Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FDA Regulating Your Stem Cells As Interstate Commerce

Posted by timothy on from the oh-that's-raich dept.

New submitter dcbrianw writes "A non-surgical procedure that treats joint pain involves removing stem cells from a patient's blood and reinserting them into the joint. The facility conducting these procedures resides in Colorado, but because it orders equipment to perform the procedure from outside of Colorado, the FDA claims it must regulate this process and that it can classify stem cells as a drug. This issue opens the debate of what the FDA, or other regulatory bodies, may regulate within each of our own bodies." Quick: Name five activities with no possible plausible effect on interstate commerce.

6 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Commerce maximalists? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can anyone comment on why the Supreme Court has historically allowed the Commerce clause to apply to absolutely anything that could be remotely, however ridiculously, be considered related to interstate commerce, and thus trample states' rights?

    Is this simply a perennial sin of the Court, or is there a sound Constitutional basis for it?

    1. Re:Commerce maximalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This came up in a constitutional law class I took. The answer we came up with is that (1) we (the general populace) want the federal government to be able to regulate these things, (2) constitutional amendments are nigh impossible, and (3) it can be justified... the logic is tortured, and I doubt any intellectually honest person would really believe it, but it can be done.

      You probably hate point (1), but think about when it really started happening... the depression was here, people were miserable, they wanted someone to save them, so they turned to the government. And that still happens today. Turn on the news, and when you hear about a major problem, there will be a commentator following hard upon saying "where were the regulators in all of this?!" and people will nod their heads.

      Anyway, that's the answer: the majority of people want it to be the way it is.

    2. Re:Commerce maximalists? by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can they use Interstate Commerce to keep me from going to work?

      They can use the Interstate Commerce clause to prevent you from growing wheat in your own backyard for your own consumption, so . . . yes? And it's obvious why the courts let them get away with this; like any good statist, the courts also want the government to control your life at every level. Judges really have the easiest job in the world of it, though, since all they have to do is say "Whatever the government wants is cool with us".

    3. Re:Commerce maximalists? by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mostly because the state governments are closer to the people they represent, and are probably (slightly) more concerned about the welfare of the individual people they represent. Obviously, some state governments are pretty huge too, so that is going to be admittedly relative. Still, the Federal Government is gigantic, and you will often find that it tends to represent only the key groups for getting elections won, which is ultimately a very small number of people when you consider it.

      I think the best form of democracy consists of the most local form that can get the job done. Having a national army on the Federal level is going to be necessary to protect the whole country from larger aggressors, and certainly it is a bad idea to have localized foreign policy, but do we really need the Federal government to synchronize education, for instance? I'd say not, and the arguments that I hear from some people along the lines of "we can't let the hicks stop teaching evolution," or the like, I think is an invalidation of the principle of government by the People. I also feel that such polarization starts happening when individuals feel they need to become more and more radicalized to even be heard in the larger governmental venues.

      Having government at a local level does not always prevent corruption, but it does allow people to actually have a chance to have a say in government if they try to exert their will and interest. To even be noticed on a state and Federal level, you start needing the massive cash reserves that only things like special interest groups or corporate sponsorships can get for you. There's less diversity in solutions, and they tend to be executed more on a basis of political expediency rather than need or efficiency.

  2. No such thing exists by NovaSupreme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You cannot do anything without having some effect on interstate commerce.
    Entropy of whole universe must increase with time, so everything is connected including interstate commerce and your poop.
    Alternatively, if you are alive and you breathe, you must be changing composition of air a little bit, and since all air is connected, you are modifying the air composition of the whole country. This promotes traders who sell purified air across states.
    Alternatively, if you buy an out-of-state merchandise, of course you impact interstate commerce. On the other hand, if you dont buy from an out-of-state merchant, of course you impact interstate commerce, as your (lack of) activity will have negative effect on the price of the merchandise.

    Oh, this would be so funny if this clause were not the most abused clause in the constitution, that has been taken WAAAAAY out of its context.

  3. ... Glenn Beck on Slashdot? by truavatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Glenn Beck's "theblaze.com" is your sole source for this front page post? Thanks slashdot.