The Freedom Bulletin

I never really thought the FDA should be abolished. The Durham-Humphrey Amendment for sure, but I wasn’t so sure about the FDA in its entirety. Now I think I may have changed my mind. The FDA looks like it’s really going too far this time. A federal advisory panel has voted to ban the painkillers Vicodin and Percocet, as well as banning Tylenol in sizes larger than 325 mg.

The FDA is not required to follow the advice of the panel, but it usually does. In this case, I really hope it doesn’t. There is absolutely no reason to ban these medicines.

The purpose of the FDA is to protect people from fraudulent businesses, not to protect people from themselves. Claiming a drug is perfectly safe when it isn’t, or claiming a drug works when it doesn’t, those things should be banned by the government. But making a drug that has some risks, which are clearly explained on the package, should not be banned by the government. The FDA should ban drug makers from lying to customers. It shouldn’t ban people from obtaining the drugs that they want. It is each person’s right to evaluate the risks of medicines and decide whether they want to take them. The FDA cannot tell people what tradeoffs between risks and benefits are acceptable and which aren’t.

This brilliant article says it better than I probably ever could, so here are two quotes from it:

The proper function of government is to protect individual rights and guard against fraud, not to restrict freedom of choice to protect people from their own ignorance. 

Regulation advocates may protest: “What about the guy who consumes a drug without reading the package insert, consulting a medical professional, or looking at consumer websites or reference books? Shouldn’t he be protected?” In short, no. Forcing all consumers to live by rules that cater to the least responsible individuals imposes huge costs on everyone else and ultimately fails to protect even the willfully ignorant.

Additionally, banning Vicodin, Percocet, and 500 mg Tylenol would harm many innocent people. These medicines are all very effective at treating pain. Vicodin is prescribed over 100 million times each year in the USA. Many of these people probably need it to treat chronic pain, or temporary pain caused by surgery. There don’t seem to be any good alternatives to the medicines that the FDA’s advisory panel wants to ban. 500 mg Tylenol is useful to people who need a higher dose to treat their pain, and Vicodin and Percocet are the only way for many people to avoid constant, agonizing pain. It seems like a very reasonable decision to risk liver damage in order to be free from pain and able to enjoy life. Yet the FDA might take that option away from people and condemn them to lives of misery.

Not for nothing, but think about the fact that the FDA apparently has no problem with Viagra, Levitra, or Cialis, but might ban Vicodin and Percocet. What does that say about the FDA’s values? Apparently they think it’s more important to have satisfying sex than to be free from debilitating pain. How ridiculous.

If the FDA followed the panel’s recommendations, it would not only be taking away people’s rights and treating us like we don’t know what’s best for ourselves, but it would inflict pain and suffering on millions of innocent people. The government should not have the ability to do that, and that’s why I now think the FDA should be abolished.

Remember Ed and Elaine Brown, the New Hampshire couple who refused to pay their income taxes? They were arrested back in 2007 and are now going on trial. A jury of 15 was chosen today in a Concord, NH, federal court, and opening arguments are scheduled for tomorrow.

The Browns are charged with 11 crimes, but they claim that no law requires people to pay the federal income tax and that the 16th Amendment, which authorizes the income tax, was not properly ratified. They were convicted of tax evasion at an earlier trial, but they fled to their fortified home before they could be arrested. A standoff between the Browns’ supporters and federal agents ensued. In October 2007, officers worked their way into the Browns’ circle of supporters and tricked them into being arrested. They are now going on trial for conspiracy to impede federal officials, obstruction of justice, failure to appear in court, and illegal possession of firearms and bombs.

Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend the trial, since I don’t live in New Hampshire, but I’ll be following it in the news and updating about it here when I get the chance. I am not a big fan of the 16th Amdnement and am rooting for the Browns

Further reading:

• Edward and Elaine Brown – Wikipedia
• Tax evaders face new trial for weapons arsenal – Kansas City Star
• Jury for Browns’ trial to be selected – Concord Monitor
• Jury Chosen for Brown Weapons, Conspiracy Trial – WMUR

Picture by sinaasappeljuice (CC SA 2.0)

Last week was a sad week as far as celebrity deaths are concerned. I just wanted to make this post in honor of Billy Mays, the salesman that you’ve probaby seen in a variety of TV ads. I was shocked to learn that he passed away. May Billy rest in peace. I will really miss his OxiClean, Orange Glo, and Mighty Putty ads!

Clark Rockefeller and his defense team have filed a motion for his convictions to be thrown out. They are arguing that the jury should have been instructed to ignore testimony by psychiatrist James Chu, who is not a forensic psychiatrist and was not familiar with the law surrounding insanity defenses, and that prosecutor David Deakin biased the jury when, during his closing argument, he called the insanity defense “the culminating manipulation in a lifetime of lies designed to get what he wanted.”

Read the full story here.

No matter what you think about his personal life and legal woes, you have to admit his music is pretty good. RIP Michael Jackson!

The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that it was unconstitutional for a school to strip search a 13-year-old girl out of suspicion that she had aspirin. This is a happy day for the privacy rights of all Americans, and I applaud this decision.

Unfortunately, the court found 7 to 2 that school officials did not have to pay damages to Savana Redding, now 19. I would have had them pay as much money as possible, and maybe even go to jail.

I agree with the majority’s decision that the search violates the 4th Amendment. For reference, the amendment goes as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by an Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If this search wasn’t unreasonable, I don’t know what is. The contraband in question was equivalent to two Advil, hardly dangerous. The search was extremely invasive, and there was no warrant. School officials have taken their concern with students’ safety way too far, at the expense of students’ dignity, privacy, and freedom to make their own decisions. I don’t see anything wrong with a 13-year-old being allowed to carry aspirin and make her own decisions about whether she wants to take it. Even worse, though, is the fact that Savana did not even have aspirin on her! She was humiliated and violated for nothing.

This search was borderline sexual abuse. I understand that it was not done for sexual purposes but out of an obsession with safety at the expense of everything else, but being strip searched should be humiliating to people of any age and gender. I am glad the court (with the exception of Justice Clarence Thomas) decided this is not acceptable in America.

Update: Here’s a PDF of the decision.

Today John Salsberg, lawyer for accused Craigslist killer Philip Markoff, asked to question prosecutors about media reports that may have tainted the grand jury that indicted Markoff last week. Judge Frank Gaziano took the motion under advisement.

In the motion, the defense asks the Suffolk District Attorney’s Office to produce a written report answering 9 questions. The questions include whether law enforcement officials or members of the prosecution team leaked information about the grand jury proceedings to the media, whether they made any effort to prevent grand jurors from being exposed to media reports, and why the Assistant District Attorney in the case decided to announce at Markoff’s arraignment that a grand jury was conducting a (supposedly secret) investigation.

Also at today’s hearing, Judge Gaziano allowed a motion to preserve evidence, denied a defense motion to impound documents in the case, and allowed without prejudice a defense motion to prevent prosecutors from filing a summary of the case against Markoff. (Thanks to Jake Wark from the Suffolk DA’s office for this info!)

I wasn’t able to make the hearing today, so here are links to some media reports:

• PDF of the motion – Boston Herald
• Philip Markoff attorney eyes leaks – Boston Herald
• Judge in Craigslist case considers request for prosecution disclosure – Boston Globe
• Accused ‘Craigslist killer’ won’t see former fiancee for ‘long period of time’ - ABC