The
following was written in November 2013 as a response to the
questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the
Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican
Party).
Here is the link to the original questionnaire:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw
This is my answer to Question #10.
10.
B and C
(Drugs,
chemicals, and foods which may have harmful side effects should be
either well-labeled and available to adults, or available with a
physician's prescription; that decision should be made at the state
and local levels. Potentially harmful foods and drugs should not be
banned or controlled by the federal government, nor should they be
protected by liability limits)
There
is no constitutionally enumerated power for (A) the
Congress to control, limit, or ban potentially harmful goods. I favor
abolishing the Food and Drug Administration, and I would only favor
federal involvement in foods and drugs if the authority to regulate
were implemented according to a bill which went through the amendment
process and became part of the Constitution.
I
would support (B)
requiring a physician's prescription and state regulation.
The states do not have the right to place outright bans on the import
and export of particular goods, because that action interferes with
interstate commerce; the free flow of goods among the several states.
However, states do have
the right to place restrictions and conditions upon the purchase,
sale, ownership, etc. of goods, provided that those restrictions and
conditions do not effectively prohibit commerce in such good(s).
I
do not support (D)
protecting producers of harmful goods with liability limits because
I believe that such limits constitute an assault on the freedom of
juries to award the compensation they deem appropriate; juries'
rights are needed to protect the well-being of victims of private
interests, government, and common criminals alike.
I
would support a combination of (B) and (C):
potentially harmful goods should be either available well-labeled to
adults, or requiring a physician's prescription. I would argue that
that decision – pertaining to each possibly harmful food or drug –
should be done at the most local competent level of government, with
no state being free to interrupt interstate commerce or prohibit
intrastate manufacture of any good.
For
more entries on food and drugs, please
visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/in-opposition-to-hypothetical-excise.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/in-opposition-to-hypothetical-excise.html
No comments:
Post a Comment