How then do you feel about laws against fraud? Where does "salesmanship" cross the line, and do you want courts to be in the business of determining this on an everyday basis?

That's a good question, and similar to one I raised some months back on my blog in the context of laws against fortune tellers. A lot of those quacks REALLY believe they have this "gift," and any number of folks purchasing their services believe it as well, just like some think when they swallow a chunk of bread the priest said some words over, they are consuming the body and blood of a god. (So is pew rent a fraud? Is it ok if donations are only "strongly" encouraged? How about Scientologists -- they believe that Hubbardesque garbage and pay tons of money to have their engrams removed and the influence of those nasty Thetans ended.)

I think laetrile sellers should be required to advertise that the AMA, FDA & etc., see no validity to their claims. But after that, it is up to the individual.

If a company here in town claimed their snake oil cured Cancer but in fact there was no proof of this claim, they would be guilty of false advertising and could be charged. They could claim that they "think" it does and leave it up to me.

I pretty much agree with that -- I'd make the FDA more into a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, in most instances, and people who can't get that approval should have to prominently disclose the fact. But there just are scads of citizens who really think doctors are all idiots and that there are plots here and there to keep the "real" cures out of their hands & etc.

In my youth (21), I went to a "homeopath" for my incredibly painful gall bladder attacks, in a desperate attempt to avoid going under the knife. Notwithstanding that magnificent assistance, within six months I had an attack from hell and was at the hospital being shot up with lots of lovely Demerol and begging them to cut me open. But I think it was and should have been my choice to see the idiot homeopath who, near as I could tell, really believed his crap and charged next to nothing; it was, for him, more like a religious crusade.

Then you agree with the problem, but not on the mechanisms of a 'solution'.

Sure fraud should not be allowed when, say, selling a used car be setting the odometer back. But that is a purely empirical matter not involving some of the zany, political/religious/anti-science stuff folks choose to believe.

How about putting up "speed limit" recommendations (you know, like those little yellow signs that everyone ignores)? (yes, I know that speed limit violations potentially hurt others, but seeing as we're talking means of enforcement of what the gummint thinks is 'good behaviour'....)

You gave my answer in the part I bolded.

Do you think that "truth-in-advertising" really works? Are there efficiency problems (as I've hinted)?

Who would have the means and the duty to go tracking down false claims? Who would have the duty to enforce the provisions? (FWIW, I'd note that your suggestion is the one adopted for cigarettes and alcohol ... think it works?)

It depends, I suppose, on your metrics for "really works." And if by "working" you mean warnings on cigarettes and alcohol containers have caused nearly all to stop buying these products, then obviously they do not "work." But I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of people know that consuming a fifth of gin a day while smoking three packs of cigarettes is a ticket to a quick grave. But that should be their choice.

There exists a certain segment of society -- and it cuts across political lines -- that really and irrationally thinks conventional medicine is a rip-off and scam. If they want to go to homeopaths and take laetrile, as long as those sources have to prominently display that they are not approved by the AMA/FDA, let them -- for some, that only makes such choices MORE attractive. I think they are crazy, but it's their body.

I hope you have further info on proving this assertion. Otherwise I think you are talking out of your ass to try and prove your Libertarian-based opinions.

Really, you can't just toss out a statement like this and not expect to be asked to back it up, can you?

Just to be clear, I do NOT agree with bucky1 on that at all. If I am seriously ill, I'm trotting my butt to an MD. Yes, I may look for a second and even third opinion, and do my own googling, but me, I want medical doctors and a hospital.

And his paean to midwives is nice, but fact is, women stopped dying from childbirth at astronomical rates because of medical science. Further, nothing beats a para-cervical block for controlling the pain of contractions, at least not when I was birthin' babies.