 hen
someone sets up a sound system he always tests it before
turning it over to the performers. The reason is obvious — he wants to
see if it's working. Thinking that it'll work or hoping that
it'll work or relying on the manufacturer's claims that it'll work are
just not good enough. The only way he can be sure it's going to work is
to test it.
And happily that's what the folks over at the Federal Drug Administration
do. You know, I can't even begin to imagine what might happen were the
FDA to allow drugs to come to market without prior testing to see whether
or not they do what they're intended to do. Or whether or not they're safe.
Now you would think that the whole idea of testing something before
putting it into effect or allowing it to be distributed would be a given.
Weeeeell, think again.
You see, there isn't a day that goes by without a new law, a new regulation,
a new ordinance of some kind being passed or mandated by a public body
at great public expense without prior testing to ascertain its likely effects.
And when it doesn't do what its proponents said it would — which is
usually the case, by the way; for example, the smog check fiasco in California
which is still being played out — it's not repealed. No Siree. That would
be admitting that a mistake had been made. That the tax payer had been
required to spend money for nothing. So instead, a new
but still untested law, regulation, or ordinance is substituted
for it. At even greater public expense. And with no better results.
You know, if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
But in this case, they'll both be bankrupt when they hit bottom.
Think about it. |
