Time for FAA Psychiatric Illness Reform

[flyingron]

What do you think will happen to Chrisman if he stops cooperating with this process in any way and does not respond to subpoenas, fines, notices of forfeiture etc? Just completely peacefully does not cooperate with it in any way.

He'll be arrested. He's out on bail now. This isn't some FAA enforcement action, he's being charged with two felonies here. Jail time is possible.

Is there any chance that would not happen? The FAA and the federal prosecutors are just going to leave him alone?

The FAA is not a party to this. A crime is the federal prosecutor representing the people of the United States who are harmed by criminal activity.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It seems to me that you think threatening someone with a fine or jail time, is a threat of violence. I don't understand that rational. Telling the consequences or their actions for a criminal or civil act (i.e. fine or jail time) is not a threat of violence.

Ok, let’s take it one step at a time. What will likely happen to Chrisman if he simply does nothing as a next step? He completely peacefully does nothing?

I assume he will be found guilty of violating this statute and then sentenced to either a fine or prison time , is that correct?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

One point that needs to be made is that enforcement is not necessarily violent. Equating the two is an exaggeration. If the violator uses violence or the threat of violence to RESIST the enforcement, then violence on the part of the enforcers becomes much more likely.

Plenty of people have violence, like doors being broken down and auto weapons pointed at them, having committed no violent act whatsoever. It is not an exaggeration that this happens with reasonable frequency. I should add on most cases is considered to be legal behavior on the part of the LEOs.

 

[mryan75]

Well, the FAA says that if you don’t answer the questions on their medical application truthfully you will be guilty of a felony with a possible prison sentence of a number of years or they will forcibly take a large amount of your property. Sounds like a threat of violence if you don’t do what they say - doesn’t it?

No.

 

[mryan75]

I agree that enforcement of all laws and regulations involves violence or threat thereof.

Absolute nonsense. What a ridiculous statement.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

No.

Well let’s back up one step. If LEOs come and break the door down to someone’s house, point an automatic weapon at them, physically pick them up, put them in handcuffs, and take them and lock them in a cage, is that a use of violence?

 

[mryan75]

Well let’s back up one step. If LEOs come and break the door down to someone’s house, point an automatic weapon at them, physically pick them up, put them in handcuffs, and take them and lock them in a cage, is that a use of violence?

Let's back up another step. That's not going to happen if you don't answer a question on an FAA form. Give me a break. To say that someone is going to break into your house with guns drawn because you lied on an FAA form (which was your decision, by the way) is patently absurd.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The FAA is not a party to this. A crime is the federal prosecutor representing the people of the United States who are harmed by criminal activity.

Correct, I believe the case is US vs the defendant and it is pursued by the Federal prosecutors. The case does arise however, from an operation to which the FAA was a party and Chrisman was filling out an FAA form at the time of the alleged crime. Filling out the form is required by an FAA regulation.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Let's back up another step. That's not going to happen if you don't answer a question on an FAA form. Give me a break. To say that someone is going to break into your house with guns drawn because you lied on an FAA form (which was your decision, by the way) is patently absurd.

Making an assertion and not responding to the question, which arises over the question of what constitutes an act of violence or threat thereof.

If that happens, would you agree that would be an act of violence?

Once we can agree on what is a violent act, then it might make sense to discuss when a threat of same has occurred. If we don’t agree on what is an act of violence, then it really doesn’t make sense to discuss a threat of same, because we don’t agree on the term.

I think your response could mean that yes, that would be an act of violence.

So now in Chrisman’s case, he allegedly lied on the form. What do you think will be the next thing that happens to him if he peacefully does nothing at all?

 

[Palmpilot]

Plenty of people have violence, like doors being broken down and auto weapons pointed at them, having committed no violent act whatsoever. It is not an exaggeration that this happens with reasonable frequency. I should add on most cases is considered to be legal behavior on the part of the LEOs.

Sure, violence sometimes occurs, but it's not an inevitable element of law enforcement. If the violator does not resist arrest, enforcement can be a nonviolent process.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

He'll be arrested. He's out on bail now.

What do you think will happen to him if he peacefully does nothing in the future about this? Fails to appear in court?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Sure, violence sometimes occurs, but it's not an inevitable element of law enforcement. If the violator does not resist arrest, enforcement can be a nonviolent process.

So what if in the Chrisman case for example he does nothing henceforward. What will happen to him next? Will they come with guns to try and arrest him?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Actually I know some of the examples you cite here fairly well. The fact that some bad things happened doesn’t imply the regulations have improved safety overall. One has to study this and the correlations more carefully than that to tease out the causative factors. If you have some actual studies happy to look at them.

Those bad things don't happen now. Medicines are required to meet some sort of efficacy standard, and the prevalence of side effects understood. We can't get to the level of no side effects,at least not yet, as we don't have a perfect understanding of genetics, epigenetics. But on the whole, dangerous and/or useless medicines don't get into the marketplace anymore. We need the regulations since, as the opioid crisis shows, people in large pharma companies are willing to find ways around the regulations to maximize profits. I won't claim it's a perfect system, but it has certainly "actually succeed(ed)* in helping reduce clear and present dangers to others". Or would you like to go back to the days of soda pop being prescribed and used for medicine? Do you want to go back to the days of formaldehyde being used as a food preservative? You seem to be ignoring the root cause's of these regulations.

*(ed) added to quote for the sake of grammar.

 

[flyingron]

I'm not sure what you're asking. If he doesn't show, bail will be revoked, a warrant will be issued for his arrest, he'll sit in jail until his trial and they'll drag him over to court to stand trial.
What do you think happens when you're charged with a crime?

If he's found guilty at trial, he could face up to ten years in federal prison or a substantial fine. While there may be a deal with the prosecutor, plea deals are not binding on the judge in federal courts, so it's risky.

All this is distinct from what the FAA will do to him (or has already done), namely revoke all his certificates in an administrative action.

 

[mryan75]

Making an assertion and not responding to the question, which arises over the question of what constitutes an act of violence or threat thereof.

If that happens, would you agree that would be an act of violence?

Once we can agree on what is a violent act, then it might make sense to discuss when a threat of same has occurred. If we don’t agree on what is an act of violence, then it really doesn’t make sense to discuss a threat of same, because we don’t agree on the term.

I think your response could mean that yes, that would be an act of violence.

So now in Chrisman’s case, he allegedly lied on the form. What do you think will be the next thing that happens to him if he peacefully does nothing at all?

If he ignores the law there are possible consequences. Which is why it's a good idea not to ignore the law. Your characterization of the situation is beyond ridiculous. I-stayed-in-a-Holliday-Inn-Express-last-night legal arguments are pretty funny sometimes. If you knowingly and willfully break the law, ignore the charges, are cited by a judge for ignoring those charges, then ignore that, etc. etc,, you're eventually going to regret it. And rightfully so.

Armchair libertarians are hilarious.

 

[Palmpilot]

What do you think will happen to him if he peacefully does nothing in the future about this? Fails to appear in court?

In most cases, they will peacefully arrest him.

 

[Palmpilot]

So what if in the Chrisman case for example he does nothing henceforward. What will happen to him next? Will they come with guns to try and arrest him?

In most cases, they will succeed in arresting him without violence. If he violently resists arrest, that's on him.

 

[SToL]

Well let’s back up one step. If LEOs come and break the door down to someone’s house, point an automatic weapon at them, physically pick them up, put them in handcuffs, and take them and lock them in a cage, is that a use of violence?

Breaking the door down and pointing a weapon is definitely a clear signal of ones willingness to escalate to the use violence.

Physically picking someone up, placing them in handcuff and locking them up in a cage is not a use of violence.

You can see numerous videos on youtube where arrest have gone both ways. Some people fight, kick, spit, use weapons, run and get thrown down on the ground, arms twisted behind their backs and handcuffed, while others stand peacefully and get handcuffed.

One includes the use of violence, one does not.

 

[Palmpilot]

Enforcement of unjust laws can lead to the use of force and sometimes violence.

Enforcement of just laws can lead to the use of force and sometimes violence.

It looks to me like the threat of force or violence is irrelevant. The real issue is whether the law is just or unjust.

 

[SToL]

Ok, let’s take it one step at a time. What will likely happen to Chrisman if he simply does nothing as a next step? He completely peacefully does nothing?

This is ignoring or avoiding. He'll have his chance to explain his reasoning in court.

I assume he will be found guilty of violating this statute and then sentenced to either a fine or prison time , is that correct?

If he ignores or avoids, he may or may not be found guilty in absentia and a warrant will be issued for his arrest. Of course all of this depends on whether we are talking about a Criminal complaint or a Civil complaint. The warrant will be for Failure to Appear and it is an order to bring the defendant before the judge.

Fine and or Jail is a punishment (which does not indicate any violence against the defendant) that is issued at the determined and issued by a judge through the trial.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Breaking the door down and pointing a weapon is definitely a clear signal of ones willingness to escalate to the use violence.
Physically picking someone up, placing them in handcuff and locking them up in a cage is not a use of violence.

Here is what I would expect to happen to Chrisman if he peacefully does nothing. A warrant will be issued for violating bail. US Marshalls will appear at his house and pound on the door demanding entrance. If he does nothing, they will break down the door. If he does nothing further they will physically pick him up, place him in handcuffs, and lock him in a cage. If he has any known weapons in the house, this will likely be a SWAT team raid with body armor and automatic weapons being pointed.

Is the breaking down the door an act of violence? Here's a Merriam-Webster definition: " Definition of violence 1a: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy"

In this likely case, LEOs are using physical force to damage or destroy the door. I would submit that is violence by that 1a definition from Merriam Webster.

Say they manage to capture him walking on the street and grab him and handcuff him and force him into the car without having to break down a door. Is that violence? I think in the common sense of the word that is still violence, but I suppose one could try and make an argument that is non-violent, not that I agree that is the common meaning of the term.

Arrest while walking on the street is also a fairly unusual scenario for serving an arrest warrant. Normally they are served at home or while someone is driving. (We could parse what happens if he peacefully continues driving to his destination, though that case is more complex due to public ownership of the roads.)

So since in many cases people will be apprehended in their homes, with the use of door breaking to gain entry, it strikes me as not unreasonable and fairly accurate to say that in most cases the ultimate enforcement of laws and regulations will involve the use of this type of violent act. Thus the threat of it if you don't comply, even if you are completely peaceful.

I suppose I could rephrase my original statement to 'the enforcement of laws and regulations involves the use of physical coercion or violence or threats thereof'. I think that still makes the same point with regard to my belief that it is not reasonable to make such threats without clear evidence that a person's acts are preventing a clear and present danger to others.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

In most cases, they will succeed in arresting him without violence. If he violently resists arrest, that's on him.

As discussed at length in my post above, I think that a good case can be made that in most cases if he literally does nothing and acts completely peacefully, violence will be used to arrest him, per the dictionary definition. The only reason many arrests, especially for items like this, would go peacefully, is because of the threat of the violent act and the person knowing of that threat and deciding it is not worth a physical fight.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

[QUOTE="SToL, post: 2753978]"Fine and or Jail is a punishment (which does not indicate any violence against the defendant) that is issued at the determined and issued by a judge through the trial.[/QUOTE]

So you really want to contend that forcibly taking someone's property against their will or locking them in a cage against their will is not a violent act? I can see how maybe one can try and contend that per the Merriam-Webster definition. I must confess it strikes me as a stretch though.

Nonetheless, I could rephrase my main point as being the use of physical coercion. I trust we would agree that locking people in a cage is physical coercion?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Those bad things don't happen now. Medicines are required to meet some sort of efficacy standard, and the prevalence of side effects understood. We can't get to the level of no side effects,at least not yet, as we don't have a perfect understanding of genetics, epigenetics. But on the whole, dangerous and/or useless medicines don't get into the marketplace anymore. We need the regulations since, as the opioid crisis shows, people in large pharma companies are willing to find ways around the regulations to maximize profits. I won't claim it's a perfect system, but it has certainly "actually succeed(ed)* in helping reduce clear and present dangers to others". Or would you like to go back to the days of soda pop being prescribed and used for medicine? Do you want to go back to the days of formaldehyde being used as a food preservative? You seem to be ignoring the root cause's of these regulations.

*(ed) added to quote for the sake of grammar.

Firstly, please don't presume to know what I am thinking or paying attention to (I don't think you meant this meanly but it is a subtle ad hominem attack).

No I am not ignoring these things, I just don't believe the efficacy of FDA regulations in ensuring safety overall, including unintended consequences and costs, has been shown to be positive. Similarly for FAA regulations regarding 3rd class medicals. Simply making this type of argument here on the forum isn't going to be convincing since there are serious studies that have examined these issues. If you want to discuss those type of studies I am game.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Here is the dictionary.com definition of violence, for another view:

violence noun
swift and intense force:the violence of a storm.
rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment:to die by violence.
an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws:to take over a government by violence.
a violent act or proceeding.
rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language:the violence of his hatred.
damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration:

So I think this definition is a bit broader and does not require actual intent to injure or damage. One could go on with this semantic debate I suppose.

But I think the point is made by replacing 'violence' by 'physical coercion'. In my view, not a reasonable or peaceful thing for the government or anyone else to do without clear evidence of a clear and present danger to other parties. And I think different views of this are one cause of the political differences in the reasonability of current FAA aeromedical regulations.

The other cause of such differences is different parsings of the data on efficacy. I actually tend to be more interested in discussing this latter generally on PoA. I enjoy discussing political philosophy over a beer, less so on the internet.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think that FDA regulations, like all human endeavors, could stand improvement, but overall, I think they do more good than harm.

 

[Palmpilot]

Here is what I would expect to happen to Chrisman if he peacefully does nothing. A warrant will be issued for violating bail. US Marshalls will appear at his house and pound on the door demanding entrance. If he does nothing, they will break down the door. If he does nothing further they will physically pick him up, place him in handcuffs, and lock him in a cage. If he has any known weapons in the house, this will likely be a SWAT team raid with body armor and automatic weapons being pointed....

In that scenario, he is resisting arrest, and unless he is hiding Jews from the Nazis*, he is morally responsible for the consequences.



*or something of similar moral importance

 

[SToL]

So you really want to contend that forcibly taking someone's property against their will or locking them in a cage against their will is not a violent act? I can see how maybe one can try and contend that per the Merriam-Webster definition. I must confess it strikes me as a stretch though.

Nonetheless, I could rephrase my main point as being the use of physical coercion. I trust we would agree that locking people in a cage is physical coercion?

Yes, I really want to contend that all this can be done legally without violence. Certainly it can be done violently, but certainly it can also be achieved without violence as well. The fact that you don't understand that is what's worrisome.

It may, or it may not be physical coercion. Are you resisting or going peacefully?

I'd hardly call it a cage although that may be more than some of them deserve. It's prison, with your own bed, 3 squares, TV, Phone use, visitations, Rec time outside for exercise etc... It's not the Club Ritz and these are not patrons, they are criminals being punished for a crime they committed.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

In that scenario, he is resisting arrest, and unless he is hiding Jews from the Nazis*, he is morally responsible for the consequences.

Regardless, breaking down the door is a violent act by LEOs used against him even (though he did nothing violent in response, completely peaceful). Thus my point, violence will be used in the ultimate enforcement of laws and regulations. I don't see how defining some peaceful act that Chrisman does as another crime makes any difference in that. How would the punishment for resisting arrest be enforced -- by using violence or threat thereof.

 

[SToL]

But I think the point is made by replacing 'violence' by 'physical coercion'. In my view, not a reasonable or peaceful thing for the government or anyone else to do without clear evidence of a clear and present danger to other parties.

If the judge says "Guilty", you have the choice to walk to jail on your own two feet, or be dragged there by deputies.

On is peaceful, the other is under physical coercion.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Yes, I really want to contend that all this can be done legally without violence. Certainly it can be done violently, but certainly it can also be achieved without violence as well. The fact that you don't understand that is what's worrisome.

Firstly, please let's avoid the ad hominem attacks and don't presume what I do or do not understand.

I don't deny it can be done without much violence and is a fair share of the time. Returning to my point though, I think it is fair to say that enforcement of laws and regulations involves the threat of violence (or physical coercion if you prefer) if one does not cooperate.

Do you seriously believe that most people cooperating with the police don't think that violence will be used against them if they fail to cooperate? I guess that is more of a psychological question which one could poll.

I think most people would say, as in your post above, if you don’t cooperate physical coercion or violence will be used against you.

 

[Palmpilot]

Regardless, breaking down the door is a violent act by LEOs used against him even (though he did nothing violent in response, completely peaceful). Thus my point, violence will be used in the ultimate enforcement of laws and regulations. I don't see how defining some peaceful act that Chrisman does as another crime makes any difference in that. How would the punishment for resisting arrest be enforced -- by using violence or threat thereof.

So what? The real issue is whether the law being enforced is just or unjust.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...ric-illness-reform.118692/page-5#post-2753970

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So what? The real issue is whether the law being enforced is just or unjust.

I agree that is the more important point.

This long detour started because I noted that some of the differences in the view of whether a law or regulation is fair likely reflect difference in people’s view of whether using threats of violence or physical coercion is ok to enforce regulations or laws when there is no clear evidence that doing so will prevent a clear and present danger to others.

I suspect some people think it is ok to use laws and regulations even if such data is lacking because they think “we’ll it is just a regulation or fine” and ignore ultimately what will happen if you don’t cooperate. That is why I brought it up.

 

[SToL]

Firstly, please let's avoid the ad hominem attacks and don't presume what I do or do not understand.

I don't deny it can be done without much violence and is a fair share of the time. Returning to my point though, I think it is fair to say that enforcement of laws and regulations involves the threat of violence (or physical coercion if you prefer) if one does not cooperate.

Do you seriously believe that most people cooperating with the police don't think that violence will be used against them if they fail to cooperate? I guess that is more of a psychological question which one could poll.

I think most people would say, as in your post above, if you don’t cooperate physical coercion or violence will be used against you.

Peter, I can only presume based on the information given.

You're complaint is all over the place. First it's violence, then it's physical coercion. Then it's every time, then it's sometimes. It's hard to debate when you keep sidesteping and changing the argument.

To respond the the last sentence of the quote above. Whether physical coercion or violence will be used against you, is UP TO YOU! You get to decide!

As I said, and I"m speaking from personal experience, people get arrested every single day with out any violence or threat of violence used against them. They make that decision. Sans the cops who are out of control and need to be reigned in.

How would you suggest a government enforce laws that people refuse to obey? Simply just keep sending letters and asking politely to respond? At some point YOU make the decision on HOW You will be treated.

On another totally unrelated subject. If you haven't seen ONE SIX RIGHT you should. It's pretty good.

 

[Palmpilot]

I agree that is the more important point.

It's a FAR more important point.

This long detour started because I noted that some of the differences in the view of whether a law or regulation is fair likely reflect difference in people’s view of whether using threats of violence or physical coercion is ok to enforce regulations or laws when there is no clear evidence that doing so will prevent a clear and present danger to others.

The long detour to this discussion supports my belief that bringing up the occasional violence in enforcement distracts from the real issue.

I suspect some people think it is ok to use laws and regulations even if such data is lacking because they think “we’ll it is just a regulation or fine” and ignore ultimately what will happen if you don’t cooperate. That is why I brought it up.

I accept that that is your motivation, but I maintain that the actual effect is to arouse emotions rather than reason. I also think that insisting on definitive proof of effectiveness for every law or regulation would be going too far.

That having been said, I think we agree that the FAA goes overboard on some things.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Firstly, please don't presume to know what I am thinking or paying attention to (I don't think you meant this meanly but it is a subtle ad hominem attack).

No I am not ignoring these things, I just don't believe the efficacy of FDA regulations in ensuring safety overall, including unintended consequences and costs, has been shown to be positive. Similarly for FAA regulations regarding 3rd class medicals. Simply making this type of argument here on the forum isn't going to be convincing since there are serious studies that have examined these issues. If you want to discuss those type of studies I am game.

I've listed some specific examples of what the FDA prevents which you've chosen not to respond to. I've listed a very recent event that shows why we still need regulation by the FDA. Could it stand improvement? Yes, and those are probably the studies you keep alluding to. But overall, the FDA has done an excellent job, to use your own words, "actually succeed(ed)* in helping reduce clear and present dangers to others".

I think that FDA regulations, like all human endeavors, could stand improvement, but overall, I think they do more harm than good.

Is that what you meant to post? The part at the end?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

How would you suggest a government enforce laws that people refuse to obey? Simply just keep sending letters and asking politely to respond? At some point YOU make the decision on HOW You will be treated.

I agree that the only mechanism we presently have to enforce laws and regulation is, ultimately, to be willing to use violence (or if you want to call it physical coercion), if people refuse to cooperate. That is actually my whole point.

I think we shouldn't have laws or regulations unless we are ultimately willing to do that as a society. Thus, we shouldn't have laws or regulations unless there is clear evidence they function to prevent or deter a clear and present danger to other people.

Returning to the OP, I would submit that the FAA's requirement for a 3rd class medical fails that test. We have not seen here clear evidence that it improves the safety of flight. Therefore, we should not be willing to use violence or threat of violence (or "physical coercion" if you want to stick with what is in my view is an unusual definition -- but I am just trying to address the main point, rather than a semantic argument over definitions).

As you may recall, my original statement which started this detour was "When such evidence is lacking, it implies the regulatory agency is using violence or threats thereof, to force people to do something they don’t want to do, just because people in the agency think it is a good idea, but with very little evidence or proof." I believe you have tried to argue that having such laws and regulation with criminal penalties does not constitute a threat of violence.

We can debate that specific point further if you like to determine where we disagree on that. My assertion is "the regulatory agency is using violence or threats thereof, to force people to do something they don’t want to do". I suppose we could parse whether the existence of these laws and regulations and their expression is normally perceived to imply that violence will ultimately be used if you don't cooperate and do what they want.

So sub-questions that appear to me to be pertinent to such parsing would be:

Is what the government will ultimately do in most cases violence, in the common meaning of the term?
Do citizens who are subject to the laws and regulations perceive that violence will ultimately be used?
Are LEOs trained to use increasing levels of force, up to and including lethal force, to ensure ultimate compliance with laws and their enforcement?

Let me note right up front. My assertion is not "the regulatory agency is constantly using violence" or "there is no way to avoid the violence of the regulatory agency". It is that they are always ultimately at least using a threat of violence to ensure compliance.

On another totally unrelated subject. If you haven't seen ONE SIX RIGHT you should. It's pretty good.

Thanks, yes, that is a good one.

 

[Stan Cooper]

<snip>Without speculating, I would say, if you falsify, conceal or cover up, any material fact, or make false, fictitious or fraudulent statements, or writings etc, then you face fines and the possibility of being imprisoned. In almost all circumstances, all of the above will occur in a court of law without anyone ever coming to your house.<snip>

As a result of the Operation Safe Pilot investigation, I was indicted on multiple counts of violating 18.1001, and surrendered with my attorney in federal district court where I had my mug shot and fingerprints taken, surrendered my passport, and was released on my own recognizance with travel limited to the Northern District of California and weekly reporting to a pre-trial probation officer until the criminal charges were resolved. I was required to give the probation officer a tour of my home and provide a floor plan of my home. Further, I was advised that during the pre-trial period federal agents would be allowed to enter my home at any time, day or night, without my permission or a search warrant.

My criminal defense attorney said, "Welcome to the federal justice system where you're guilty until proven innocent."

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I've listed some specific examples of what the FDA prevents which you've chosen not to respond to.

I don't mean to ignore what is in your post. However, a few examples don't prove a complex case like this.

Firstly, even if the FDA did something and a harm failed to appear, that does not prove causality. That is the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Secondly, simply pointing at an intended averted harm ignores other potential harms which may have become more prevalent due to unintended consequences of FDA regulation.

There is a large body of literature on these problems with regulation in general, and with FDA regulation in particular. I am not even close to an expert in that area, but know there is a large debate and body of literature about it. It is hardly a cut and dried area.

Here are a few links to start from the perspective of the FDA not helping:
https://www.fdareview.org/issues/theory-evidence-and-examples-of-fda-harm/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration

But I fear I really must stop with that, lest I receive another warning. FDA and regulation is politics without an aviation focus, not permitted on this board.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I accept that that is your motivation, but I maintain that the actual effect is to arouse emotions rather than reason.

Well, so essentially a question of rhetorical tactics. Sometimes these things are actually emotional issues for people and so that is going to happen and I think it can be useful in some circumstances. But different techniques work for different audiences in different circumstances. Your point is a good one to bear in mind.

I also think that insisting on definitive proof of effectiveness for every law or regulation would be going too far.

For every single one would certainly be a huge burden. I think insisting on that for any new regulation, except in emergency circumstances, would be a good place to start slowing the growth of the regulatory state. Then perhaps start a program of review in each agency requiring a certain fraction of regulations to be reviewed each year and discarded without proof of effectiveness. Personally I would probably restrict this to start to Federal agencies.

That having been said, I think we agree that the FAA goes overboard on some things.

Hear-hear!