this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
490 points (86.4% liked)

politics

19118 readers
2766 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Fuck that.

I strongly dislike how the argument hinges on the very movable goalpost of "illegal" drugs. It has this awful moralizing "protect the kids while we destroy privacy", vibe to it.

At first I though this would require an end-run on HIPAA, but all they really need to do is re-schedule a bunch of therapeutic drugs. Or ignore the FDA entirely and just enforce a ban by edict (somehow) through a different agency. I don't think we've ever seen federal agencies openly disagree like that before, but I think it's possible. Also: big pharma may have something to say about all this.

Like a lot of the nonsense coming from this cabinet, it'll test the crap out of state's rights.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Big pharma will love it. All the drugs they made with expired patents are now illegal. Good thing they've got a very, very, very similar drug that meets all the necessary criteria, all lined up and ready to replace it (with a brand new patent, of course).

There has been some controversy about AstraZeneca's behaviour in creating, patenting, and marketing the drug. Esomeprazole's successful predecessor, omeprazole, is a mixture of two mirror-imaged molecules (esomeprazole which is the S-enantiomer, and R-omeprazole); critics said the company was trying to "evergreen" its omeprazole patent by patenting the pure esomeprazole and aggressively marketing to doctors that it is more effective than the mixture.[50]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esomeprazole

While the impact of CFCs from inhalers on the ozone layer had been minuscule (dwarfed by industrial processes using CFCs), the FDA in its interpretation of the Montreal Protocol mandated the switch in propellants.[17] Patients expressed concern about the high price of the HFA inhalers as there were initially no generic versions, whereas generic CFC inhalers had been available.[18]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhaler

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

Why would they need to do an end run around on the FDA? its been misclassifying drugs as schedule one for almost 60y now.