Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (6136)	8/13/2007 11:03:34 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

I think the court was right in this case. We don't have a constitutional right to take whatever drugs we want. It can be argued that we have a natural right to do so, esp. (but not only) in cases like this where the drug is a potentially life saving medication. But no such right is declared in the constitution, and a court saying there was would be quite "activist". I'm not just against judicial activism when it results in specific results that I don't like. In this case I blame the FDA, and congress, not the courts. Why we don't have a specific constitutional right to use any medicine, it could be argued that the government isn't granted the power to regulate drugs, but as long as the drug is involved in interstate commerce it does. The FDA has argued (and courts have accepted) that even drugs that are produced, distributed, sold, and use within the same state still amount to interstate commerce. That argument is bogus IMO. If Abigail Burroughs' situation really didn't involve interstate commerce in Erbitux than the court should also be blamed.