Feds come to Libertarian’s rescue

This Zohydro story is an example of how the federal government protects individual rights from state government intrusion, and I hope the anti-federal government state’s rights Libertarians will kindly acknowledge it indeed happens sometimes.

A federal judge struck down the state’s first-of-its-kind emergency ban on Zohydro on Tuesday, saying Massachusetts had no authority to overrule a federal decision to approve the powerful, controversial painkiller.

US District Court Judge Rya W. Zobel said in a five-page ruling that the Food and Drug Administration approved Zohydro after a screening process, in spite of the state’s concerns that it could lead to opiate addictions, and so the state could not enact an outright ban singling out the drug.

“If the Commonwealth were able to countermand the FDA’s determinations and substitute its own requirements, it would undermine the FDA’s ability to make drugs available to promote and protect the public health,” Zobel said in her ruling, saying the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution gives the federal regulatory agency more weight than the state.

I know it doesn’t mean that the government has gotten out of the way, as Brock states the Libertarian position on this recent diary:

Libertarian (5.00 / 2)

I’m rather libertarian on this matter in that I want the government to get the Hell out of the way of the relationship between the doctor and the patient.  If someone needs pain medication, be it very strong and/or a new innovation, then some paper pusher should mind their own damn business.

The FDA is still regulating the market, and might still block access to Zohydro in the future, but the point to be acknowledged is that the federal government is needed sometimes to PROTECT rights from local governments that get in the way or neglect to protect citizens. And the other thing to notice is that, the federal laws are supreme, states can’t overrule them, states are not sovereign, their residents have all the rights and privileges of American citizens.

About John Howard

  • federal laws MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION are “supreme”……federal laws that are NOT made “in pursuance of the Constitution” are “unConstitutional” and are NOTHING….NULL…VOID…

    As in….have you seen the states that are legalizing marijuana lately?  States that are legalizing hemp production?  States that still believe that there is a 10th Amendment?

    There are “supreme” federal laws making marijuana possesion/distribution and hemp production illegal, ya know…

    …and those “supreme” laws are…..nothing.

    The FDA and regulations contained therin fall under the interstate commerce clause, but nothing in the Constitution says a state must allow a product to be sold within its borders.  The FDA merely approves the product to be sold and regulates the manufacturing process.

    As in….Massachusetts bans the sale of 4-loco, despite the Feds allowing the production/distribution of 4-loco as a matter of interstate commerce….where were the Feds protecting my right to buy 4-loco?

    Massachusetts bans the sale of many firearms….despite the Feds allowing the sale of those firearms as a matter of 2nd Amendment rights and interstate commerce….where are the Feds protecting my rights?

    As in, the notion that “federal laws” in general are “supreme” is hugely ignorant.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land