Something doesn’t have to be perfect to be worth doing. It has to be better than the alternatives.

I’m suggesting that state regulation is better than no regulation.

What an alleged medicine contains or whether it is also a “food” is not relevant to how its safety and effectiveness is judged. I am curious why some people think certain medicine should have special exemption from certain kinds of testing.

you said you hadn’t bothered to read all the legislation and consultation documents, so why are you qualified to make strong opinions either way?

You obviously have strong opinions on this matter, so I presume that you have read all the legislation and consultation. Would you care to enlighten us?

sit in on 500 hours of real clinics with real patients

I think you exaggerate. I know qualified medical herbalists and they have not spent anything like the 500hrs (or about 3.5 months full-time) that you suggest. Can you direct us to the standards that existing voluntary regulatory bodies (like the NIMH) require of all their members and accredited courses? This would be a good start.

Why is mainstream conventional medicine the grail of all safety?

It’s not.

All medicine should be tested to ensure it is safe and effective. We should not trust any medicine simply on the say-so of any individual or organisation, whoever they are. This goes for big pharma and little herbalist. Both can be deceived by wishful thinking and both can be dishonest. Clinical trials are the best way we have to prevent this. No system of medicine should be exempt from having to prove itself safe and effective. Surely that is common sense and not controversial.

What exactly are you so afraid of?

If they’re not medicines, then admit they’re not medicines and move on. Asking for special treatment is an admission that they will not pass the standard test – it’s like me asking for a special “alternative driving test” because my style of driving is not adequately assessed by the standard driving test (i.e. I fail too often).

“If a member of the public consults a qualified medical herbalist then there is no harm to the public.”

I’m not convinced that qualification is enough. Don’t conventional doctors have to go through a bit more than just qualification?

“The yellow card scheme covers the general public purchasing ‘herbal remedies’ over the counter.”

I’ve never seen this operating. Maybe I’m unobservant, but I think this needs to be more widely publicised.

“With regard to Traditional Western Medical Herbalists statutory regulation may not be necessary if the government can ensure a way of those qualified having access to the tools of their trade.”

Is that really the only issue? How can you be sure that anyone with a degree in Herbal Medicine is necessarily able to prescribe safely?

What are your opinions on the important issue of efficacy?

“What confuses me is that we are trying to legalize marijuana and at the same time trying to regulate other herbs.”

I would guess it’s not the same people campaigning for these two things.

“Also, good luck regulating. A lot of herbs can be grown on one’s garden.”

I’m not sure that should or could be covered. The issue is people prescribing things which either don’t work or can do harm. We can discourage people from being irresponsible idiots on their own time, but there are limits.

“On this one I feel like a right-wing American: Let people be adults who take risks at their own discretion.”

Well I’m a bit more on the side of “No, you really must wear a seatbelt in a car.”. But I agree that’s it’s impractical to stop individuals from picking something potentially poisonous and munching on it. In this case education is probably the most important thing. The thrust of my article was about regulating those who prescribe herbs to ensure the same standards are applied to them as to conventional medicine.

I don’t know about regulating herbal medicine. They’re trying to do the same here in paradise (aka Canada).

What confuses me is that we are trying to legalize marijuana and at the same time trying to regulate other herbs. Also, good luck regulating. A lot of herbs can be grown on one’s garden. Are they going to criminalize growing parsley?

On this one I feel like a right-wing American: Let people be adults who take risks at their own discretion.

Surely the principle problem with alternative medicine is that very fact that it’s “alternative? As you and others have said before, Eshu, if it were properly tested and researched, it would just be “medicine”.

Yep, I think we have to give the credit to Tim Minchin for that one. :-)

That said, I wouldn’t want to write it all off without investigation. There’s likely some herbal medicine which has some benefit. Maybe even some that hasn’t been worked out and made into popular drugs like aspirin. I think Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst came to that conclusion, although the “signal to noise” ratio is rather poor.

True, it’s mostly the “abandoning other treatments” bit that is most harmful and herbal medicine is arguably not the worst offender in that respect. It is often marketed as “complementary” rather than “alternative”. I understand homeopathy actually insists on the abandonment of other treatments, with an almost cult-like fervour in some cases.

Sheesh, I wish Nazis were only obsessed with spelling! You’re right, of course and I’ve updated it. I was possibly thinking of the ironic team fortress two award.