Here we go again, and I ask of you Mr. Stossel: Can you tell me how much less should the government protect us and how much more respect our liberty? These words of less and more mean absolutely nothing indeed. However, and speaking of freedom, do drug companies can freely go about producing stuff and telling the most egregious lies about their goodness? The same goes for the food producing companies? In closing, in essence, you Mr. Stossel are really saying absolutely nothing about freedom/liberty! Yes, I also hear comments like these: Smaller Government and less taxes, etc. While most Americans do not have a clue as to a true Constitutional Government and think that the present tax code is ok but needs reform. A true Constitutional Government is always of the right size and the Constitutional funding of the Government never needs reform. America is fully posessed with Socialism/Communism plus the most abusive and far-reaching militaristic imperialism where freedom is no more, in reality the case. John Adams' words have fully come to fulfillment:

"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide". In a letter to John Taylor 15 April, 1814.

To me, this is simple. The federal government should have only the powers SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the constitution (that clause is actually in the constitution). ALL other powers are reserved to the states or to the people. State governments getting out of control should be handled by their residents, but any time the federal government tries to expand their powers, they should be slapped back down. The power to regulate health care, education (Dept of Education), the enviroment (the EPA), the airwaves (the FCC), disaster relief (FEMA), Firearms (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and explosives), etc., are not constitutional rights granted to the federal government and should be disolved or abolished. These responsibilities are the individual states to regulate. Some might make an argument that, under the "commerce regulation" clause of the constitution, the ferderal government should still be able to regulate these. I would still say NO. The commerce clause was put there simply so that no one state could tax another state's goods and services. That is why congress would need the power to regulate. About the only other things the federal government is allowed to regulate are the military and taxes (this, unfortunately, means that the IRS is constitutional, although out of control).

The main driving force, that I see, is not protecting individuals from physical harm, but an over-reaching legal system that acts like a cancer (good cells over producing and therefore causing harm).

The Free Market (if allowed to remain free) will take care of any greedy companies that want to make a big profit by offering dangerous goods. For myself, I would much rather take my chances with an "evil" corporation than be "protected" by my government.

What detractors of free markets and defenders of nanny state government never realize is that it's the very existence of government regulators that enables companies to screw people. Look, the FDA does such a great job regulating medicine that they can't even get OBVIOUS crooks off the market, while truly life saving drugs and devices are saddled with onerous regulatory costs and approval delays. So I can sell obviously bogus herbs to help the blind, but I can't sell a legitimately effective device because the FDA won't approve it. That's our nanny government at work.

The fact is a free market system FORCES companies to be more responsible because they can't hide behind government regulations to protect them with endless loopholes and legalese. If their products hurt people, we find out about it and the company goes out of business. I keep hearing about these fabled companies that maniacally wring their hands and drool at the prospect of evilly killing people just for the sheer joy of it, but when does this happen? Think about that business model. You run a company and your whole business plan revolves around killing your customers or seriously hurting them? You'd better rethink that plan or you'll be out of business quickly.

It's easy to intuit that we need a nanny state to keep us safe. How are we supposed to know whether a drug is safe or not? But in reality the nanny state not only fails to keep us safe -- look at the flagrant cons that flood the marketplace every year and the government is powerless to stop them? -- but actually hurts people by delaying badly needed drugs or devices. The FDA announces a new heart drug that will save 10,000 lives a year. But it was in the approval pipeline for 10 years, so doesn't that mean the FDA killed 100,000 people while the drug was crawling through the approval process? The government does more harm than good, and it costs a bundle on top of that.

Congress must decide whether FDA (and DEA) rulings are 'advisory' or 'directive'.

If advisory, the rulings are for info only and the consumer decides; if directory, we become an "It's for your own good" nanny state, and pain docs lose their livelihood, sometimes their freedom, just for treating chronic pain in high-dose patients.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to decide.

Anyone know which section of the Constitution authorizes a FDA or DEA? Anyone a jurror on a case concerning the DEA or FDA must vote to aquit.

James Madison call and Patrick Henry call your office.