The Ephedra Ban

As many of you know, the FDA has decided to ban Ephedra, citing numerous deaths and side effects to this "dangerous drug." Let's take a look at what I believe is the real reason ephedra was banned.

According to this article, sales of ephedra were over 1 billion dollars in 2002, and down to about half a billion in 2003. The decline is attributed to the bad press surrounding the death of Steve Bechler, the Baltimore Orioles baseball player.

The pharmaceutical companies see $1+ billion dollars a year in supplement sales that they feel should go into their pockets, instead. So, they're pushing for legislation that makes it very difficult - if not impossible - for supplement companies to market weight loss products that compete with the safe products pharmaceuticals make, like Fen-Phen.

This article sums it up well.

However, I'd like to talk a little bit more about the comparison they make with Ritalin. Ritalin's real name is methylphenidate. That sounds like a methamphetamine because it basically is. There's a huge problem with kids snorting Ritalin, or selling Ritalin because it gives a high very similar to cocaine. In fact, in studies, cocaine addicts have been unable to tell if they were given Ritalin or coke. Check this article for more info on that.

Ritalin is such a dangerous drug, in fact, that it's a class 2 controlled substance. Check out what the DOJ has to say about it:

"Yes, abusing Ritalin is illegal. Ritalin is a Schedule II substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule II drugs, which include cocaine and methamphetamine, have a high potential for abuse. Abuse of these drugs may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence."

In fact, Sweden banned Ritalin in 1968. Many other countries look unfavorably on Ritalin; 90% of its sales are in the United States.

In this country, it's ok for parents to give a controlled substance very similar to cocaine to their children, but it's not ok for an informed adult to purchase a naturally occuring substance to lose weight. The difference between the two drugs, apparently, is that the pharmaecutical companies have more money than the supplement companies.

It seems you can sell anything to the American public if you do it under the guise of SAFETY. I believe Benjamin Franklin said it best, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I guess the overweight can just look forward to another wonder drug from a major pharmaceutical. Maybe the new drug will erode your liver, chew up your heart valves, cause impotence, and lead to depression. Then, people who took that drug will need to spend more money on prozac, viagra, and anti-rejection drugs for their transplants. Wouldn't that make the pharmaceuticals happy?

Comments

[karrie]

This reminds me very much of what's happening to stevia, a naturally sweet-tasting herb that has no calories. It's used a sweetener in Japan, where Nutrasweet and other chemical sweeteners are banned. Both the powder and liquid extract have also been used in South America for centuries, with no side effects. In fact, it's actually very good for you. But the FDA won't approve it for use as a food. Why? Because Nutrasweet would lose profits. At least I can buy it as a "supplement" for now, and enjoy the sweet flavor on my oatmeal.

[Justinian Lane]

And wasn't it saccharine that was shown to cause cancer in lab rats? I always find it ironic that we'll allow big pharmaceuticals to sell man-made drugs, but we'll ban naturally occuring substances. I'll look into stevia, both from the corpreform side, and from the I'll have to try it side.