I think where the debate is turning is on whether a pharmacy should be able to market alternatives under the same roof as pharmacology products that are sanctioned by the medical establishment.

Again, if the shelves and packaging carry disclaimers, all legal challenges are null. People spend their money on all sorts of frivolous junk... homeopathic remedies may not work for everyone but at least the harm is contained in the form of the consumer wasting a few dollars on an ineffective, but harmless bottle of water.

I think that's less a concern than say, marketing 'buzz' products that contain ephedrine and so forth that kids get cranked up on... red bull, that sort of crap... homeopathic believers are going to be more likely to be seeking relaxation and be listening to their body more.

Is it snake oil? Paradoxically, it seems that some people respond positively to snake oil, at least in terms of preventative medicine... the mechanism being a physiological state of belief that healing is taking place, which can be as powerful, and even more effective combined with clinically proven medicines.

I think we agree, really, on the main point here, I just might be granting Boots a bit more leeway, and the consumer a bit more freedom to get their bottles of water from a licensed source, if their faith remains unbroken by the disclaimers.

If there ARE no disclaimers in place, ya got a case... that would pose a clear issue.