I think that's pretty spot on actually Mat.

I'm all in favour of governments protecting consumers from predators and deceptive conduct... but how does one actually protect people from themselves? Should one bother?

There is an alternative to banning this sort of silliness outright. Quite simply, every unfounded claim - every homeopathetic panacea- should carry a simple statement of fact... that the manufacturer is unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support the claims being made, that the therapeutic action of the product cannot be demonstrated in clinical trials, and that the manufacturers cannot explain how it works.

Then we slap a 150% tax on it and spend the dough on researching sensible stuff.

This keeps the grinding mills of evolution whirring away while turning out a useful outcome. Not least that, given the enthusiasm of Prince of Whales (sic), we might also see a wider social benefit.

At the same time all pharmaceutical drugs should carry a black box warning that no long-term studies have been conducted into adverse effects or interactions with other drugs and that they are not guaranteed to produce the same results in each patient. GPs should be required to explain the risks/adverse effects of each drug prescribed with statistical evidence provided to patients indicating what their odds are of experiencing both positive and negative effects, with the very clear understanding that these drugs are merely capable of only suppressing symptoms and that the patient may end up in the emergency dept. even if the drug is taken as prescribed.
Considering the number of patients killed or maimed by prescription drugs annually (millions worldwide) an emotive tirade about advertising claims that have yet to be proven false evokes such invective.
"Independent experts" don't evaluate the claims made for pharma products -- a few company sponsored trials are submitted showing that they meet a minimum standard (not the same in every jurisdiction) and then they're given the nod for distribution. Pretending that there is some kind of rigorous independent testing/evaluation of drugs in place at the present time is grossly misleading when one investigates how drugs such as Vioxx and Avandia made it into the marketplace at all.
There have been no double-blind random-controlled studies ever performed on conventional vaccines, yet the medical industry claims credit for their ability to prevent disease.
There have been 2 very notable homeoprophylaxis efforts recently in Brazil for Dengue fever, and in Cuba for Leptospirosis which have produced results that were far more significant than conventional vaccination.
The mechanism of action of over 80% of conventional drugs is "unknown". In your opinion, on that basis they should be removed from the marketplace. In fact, the mechanism of action of Aspirin was unknown for almost 100 years.

Oh boy.

First, let's deal with your purported status as a 'journalist', just to clear up where your conflicts of interest might lie here. I presume that you are the same Laurie Willberg found here at Homeopathy World Community:
http://homeopathyworldcommunity.ning.com/group/veterinarians/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=30z9dfa03zcev

Perhaps you can tell us why you signed on here as a 'journalist' rather than stating your affiliations and involvement with homeopathy front and centre? I would say this is a very bad way to start, especially on this site where it is clearly stated interests be declared- it certainly creates a perception that you have something to hide or you are trying to manipulate the debate.

Now to address just some of your howlers:

"..all pharmaceutical drugs should carry a black box warning that no long-term studies [etc..."

Many already do have such warnings, where appropriate (not all, because not ALL drugs are as risky as you imply). Unlkie homeopathic 'remedies', many dangerous drugs (eg chemo drugs for cancers) that have black box warnings are restricted in how they reach the patient; only avaialble via specialist oncologist prescription, only administered by specialists, etc. Unregulated homeopathic remedies can be sold by anyone, to anyone, for any illness with no prescritption.

""Independent experts" don't evaluate the claims made for pharma products -- a few company sponsored trials are submitted showing that they meet a minimum standard (not the same in every jurisdiction) and then they're given the nod for distribution."

Absolutely untrue. Go and tell the FDA that one. That is either a bare-faced lie or you have never had any interaction with regulators like the FDA, TGA, EMEA etc. They are fiercely independent and the standard of proof they require to let something loose on the market is very high.

"There have been no double-blind random-controlled studies ever performed on conventional vaccines, yet the medical industry claims credit for their ability to prevent disease"

Weasel words. When you have datasets of before/after vaccinated/unvaccinated epidemiology data for 50+ years on billions of people, with corresponding massive declines in disease prevalence and mortality, it rather trumps a clinical trial result don't you think? Talk about putting the horse before the cart- there are no bigger datasets in medicine than those for the efficiacy of vaccines, but you want a relatively tiny, short term, limited study as evidence instead! Also objection seems to completely contradict your earleir 'black box' argument where you decried the lack of long term real world safety data! As for 'claims credit to prevent disease- absolutley they do- becasuse they do. Tell me what happened to smallpox and how polio is going will you?

"The mechanism of action of over 80% of conventional drugs is "unknown"."

I don't know if your 80% figure is correct, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It is certainly true to say that for many approved drugs MoA is not <fully> known. Complete MoA knowledge is not a pre-requisite to get a drug approved- however, the less MoA you have, the lower your chances of a favourable hearing by FDA, TGA etc.
the important point is that when these drugs were brought to regulators for approval large amounts of safety and efficacy data were necessary, and SOME evidence of MoA. Homeopathy, in contrast claims MoAs that mean suspending the laws of physics (water memory), chemistry (dillutions so large that not a single molecule of the substence can be in a vial) and biology ("like treats like", nonsense that betrays the origins of homeopathy as quackery based on thinking that pre-dates the germ theory of disease!)

Thanks for the information.

Is there a role for the ACCC, pehaps?

Although they do not seem very interested in commencing civil proceedings other than in high-profile cases (e.g. Apple iPad '4G'). This is not necessarily a criticism of the ACCC - with limited resources it make sense to focus on cases which will act as a prominent example, and warning, to others. However, it does little to protect those consumers who are more likely to be fooled by dubious claims of medical efficacy than overstated claims of technical capability.

Either way, it comes down to the fact that action is not economically justified, even if desirable from a policy perspective.