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.

Comments

Commerce maximalists?

[DoofusOfDeath]

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?

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[nschubach]

I was always taught that it was enacted to prevent States from restricting trade between neighboring states... not to prevent trade.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[pscottdv]

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 certainly cannot, since the states rights are enshrined in the 14th amendment and the commerce clause is in the original constitution, it has never made sense to me. The amendments are supposed to supercede the consititution. That's the whole point of having them.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[robbadler]

I think you misread the article. Biohazardous material will not be crossing state lines, medical equipment will. This is an attempt to stop the use of that equipment on the grounds that it at one point crossed a state line. So did my jeans. Can they use Interstate Commerce to keep me from going to work?

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[Hijacked Public]

No it isn't.

The 'potentially biohazardous material' is contained inside the patient when he boards the airplane to fly to Colorado. That he happens to be going to Colorado to have this procedure performed sets him aparts from the other airplane passengers not at all.

What the FDA is claiming and will probably be backed up by the executive on but possibly not the judicial, is that because the company performing the procedure purchases equipment from other states, their entire business can then be regulated per the commerce clause. This includes their performing the procedure.

It is the same line of thought that had the Clinton administration claiming it could confiscate a person's property simply because that property had once moved across state lines, no matter how long ago and no matter how many hands it had previously passed through, even within the same state. This is an enormous power to give to a government and the very idea that such a tenuous tie is enough to warrant it is insane. SCOTUS rebuked that just a bit recently, but not nearly enough.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[Trepidity]

There was another minor opportunity to stem the tide with some federalist arguments about medical marijuana: people growing their own marijuana, legal under state law, noncommercially, for private use on the premises, argued that this could not possibly be "interstate commerce", but Antonin Scalia of all people wrote an opinion arguing that it was. So you can add "the drug war" as the 3rd wave of things...

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[sconeu]

Actually, States Rights are enshrined in the 10th Amendment. The 14th establishes some federal powers over the States.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[0123456]

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?

Because it's the only way for a power-crazed Federal government to impose their laws across the country.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[JBMcB]

Blame FDR. The supreme court was striking down his New Deal regulations and reforms left and right as they didn't jive with the whole "regulating interstate commerce" thing. So he packed the court with statists who rubber-stamped nearly every program and rule with tortured interpretations of the commerce clause.

The side-effect is that the federal government can now regulate nearly everything you do. Unintended consequences and all.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[Goobermunch]

Please, please, please. Learn your history.

FDR did not pack the court with statists. In fact, the proposal he had advanced (of adding more justices to the supreme court), never went through. Instead, one justice on the court changed his mind about how to approach these matters and turned what had once been a 4-5 court into a 5-4 court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

But go ahead and blame FDR, that's easier than learning about history.

--AC

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[ackthpt]

"No, this is regulating the shipment of potentially biohazardous material across state lines."

A curious theory considering nothing in the article mentioned transporting stem cells across state lines.

Well, suppose your culture grows out of control, into some hideous monster, which would even give J. J. Abrams the night terrors and start roaming the country side? They'd have a point then methinks.

My Creature Was Monster Of The Month In Tokyo

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood why some people thinks states rights are oh so wholesome. Some of the most corrupt and evil politics have been enshrined at the state level.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[SaroDarksbane]

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".

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[hey!]

I was always taught that it was enacted to prevent States from restricting trade between neighboring states... not to prevent trade.

Nobody advocates regulation to *prevent* trade in general. Some trade is *always* restricted by regulation, but the intent and effect of the regulation may be to encourage trade overall. For example if there weren't federal standards for auto emissions, more states might follow California's lead and develop their own regulatory standards. By establishing a nation-wide regulatory regime, a larger and more efficient market results.

On the other hand federal laws *do* effectively prevent *in state* trade in recreational drugs. If anything that's much *more* of an overstepping of federal powers, because the intent is not to provide a uniform regulatory regime for trade in recreational drugs across the country, but to *forbid* the use of recreational drugs *anywhere*. It's seldom questioned because both major parties agree that recreational drug use should be forbidden everywhere.

This is Commerce Clause of the US Constitution: "[Congress will have the power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. That's it. That's all there is. The plain text of the clause doesn't simply prevent Congress or the States from restricting trade to favor one state's produce over another (that's actually covered in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10). The clause appears to give Congress power to regulate interstate commerce *for any reason it sees fit*. If so, Congress can intentionally *restrict trade* between the states if it believes that trade is not in the national interest. And it does, and will continue to do so. If there's ever successful nation-wide restrictions on abortion, those restrictions will be made possible by the Commerce Clause.

You could reasonably argue that this is *too* much power to give Congress. It wouldn't be the only case. I think the powers the Constitution grants Congress in copyrights and patents almost certainly enable Congress to pass laws that would be repulsive to the framers. But the framers while intending to create a government with circumscribed and carefully enumerated powers couldn't possibly have anticipated *all* the uses to which any one power could be put.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[Brett Buck]

I would also note that the interstate commerce clause is used as justification for the Obamacare individual mandate.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[sjames]

By that, he does not mean advocates of state's rights, but statists as in believing in the supremacy of 'the state' over individuals.

Other than the recent narrow ruling requiring a warrant for some GPS tracking, they do seem to have a distinct statist leaning.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[jamstar7]

True enough, but that made it a fairly local problem, not a national problem. Once you got across state lines, you were ok. It's like driving from a dry county to a wet county to pick up a 12 pack. Illegal to own at home, but cross the county line and they have package stores lined up just waiting to sell you whatever booze you want.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[honestmonkey]

You know, I don't see ANYTHING in that statement that precludes stems cells turning into a horrible monster that then roams the countryside, perhaps even leaving Colorado! I think the FDA might want to know if this happens and, thus, control it. The FDA appears to be only thinking of us, and trying to protect us form gross abominations of nature that might be coming to harm us. And it sounds like you don't want this. Which makes me wonder if you're a terrorist. Are you using a VPN or Tor? Hmmm? Maybe the FDA wants to know that as well.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[marnues]

They're wholesome because we can hide our personal prejudices behind states-rights. Or county-rights if it's the state that's offending us.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[PortHaven]

What I never understood. Is why the SCOTUS decided that the Balanced Budget Amendment was unconstitutional on the grounds that budget was the responsibility of Congress.

And yet,somehow does not see any issue with the War Powers Act which has allowed 1/2 a century of wars to go undeclared by Congress.

Go figure,....hypocrisy.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[tnk1]

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.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[atriusofbricia]

Yes they could. Except in as much as the 1st and 9th amendments stand in opposition to doing that.

And that's stopped them exactly when?

When was the last time the SCOTUS paid the least attention to the 9th or 10th Amendments?

Unfortunately, we all got screwed starting at least back with FDR and getting ever worse since.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[atriusofbricia]

I would also note that the interstate commerce clause is used as justification for the Obamacare individual mandate.

Everything that isn't explicitly authorized by the Constitution is claimed to be found in the virtually infinite ICC or GW clause.

EPA, War on (some) Drugs, FTC and probably a dozen more federal agencies. Whether a person likes them all or not, they're all tied directly to the infinite power interpretation of the ICC (or GW).

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[geekoid]

The article is a twisted lie.

http://www.hpm.com/pdf/blog/GovernmentSupportforSummaryJudgmentMotion.pdf

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[GodInHell]

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.

You did catch that whole thing where Texas basically gets to dictate national policy on education because it writes mandates for the publishers and the publishers don't want to make multiple prints of the book -- so we all get what Texas wants. Education policy isn't nationalized by the Feds. It's nationalized by the book publishers.

-GiH

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[atriusofbricia]

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 certainly cannot, since the states rights are enshrined in the 14th amendment and the commerce clause is in the original constitution, it has never made sense to me. The amendments are supposed to supercede the consititution. That's the whole point of having them.

Point of order... States do not have Rights. States have Powers, People have Rights. :)

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[tnk1]

Correct. Threats are often enough to change the minds of courts and legislative houses that can be threatened with flooding their halls with loyalists of one side. They did the same thing in the UK by the government threatening the House of Lords that the King would flood the house with new, reform-minded Lords if they didn't agree to a reduction of their power on their own. Sometimes, you accept that you have no ability to stop things and you do what it takes to preserve what authority you and your group has left, even if you still think its a really bad idea.

Of course the comparison could end there. The House of Lords, particularly around the time of those reforms was a particularly obsolete institution by that point. While on the other hand, the Justices of the Supreme Court may well have been right to oppose the New Deal programs, but ultimately, they got overridden through a threat to the "nuclear option". I think it actually goes to show just how weak the judiciary can be when faced by people who are frightened and are unwilling to accept any decision that does not give them immediate redress, even if they realize it may cause long term problems.

   

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[atriusofbricia]

Please, please, please. Learn your history.

FDR did not pack the court with statists. In fact, the proposal he had advanced (of adding more justices to the supreme court), never went through. Instead, one justice on the court changed his mind about how to approach these matters and turned what had once been a 4-5 court into a 5-4 court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

But go ahead and blame FDR, that's easier than learning about history.

--AC

That is the only reason he didn't pack the court. The previous post is still correct, you just explained the precise method and did point out the error that FDR didn't have to pack the court to get his way. Either way, it's still the New Deal and FDR's fault. Greatest President my ass.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[tnk1]

Well, honestly, if a big state like California wanted separate textbooks, I am certain they could create a market big enough for another textbook publisher to spring up unless that other textbook company complied.

The very fact that there can be One Textbook to Rule them All, is indicative that Federal education policy and monies have synchronized the subject matter to such a degree that the differences between state policies are too small to justify having a separate textbook. Since I sincerely doubt that even a big textbook company like that can affect enough state governments to impose it's will, I'm guessing that it not their publisher's market power that is forcing this situation, although I do agree that they certainly can now use this situation to effectively allow Texas to write everyone's textbook material.

The point is, it is an interesting effect of Federal education policy, but not the cause of it.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[evil_aaronm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[anagama]

the arguments that I hear from some people along the lines of "we can't let the hicks stop teaching evolution,"

One thing to point out to people who make this argument, is that the same blanket law that allows the teaching of evolution, could turn into a blanket law that forbids it. Imagine Santorum setting education policy. And before anyone says the President can't do that -- look at what Obama has done and compare it to his constitutional powers -- GWB was right when he called the constitution "just a piece of paper" -- in practice, that's all it has become.

Secondly, I say this not as someone who wants see science based learning ditched -- I'm an atheist and anti-religionist -- but realistically, science based education, or abortion, or <insert_social_issue> would be safer in the long run, if the Federal government didn't exert complete control. While its true the bible belt would be a wasteland, there are plenty of regions which would be happy to profit as the arts and sciences concentrate in regions on the correct side of these social issues (which happens anyway), and as an added bonus, those regions would be safe from the Santorums of the world.

Re:Commerce maximalists?

[Talderas]

Thanks to Wickard vs Filburn any activity you engage in that would cause you to NOT participate in interstate commerce is in effect affecting interstate commerce by you not being a prospective customer or supplier.

It's dumb as fucking rocks and examples like this are precisely the reason why the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare statement should not be wide open grants of power if a grant of power at all in the case of the General Welfare statement.

Interstate Commerce

[mosb1000]

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.

Re:Interstate Commerce

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post itself interferes with interstate commerce. I googled your email and you seem to be from california. I was going to take my next vacation there but now that I know you hate america, I will probably not. I will also tell my friends not to go there. I'm sure you clearly see how your terroristic behavior has no place in a free society like ours! The DHS is on the way...

Re:Interstate Commerce

[roman_mir]

They've gone off the track because they moved away from the point of that clause completely, and the point was to ensure that States do not engage in anti-competitive behaviour, so for example it is wasteful and corrupt to require that say a medical or a financial professional has to register as such in every State separately, instead of ensuring that registered once in one State, the person can then practice his trade across State borders.

The federal government has failed in this completely, why completely abusing the very point of that power granted to it to mean that it can override any State law with federal law, like in case of marijuana, where California declares it legal for medical use, yet FBI still raids dispensaries.

DMT

[Hatta]

Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is a naturally occuring endogenous neurotransmitter that is also a Schedule I drug.

this is hardly the biggest abuse

[Karmashock]

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.

Re:this is hardly the biggest abuse

[ScentCone]

At least this abuse of the Commerce Clause involves actual economic activity. Obamacare involves garnishing your wages or potentially landing in you federal prison for not participating in interstate commerce with ... a health insurance company in your own state. It's a good thing we passed that law so we could see what was in it, Nancy!

Growing your own food affects interstate commerce

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Cute.

[jamstar7]

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...

Re:So?

[ClioCJS]

Uh, no. That's not how medicine OR the FDA works. They don't regulate medical procedures throughout the country. They have a specific scope. But i guess you weren't too sure of yourself if you had to post anonymously, were you?

A modicum of facts

No such thing exists

[NovaSupreme]

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.

Hahahahahaha

[roman_mir]

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.

Re:Hahahahahaha

[roman_mir]

You're garden example sis not true at all.

Why don't you shut your fucking worthless ignorant yapper?

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

Re:Hahahahahaha

[roman_mir]

Anything government argues will be passed by a judge, that's how they didn't strike down every unconstitutional thing that happened for 100 years, from income taxes, to minimum wage, to SS and Medicare and every business regulation that is passed by the unelected executive branch without bothering with the Congress.

It is irrelevant for me to have to prove that in every single case government gets what it wants, I can point out plenty of cases where completely irrational and illogical things were deemed to be lawful in court, like this case of a farmer getting fined by government and having his product destroyed that he created for his own use.

Again, he was fined and his product was destroyed which he was not selling, and the reasoning was that he was using the product that he was not selling.

The reasoning was that he was PRODUCING SOMETHING WITHOUT SELLING and thus he was found guilty, this is absolutely irrational and illogical and the government was found to be within its rights to enforce this by a court, thus anything that is illogical and irrational can be enforced by a court and I don't have to prove that every combination of illogical and irrational thing will be enforced, it is simply by example is shown to be a POSSIBILITY.

Your stupid argument is what, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a court to judge that government cannot control people based on the fact that they are breathing air?

Well, you cannot prove it simply because you find it to be irrational and illogical, the courts have proven that they can take an irrational and illogical position that government takes and rule in its favour.

As I said, your nick is entirely appropriate.

Re:Growing your own food affects interstate commer

[Daetrin]

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!

Re:The Real Reason for this is that it is a SCAM!

[Entropius]

If it is a scam, then the FDA should call up the local attorney general and report a case of fraud.

Why invoke "interstate commerce?" If this is genuinely fraud then call it such and try the perpetrators for it. No Constitutional grey areas there.

... Glenn Beck on Slashdot?

[truavatar]

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

Re:... Glenn Beck on Slashdot?

[gewalker]

I don't care whether it comes from theblaze, huffpost , the national enquirer, or the KKK. If the the story is accurate and relevant (sufficiently interesting, funny, etc.)? If yes, the front page is fine by me. If you have a choice of sourcing the article, a less incendiary source would be a wiser choice.

Re:... Glenn Beck on Slashdot?

[MozeeToby]

I can't remember the exact quote, nor who it was that said it, but it goes something like this:

Everything he said was accurate, and not a word of it was true.

Do we really want random doctors performing do-it-yourself stem cell treatments on the fly with no oversight? Just because they come from your body doesn't mean they are harmless, I bet there are any number of chemicals, bacteria, or cell lines that could be isolated from the human body and put back into a different part and would lead to problems. Keying up on their (IMO mis-)use of the interstate commerce clause is just deflecting from the fact that these procedures should be regulated, and classifying stem cells as a drug seems to me to be a reasonable way to do it.

Re:... Glenn Beck on Slashdot?

[truavatar]

It is not accurate. That is my point.

theblaze.com's sole source is the Alliance for Natural Health's article which grossly misrepresent the FDA's case, as you can see if you read the FDA's motion for summary judgement:

http://www.hpm.com/pdf/blog/GovernmentSupportforSummaryJudgmentMotion.pdf

The article is about as useful as if it had come from the National Enquirer.

Re:... Glenn Beck on Slashdot?

[Dave Emami]

I can't remember the exact quote, nor who it was that said it, but it goes something like this:

Everything he said was accurate, and not a word of it was true.

Do we really want random doctors performing do-it-yourself stem cell treatments on the fly with no oversight?

Whether "we" want this or not, isn't the issue that was raised. The question was "is this really interstate commerce?" Those who don't want constraints on the scope of Congress' regulatory power should be honest about it, propose an amendment to the Constitution that says "Congress shall have the power to regulate whatever the fuck it wants to regulate", and get it passed. Put an end to the FDR-spawned charade of callings things interstate commerce which, by any non-silly definition, aren't. I doubt that even the people who use that argument actually believe it, for the most part.

The fact that you consider the question "just deflecting" illustrates the point: you think it's a good idea for Congress to do this, so you apparently don't think it's necessary to define where the power for them to do so is enumerated in the Constitution. All the more reason to pass something like the Enumerated Powers Act.

Re:... Glenn Beck on Slashdot?

[geekoid]

It isn't. It's twisted and incorrect.

For the record; when a source has a history of twisting, lying, and making things up, they loose any credibility. I don't want to see them on the front page. By changing their ways, they can earn front page.

Re:Growing your own food affects interstate commer

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Mod parent up: Wickard v. Filburn was the start of the ridiculous expansion of commerce clause overreach.

Re:So?

[SydShamino]

That's a really bad argument. The Supreme Court can be and is regularly wrong. Their word may be law, but that does not make their work right and everyone else wrong. Big difference.

Re:So?

[ClioCJS]

And you arrived at your opinion by doing research on the matter and deciding for yourself that it did not meet your definition of safe. (To an extent, the same thing the FDA did.) How odd it is that today it seems odd to let people have the freedom to make a decision for themselves, but quite fine to justify the government making the same decision for them.

While you may have a point, if I'm allowed to participate in a demolition derby, jump out of an airplane, go skiing down dangerous hills, or drive down gravel roads in a mountain park -- then it seems that morally, I have the right to take risk -- even deadly risk -- of doing something, if I choose to do so. Strange how that right disappears into thin air when expensive medical technology gets involved. The mysticism behind the knowledge of what is safe and isn't safe has been slowly disappearing as more and more information is released publicly, online, where everyone can investigate it themselves. The idea that people are taking risks they aren't aware of becomes more disingenuous with each passing day of the information revolution. But the idea that people are not allowed to take certain risks, unless the government says they can -- is a bit of a joke. This isn't snake oil.

Stay Tuned

[sycodon]

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.

Taking this a a logical (I hope) conclusion...

[aklinux]

I suppose this means that now I will need FDA approval before inserting sperm into a womans body?

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

how the fuck can a neurotransmitter be illegal? that makes everyone on earth a criminal, it's totally insane!

It is not about commerce and stem cells

[pesho]

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.

Re:#1

[geekoid]

Don't get too concerned, it's not as clear as the people who like to quote the case make it seem.

He was growing more wheat then allowed..so he claimed that the 'overflow' was for person use. But what is over flow? He was selling wheat. If he grew the limit and fed his animals from that, it would be different. If he wasn't selling his wheat out of state, this would not have been an issue.

But he was a guy who wanted to sell his wheat on a regulated market, and not play by the rules of that market.