If others like the FDA, who don't like zappers could sell the idea they were harmless placebos they would. Otherwise why the ruckus over something that is harmless unless you thought you could get a judgement in your favor that way?
A person only has to look at the number of times a radiation oncologist tells dying cancer patients they're going to get palliative radiation as a placebo, and people pay for it, yet you don't hear the FDA suing radiation oncologists for using useless placebos. Why not?
Placebos are things that don't do anything. People paid for "pet rocks" (literally), they go on rides at Disneyland, why can't a person buy a zapper if the FDA thinks its a placebo? If its not a placebo why keep arguing to the public that it is. Here is the contradiction in their "placebo argument."
If the FDA and those who agree with them are going to tell the public which placebo is allright for them to buy, where do they get the right to do that?
I think people should read about your case because if manufacturers can't make zappers then that's restricting my right to buy one if I want to buy one.
In the age of consumerism and information why would a judge care who bought a placebo for themselves? If judges aren't going to side with you, then they ought not side with palliative radiation either, just to be fair.
(So far it's starting to appear that you need $$$$ for a "permit" for a placebo.)
definitions for those who find them useful:
alleviate....to make light ...as in alleviate with humor
.............to afford relief
palliative...serving to extenuate
.............that which allieviates
.............[from the Latin word "palliatus" - dressed in a cloak]