Protecting Us to Death

Radley Balko | August 10, 2007

Cato's Roger Pilon dissects the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision last week denying a right to potentially lifesaving drugs that are still under review by the FDA.

The Ninth Amendment makes a rare guest appearance.

Comments

|8.10.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Curious as to the Reason view that it's wrong for the FDA to not allow "untested" (by their standards) to flow to patients but its ok for Congress to ban the flow of drugs that are imported from nations with price controls...Could it be that in the former scenario Pharma makes more $ but under the latter they do not? Is that a libertarian principle I'm unaware of?

|8.10.07 @ 1:52PM|#

http://www.citizen.org/congress/regulations/archives/fdarollback/articles.cfm?ID=844
I mean, did Reason get any of this largesse to finesse "libertarian" principles?

|8.10.07 @ 1:52PM|#

Why didn't the 9th amendment make "a rare guest appearance" in Balko's abortion piece? I thought we retained more rights than could possibly be enumerated...

|8.10.07 @ 1:58PM|#

RON PAUL would abolish the FDA

Christopher Monnier|8.10.07 @ 2:03PM|#

edit: RON PAUL would TRY to abolish the FDA

The beast is mighty, can cannot be defeated by one man.

|8.10.07 @ 2:15PM|#

RON PAUL would abolish the FDA

Um, I believe it's an Executive branch department, but its purpose is to enforce a law that was passed by the Legislative branch (quite some time ago). I'm pretty sure you would need to get some laws passed to outright abolish it. You could severly limit its regulatory power, though. However, the next president could just wipe all of that off the books. The system was designed to prevent one person from having complete control (that's called a "dictatorship", kids!)

|8.10.07 @ 2:26PM|#

Actually, that's an interesting point. In theory, a president has as much right to interpret the Constitution as any other branch. He could decide that the FDA is an unconstitutional exertion of power and provoke a Constitutional crisis. Of course, he could also just severely curtail the activities of any agency under his control, which would avoid a direct conflict with the other branches. For many agencies, their enabling acts are very broad and vague, giving them a lot of leeway to act. Or not act.

Jesse Walker|8.10.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Curious as to the Reason view that it's...ok for Congress to ban the flow of drugs that are imported from nations with price controls

How is that "the Reason view"? I took the exact opposite position here, and Jacob Sullum has argued against the ban on reimportation as well. Ron Bailey disagrees, and there may be other staffers who side with him. So there's no party line.

|8.10.07 @ 2:41PM|#

How is that "the Reason view"? I took the exact opposite position here, and Jacob Sullum has argued against the ban on reimportation as well. Ron Bailey disagrees, and there may be other staffers who side with him. So there's no party line.

I personally believe that, yes, in principle, it is wrong to regulate imported drugs.

The wild card: We have a modern sanitation infrastructure, most other countries do not.

So while not a 100% libertarian view, I'd say we would need to at least take a look at food coming from third world countries, since the food in question is more likely to contain cancerous AIDS.

|8.10.07 @ 2:41PM|#

Ooops, forgot to fix my name above...

|8.10.07 @ 2:54PM|#

I stand corrected Jesse, I was commenting on Bailey's post the other day. I actually think he had a defensible position, but I thought it too cute by half to be a libertarian position...Perhaps there are things, such as promoting innovative R&D worth restricting consumer freedom and access for, but if it's called a libertarian argument I think that's true only to the extent that libertarianism is synonomous with the view that what is good for business is good for the US.

|8.10.07 @ 3:13PM|#

Note to multiple identity addicts -- Remember Me is not your friend.

SIV|8.10.07 @ 4:26PM|#

How is that "the Reason view"? I took the exact opposite position here, and Jacob Sullum has argued against the ban on reimportation as well. Ron Bailey disagrees, and there may be other staffers who side with him. So there's no party line.

Don't forget, Ron admits to owning drug company stocks.Hey he's got to shill for somebody and Big Climatology ain't paying the bills like Big Oil used to. What do you got against capitalism?

|8.10.07 @ 4:39PM|#

Is Reason accepting applications for science editor? Not that I think Ron hasn't been doing a bang up job. I just think someone else might do it better.

full disclosure. I'm not a scientist but I watch them on TV.

Bopo|8.10.07 @ 11:17PM|#

"Cato's Roger Pilon dissects the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision last week denying a right to potentially lifesaving drugs that are still under review by the FDA"



Once again, why and the hell is access to medication a right?

|8.11.07 @ 8:40AM|#

Mister Nice [sic] Guy,

"http://www.citizen.org/congress/regulations/archives/fdarollback/articles.cfm?ID=844
I mean, did Reason get any of this largesse to finesse 'libertarian' principles?"

Checking that link, I found references to the alleged corruption of various think tanks by tainted money from Big Pharma. The link also argued that these think tanks had sinister connections with a subversive organization known as the Republican Party.

The Reason Foundation was *not* on the list of evil think tanks. The Reason Foundation was not even mentioned. I suppose that simply proves the multifarious ramifications of the conspiracy, in that the Reason Foundation is able to conceal its activities even from the zealous, public-spirited activists who provided that link.