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. 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, 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. The mass production of rights disempowers state and local governments, thus killing states rights. 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.
Though I am a libertarian I am not unwilling to compromise. In exchange for limits on the federal government I would accept state's powers to regulate such as you suggested.
In that way, Americans could vote with their feet to a state or locality most agreeable to their way of life. You could go somewhere that vitamins are regulated, I could go someplace they are not. The "laboratories of democracy" would be the judge of our actions.
Come to think of it, that's precisely how our country was set up. Too bad we've become 'smarter' than that!
big bumpkin
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.