Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Your Right to Use Vitamins Is in Jeopardy, Senators Push Regulatory Assault on Vitamins
HUMAN EVENTS ^ | 09.03.03 | Dr. Julian Whitaker

Posted on 06/09/2004 7:11:35 PM PDT by Coleus

Your Right to Use Nutritional Supplements Is in Jeopardy
Senators Push Regulatory Assault on Vitamins

by Dr. Julian Whitaker

Posted Sep 3, 2003

alt
alt alt alt
alt Story Options
alt Text Size:  S   M   L
alt printer-friendly
alt email to a friend
alt
alt
alt Related Stories           alt
alt alt alt
alt
We need to take action, and we need to take action now. There is a movement in Congress to push through legislation that would restrict your freedom to use nutritional supplements, and could destroy the nutritional supplement industry?and, in the process, endanger your health.

Here is the problem. Reacting to the hysteria over ephedra, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D.-Ill.) has introduced S. 722, cosponsored by colleagues Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.), and Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.). The bill gives unprecedented power to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove nutritional supplements from the market. Here’s how:



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: atkins; atkinsdiet; benny; democrat; dratkins; dshea; fda; food; foodsupplements; health; healthcare; hillary; hillarycare; hillaryhealthcare; jonathanvwright; minerals; nannystate; rights; s722; supplements; vitamins; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-266 next last
To: Coleus

Ask the Moderator if you can add "Hillary Clinton Health Care Plan to your header so more FReepers will read this thread. This is really important.


81 posted on 06/10/2004 11:30:00 AM PDT by TrueBeliever9 (Life is uncertain. Ride your best horse first. Unknown but sounds like John Wayne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: discostu
when you establish something as a right then you're declaring that any interference with your ability to do it is wrong, so then suddenly if the vitamin industry goes TU because nobody wants their stuff this is a terrible thing that's destroying the rights of American.

Wrong. "The right to take vitamins" is merely convenient shorthand for "the right to take any vitamins that are your rightful property, and to seek ownership of vitamins through voluntary transactions with their current owners."

82 posted on 06/10/2004 11:30:36 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Careful now... according to discostu, that thar is "silly" talk.

Now that taxes here in Central Texas are as high as they are, and going higher, my wife and I are "voting with our feet" and moving back to Minnesota. Not the only reason, but damn... who'da thunk it that TEXAS would be more socialized the MINNESOTA?

83 posted on 06/10/2004 11:33:12 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: discostu

bumpkin


84 posted on 06/10/2004 11:33:16 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Except for the fact that this P!$$es me off royally, it is of course, a small measure of smug satisfaction watching the outrage from those that had previously condemned the use of athletic supplements.....


How many times does the Slippery Slope need to be explained, Before people stop slipping on it....


Oh, Prohormones are Just like steroids...(as If...), and they aren't natural anyway....


oh, oh, well, Ephedra may be natural, but it kills too many people (?!?!?), I mean they call it legal speed...rmfe...


And now Ask not for whom the bell tolls....


85 posted on 06/10/2004 11:35:26 AM PDT by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: discostu
"Your argument, if taken to its logical conclusion would preclude [...] the right to bear arms, lest government be compelled to provide you a weapon."

Madison wanted the 2nd ammendment to include distribution and training.

Irrelevant, since he lost that argument. Stick to the point: should we oppose the right to bear arms on the grounds that it will lead to government being compelled to provide you a weapon?

86 posted on 06/10/2004 11:37:08 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
who'da thunk it that TEXAS would be more socialized the MINNESOTA?

Now that's surreal! "Et tu, Texas?" Good luck with your move.

87 posted on 06/10/2004 11:38:11 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1

People drown in water all the time. Ban Di-hydro oxiginates!!!


88 posted on 06/10/2004 11:39:58 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
I know. Pawlenty has been roasting the DFL'ers up north from what I hear from the inlaws and the outlaws.

Prime reason we are moving is raising the little one around the rest of the family. Spouse is kinda lonely and needs her kin folk.

Prolly isn't gonna happen until later this year though...

89 posted on 06/10/2004 11:41:58 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

LMAO!


90 posted on 06/10/2004 11:44:58 AM PDT by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Pawlenty has been roasting the DFL'ers up north from what I hear from the inlaws and the outlaws.

I'm not familiar with this, could you explain?

91 posted on 06/10/2004 11:45:06 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: discostu

big bumpkin


92 posted on 06/10/2004 11:45:53 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: grania

No action on this bill since 4/03


93 posted on 06/10/2004 11:49:10 AM PDT by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
He's cut taxes. Signed the CCW law. Changed some of the corporate legal morass around to make it easier for businesses to run. Things are really swinging back around. Almost all of the major DFL (Democrat Farm Labor) types are either old or living in the Metro area. Outlying areas are getting to a point where they are swinging the State votes back to the conservative side.

In todays political makeup, Ronnie would have won MN instead of Mondale. At least that is the perception I've been getting from the family and from from the Net.

94 posted on 06/10/2004 11:49:52 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

May the good Lord save us from "safety." From Federal all the way down to city government...


95 posted on 06/10/2004 11:55:09 AM PDT by Libertina (Reagan showed us what being a great president was all about. Thank you sir for bringing pride!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu
freeeee wrote:
If others can dictate the smallest details of my life, perhaps you can explain our country's claim to liberty?

The difference is in thinking that just because the fed isn't allowed to regulate it that means no one is.
Back in the old days the 10th Ammendment was respected and states and cities could ban stuff the fed couldn't.

Not true, dicostu. -- NO level of our governments have ever been delegated the power to flat out 'ban'. -- In fact the 14th was passed to stop just such infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property back in 1868. Government can 'reasonably regulate' the public sale & use of property like vitamins, under the "rule of law"; - Constitutional law.

That was when we understood that not everything a person wanted to do was a right. Now we try to stop the fed from doings stuff in a way that will also stop the states and cities. What's wrong with a city deciding it's a vitamin free zone,

You talk about "silly"? What's 'reasonable' about banning health concoctions?

we've still got dry counties in this country and the reason we do is that we've never taken the silly step of declaring there to be a right to drink alcohol.

Dry counties regulate the public sale or consumption of booze. You have the right to drink all you can get, in private.

The mass production of rights disempowers state and local governments, thus killing states rights.

States have no rights, only powers, and those powers are limited, as per Art. VI, & the 10th/14th Amendments, just for starters.

The liberty is in letting states and lower levels of government decide things for themselves instead of forcing them to allow every single made up psuedo-right just so we could keep the fed from writing a bad law.

Good idea, as long as states follow the basic principles of individual freedom, as per our US Constitution.

96 posted on 06/10/2004 12:39:24 PM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Since you need food to be alive food in the general category is an OK right. But you don't have a right to filet mignon.


97 posted on 06/10/2004 1:33:30 PM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Since it's explicity in the Bill of Rights, not something we could claim to be an unenumerated right, the question has no bearing.


98 posted on 06/10/2004 1:35:10 PM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: discostu
you don't have a right to filet mignon.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why our inalienable right to liberty doesn't include the liberty to take vitamins or eat filet mignon.

99 posted on 06/10/2004 1:41:46 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: discostu
The Fed Gov is not given the power to regulate filet mignon. Would you support a Federal Ban on filet mignon?

Of course not. Neither should they be trying to pass a stupid law.

100 posted on 06/10/2004 1:46:01 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-266 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson