Federal statutes

In 1982, seven people died from consuming cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules. The incident resulted in a total product recall, massive negative pubHcity for the product, new requirements for safe packaging, and a federal statute making product tampering a crime (2). Since that time, the packaging industry has become visible to most consumers. This awareness has benefited the consumer by a reduction in loss of life due to consumption of adulterated products from tampering. Never before has an industry reacted so swiftly to resolve a problem. 

EinaHy, the work must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. To a very limited extent, there are some works that are not so fixed, such as purely improvised and unrecorded pieces of music or choreography extemporaneous speeches or five, unrecorded, and ephemeral broadcasts. Unfixed works are protected by state common law copyright, and not the federal statute. Under the federal law, however, all works that are so fixed are governed exclusively by the federal statute. 

Copyrights afford in most cases an exclusive right to control distribution, reproduction, adaptation, pubHc performance, and pubHc display of Hterary or artistic works. They arise automatically upon creation of an eligible work, but the exercise of such rights is governed exclusively by federal statute. 

A number of states afford remedies against encroachments that may exceed those afforded under the federal statutes. One such significant remedy is that against dilution of the mark, where use of a mark that is similar to the mark in question, although not confusingly similar because of a dissimilar or noncompetitive use, nevertheless tarnishes, degrades, or dilutes the distinctiveness of the mark (14). 

The Import Drugs Act—the first federal statute to ensure the quality of drugs—was passed when quinine used by American troops in Mexico to treat malaria was found to be adulterated... 

Even before 9/11, the chemical industry was (and is) one of the nation s most regulated industries. It is subject to numerous environmental regulations as well as to the voluntary obligations imposed by the chemical industry s environmental, health, and safety improvement initiatives. Including federal/state OSHA statutes, fifteen major federal statutes, as well as numerous state laws, impose significant compliance and reporting requirements on the industry (see sidebar 3.3). 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 was the first federal statute prohibiting pollution of waters strictly by oil. As indicated earlier, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1972 provided a comprehensive plan for the cleanup of waters polluted by oil spills and intentional or accidental release of oil into the water. The subsequent laws, including the Clean Water Act of 1977 and with its later amendments, provide for regulation of pollution of waters by oil spills and other forms of discharges. These legislations also incorporate certain provisions of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which was intended to prevent any obstruction to the use of navigable waters for interstate commerce. 

The statute covers all employers and their employees in all the states and federal territories, with certain exceptions. Generally, the statute does not cover self-employed persons, farms employing solely family members, and those workplaces covered under other federal statutes. Refiners must evaluate whether the chemicals they manufacture and sell are hazardous. Under the General Duty Clause of OSHA, employers are required to provide an environment that is free from recognized hazards that could cause physical harm or death. 

Amendments. All electronic communication surveillance must comply with federal statutes, including Title III of the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act [87], which regulates interception and contents of private wire, oral, or electronic communications. 

The US Constitution, federal statutes and regulations, and state law combine to govern the collection, use, and disclosure of information. The Constitution provides certain privacy protections, but does not explicitly protect information privacy. Generally, federal law addresses privacy issues and personal information by topic (e.g., education, telecommunications, privacy, health information, motor vehicle, communications and communications records, financial and credit information, children s online (Internet) privacy) The individual s interests are usually balanced with the government s need, with authorization for personal information normally being sought through warrants, subpoenas, and court orders [120]. 

The DOJ is under the direction of the attorney general of the United States. Its mission, relevant to this chapter, is to enforce federal statutes and uphold the rule of the law. It pursues violations brought to its attention by the FDA as well as other federal agencies. 

We need not decide, however, whether necessity can ever be a defense when the federal statute does not expressly provide for it. In this case, to resolve the question presented, we need only recognize that a medical necessity exception for marijuana is at odds with the terms of the Controlled Substances Act. The statute, to be sure, does not explicitly abrogate the defense. But its provisions leave no doubt that the defense is unavailable. 

There are many federal statutes and regulations requiring compliance. Many of these federal laws are the same as California laws. Some of these federal and state laws are discussed below. 

National Prohibition), also known as the Volstead Act, was ratified on January 29, 1919, and became law on January 16, 1920. Immediately prior to ratification of the Prohibition Act, a Prohibition Unit was established on December 22, 1919. The Prohibition Unit was composed of Narcotic and Alcohol Divisions. An interesting question has been asked Why did the Supreme Court agree that a federal statute could outlaw narcotics, when the Constitution itself had to be amended to outlaw alcohol ... 

---