Ham sandwiches are regulated, by multiple federal agencies no less: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/...

But it wasn't unregulated. It was just poorly regulated. You could legally AirBnB your place by getting a "conditional-use permit" and notifying all your neighbors.

Well,obviously if a laboratory creates a new drug,and that drug is not approved by the FDA,that drug is illegal.

The problem with Airbnb business,is that Airbnb soclializes the risk.Airbnb doesnt risk anything,hosts do.Of course it is in the interest of Airbnb to make sure its users risk the minimum.But Airbnb as a plateform is legal.Airbnb can argue it's just like Ebay or Paypal.

All these "disruption" plateforms Airbnb,Kickstarter,Uber and such,they pretty much work the same way.They are the new middlemen,that bypass former middlemen,collect a fee and wash their hand of any wrong doing when things turn south.

My only problem is with Airbnb, it can really drive prices up for long-term renters,that have others things to do than running illegal hotels.

> The problem with Airbnb business,is that Airbnb soclializes the risk.Airbnb doesnt risk anything,hosts do.

Like Craigslist. And Ebay. And Etsy. And all these other fantastic platforms that let people generate money / increase productivity without the old gate keepers getting in the way. Not a new problem, and one that many consumers -- like me -- are happy to deal with versus the alternative.

I'd argue that being ripped off a couple hundred $ on an auction platform, or an e-commerce site is in a somewhat different category than getting your apartment ransacked by speed freaks, or you being attacked by a mentally volatile driver with a hammer.

The hammer thing is about Uber. It was in the news recently.

> Well,obviously if a laboratory creates a new drug,and that drug is not approved by the FDA,that drug is illegal.

Is that true? I thought the FDA could only regulate drugs that made a claim to treat or cure a disease. If it wasn't specifically illegal or if it isn't making a claim to treat a disease, the FDA doesn't have jurisdiction to regulate it.

Can someone with a source confirm or debunk this?

The FDA only has jurisdiction over things that are intended to "diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent" an illness. Witness the incredible boom in dietary supplements, (nearly) all of which disclaim exactly the quoted verbiage. (Those that don't disclaim doing those things tend to get a lawyergram from the FDA in short order. See what happened to 23andMe's service a while back as one case in point.)

They fall in a grey area if anything.

Yes, like ham sandwiches, since the Board of Supervisors has not yet passed a law to legalize them.