Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 One disturbing aspect of the LHC report has repercussion for the healthfood industry, chinese herb shops and the burgeoning health freedom movement. That is the recommendation to license sellers of herbs. This is a clever way to sidestep the health freedom act. It does not require a license to write an herbal prescription, but requires a license to sell the herbs in that rx. They recommend this only for unlicensed herbalists. Licensees would be exempt. Licensing sellers would ensure at least one part was responsible to the law for the herbs sold. In theory, a licensed herb shop could reject filling a formula becuase of suspected drug/herb interactions. Again, this would not affect licensees within their scope. As an alternative which is perhaps more likely under the current regime, they want to make explicit that unlicensed herbalists MUST follow the disclosure rules of the health freedom act or risk prosecution. I think a fair middle ground would be to license herb sellers for those who want big daddy's protection but still allow others to sell herbs unlicensed as long as they make full disclosure of their training or lack thereof. That's really the way I think licensing of anything should always be. Optional. It really allows democrats and liberatarians to live in the same world. Personally I like my physicians licensed, but not my barber or my mechanic. OTOH, I am glad I have had access to many and sundry unlicensed teachers over the years. Both can exist in a world of informed consent and then the only ones who are injured are those who choose to take risks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 contrast this with the more liberal country of Holland where there is no restriction on purely plant materials (as I understand it). Although I'm not an advocate for marijuana, mushroom use etc... it seems insane to me to strictly and categorically regulate all herbs. I would agree that a better disclosure of education would be preferable. doug , " " wrote: > > One disturbing aspect of the LHC report has repercussion for the > healthfood industry, chinese herb shops and the burgeoning health > freedom movement. That is the recommendation to license sellers of > herbs. This is a clever way to sidestep the health freedom act. It > does not require a license to write an herbal prescription, but > requires a license to sell the herbs in that rx. They recommend this > only for unlicensed herbalists. Licensees would be exempt. Licensing > sellers would ensure at least one part was responsible to the law for > the herbs sold. In theory, a licensed herb shop could reject filling > a formula becuase of suspected drug/herb interactions. Again, this > would not affect licensees within their scope. > > As an alternative which is perhaps more likely under the current > regime, they want to make explicit that unlicensed herbalists MUST > follow the disclosure rules of the health freedom act or risk > prosecution. I think a fair middle ground would be to license herb > sellers for those who want big daddy's protection but still allow > others to sell herbs unlicensed as long as they make full disclosure > of their training or lack thereof. That's really the way I think > licensing of anything should always be. Optional. It really allows > democrats and liberatarians to live in the same world. Personally I > like my physicians licensed, but not my barber or my mechanic. OTOH, > I am glad I have had access to many and sundry unlicensed teachers > over the years. Both can exist in a world of informed consent and > then the only ones who are injured are those who choose to take risks. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.