The practice of homeopathy should be made illegal in the US

As this is the final round, I will be providing a summary of the arguments that have taken place during this debate as well as a few rebuttals of the arguments Pro made in the preceding round. My opponent writes: "When the institution of homeopathy misleads people, even by defining itself as a form of 'medicine,' it is in the wrong. The government should not allow such unlawful, deceptive practices to go on in the first place." This contention that homeopathy is "unlawful" is without a foundation. Homeopathy is clearly lawful as it is permitted by law. Pro continues by arguing that since he has never heard of a homeopathic practitioner who did not believe in what they were doing, such a person cannot exist. Next, he writes that the FDA can ban homeopathy as a medicine, however the resolution is not limited to the use of homeopathy when it is called a medicine, but rather the practice of homeopathy regardless of name. So the FDA could not ban homeopathy all together as the resolution calls for, but rather could only dictate that it cannot be sold as a medicine. Finally, Pro straw mans one of my strongest arguments. I will summarize this argument, and then explain his straw man. My argument was that if people experienced positive effects from homeopathy, they should be allowed to continue to practice it, regardless of whether it is supported by traditional scientific evidence. I first presented this argument in Round 2 where I wrote: "My opponent has not shown that homeopathy is harmful. At worst, it does nothing to a person. At best, it may relieve their symptoms for certain ailments." The argument was not challenged and was reiterated in R3 when I even gave a specific example of how homeopathy could help someone by writing ""Even if homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo, if people find that they notice less allergy symptoms because of homeopathy's placebo effect, then it will have had a positive impact on that person." The argument is simple: If someone notices that something helps them, should they be denied access to that thing? In the specific example from R3, I used the example of allergy symptoms, saying that if someone noticed a decrease in allergy symptoms after being on homeopathy, should they be denied it? My opponents response to this argument was that the effectiveness of a treatment should not be measured by the absence of symptoms, but rather by the positive effects. In my example, however, an absence of symptoms that were previously present is a positive effect. Therefore, based on his own standard of measuring the effectiveness of a treatment, homeopathy could be seen as an effective treatment for some people because it has a positive impact on them. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that my opponent has shown that homeopathy has a negative impact on people. At the very worst, it will not do anything. At the best, people may experience positive impacts on their health. Should people be denied access to these positive impacts? No. People are not forced to use homeopathy, it is something that they choose to do. If they want to make this choice it should be available. The BOP rested solely on Pro and he has failed to show that making homeopathy illegal is the course of action that should be taken. I would like to thank him for this debate, as well as all of the people who are reading and voting this debate. Vote Con!!