Why is homeopathy legal?

[MrFun]

I mean, it's clearly making medical claims, and those medical claims are clearly false, right? It's not like with drugs, where illegal drug sales result in contaminated drugs hitting the street, addicts, overdoses, etc. The whole problem is that the product doesn't do anything, since it's indistinguishable from tap water. So . . . is there some big Quack Medicine Lobby at work here, like maybe they banded together with the crystals and auras people? Or are senators afraid of angering their kook constituents?

Did you know that snorting cinnamon up your nose will cure you of your head cold?

It's true, because a friend of a friend's grandmother's friend's daughter's friend said that it worked for her!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...eopathy-kills/

But homeopathy can still kill. Thomas Sam, a homeopath, and his wife, Manju Sam, are standing trial in an Australian court for manslaughter by gross criminal negligence. They allowed their 9 month old child to die from complications of severe eczema. According to reports, their daughter, Gloria, was healthy at birth. But at 4 months old she developed a skin rash, which became progressively worse. Sam decided to treat the eczema with homeopathic treatments – which means not to treat it at all. He sought advice from other homeopaths and naturopaths.

He also refused to follow the advice of the child’s pediatrician to take her to skin specialist to get more aggressive treatment. As a result Gloria’s eczema worsened. Her skin became thin and cracked, resulting in infections, and eventually septicemia and death. Standard medical treatments could have saved her right up until days before her death. This seems to be a case of ideology trumping common sense, evidence, and all reason.

You cannot outlaw stupidity and expect a positive outcome.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I don't see what complications would follow. WoD is bad because of organized crime, contaminated drugs, and addiction. I guess some shady quack could deliberately contaminate his tap water with arsenic or something, but I can't imagine why. Arsenic costs money, while tap water is essentially free. I also don't think there's anything in place to keep homeopathic water from being contaminated now.

Censorship is bad in principle, you should educate people in schools - that is what they are for, so that they can make up their mind whether they want to waste money on expensive water or guns/drugs/porn/alcohol/bloodletting/base jumping... as long as they are doing it to themselves - should be fair game.

[The Mad Monk]

They are also quite expensive, and take money away from the people who buy them, with no benefit whatsoever.

One born every minute.

We're banning console games next.

I'm all for dissuading people, I do it all the time, but banning leaves a bad taste.

[Colon™]

I don't see what complications would follow.

That's certainly the reasoning behind a lot of laws.

[Elok]

Bad taste or principles aside, what harm would attach to banning it? This is unambiguously fraudulent "medicine." It doesn't take a genius to see how it causes harm. Why is homeopathy specifically exempt from the general requirement that stuff purporting to be medicine actually work?

[Colon™]

I take it you've never heard of unintended consequences?

Laws are the "What could possibly go wrong when I press this button?" of real life.

[Ban Kenobi]

Every action has the possibility of consequences that you aren't aware of. Is there some reason why the consequences would tend to be bad? Maybe banning homeopathy would have good consequences that we simply don't know about.

[Elok]

Uh-huh. In the absence of any specific predicted negative consequence, how does that principle not prevent us from passing any new laws whatsoever, for fear of unspecified consequences?

XPost

[Ban Kenobi]

Also, does the "unintended consequences" rule mean we shouldn't repeal or modify existing laws either?

[Elok]

How about the butterfly effect? Is that also a concern here?

[Ban Kenobi]

THIS could happen if we ban homeopathy:

[Colon™]

Uh-huh. In the absence of any specific predicted negative consequence, how does that principle not prevent us from passing any new laws whatsoever, for fear of unspecified consequences?

XPost

Dstaste and "I don't see what could go wrong" don't suffice.

[Colon™]

Homeopathy has already enough of an anti-establishment appeal to it as it.

[onodera]

They are also quite expensive, and take money away from the people who buy them, with no benefit whatsoever.

One born every minute.

What about those parents that demand you write a prescription for antibiotics, something, anything to help their kid cope with a cold? Instead of trying to convince them that rest and hydration are all that's needed and run a risk of them buying and administering antibiotics themselves, why not recommend a homeopathic remedy?