Amish farmer thrown in jail by FDA for not having "approved" medicine

Wescli Wardest wrote:

ren wrote: Surely the states have given that power away to the fed, just not through the constitution?

I can find no evidence that the authority of the state was given to anyone. But, I can find where the federal government took the authority away during the creation of administrative bodies such as the FDA, EPA and a myriad of other alphabet soup agencies. .
[hr]
Edit, addition made…

Not only that, the Due Process described and guarantied in the Constitution is directly violated by the actions and regulation enforcement of these agencies. That is one reason I posted the book and audio link in the previous post.

The document Br John posted of the outcome seemed to indicate the FDA's purview is to trade 'across' State borders specifically, which would seem to fit the scope of a Federal agency? But I know nuthin` about US law.

"The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. ("FDCA"), existed to protect the health and safety of the American public by regulating the manufacture and distribution of all drugs shipped or received in interstate commerce. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA'') was the federal agency charged with enforcing the FDCA. "

deciding on when laws are just or injust is tough

its hard to make general rules that will fairly to apply to every specific circumstance, forever

and once it becomes law, its not easy to change

maybe the FDA is an inherently tyrannical institution -i think the IRS is, for instanced- but on the surface of it, it does seem fair that there be laws about selling products meant for consumption and also laws about selling products with claims of medicinal properties

the use of laudanum as a cure-all in the 19th century comes to mind.
as an opioid its great for relieving the symptoms of all kinds of ailments, but its extremely addictive (very quickly) and the withdrawals process can be fatal

or cigarettes more recently- even after the tobacco companies knew that their products cause cancer they continued to lie about the risks and even deliberately marketed to children, knowing that the adults who smoked were mostly all going to die prematurely

so there is an argument to be made that we ought to have some organization that sets the standards for what can be sold and how, and what sort of information the distributor is required to put on the labels

the Amish people from what i understand are doing their very best to remain frozen in time as a culture, and i dont see enough information here to feel comfortable judging what this guys frame of reference was - maybe he was totally naive and maybe i would have done exactly what he did if i were in his shoes and had his level of understanding about "the English" (US) or maybe he was being deliberately obtuse and this whole things is really kind of his own fault

i only know that i dont know

but the laws exist for good reasons, and he did violate them, and he continued to violate them after he was told to stop, and now he has been found guilty of breaking them

the next step in the judicial process is the sentencing, which will happen some time in June, and until we learn what his punishment is going to be i dont know if we can fairly judge whether this is tyranny or not, or just how tyrannical it is

according to the articles, he could be facing several decades in federal prison, and that is something i would find reprehensible, as i believe that prison should only be for extremely violent and predatory people like j. dohmer and such

Wescli Wardest wrote:

ren wrote: Surely the states have given that power away to the fed, just not through the constitution?

I can find no evidence that the authority of the state was given to anyone. But, I can find where the federal government took the authority away during the creation of administrative bodies such as the FDA, EPA and a myriad of other alphabet soup agencies. .
[hr]
Edit, addition made…

Not only that, the Due Process described and guarantied in the Constitution is directly violated by the actions and regulation enforcement of these agencies. That is one reason I posted the book and audio link in the previous post.

What I mean is that the states accept it? For example, the state where the medicine was sold but not created could simply choose to do the FDA's job itself and tell the FDA to go home?

I have not yet heard why him not following a law (Which is unfair to begin with) warrants him to be taken away from his family and business and thrown behind BARS for something like this. Does the punishment really fit the crime? I don't think it does and it should be obvious by now that Big Pharma and the FDA is beyond corrupt and has been for years.

A few quick comments on the legality of all of this...

First, the FDA (or more specifically its predecessor, the Agricultural Division of the Patent Office) was created by a law passed by the U.S. Congress in response to the widely varying state laws that were inconsistent or sometimes nonexistent. The law addressed the creation of uniform standards for interstate commerce. The fact that the administration was created by the passage of a law by the U.S. Congress, it supersedes any claim by the states to maintain this authority. Because federal law passed pursuant to Constitutional authority overrules conflicting state laws, federal authorities still claim the authority to seize, arrest, and prosecute for possession and sales of unapproved substances, even in states where they are legal under state law. This is why recreational and medical use of marijuana can be legalized by states, but it still remains illegal under federal law and anyone using it can still be prosecuted.

Second, whether anyone personally believes the laws or the agency enforcing them are fair or corrupt doesn't matter in court. Laws are written, passed and signed by people we elect. They are put into place by representatives the majority voted into the positions to do so. They are enforced by judges we either elect or are appointed by people we elect. Just because an individual may disagree with a law, it never gives them legal standing to disobey it, and they will face the legal consequences when they do. This is what causes so many to be frightened when a President with the authority to pass executive orders without the approval of Congress starts banning travel and dismantling federal agencies. He is bypassing the representation we elected to Congress and we are left to rely on the judicial branch to keep the President in check. It isn't a perfect system, but that is why we as voters must participate and demand the changes we seek.

Third, on a more personal note, I willingly inject powerful chemotherapy drugs into my body every other week to combat cancer. I am choosing to poison myself, and I suffer some pretty nasty side effects as a result. Because of the FDA, the drug manufacturers and my doctor are required to inform me of these side effects and how likely they are to occur in my specific case. I currently take a chemo cocktail consisting of five drugs, and the resulting documentation is a notebook filled with over 80 pages of warnings, suggested dosages, potential interactions, possible allergies and descriptions of side effects. I'll gladly tolerate this egregious use of FDA authority over the alternative of taking some guy's word for it or guessing what I'm putting in my body and what might happen as a result.

EDIT: I should add that every chemo treatment I receive costs over $10,000, so it is pretty important to me that that these drugs have been studied and regulated appropriately.

Yabuturtle wrote: I have not yet heard why him not following a law (Which is unfair to begin with) warrants him to be taken away from his family and business and thrown behind BARS for something like this.

Because that's what a judge charged with deciding how to interpret the law as it applies to this case ruled.

Does the punishment really fit the crime?

A professional in the field seems to believe so.

I don't think it does and it should be obvious by now that Big Pharma and the FDA is beyond corrupt and has been for years.

What's your background in consumer law? I don't have any. I don't have an opinion about whether that punishment for that crime was appropriate, but I as a consumer would prefer it if the products offered to me, especially ones that are intended to aid my health, are thoroughly tested and reviewed and re-reviewed not only by experts in the field, but by a centralized body of experts that answer to the government elected by myself and my fellow citizens to represent our interests. And if it hasn't been subjected to any rigor like that, I do believe that I as a consumer have a right to know that, so much so that the manufacturer be obliged to disclose that information. It should in my opinion be considered a lie, and a dangerous lie at that, if it is omitted.
Now I should stress again that I am not in any significant way educated on matters of criminal law. But I do think that a family is more forgiving than a stranger. So a person who is violating the rights and interests of his clients who are by all means strangers, does so at the risk of their business, its reputation, and of course legal action against them. There is hardly any such risk in treating one's own family the same. It is of course not always the case that the closest ones, the most loved ones are at the highest risk of all, but to paint a separation from them as something more inhumane than a separation from society in general would perhaps be an overstatement of sorts.

The long and the short of it is simple.

Obey the law

Label your damn products

Be knowledgeable enough to protect yourself from persecution

If not...Then stop complaining when your dragged off in cuffs. Fair or not. Life isn't fair surely you know that by now.

I plan to sell salves sometime in the future. But until such a time I am doing what I can to learn the laws and what is required. Right now my biggest concern is how one is supposed to fit all the required info on a tiny tiny label

I have a better idea. How about the government minds it's own business and stop trying to regulate things such as medicine, food and so forth. You obey the law, within reason, not just blindly obey it. That's how tyranny gets started.

Anytime the government gets involved in things such as medicine, food, education ect. The cost goes up and the quality goes down. This has been an ongoing cycle. I should upload a whole list of actual drugs that are FDA approved and had to be recalled because of harmful side effects. But it seems like many like to put their head in the sand and assume the government will take everyone. They won't. Their only business now is taking care of those in the big club, not us people.

Well then. You just let me know how your war against the big pants goes Good luck!

Yabuturtle wrote: I have a better idea. How about the government minds it's own business and stop trying to regulate things such as medicine, food and so forth.

I disagree. The government has a duty of care before the people who elected it. If medicine or food stop being regulated, then anybody who ever gets sick for any reason can sue anyone and everyone they ever bought food or medicine from and the court will not have a standard provided by the government to decide who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Same the other way around: Anybody will be able to poison whom ever they please and so long as they have the means to afford a good enough team of lawyers, nothing can be done to stop them if the government is to stay out of it. What you are proposing is essentially anarchy, and while we can debate the legitimacy of government and state philosophy all night long, at the end of it we would be worse off without it.

Anytime the government gets involved in things such as medicine, food, education ect. The cost goes up and the quality goes down. This has been an ongoing cycle.

Have you actually read up on places where the government subsidizes healthcare or agriculture or education? I'm in one such country and we have some of the best medicine and education on the entire planet, because the government understands that healthy and educated citizens are what drives the economy and pretty much every secondary growth anybody could be interested in. Not only do we have some of the best healthcare and education as a standard, but those who come to be wealthy (because nobody ends up selling all of their livelihood and half their leg for a surgery that's necessary for them to remain functional and because high education can and does warrant well-paying jobs) can even afford private insurances and luxury treatments on top of that.

I should upload a whole list of actual drugs that are FDA approved and had to be recalled because of harmful side effects.

Please, do. And then list the ones that would have been recalled for harmful side effects if there was no regulation and no central testing body that would demand them being recalled.

But it seems like many like to put their head in the sand and assume the government will take everyone. They won't. Their only business now is taking care of those in the big club, not us people.

If you feel so, maybe try and convince your fellow voters to elect a new government, one that you have reason to believe will represent your interests instead of the big club's. I don't know how corrupt agencies like the FDA are currently, but the case discussed in this thread doesn't on the face of it seem to indicate that. You are seeing a rotten tooth, and your suggestion is not replacing it with a prosthetic, but just ripping out half the jaw with it. That's not how you'd solve the problem, that's how you'd make it worse.