Governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for public

Rebuttals: "The resolution is questioning what "governments should" do. This raises questions about the legitimate scope of government: is drug effectiveness testing something that should fall under government purview, for example. It is my contention that such testing is not something that a government should do because it is outside of a just governments legitimate scope of authority."You avoid the fact that the FDA is a branch of government that test for both safety and effectiveness. (1) A quote from the article:"The FDA falls within the executive branch of the US government, under the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). FDA is headed by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, who is appointed by the President of the United States, confirmed by the US Senate, and serves at the President’s discretion. The Office of the Commissioner (OC) oversees all the Agency’s components and is responsible for the efficient and effective implementation of FDA’s mission."End quote.If it really is outside " governments legitimate scope of authority.", then why is it already here and testing drugs for both safety and effectiveness. You want to change the system for no good reason."To understand a governments boundaries, we first need to lay down the framework in an understanding of human dignity. I will show an important link between autonomy and human dignity that links the concept of freedom to our self-worth. According to G.W.F. Hegel, autonomy separates us from all other things. A table cannot be blamed for a moral failing because it cannot choose to do something wrong. A human, on the other hand, is morally relevant insofar as we have this autonomy. This moral worth grants every person an inherent dignity that should be respected. "At the heart of [human dignity] is a twofold intuition about human beings: namely, that all, just by being human, are of equal dignity and worth, no matter where they are situated in society, and that the primary source of this worth is a power of moral choice within them, a power that consists in the ability to plan a life in accordance with one's own evaluation of ends." [1] From this analysis, we can conclude that it is a human's rational autonomy that gives rise to human dignity. Autonomy is the brightline that separates personhood from other conditions, and that marks out human beings as worthy of moral consideration. "The idea here is that a human being, as a rational agent endowed with self-awareness, free will, and the possibility of formulating a plan of life, has an inherent dignity and cannot properly be treated as a mere thing, or used against his will as an instrument or resource in the way an inanimate object might be. In line with this, Nozick also describes individual human beings as self-owners. The thesis of self-ownership, a notion that goes back in political philosophy at least to John Locke, is just the claim that individuals own themselves--their bodies, talents and abilities, labor, and by extension the fruits or products of their exercise of their talents, abilities and labor." [2]"Okay. What does this have to do with drug testing?See paragraph 3 in "Pro's case"First off, I see a major problem with this paragraph specifically with this sentence." In particular, such a state cannot regulate what citizens eat, drink, or smoke (since this would interfere with their right to use their self-owned bodies as they see fit)"First off, in prohibition, people weren't allowed to drink alcohol. So that contradicts what it supposedly says you can and can not do with government. We have a law against marijuana in many states. That contradicts with that too!See paragraph 4 in "Pro's case"I see many problems with this. First off, the government right now regulates the testing and approval of drugs. This goes against your human rights argument. I want the physical law that states that the governments can't interfere with what the government is already doing.Second off, the government can supposedly only prevent to direct harm. I want the physical law that states that the government can only fix that. " The government should therefore test for safety but it should not test for effectiveness, which could hinder a companies' ability to sell products, allows the government to meddle in the pharmaceutical industry (e.g. setting arbitrary levels for what constitutes effectiveness), and interferes with a person's right to spend their money on any product of their choosing--including one that is potentially ineffective"This is illogical in so many ways. One, it can kill people if the pill is not effective. Two, I don't get how it interferes with a person's right to spend their money. Last, I can turn the question back around and ask this. Wouldn't it interfere with a persons right to spend their money on a product of their choosing, even if it isn't safe?" This may go against the grain of accepted logic, but it is a conclusion that stems from a logical premise."It does go against logic entirely."And surely, corporations could make money from running drug testing services, thereby giving people the same effectiveness testing without expanding the role of government unduly."Again, I may turn the question back on you.And surely, corporations could make money from running drug testing services, thereby giving people the same safety testing without expanding the role of government unduly.Also, if the government test it, then there is little to no chance of false safety tests that passed, when they are not effective.This would mean the government is more trustworthy to see if a drug is effective than a company that is releasing the drug."So, the resolution was fundamentally asking what a government should, and should be empowered, to do. I have demonstrated that it is beyond a government's legitimate authority (as restrained by the thesis of self-ownership) to test for anything but safety."You haven't proved a thing. The government has a legitimate authority now, and it is working. Why would we change that?My opponent is trying to mis-lead you and here is why.1. There is no law that states the government can't interfere with testing drugs, let alone for effectiveness.2. The government has been testing drugs for years for both safety and effectiveness. If it goes against human rights, why are the governments doing it?3. My opponent has used some links that are not needed, and he has used some in the wrong way.Link 1: PhilosophyLink 2: Remember paragraph 4 in "Pro's Case" You think that those are literal human right put forth by the government. It isn't. If you scroll up you will see the title: Robert Nozick: Political Philosophy. This isn't set laws. I have also pointed out flaws in his philosophy. Link 3: Outdated. The article was made in 1963As you can see, virtually all of my opponent's case is based off of mainly one man's philosophy. This is how he thinks it should be.However, we look at my side and see proven history that shows the FDA works. Why should we change it.Ladies and gentleman, be wary of my opponent's next argumentOn to Pro.1. http://www.uleduneering.com...