Controlling, court decision

Data on nonfatal injuries or chronic diseases caused by chemicals are very difficult to collect. Far too often, it is gathered from reports of compensation Commissions or court decisions in which legal rather than scientific proof prevails. One might venture the guess that at least as many injuries and chronic conditions are caused by synthetic medicaments used improperly, or without adequate medical control, as are caused by the ordinary products of the chemical manufacturing industry. 

Gun Control Restricting Rights or Protecting People Detroit Thomson/Gale, 2003. A concise but complete guide to gun issues, including historical origins, gun use today, gun laws and court decisions, firearms and crime, gun... 

Rand, Kristen. Lawyers, Guns, and Money The Impact of Tort Restrictions on Firearms Safety and Gun Control. Washington, D.C. Violence Policy Center and Public Citizen, 1996. Discusses the effects of civil court decisions in shaping the practices of the firearms industry, including the use of safety devices, as well as the impact on the overall gun control movement. 

Court decisions have upheld the Maine price controls, and several states have adopted similar laws. 

Court decisions involving prescription drugs cover a wide variety of topics such as advertising as a free speech right, the ability of states to control prices, and the power of the FDA. A review of some major cases follows. 

The studio system of movie production had its heyday in the 1930s and 1940s, but federal court decisions and a new medium, television, eventually caused its demise. Outside of the legacy of movies it resulted in, little evidence of it can be seen in the industry today. No handful of studios controls the market anymore. Some of the grand old studio names still live on, but today s films are the products of partnerships between studios, of which there are now more, and the contributions of many independent contractors. In the movie industry, people don t work for a single company, but join projects at points in which their particular skills are required—then move on to another project. The end result provides distributed returns, and fixed costs are minimized. ... 

OSHA requires employers of workers who are occupationally exposed to -hexane to institute engineering controls and work practices to reduce and maintain employee exposure at or below permissible exposure limits (PELs). The employer must use controls and practices, if feasible, to reduce exposure to or below an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 500 ppm (1,800 mg/m3) (OSHA 1974). The PEL for -hexane was to have been lowered to 50 ppm in 1989 however, a U S. Court of Appeals decision overturned a number of PELs promulgated in 1989, including that for -hexane. The PEL in force prior to this decision (500 ppm) is currently in effect. 

The federal judiciary handles litigation on patents nearly exclusively. Theoretically, the same law governs all the judicial circuits. Where there is a conflict between circuits, as in the Kewanee case, sooner or later the U.S. Supreme Court can establish the controlling interpretation. Perhaps more in theory than in practice, the same decision should be obtainable in any U.S. district court. 

In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, invalidated a school requirement that compelled a flag salute on the ground that it was an unconstitutional invasion of the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from official control. The First Amendment, declared the Court, gives a constitutional preference for individual freedom of mind over officially disciplined uniformity for which history indicates a disappointing and disastrous end. At the center of our American freedom, is the freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds, the Court explained, only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. ... 

This decision is an example of a court upholding what is called a discretionary gun permit. Gun rights advocates often argue that such laws amount to gun control for everyone except well-connected and favored persons who have an inside track with the police chief or sheriff. Accordingly, they have sometimes organized successful campaigns to remove the element of discretion from gun permit laws. 

The court in the Tennessee case oiAymette v. State upholds some measure of gun control by letting stand a ban on carrying concealed weapons. It bases its decision on English laws that had specified conditions under which weapons could be held. 

In U.S. V. Miller the Supreme Court rejects an appeal by stating that it had been given no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for use in a militia, and because it is not, carrying it would not be protected by the Second Amendment. Because the decision also implied an individual right to bear military-type arms, it would be cited by both supporters and opponents of gun control. 

In recent years federal authorities have pressured doctors not even to discuss medical marijuana as an option for their patients. They sought to revoke an offending doctor s license to prescribe federally controlled narcotics. Such an action would make it virmally impossible for many doctors to practice medicine in their specialty. However, in October 2002, a federal appeals court in San Erancisco ruled that such a sanction violates the constimtional right of doctors and patients to discuss health matters freely. About a year later the Supreme Court let the decision stand. The decision does not affect the illegality of actually prescribing medical marijuana, however. 

The Court s decision began by noting the expressed legislative intent of Congress the development of a plan of taxation which will raise revenue and at the same time render extremely difficult the acquisition of marihuana by persons who desire it for illicit uses and, second, the development of an adequate means of publicizing dealings in marihuana in order to tax and control the traffic effectively. ... 

This decision affirmed the use of taxes as a form of regulation and indeed control of commerce in drugs that Congress feels are dangerous and should not be available outside restricted channels. The Court would not try to set a threshold where a tax becomes too punitive or no longer a reasonable source of revenue. 

The Oregon Supreme Court then decided that although the state law did forbid use of controlled drugs even for religious purposes, this prohibition violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the free exercise of religion. Upon appeal by the government the case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final decision. 

In its Pringle ruling the Supreme Court unanimously and definitely declared that under circumstances where contraband is found in a small space like a car, the fact that police cannot know for sure who knows about or has control of the illegal object does not in itself mean there is no probable cause to arrest any or all individuals. This can be read as a decision in favor of practical necessity. 

The United States petitioned for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals decision that medical necessity is a legally cognizable defense to violations of the Controlled Substances Act. Because the decision raises significant questions as to the ability of the United States to enforce the Nation s drug laws, we granted certiorari. 531 U.S. 1010 (2000). 

Lime manufacture (pending decision on proven pollution control device and Supreme Court s decision on quarrying)... 

---