Justices Hear Drug Liability Case

Diana Levine went to a medical clinic with a severe migraine headache. She wound up with gangrene and an amputated forearm, the victim of a rare side effect from a popular anti-nausea drug..

[Mr_Bill]

I cannot understand the constitutional argument of the Drug company.

The states never ceded regulation to the Federal Government, yet the company claims it is shielded from state laws by virtue of Federal "preemption" of state law.

Can someone intelligently explain?

[Yada]

This is a tragic case true. But 'tis a typical case of sue whoever has the deepest pockets; in this case Wyeth.

[workerbeedrone]

If we're going to have a market where drugs that can kill or dismember people are allowed on the market, then allow all drugs on the market.
It seems like if you can afford a self-financed study to prove your drug is safe, you're allowed to sell it.
The only difference between a drug company and a snake oil salesmen is how capable you are of financing the self-study and juggling the numbers.

[Guess Who]

Sounds like recluse venom....

[Lance Winslow]

Mr_Bill wrote:

I cannot understand the constitutional argument of the Drug company.
The states never ceded regulation to the Federal Government, yet the company claims it is shielded from state laws by virtue of Federal "preemption" of state law.
Can someone intelligently explain?

Although the states never explicitly ceded regulatory authority over food, drugs and cosmetics, they have neither challenged nor opposed federal regulation on a constitutional basis.
The case before the court is complex. As I understand it, there are instances where federal law clearly pre-empts other statutes but this case is not one of them, rather the argument is that federal law might be implied or inferred to take precedence. In other words, does the federal law extend beyond it's stated scope.

[Mr_Bill]

Lance Winslow wrote:

<quoted text>Although the states never explicitly ceded regulatory authority over food, drugs and cosmetics, they have neither challenged nor opposed federal regulation on a constitutional basis.
The case before the court is complex. As I understand it, there are instances where federal law clearly pre-empts other statutes but this case is not one of them, rather the argument is that federal law might be implied or inferred to take precedence. In other words, does the federal law extend beyond it's stated scope.

So, the "states rights" Neo-conservatives have become Federalists when their ox is gored?

The 'strict constuctionists' become "inferred rights" supporters when their money tree is threatened?

You, Lance, and I are at least consistant.
Thanks for the answer.