Slashdot Mirror
FDA Regulating Your Stem Cells As Interstate Commerce
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.
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?
I think maybe where they've gone off track is they are thinking they can regulate anything related to interstate commerce, rather than just the commerce itself.
It's a medical procedure. It SHOULD be regulated by the FDA. This has nothing to do with regulating what's "inside the body".
Also, The Blaze is hardly an unbiased source.
Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is a naturally occuring endogenous neurotransmitter that is also a Schedule I drug.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
medical marijuana grown and consumed and never crosses state lines can still be regulated because of the commerce clause, according to the Supreme Court.
Interstate commerce is a catch all the government uses when it has no right to do something and wants to do it anyway.
What I find amusing about this is that so many people are upset about this stem cell thing but aren't upset by all the things that created the precedence that allowed them to make these claims in the first place.
if you want this to stop then the inter state commerce clause needs to get it's wings clipped. That's the problem. Go to the source.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If you grow your own food, you won't buy it from another state. Therefore, growing your own food affects interstate commerce. At least that's what the Supreme Court decided when a farmer fed his own animals with his home grown food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
... to report the issue objectively. It seems to be a rather religious/right-wing kind of a place. That said, could be something here...
The real reason the FDA is trying to step in is that this is a procedure is a medical scam. No different than if I offered to cut off the lobes of your ears to treat deafness.
And here I thought Roe vs Wade claims the State has no right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your body.
Oh, wait, they're trying to invalidate Roe vs Wade. Too many loopholes, I guess...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Lawnmowing Paper delivery boy Massages School Assembly Public Speaking Local Prostitution
1) Breathing? ... ...I'll get back to you once I confirm this post meets FDA regulations.*
2)
*(This post only allowed in New York, USA. Do not view, store, or transmit this post unless within the state of New York. Failure to comply may be a federal crime and could result in fines and jail time. By continuing to read this post you accept these terms.)
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.
Compounds in saliva promote healing and immune response. Are those drugs? Will they soon be regulating the practice of licking wounds?
This is precious, why have a Constitution if you can 'interpret' it at all, so in reality nothing that government wants to do can be prevented?
I mean, eventually you BREATH AIR, right? Doesn't air cross State boundaries? That's it - your very existence can be regulated by the federal government completely even if you never leave your particular State.
If you grow your own food in your own garden and you don't even buy anything from anybody - well, by gov't logic (and it's true, it already was argued) you are involved in 'interstate commerce'. Why? Because you aren't buying things from other states, so you are clearly preventing their sales, which means you are interfering with inter-state commerce, which means you are engaged in it.
Hawaii is one state, yet it has 'interstate highways' in it (H-1), but it's one State. So how is that possible? Well the answer is obvious - when federal government wants to build a highway system in order to interfere with States rights logic exits the doors.
You can't handle the truth.
I lost count, is that 5 things, 6 things, or just 1?
It's the government's "get out of jail free" card to regulate anything they want. If you're doing something involving interstate commerce, clearly that affects interstate commerce. If you choose to avoid doing anything that involves interstate commerce, well then obviously that intentional lack of interaction has an effect on interstate commerce as well!
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
My sunlight comes from out of state, too. Should we that with usage regulations and fees?
Growing wheat for your own personal consumption and the feeding of your own livestock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
It's not commerce if you grow your own wheat and feed it to your livestock.
Oh, wait. Facepalm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
I would love to have a government that stopped thinking so highly of itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
The US government, in an attempt to control the price of wheat, set limits on wheat production. A farmer grew more than his legal allotment, but the excess never left his farm, being used for private consumption. The court ruled that though the wheat never left his farm (let alone the state), his excess production lead to higher supply that did have some effect on the price, and thus, was subject to federal regulation.
That case was cited in a more recent and similar case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich), in which homegrown marijuana for medical use (in California, where state laws permit it) was destroyed by the federal government. Government action was upheld as the homegrown medical supply had an effect on the larger interstate non-medical supply.
Name five activities with no possible plausible effect on interstate commerce? None, when you can't even grow food in your garden without it being regulated by the federal government. I mean, I could have sex with my wife and they'd claim it should be regulated because I could have patronized a whore in the next state instead.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Glenn Beck's "theblaze.com" is your sole source for this front page post? Thanks slashdot.
When I'm sued by some conglomerate, for having the temerity to take my biomass across state lines, donate blood or some such, because they've got some damn patent on it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
A test case of the New Deal was if the Federal Government could regulate a wheat field that was grown on private land whose purpose was to feed the people who owned the land – and thus would never be sold or transferred across state lines..
The Supreme Court said yes.
I can understand and approve that common carriers have to be open for all (see parent’s comment). The wheat case just strains my poor brain.
Like it or not, this WWII rationing decision is the cornerstone to the present interpertation for interstate commerece.
The pot laws, the laws that limit automatic weapons and clip sizes trace back here - so its not going away.
The only way to get this overturned is to get a Constitutional Amendment. With language like:
Be it the Supreme Court has their head up thine asses when they feltgrowing your own grain on your own property effected interstate commerce and the Congress can't seem to extract it, it is up to the citizens to declare:
Stuff done in the state borders that never leaves the State doesn't effect interstate commerce. And that goes double for that plant growing in yor closet.
Therefore: Go pound sand federalies.
(I'm sure someone else can clean up the verbage. Then all someone has to do is form a 509 (is it 509?) corp to take in donations along with a SuperPAC to get in money and hand it out to various ppl to push the amendment adjenda. Potheads and banna clip advocates united!)
There are politicans whom want a tighter interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Ron Paul is one such politician. He is in the Republican Primaries right now. Vote for him.
Mod parent up: Wickard v. Filburn was the start of the ridiculous expansion of commerce clause overreach.
Redundancy is good And also good.
The development of Federal power following the creation of the United States is best understood by looking at each constitutional amendment and constitutional case in its historical context. Important cases under the Commerce Clause are no exception. Wikipedia has a great article on this: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause#New_Deal" . Specifically, the headings "Early Years", "Dormant Commerce Clause", "New Deal", and those that follow.
One case that was particularly difficult for me was Wickard v. Filburn (1942) where the court upheld a New Deal law which mandated that farmers could not grow crops beyond a certain amount on their own land for their own consumption because the EFFECT of consuming their own produce was that farmers would NOT purchase products in interstate commerce and this, was held to have an effect upon interstate commerce such that congress could regulate such production of food for personal consumption.
I think they are poised to dial that back quite a bit when they ditch the individual mandate and likely then entire Obama Care Act.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The Commerce Clause seems to be the wild card of the Constitution which allows the government to justify any law it pleases regardless of the tenuous relationship to actual interstate commerce. I'm surprised that the Commerce Clause has not yet been used to justify the Patriot Act in some twisted way.
I suppose this means that now I will need FDA approval before inserting sperm into a womans body?
I can understand if you're a die-hard states' rights advocate, but for everyone else, what's the big deal? I would say that, in general, I put a lot more trust in the FDA -- as much as it may be influenced by politics and money -- than I put in whatever backward regulation agency that may or may not exist in the state of Colorado. I am sure the state-level agency can be influenced much more easily than a federal agency.
When people's lives are at risk, and potentially on the dime of our insurance premiums (even if just for complications), I want to make sure we're doing the best we can of it. At this point, like it or not, it's probably the FDA. They've made some bonehead decisions, but they've also done good things, and I think that in general, we're better off having the FDA than having a hodge-podge of state agencies with different rules.
I'm not really sure I understand the point of states anymore. They made a lot of sense when the country was created, but they make a lot less sense now. I'd rather see a political system where you could vote for representatives-at-large, and the top 435 or 100 get to go to Washington.
And it works. The FDA managed to force the Regenexx stem cell culturing labs overseas, but they are still able to perform same day treatments in CO. It's scary that the FDA may have the ability to stop us from utilizing our own cells to heal, and force us into the death throws of FDA approved drugs to treat arthritis symptoms, and not arthritis itself. The FDA would be able to regulate every aspect of biological life if this passes.
You live in a police state. Film at 11.
(1) amateur radio signals. by international and national law, no commerce can be conducted on-air by hams.
(2) consensual traditional sex of the "free like beer" variety.
(3) nose picking.
(4) laughing at bureaucrats over any medium, or none except free speech in public air.
(5) Cowboy Neal.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
how the fuck can a neurotransmitter be illegal? that makes everyone on earth a criminal, it's totally insane!
This is a moronic summary of a stupid article. This is not about FDA regulating your stem cells, it is about FDA regulating snake oil salesmen, before somebody gets hurt.
Some schmuck finds a loophole in the law that allows him to perform for profit untested medical procedures with questionable (to put it mildly) outcome. FDA has two options:
1. Ignore him and when somebody gets hurt get dragged to congress as a showpiece of a useless government bureaucracy.
2. Cover their bases and use all (no mater how questionable) authority that it can muster to try to shut him down.
Option one is a loosing proposition. Option two is a win-win no-matter how the court decides. If the court allows this to fly (unlikely) they win. If the court laughs at their arguments (more likely) they have covered their asses big time. Now they can turn to congress and say 'We have done what we can, it is your turn now to decide if this should be regulated'. In addition, at any point in the future when a similar situation pops up they are absolved from responsibility.
Masturbation
No. Transportation become easier is why everything applies to the Commerce Clause; as intended.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In other words, the government can keep me from having sex with my wife. After all, by having sex with her I am not seeking inter-state sex "services", and therefore affecting the sex trade.
If you don't like the way the Federal Government manages power, you should move to Oklahoma and deal with the shitkickers there.
More than half the state are Jesus crazed lunatics waiting for the rapture while trying to start their own Taliban like theocracy and living in fear that the communists are going to come over and take their Bibles away.
Even a large number of what passes for moderate, that's slightly to the right of center, considers everything but Christianity, and that's their definition of Christianity whether Catholics qualify or not varies because Catholics pray to the Saints, to be Satanism.
Back when I was in the military, it was already being done to speed up climatization of troops.
Blood was drawn from soldiers, and the hemoglobin / red blood cells were extracted and frozen months in advance to troops being deployed to different climates.
Once the troops arrived, they were given their own blood parts back increasing their hemoglobin / red blood cell counts in order to speed up how quickly they adapted to things like temperature and elevation changes.
I believe that athletes and other people have done the same thing when they desired to adapt more quickly to a new area.
So really, this isn't a new process, just doing it with different materials. And since the FDA didn't jump all over the one as commerce, they shouldn't be allowed (ie precedent set already that it wasn't commerce) to jump on this one.
From Wikipedia, on Gonzales v. Raich
"If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
and further:
"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." "
the federal government is so out of whack, big, complicated, and over-powered. initially, this why i cheered the tea party and a gushing new wave of conservatism. as i've watched the haggling about the budget over the past year, i realized what a mistake it is for us to support conservatives any more. basically, we have teenagers (liberals) doing and spending whatever they want. then we have parents/adults (conservatives) reigning them in and putting them in check every so often. another analogy, we have reckless users (liberals) doing whatever they want with 'the machine'. when the machine slows down or looks like it's going to break down, we send in the maintenance crew (conservatives).
i think the only way to fix all of this mess is to let it actually, completely break. let it bankrupt itself. vote for the stupidest, most 'spend money like a drunken sailor' candidate that you find. when it really does go KA-BLOOWY, then we'll be in a position to fix this mess.
OK, so this is an obvious malinterpretation of law, but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the potential medical misdirection here. Hematopoietic stem cells are not like embryonic stem cells that can theoretically be engineered to grow into any type of cell -- they can only create blood cells, not tissue, bone, etc.
This is disturbingly reminiscent of a story I read here about people who died from having HSCs injected into their kidneys by snake-oil doctors.
"I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce."
it would have been Armageddon in liberal land....
The FDA apparently thinks human organs as drugs, and surgical operations involving needles as non-surgical operations. Brilliant!
Not directed toward your quote........, but the FDA does jack shit too regulate ANYTHING, 3 out of 5 drugs """"FDA approved"""" get recalled of the market!! The only drugs that get ""noticed"" are the ones the asshole media reports on.. Why the fuck is the even news????? The FDA is complete bullshit, so why do we have to read these """FDA"" approved drugs on slashdot? Come on man!!!! You report this, months later, even a few years later you report how it was pulled of the market. And then act dumb founded as to why?
Unless it was a direct cure for something, "" oh lord, god forbid there be a cure for something""" Usually directed towards gene therapy, oh good lord, not the gene therapy" !!!!!!!!!!!!! Another branch of government in which tax payers money is wasted!!!!!!!
They do nothing to oversee the testing why in the fuck would you trust them to approve anything!!!!!!!!! Same SHIT the FCC, and FAA are at fault for.. Might as well say this shit before Slashdot follows Twitters, and Google's examples of censorship!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry for the dramatics but this FDA bullshit is just that ""bullshit""!!!
Unreal...