem) or have an agenda that clashes with
their supposed role (the incentive problem)?  If you believe that making
laws or enforcing them somehow makes people more knowledgeable or more
moral, then you are ripe for being taken in by the most harmful crooks
and con-men around: the political class.

> It is certainly frustrating if a general law for the
> protection of the clueless forbids you doing
> something that you are very confident that you can
> do perfectly safely. (Over-confidence is a very human
> failing, of course. :) ). But if you are that sharp, you
> can probably find a way round the law without too
> much trouble.  ;)

Don't you see how this undermines your position?  First off, you're
overconfident that legislation can solve these problems -- especially
that legislators will not be corrupt, unconcerned, or even stupid.  (It
always amazes me how people are so afraid of either having freedom or
others having freedom -- and, yes, freedom means the freedom to make
mistakes as well as to succeed -- that they turn it over to people who
are no better than them and who might be much worse.)

Second, there is no "perfect safety."  That, however, is not a reason to
disallow free choice in this area, but a reason to allow it.  After all,
a regulator cannot guarantee perfect safety either, but once you have a
regulator in place, then correcting mistakes becomes much harder and
regulators are unlikely -- as common sense and history show -- to be any
less human, especially in terms of failings like overconfidence, than
anyone else.  (In fact, they're probably more likely to accentuate
overconfidence because some of them believe they have some moral
sanction (i.e., have moral overconfidence) or because they believe
they're smarter than the people they regulate (i.e., intellectual
overconfidence).  I'm ignoring the fact that they might not even care
about the consumer or the weaker members of society.  In that case, even
if they're not overconfident, they can do a lot of damage.  Why give
them power?)

Third, regarding being "sharp" I've answered that above.  One, if you
really care about the weaker members of society, then you've basically
consigned them to a system they won't be sharp enough to navigate
around.  So why make it harder for them?

Two, effort or wealth expended on being sharp -- to navigate around the
system -- is effort or wealth that can't be used for other things.  If
you have to spend more time, money, and effort getting DHEA, that means
less for other enjoyments -- including the enjoyment of helping others.
(On this last point, imagine someone who is middle class and has made an
informed decision to use DHEA.  Let's say it now costs him $200 per year
to use it -- just because he buys it OTC.  He also donates $1000 a year
to the local food bank.  Let's say the ban goes into effect and now DHEA
requires a perscription.  This means he needs a doctor's visit and the
price rises.  Let's say the former costs $150 and the latter drives the
price of his yearly supply up to $700.  Let's say all his income, other
costs, and other spending remain the same.  Now, you put this charitable
guy into a position where he has to choose between given up to $650 less
to charity or getting less (maybe no) DHEA.  Don't you see how they
might harm the weaker members of society?)

Three, this will also open up more avenues for the crook and the
con-men.  There will be more fake claims made by black or gray market
crooks and con-men, especially when the prices are driven up.  The price
rise, after all, will be an incentive for them to more vigorously pursue
illicit if not immoral profits in this area.  (Note: making pot and
similar drugs illegal has done little to keep people out of that market.
The price has merely risen to where it becomes profitable to lie, cheat,
steal, beat up, and kill over illegal drugs.  The same happened with
alcohol during Prohibition.  Certainly, you don't see many people
selling illegal booze today -- much less have gang wars over it.)

Regards,

Dan

*  An information substitute is something that allows for a person to
make a decision without actually knowing the substitute.  For instance,
someone might get a recommendation from a friend or associate who knows
more about the subject.  In this case, the person does not really reduce
her ignorance about the subject -- i.e., she doesn't suddently acquire
knowledge or expertise -- but relies on her confidence about this
knowledge surrogate's knowledge, expertise, or wisdom.  People do this
all the time when they rely on experts, word of mouth, or test done by
organizations like UL and Consumer Reports.  (To pre-empt one criticism:
such information substitutes are not perfect and can fail.  However, as
long as people can freely choose among substitutes, the better
substitutes will have a wider audience.  E.g., an "expert" who makes
more mistakes than average will lose out on people who will listen
him -- all other things being equal.)