From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:39:24 GMT

In article <61857@mimsy.umd.edu> tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
})
})I call your attention to the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the USA,
})which states that powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved
})to the states or to the people.  We're not talking about rights, we're talking
})about powers, and the power to regulate drug quality, purity, etc. is in
})violation of the US Constitution.
}
}     Two words: interstate trade. Unless our hypothetical drug company
}is only peddling its wares in one state, the feds have legitamate
}Constituional authority to regulate their product. Also, there's nothing
}to prevent individual states from regulating drug quality.

There are some problems with your claims.  One is that the Commerce Clause's
original purpose was to prevent states from imposing trade restrictions upon
each other.  Another is that under present Supreme Court doctrine, any
production which could conceivably impact interstate commerce is held to be
within Federal jurisdiction - for example, raising hogs on your farm.  The
last is that States have constitutions, too, and while they vary from state
to state, I know some of them to contain similar protections of rights.  This
is not to mention the doctrine of full incorporation of the Bill of Rights,
whereby the Federal protections are construed as to constrain the States as
well.  Shall we say that the First amendment only applies to the Federal
government, and that the states have free reign to regulate speech as they
wish?

})Have you ever worked in the restaurant industry?  I have.  Even assuming
})that the regulations were for the proper levels of safety, their application
})and enforcement leaves much to be desired.  This goes beyond restaurants.  I
})had a friend who worked for the UA movie theater in Berkeley, who told me that
})they "recycled" used popcorn and drink cups in order to save money.  No,
})they didn't have them chewed up and processed into new cups, they just
})collected them off the floor of the theaters after showings and stacked them
})at the condiments counter.
}
}     What? And the Holy Free Market didn't prevent it? B-)
}
}     A spot inspection by a health inspector could easily find abuses like
}that. Ho would the free market eliminate them? The only way consumers would
}fiund out about it would be by rumor - not a reliable source.

My understanding was that they bribed the inspector.  Competing private
inspection agencies would be more difficult to bribe this way.

})Because of incentive traps, public health and safety inspectors tend to
})over-regulate and under-enforce, often because it's better for their private
})interests to collect bribes not to bear down on those under their bureaucratic
})thumbs. Then there's the anti-competitive nature of many of these regulations,
})a topic I shouldn't even have to go into.
}
}     I agree that health regulations are usually needlessly complex and
}poorly enforced. But, IMHO, they should be fixed, not eliminated.

My position is that private-sector regulatory procedures tend to work better
than public-sector ones.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs