[andr3w321]

"Investor accreditation makes sense (for now.)"

No it doesn't. It's pure nanny statism. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't invest in or spend their money on. Yes startups are risky. So are lots of things. Why should the wealthy have no restrictions on them, but the poor do? This is literally "class warfare".

[derefr]

The government isn't telling people what they can invest in; it's telling companies whether they can take people's money. It's not illegal to hand money to a private company (you will not be charged with a crime); it's illegal to, as the company, accept that money.

Private companies are a very specific kind of company—they're supposed to be a temporary condition, a way for companies to not have to go through the effort of going through disclosure, underwriting, etc. right away, because they're still just two guys in a garage and don't have the resources to do so. Private companies, as a special case, don't get to participate in all the things public (i.e. "normal") companies do. Private companies are to public companies as minors are to adults.

In your phrasing, you could say that government also "tells people what they can and can't" eat, in the form of the FDA. But, just like this case, it should be clear that the FDA never goes after someone for eating a poisoned cucumber; it just goes after the company for selling poisoned cucumbers.

(The DEA, on the other hand, is pure nanny-state-ism.)

[andr3w321]

Regarding the FDA I don't think the government should be telling me what drugs I can and can't take. Plenty of people are denied from taking early stage drugs because they are not FDA approved and dangerous, but if people are aware of the risks I think they should have every right to take them.

In your poison cucumber example I think this would qualify as knowingly poisoning someone else which is clearly illegal and we do not need the FDA for that. As long as the cucumber is labeled as "poison" I have no problem with people selling them.

[derefr]

The FDA doesn't tell you what drugs you can and cannot take. (That's what the DEA does, and why I don't like them.) The FDA just tells companies what drugs they can and cannot sell in the US. If the DEA didn't exist, and you wanted an early-stage drug, you could just mail-order it from another country where they do sell such drugs, and nobody would stop you from taking it. Or you could get in on an informal "clinical study" of your friend making it in their chem lab, and take it. As long as no money was changing hands, the FDA wouldn't care.

To be clear, the strict purpose of the FDA is to ensure that for things-where-you-can't-easily-tell-what's-in-them, like food or drugs—but which have ingredient labels (or names that serve as common-sense ingredient labels), the thing must actually contain what it's labelled (or common-sense expected) to contain.

The FDA looks for poisoned cucumbers, because the FDA's job is to define "cucumber" and stop people from selling something as a "cucumber" if it's not one.

That's about poisoning; but it's also about high levels of weird things like potassium, that are fine normally but which people don't think of as being in a cucumber and might interact with the drugs some people take. It's also about products that don't contain the right ingredients (i.e. why Cheez Whiz isn't Cheese Whiz.)

And, for drugs, it's about the name mapping to a registered claim of a particular effect, such that manufacturing pills that don't have that effect means you can't call them by the registered name. (Otherwise you could sell "ibuprofen" with 2 nanograms of ibuprofen per cap. The ingredients list wouldn't be a lie, per se; it would still contain ibuprofen.)

[andr3w321]

Thanks - learned a bit here. You did contradict yourself though from your original reply to this one.

"In your phrasing, you could say that government also "tells people what they can and can't" eat, in the form of the FDA."

"The FDA doesn't tell you what drugs you can and cannot take."

[derefr]

First one is an expression of your perspective; the second one is mine.

The FDA's actions do effectively stop you from having any source to buy a poisoned cucumber, or homeopathic ibuprofen, or whatever else, where said source is a US corporation. But only because it's going after those corporations. It doesn't care what you do.

(In a world where the FDA did care about such things, we'd probably have "drug tourism" laws the way we have "sex tourism" laws, where you could be prosecuted for drugs you used while abroad.)

[dragonwriter]

> Regarding the FDA I don't think the government should be telling me what drugs I can and can't take.

That's not what the FDA does (the DEA, OTOH...)

The FDA deals with how drugs can be marketed, not what people can take.

[lend000]

> The FDA deals with how drugs can be marketed, not what people can take.

If that's all it did, the FDA would be an ideal system. However, that's not true; the FDA also deals with which drugs can be marketed. Effectively, the FDA is indirectly preventing citizens from taking experimental drugs, whether they have a terminal illness or not.

[chimeracoder]

> It's not illegal to hand money to a private company (you will not be charged with a crime); it's illegal to, as the company, accept that money

IANAL, but I'm fairly certain it's actually the solicitation part that's illegal. In theory, the company could accept it without an issue if they could prove that they didn't solicit at any point. In practice, there's no way to do that reliably, though.