Can the government ban a substance made entirely out of other legal substances? Marinol, as I am sure many of you know, is synthetic THC. THC is the main psychoactive chemical in Cannabis. It gets prescribed for numerous ailments. Apart from THC, all cannabinoids are more or less completely legal (and most have medically known benefits that are well accepted). Can there be a legal argument there? Something along the lines of since all its constituent chemicals are either legal or medically prescribed it must not be scheduled in its current state. The reductio ad absurdum being that not doing so says the combination of otherwise legal or prescribed(and allowed federally), are somehow creating a new substance. This seems to be like saying that peanut butter and chocolate are fine, but Reese's Cups will put you in jail.
Yes, it can First, your argument is scientifically vacuous - Sodium and Chlorine are highly dangerous substances - Sodium bursts into flame on exposure to air and Chlorine is both toxic and corrosive. Sodium Chloride is table salt - dangerous in its own way but not in the same class. The same is true in reverse of petrol and superphosphate (fertiliser) apart they are relatively benign, together they are a mining explosive. Second, even if your science was valid, it wouldn't matter. If the government wants to ban substance A and not substance B they have the legal power to do so.
In general property owners and employers can impose any rules on their property and employees (respectively) that are not prohibited by law. Granted, there are extensive statutes and regulations to protect "employee rights." I have not heard of protections that include "possession of prescribed medications," but that does not mean they don't exist in your jurisdiction. If you really want to know whether you have a legal right as an employee, and you can't find it in written law or regulation, you would have to consult regulators or employment law attorneys in your jurisdiction. (As a practical matter, of course, it might make sense to first find out whether one's employer wants to assert a policy infringing the right in question.)
Would I be allowed to market this product as &quot;Cocaine cola&quot; or &quot;Cocaine soda?&quot; england-and-wales Possibly not if you were to try and register the name, as this may well fall foul of s.3(3)(a), Trademarks Act 1994 which says: A trade mark shall not be registered if it is— (a) contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality... The government's Manual of Trade Marks Practice, at section 5.8, explains that: Marks which may be ‘contrary to public policy’ are those, for example, that make specific references to illegal drugs such as cocaine... (my emphasis)
According to the NIH, there are in fact a number of laws in the US regulating human research, as opposed to codes and conventions (although the majority does consist of the latter). 1962 - Milestone: Kefauver-Harris amendments to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&amp;C) Act, [Public Law 87-781; 76 Stat. 788-89] This amendment was important in establishing that human testing was necessary in drugs and therefore provided for the regulation of human testing, after the thalidomide scandal caused a number of preventable birth defects due to insufficient human testing. The FDA describes the law as (emphasis mine): ... The Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments also asked the Secretary to establish rules of investigation of new drugs, including a requirement for the informed consent of study subjects. The amendments also formalized good manufacturing practices, required that adverse events be reported, and transferred the regulation of prescription drug advertising from the Federal Trade Commission to the FDA. 1974 - Milestone: National Research Act The National Research Act legally justifies and grants the NIH the power to set up boards to regulate human medical research: SEC. 102. (a) Congress finds and declares that (1) the success and continued viability of the Federal biomedical and behavioral research effort depends on the availability of excellent scientists and a network of institutions of excellence capable of producing superior research personnel ; (2) direct support of the training of scientists for careers in biomedical and behavioral research is an appropriate and necessary role for the Federal Government ; and (3) graduate research assistance programs should be the key elements in the training programs of the institutes of the National Institutes of Health and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. (b) It is the purpose of this title to increase the capability of the institutes of the National Institutes of Health and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration to carry out their responsibility of maintaining a superior national program of research into the physical and mental diseases and impairments of man.
Many times. See pages 4 and onward here. The 11th circuit (which includes FL) recognizes sentencing manipulation but not sentencing entrapment. The one example from the 11th circuit in that document (US v. Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d 1264) was an unsuccessful claim of sentence manipulation, but it shows the analysis that goes into deciding these types of claims. They say: While our Circuit does not recognize sentencing entrapment as a viable defense, we do recognize the outrageous government conduct defense, and we have considered sentencing manipulation as a viable defense. ... Ciszkowski, however, has not met his burden of establishing that the government's conduct is sufficiently reprehensible to constitute sentencing factor manipulation. Government-created reverse sting operations are recognized and useful methods of law enforcement investigation. Sanchez, 138 F.3d at 1413. The fact that law enforcement may provide drugs or guns essential to a willing and predisposed offender does not necessarily constitute misconduct. We have previously declined to find that the government engaged in prohibited sentencing factor manipulation in other similar contexts.
Practicing medicine without a license or beyond the scope of your license (e.g. engaging in medical activities that your license does not authorize you to engage in, even though you have license to engage in some medical activities) is a criminal offense (e.g. Unlawful Conduct Of Practicing Medicine Without a License, Utah Code Ann. §58-1-501(1)(a) and 58-67-501) in most jurisdictions and is not protected by the privileges afforded to people practicing medically within the scope of their license (e.g. an exemption from laws criminalizing contact with intimate parts when done for medical purposes). Of course, fraudulently claiming to have licensure is also a crime over and above practicing without a license. Administering non-FDA approved medicines to cancer patients, for example, is a federal crime, even if this is done with full disclosure and good intentions. The approval process is described here by the Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. (Similarly, a conviction was obtained in another case for distributing a hormonal weight-loss treatment without a license.) For example, in 2006, a naturopath in Wheat Ridge, Colorado was convicted of "theft, perjury, criminally negligent homicide, illegal practice of medicine and third-degree assault" for providing alternative holistic treatment to someone resulting in their death. Criminal negligence generally involves conduct sometimes also called "gross negligence" that is not just careless but is almost reckless given the serious potential harm that could foreseeable result (and in all cases that are prosecuted, actually did result) from the course of conduct taken. For example, while ordinary medical mistakes by a medical doctor such as confusing two drugs with similar names or putting the decimal point in a prescription dosage, causing harm to a patient, would not ordinarily result in criminal liability, coming into an operating room while too drunk to drive and without reviewing which limb of a patient needs to be amputated despite a clear indication in marker on the leg of a patient showing that fact, might constitute criminal negligence on the part of a medical doctor. Here, if the need for and possible benefits of conventional treatment for breast cancer with particularly clear, prescribing alternative diet based treatment and mental exercises while discouraging conventional medical treatment, might very well constitute criminal negligence on the part of the holistic practitioner. Similarly, a naturopath was criminally charged in Australia with "reckless grievous bodily harm and failure to provide for a child causing danger of death" for urging parents to discontinue medical treatments for a child in favor of a raw food diet, causing serious harm to that child almost causing the child's death. The naturopath admitted that she endangered the child with her medical advice and was ultimately convicted in that case. Liability would be fact specific. Does the person have a license of some kind? Are they within the scope of their license? Do they falsely convey the impression that they are licensed medical practitioners? Did their actions constitute the practice of medicine? But, often, in the fact pattern you describe, particularly if it is not "faith healing" protected by the freedom of religion, this would be a crime. Of course, this doesn't mean that a self-help remedy of murdering the holistic practitioner after the fact is legal. Civil liability for professional negligence and failing to meet the applicable standard of care for a person engaging in the kind of treatment conduct described is also possible. In other words, one can sue a naturopath of money damages for malpractice, just as one could sue a doctor for malpractice. As noted here: Alternative medicine providers can, of course, be guilty of malpractice if they perform their interventions below the commonly accepted standards of their own communities. They may also have liabilities for injuries caused by discouraging patients from seeking conventional care and, in some jurisdictions, for not recognizing when a patient’s condition is beyond the scope of their form of treatment and subsequently referring the patient for treatment by a medical doctor. The fact scenario in the Slate article would appear to implicate grounds for civil as well as potentially criminal liability.
The Constitution only regulates the powers of the government; it doesn't directly say what the people can and can't do. In particular, it doesn't say directly that nobody except Congress can coin money. However, it does give the government the power to make laws, which are binding on the population. So Congress possibly could make a law forbidding cryptocurrencies, or at least regulating them, under the "regulating the value thereof" clause. However, they haven't done so. In the case of the Liberty Dollar, there are some specific laws that apply. They were convicted of violating 18 USC 485, which forbids the making of physical gold or silver coins that resemble US or foreign money, and 18 USC 486, which forbids creating or passing any physical metal coins as money (as well as other conspiracy charges, aiding and abetting, etc). None of these laws apply to cryptocurrency because they are not physical metal coins. Given that Congress has been explicitly given the power to coin and regulate the value of money in the United States, how are cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Basis created, distributed, and redeemed such that they have not been found unconstitutional? The power to regulate includes the power to not regulate. As a slight tangent, what laws allow for the creation and distribution of cryptocurrencies? In a free society, "everything is permitted that is not forbidden". We don't need a law specifically allowing the creation and distribution of cryptocurrencies; it's sufficient that there is no law that forbids it.
In the United States, no. For something to be illegal in any meaningful way, you have to be able to point to a law that makes it illegal. If there's no law to break, it's not illegal. I would wonder if your colleague was thinking about question of whether cryptocurrencies are legal tender. For something to be "legal tender," there would need to be some kind of law or regulation requiring people to accept them as payment. There is no such requirement in the United States, so Bitcoin, for instance, is not legal tender. But that doesn't make it illegal tender; it just means that people can decide whether to accept it or not.