That’s exactly what I said. Either both are federal purview or they aren’t.
Aren’t, neither of them
No argument from me, the process needs very badly to be streamlined.
I’d also like to see the manufacturers freed from any liability for a drug that has received FDA approval unless it can be shown conclusively that they faked studies or fudged data.
Pharmaceutical liability is the biggest driver of rising drug prices to the end user.
Over a hundred years of court decisions and federal law tells us otherwise. The chances of any court reversing all of that are about a million to one if even that good.
The teaching hospitals and pharmacies get their data from the manufacturers and FDA.
No matter how many times you attempt this, unconstitutional acts will not be cleansed by ignorant citizens and the morons they elect. I am not disputing it’s the norm, I am disputing it is an accurate or faithful interpretation of the constitution as written and ratified by the people.
I pretty much am with sneaky on that one, the whole premise is absurd. RP basically takes us into pre crime activity, targeting an individual just because you suspect them guilty of something and then go looking for a crime.
We may disagree with it, but it is what it is and it isn’t going away in either case. The public expects the fed’s to “protect” them from bad drugs and control the firearms industry and regulate ownership eligibility.
Most of them are, Darwin and Mother Nature are not kind.
And? I never disputed that is what the public wants or expects, doesn’t make it a legit constitutional function of the fed now does it?
Hell, my daughters and all their friends think people should be arrested for hate speech. Does that mean the constitution granted the feds the power to do it?
The legitimacy is determined in the courts. The only way to change that is to pass a constitutional amendment which would then change the bar by which the courts rule.
Some things though once done simply can’t be reversed.
The Constitution is pretty unambiguous there but the moment the SCOTUS upholds hate speech laws they will have again neutered it.
Oh please, our courts abandoned the constitution long ago.
2 Likes
You are wrong. The May Clinic etal do not test drugs before they are approved by the FDA. In fact, they rely on the FDA to require the makers to test their drugs and to evaluate the results before the drug is released. Perhaps you have forgotten what occurred with thalidomide because it was released for use everywhere except the US because it had not been cleared yet by the FDA.
And its not just prescription drugs. Every OTC drug is also evaluated for safety. If they didn’t who knows what might be in the cold remedy that you give your sick kids. Even just a 100 years ago, many dairies were adding formaldehyde to their milk to increase its shelf life. Would you want your kids drinking that? Would you test it yourself to make sure it was safe?
Oh is that the line for you? Wickard V Filburn, Roosevelt threatening to stack the courts and insert endless list didn’t do it for you?
Again, this isn’t 1940. I am not putting a drug in my body or accepting a medical treatment without consulting the most learned medical groups in the country. I don’t need the government or the FDA for that. I will gladly pay reputable medical scientists to perform that service and I have little to no doubt such a commercial service would also share those findings with the general public.
Ps tsk tsk Samm, nanny stater, I thought better of you.
And exactly who do you think the most learned medical groups get their primary information on the vast majority of drugs and other to-be-ingested consumer products?
Pharmaceutical companies? I am perfectly capable of following the medical literature myself, I am not a moron. Nor do I need the fed to hold my hand. Jeesh.
And hey, if I am wrong and a moron, its really none of your beeswax. Now why don’t you lecture me on the collective good. That is what a conservative would do.