[Mong]

Mark, thanks for the reply. You should listen to you mother ;) (although I don't always listen to mine...heh). As far as the history, I know Theodore Roosevelt gave an ear to Upton Sinclair after he wrote "The Jungle" ... but, I really don't have the time to research all the arguments regarding whether or not the actual creation of FDA was unconstitutional (and I'm not gonna take your word for it that it wasn't), although a quick google search seems to reveal that the FDA people have engaged in a few Constitutionally questionable activities from time to time.

Anyway, suffice it say for now, that I have plenty bitches about the WoD. The WoD has been blatantly unsuccessful as to its stated purpose (but it has been successful at fattening up agencies like the DEA, enriching their outlaw drug cartel counterparts due price inflation, etc.), and, I think the WoD has done substantionally more harm then good to our country.

Also, here's a couple links you and others might enjoy reading (whether or not you agree with them in whole or in part... I don't agree with every point in the articles myself), if you haven't seen them.

A special report by a Libertarian on the War on Drugs, that brings up the issues of slavery
and the 13th Amendment: http://injusticeline.com/slave2.html

And: http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp001675.html

[Mark Bahner]

You should listen to you mother ;)

I always listen to my mother. Even when she's wrong. :-)

As far as the history, I know Theodore Roosevelt...

Yes, Teddy Roosevelt. One of a never-ending line of Big Government Republican presidents, unbroken even to the present.

...but, I really don't have the time to research all the arguments regarding whether or not the actual creation of FDA was unconstitutional (and I'm not gonna take your word for it that it wasn't)

Well, assuming you already know that "general welfare" only applies to specific things in Article I, Section 8, the only way the FDA COULD be Constitutional would be under the clause, "regulate commerce...among the several states." Then you could look at what was meant by "regulate." Since the Articles of Confederation INHIBITED commerce among the several states, the idea of "regulate" was amost certainly to "make regular"...as a laxative makes a person "regular." In other words, the idea was to ease the flow of commerce among the "several states." The FDA most certainly does NOT ease the flow of commerce among the several states. The hoops that the FDA makes companies jump through before a medicine is approved DELAYS, by many years, the flow of commerce between states. In other words, the FDA does basically the opposite of what the writers of the Constitution intended.

In fact, it's even WORSE than that, because the FDA doesn't even allow production WITHIN the state where the medicine is being made, until the FDA approves. There's NO WAY the writers of the Constitution ever intended the federal government to be able to reach WITHIN a state to INHIBIT (make "irregular") trade!