Can this approach work with MA firearm lists?

[tbk5]

Judge blocks Massachusetts ban on painkiller

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/04/15/judge-blocks-massachusetts-ban-painkiller/9kaVOLjUnHitIsXzn1irMK/story.html

For the legal eagles, could this logic be used for MA consumer "safety" bans on firearms? (Yes, I know, using the words "logic", "MA" and "firearms" in the same sentence is not logical.)

The case is Zogenix v. Patrick, 14-11689, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).

 

[SBR]

Follow the money

 

[jtnf]

Da Judge cites three cases where the preemption clause of the US Constitution is affirmed... In 1992, 1981, and 1941.
Perhaps nobody has paid the price to fight for the elimination of The Lists in this context.

Zogenix’s main claim is that the emergency order is preempted by federal law.
The Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution and the laws of the United States
“shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. For this reason, “state
law that conflicts with federal law is ‘without effect.’” Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505
U.S. 504, 516 (1992) (quoting Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981)). As
relevant here, state and federal law conflict if state law “stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines
v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941).

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Patrick said he was disappointed, arguing that the ruling places commercial interests above the public’s health.

Screw it. I would rather patients in pain have access to the best possible relief than have losers who do narcs for so-called "recreation" protected from themselves. Of course, Patrick's extensive medical training may have enabled him to make a medically sound judgment regarding the benefit of this drug.

The ban is believed to be the first attempt by a state to block a federally approved drug,

Massachusetts leading the way

 

[jtnf]

Did a donor short Zogenix stock? It worked for Ed Malarky donors, why not Coupe Deval?

 

[Palladin]

US Court stops MA from blocking drug

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...-painkiller/9kaVOLjUnHitIsXzn1irMK/story.html

Read the argument, can this be used for the firearms list?? MA was denied from specifically stopping a manufacturer to go 'extra steps' for safety, in order to distribute the drug in MA.

 

[American]

Maybe this can be used to combat the AG's guidelines as excessive if the approved weapons roster is already in place?

 

[AngelKing]

Good. The state has no business doing so.

 

[Nectaris]

Quote Originally Posted by TFA
Zogenix’s main claim is that the emergency order is preempted by federal law.
The Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution and the laws of the United States
“shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. For this reason, “state
law that conflicts with federal law is ‘without effect.’” Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505
U.S. 504, 516 (1992) (quoting Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981)). As
relevant here, state and federal law conflict if state law “stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines
v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941).

I see that as being double edged. That law as I read it there could also be used to stop the states that are passing their own laws to ban federal gun control laws from being enforced in their states.

 

[xero2099]

Screw it. I would rather patients in pain have access to the best possible relief than have losers who do narcs for so-called "recreation" protected from themselves. Of course, Patrick's extensive medical training may have enabled him to make a medically sound judgment regarding the benefit of this drug.


Massachusetts leading the way

didn't you know that if its new or important it is banned in MA? as others have said it would be interesting to see if this argument can be used to get rid of the "list"

 

[terraformer]

Two different issues. The FDA issue is federal preemption. No such preemption exists for firearms, but if there was one passed, then yeah, we could use it.

 

[Mark from MA]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...-painkiller/9kaVOLjUnHitIsXzn1irMK/story.html

Read the argument, can this be used for the firearms list?? MA was denied from specifically stopping a manufacturer to go 'extra steps' for safety, in order to distribute the drug in MA.

Take the effort and time and devote it to finding someone who doesnt worry about lists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[silversquirrel]

Screw it. I would rather patients in pain have access to the best possible relief than have losers who do narcs for so-called "recreation" protected from themselves. Of course, Patrick's extensive medical training may have enabled him to make a medically sound judgment regarding the benefit of this drug.


Massachusetts leading the way

well put.

 

[Reptile]

Everybody knows that once an item is banned in Massachusetts, it will never be smuggled in and sold by criminals.

Or, they can just go buy some smack on the corner.

 

[Quiet]

Judge blocks Massachusetts ban on painkiller
For the legal eagles, could this logic be used for MA consumer "safety" bans on firearms? (Yes, I know, using the words "logic", "MA" and "firearms" in the same sentence is not logical.)

Maybe this can be used to combat the AG's guidelines as excessive if the approved weapons roster is already in place?

There is no FDA for guns in the US. If you want to create a Federal agency and give it the ultimate authority over gun approval process including safety trials that might cost $500 million to run for a gun, then we could use the supremacy of that agency to fight MA's gun laws.

Two different issues. The FDA issue is federal preemption. No such preemption exists for firearms, but if there was one passed, then yeah, we could use it.

^^ What he said.

 

[M1911]

Screw it. I would rather patients in pain have access to the best possible relief than have losers who do narcs for so-called "recreation" protected from themselves. Of course, Patrick's extensive medical training may have enabled him to make a medically sound judgment regarding the benefit of this drug.

I'll disagree with you on this. The FDA's own medical board almost unanimously recommended against this drug. This is just another opiate. The only thing "special" about this one is that it is far more easily abused than the others. There really is no reason for it to be on the market.

 

[Quiet]

I'll disagree with you on this. The FDA's own medical board almost unanimously recommended against this drug. This is just another opiate. The only thing "special" about this one is that it is far more easily abused than the others. There really is no reason for it to be on the market.

I don't understand the double standard you seem to be in favor of

Some drugs ought to be banned because someone might abuse them/use them illegally?
Some guns ought to be banned because someone might abuse them/use them illegally?

I mean there are plenty of guns out there to do any job you want, the only thing special about my AR is it is far easier to abuse it than other bolt action rifles.

There are plenty of 1911s out there, why do you need one by another company?

These are regulated drugs; someone has to get a prescription from their doctor for them, they are already tightly controlling them. You want to further restrict freedom because they might be abused by someone?

 

[Rancho]

Follow the money which big pharma company gives deval donations and what kind of pain killers do they produce?

 

[M1911]

I don't understand the double standard you seem to be in favor of

Some drugs ought to be banned because someone might abuse them/use them illegally?
Some guns ought to be banned because someone might abuse them/use them illegally?

Where is my right to have any drug I want enshrined in the Constitution?

Has Patrick overstepped his bounds? Probably. And as a result the state will likely lose in federal court. It is the FDA that screwed this pooch.

 

[durask]

Where is my right to have any drug I want enshrined in the Constitution?

Exactly.

About Zohydro, it is a large dose opiate pill without any diversion precautions built in, meaning that it is very easy to crush and inject, smoke or inhale. There is nothing about this particular opiate formulation that does what dozens of other opiate pills do not do already. The only conclusion I can make is that Alkermes (the company that makes Zohydro) is counting on massive overprescription and diversion of this drug to increase profits.

Of course legality of Patrick's actions is another thing entirely.

 

[Quiet]

So we only have rights that are enumerated in the bill of rights? It's OK to ban things because they're not enumerated there? The 10th amendment means nothing?

You're in favor of the government stepping in and banning prescription drugs because they might be abused. You know that's the position that Bloomturd takes about portion sizes on softdrinks. -- "We have to prevent everyone from buying a 32 oz big gulp because some people abuse it." I just can't wrap my head around that position from a gun person.

Every prescription drug marketed can kill or addict you if abused. Every one of them. Should they all be banned because someone else has a social control pet peeve about that class of drug?

 

[M1911]

Soft drinks? Nice strawman.

 

[M1911]

The only conclusion I can make is that Alkermes (the company that makes Zohydro) is counting on massive overprescription and diversion of this drug to increase profits.

That couldn't happen. No drug company would behave that way (*cough*... Purdue Pharma...*cough*).

What makes this farce even more ridiculous is that Alkermes has heavily promoted its role in helping treat addiction, via its antabuse drug Vivitrol. It's a nice business model they're developing. Sell an easily abused opiate to create more addicts, then sell drugs to help those addicts that it created. Make money on both sides of the deal.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-friend-foe/uPdrdnS8RD2LZM4Bp3aUbJ/story.html

 

[durask]

I think this has potential to go massively off topic. My position:

a) Gov. Patrick overstepped his authority, IMHO.

However:

b) The company that makes the drug is a bunch of scumbags

Also information to ponder:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/10/prescription-drug-abuse - this is the first link that pops up but the numbers are the same.

The US consumes 80% of the world's opioid pain medications and 99% of the world's hydrocodone (Zohydro is high strength hydrocodone).

 

[M1911]

I think this has potential to go massively off topic. My position:

a) Gov. Patrick overstepped his authority, IMHO.

However:

b) The company that makes the drug is a bunch of scumbags

I agree completely.

 

[M1911]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/10/prescription-drug-abuse - this is the first link that pops up but the numbers are the same.

From the article:

Prescription drug abuse not only takes lives and destroys families, but also increases unemployment, hurts our country's productivity and costs our healthcare system billions in medication costs, ER visits and drug rehabilitation programmes.

They left out that prescription drug abuse increases crime and the prison population. Opiate addicts lie, cheat, and steal to get their fix. A very large percentage of our prisoners are drug addicts.

 

[Quiet]

From the article:



They left out that prescription drug abuse increases crime and the prison population. Opiate addicts lie, cheat, and steal to get their fix. A very large percentage of our prisoners are drug addicts.

The illegal habits of addicts and prisoners should dictate what is available to me to stop the pain that is consuming my life. Nice.

I'm sure all of those addicts were stopped cold by Herr Patrick's illegal order to prevent cancer patients riddled with pain from accessing their and their doctor's opiate of choice.

I'm sure that the addicts who would illegally obtain prescriptions to abuse will not go to extreme measures to obtain, oh... I dunno.... a different prescription, or go on the street and get some non-prescription drugs.

Frankly, compared to a pain patient getting the very best medicine possible, IDGAF about addicts and which drug they choose to use.

 

[durask]

Frankly, compared to a pain patient getting the very best medicine possible, IDGAF about addicts and which drug they choose to use.

The point is, it is not "best medicine possible", it is just same old stuff but repackaged to make it more attractive to abusers.

There is no legitimate reason for this formulation to exist, period.

 

[Friday]

There is no FDA for guns in the US. If you want to create a Federal agency and give it the ultimate authority over gun approval process including safety trials that might cost $500 million to run for a gun, then we could use the supremacy of that agency to fight MA's gun laws.

When was the BATFE dissolved?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The point is, it is not "best medicine possible", it is just same old stuff but repackaged to make it more attractive to abusers.

There is no legitimate reason for this formulation to exist, period.

Can you enlighten us as to your medical training in pain management? Do you have an MD or RN degree or something else that qualifies you to come to this conclusion?