Friday, May 06, 2005

FDA

The United States has been notorious at condoning discrimination, from slavery to this, FDA discrimination against non-heterosexual people. Deplorable is the only word I can think to say when reading this. Simple deplorable.

Perhaps the FDA thinks that by reducing the number of gay sperm donors that it will cut down on the existance of the "gay gene" (forgetting, of course, that most homosexuals come from heterosexual parents). Perhaps the FDA thinks, as some people I know do, that the gay population is solely responsible for the spread of AIDS and that if everyone were to express their sexuality with their oppisite sex spouse, missionary style, in the dark, simply for the sake of reproduction that there would be no AIDS. Or perhaps the FDA simply is seeing how far it can push its weight around.

The FDA is no more than corporate America's henchman. A radical claim, I know, and one that I can hardly justify. As one simple case example, I present stevia. Stevia is a plant that is naturally sweet like sugar, but without the death-causing side effects. In fact, Stevia has been used extensivly as a homeopathic remedy to common ailments like joint pain, illness, and menstrual cramps. The FDA banned stevia without reason in the 1980's, just as it was picking up popularity and beginning to take a portion of sugar's market. Since then, the FDA has punished all use of stevia in conjunction with labeling that indicates it is a sweetening agent, and it can only be sold as an herbal suppliment.

Assuming that a "public health" exists (which, of course, it does not, the public is simply a collection of individuals with individual health), could the FDA even pretend to be acting in its best interest? If it were, refined sugar would be illegal, and stevia legal. If it were, marijuana (which the CDC reports has caused zero deaths) would be legal and alcohol (which has caused countless deaths) would be banned. In the case of the FDA's newest power trip, they would be asking that ALL potential donors, regardless of sexual orientation, undergo testing for AIDS and other viruses instead of assuming that someone doesn't have AIDS simply because they are straight.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that homosexuals are statistically more likely to carry the virus. Likewise, blacks are far more likely to commit violent crimes than any other race. Of course, these numbers don't compel us to lock up all black people, and likewise shouldn't cause us to vilify the homosexual population.

The FDA is not protecting anything and instead is only stripping us all of our precious freedom, and needs to be abolished.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Scotty said...

Robbie, another thing to consider in this argument might be that the FDA needs to start taking further action against the drug users of America, who account for approximately 21.5% of HIV infections (both Hetero and Homosexual) (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/Facts/afam.htm)
The website continues on to point out that actually an african american FEMALE is most at risk to HIV due to unprotected sex with positive males, or through drug use. Unfortunately because it has become a social stereotype that gays are "spreading the disease" most heterosexual encounters are deemed "safe". Can you not get nearly ANY other std from having sex with a woman as well as a man?

Perhaps if the FDA wants to front this as their method to reduce the occurrence of HIV, than they should also publicly discriminate against drug pushers, cartels, and users as well, because needles are statistically unsafe, yet there are thousands of ppl using them.

Lastly, if they are attempting to halt the spread of AIDS they need to throw in campaigns about safe sex. Most homosexuals are very responsible about getting routine checks for HIV and other STD's, none of us want them!

Anyway, found the thoughts intriguing and well put.

5:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home