Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, said that any restrictions on the use or marketing of a drug would have to be based on "sound science."

"Sound science" is what makes me nervous.

Plus all of those liberterian horror stories about the FDA keeping experimental but potentially life-saving drug x off the market for longer than it should. And agency capture problems in general.

I believe the problem is what is not in the bill: no importation of drugs and no direct negotiation of drug prices by Medicare. That Bernie Sanders was the one "no" vote says something.

Also, giving them broader authority to "restrict the use and distribution of medicines found to pose serious risks to consumers" could interfere with physicians' ability to prescribe drugs for off-label use. But I don't really know what I'm talking about here.

1: My guess is more fast-tracking of antibiotics into animal feed, for a start.

I think the main answer is just that the FDA will not necessarily enforce the powers it's been given, since it's still in a state of capture.

Also, if things continue to deteriorate, I imagine farther down the line these stronger powers could be used to deliberately harass smaller companies in favor of big pharma.

What happened to VP Gore's review of government agencies? What I'm getting at is it seems like there needs to be a goal oriented review of what government should be doing, and then tailor the organization to achieve the goal. Allowing FDA more power over the lifetime of a drug is all well and good but, as noted above, how does that interact with medicine as practised and reimbursed?

my first thought was "So how are they going to screw this up?"

Look on the bright side. Now you know what getting old is like. It's that thought + assorted aches, pains, and pills.

What happened to VP Gore's review of government agencies?

I've never personally investigated the claim, but I've repeatedly seen trustworthy people describe it as a massive success.

Personal threadjack.

So, the leaseholder in this apartment and I are going to inform my asshole roommate that the landlords want him out out out at the end of the month. He's a subtenant, and the lease expires at the end of the month. Does he have any rights in that situation?

Mr. Sex Oatmeal? I don't know if a subtenant has any rights -- my guess is no, but I'm really unsure.

The very same. The Tenants Rights FAQs don't say much about subtenants. Even if he were a tenant, it looks like he'd only have the right to thirty-days notice, but it's hard to be sure. He's really not going to be happy about this...

Mmmm....sex oatmeal....

Sorry to hear about the situation, JMo, for the headaches it's going to cause you. He doesn't seem like the best fit for the apartment, though.

Anyone else get scared reading this NYT story last weekend?

The kidneys fail first. Then the central nervous system begins to misfire. Paralysis spreads, making breathing difficult, then often impossible without assistance. In the end, most victims die.

Many of them are children, poisoned at the hands of their unsuspecting parents.

The syrupy poison, diethylene glycol, is an indispensable part of the modern world, an industrial solvent and prime ingredient in some antifreeze.

It is also a killer. And the deaths, if not intentional, are often no accident.

Over the years, the poison has been loaded into all varieties of medicine -- cough syrup, fever medication, injectable drugs -- a result of counterfeiters who profit by substituting the sweet-tasting solvent for a safe, more expensive syrup, usually glycerin, commonly used in drugs, food, toothpaste and other products.

(Italics all the way down in 14 - I forget Unfogged does that.)

JM, not to be totally paranoid on you, but is there any backup available (friends, apt. super., etc.) if he's Seriously Not Happy about leaving?

It'll be worth it when he's gone, I hope.

My mom's going to be in town; I can stay in her hotel room if it gets really ugly. My sister suggested that I hide my valuables (laptop, basically), but I'm hoping that won't be necessary. We'll see.

14: Great.

The landlords (who really, really want him gone) are about 80 and don't move too fast. They'll be on our side, but of no practical help.

JM: I'm sure this is a state thing. In MA, which is pretty tenant-friendly, said tenant would have no rights. Even the 30-day rule only applies to at-will tenancies; a fixed-term lease doesn't require any such advance notice for renegotiating the lease.

Has that guy gotten a lot worse? I had the impression from before that he was annoying but not like this.

14: When I spill antifreeze, or it overflows, I try to wipe it up so cats won't drink it; it's said to have a sweet odor that is attractive to animals.

Yeah, I don't think that he has any rights. Especially if, as I infer, "subtenant" means his name isn't the one on the lease.

JM, I remember your posts/comments about what he's done to you, but how'd he piss off the landlords?

Yeah, I think he's SOL here, but when I talked to him about the lease's expiration a couple of weeks ago, he seemed to have some other ideas about it. He's not the sharpest tack, though.

JM- does the senior lease expire, or just the sub-lease?

They don't like his coming in with different girls at all hours, and they generally don't trust him. We all had a sit-down about it, and it was better for awhile, but then he just started being sneaky about it. He's also sort of generally a dick about stuff, and I've just had it with him. I'm kind of glad that the iniative is coming from the landlords because I mistrust my own vindictiveness towards him.

26.--The senior lease. The leaseholder lives in the apartment with me and him, the two subtenants. Also, they're not going to renew the senior lease because they're considering a buy-out of the building, and the second-floor unit's lease ends in November. It'll be month-to-month, as long as we can get rid of the asshole. Otherwise, they'd rather not deal with any of us.

28: Does he know this?

Not yet. He seems to think he and I will get the lease extended for another year, which is stupid of him, but then he's let me and the other roommate run interference with the landlords almost the entire time. We have to tell him all of this tomorrow.

Not to be contrary or anything, but my guess is that the term "subtenant" only has legal meaning in relation to who is liable (to the landlord) for nonpayment of rent, damage to property, etc. I can't imagine that someone living in a rental property would lose their rights as tenants simply because they were a step removed from the owner of the property.

I would suggest giving notice, just to be on the safe side. I'm pretty sure that you don't have the right to just toss his shit out into the hallway and change the locks once the month is up. If he fights removal you'll have to involve the police to get him out. I don't practice law in NY, but I'm fairly sure this will involve giving notice and providing some sort of process (probably in front of a lower-order judge or a landlord-tenant board or something).

Also, giving him some sort of "official" notice may give him an incentive to just leave of his own accord.

28. You may have a problem. I suggest that you give the asshole some relocation fee, just to get rid of him.

Would 30 days be enough?

32.--Ack! Really? Is your theory that if he decided to be unpleasant about leaving, he could screw up our deal with the landlords?

33: More than enough where I practice. I'd think that a NY attorney would be able to give you some sort of NY Bar Form and you'd just have to fill in the blanks. But, like I said, don't know NY law. Perhaps there is some sort of nonprofit landlord-tenant association in NYC that you could call and ask?

There are. I'll try again with their online materials before we talk to him.

Thanks for the help and well wishes. I've got to head out.

I wouldn't dream of offering him money to start out with -- the place to start is "You have to move out by the end of the month." If he has legal rights, leave it to him to bring them up.

I'd agree with NotATurtle that if he balks at that, you probably can't throw his stuff on the street -- you need to figure out the legal process for evicting him (the legal process may be as simple as don't worry about it, throw his stuff on the street but you need to find out.)

34. Yes, exactly. The landlord has only one option in this case, and that is to enforce the end of the lease. Should any of you stay, the lease becomes at will, or Month to Month. In CA, if you have a key, you have rights, so an unlawful detainer would have to be filed against everyone in possession. As much as your landlord likes you, they may hate your subtenant more. Sorry.

Okay. Step one: see if he goes quietly. Step two: look into other options and legal recourses. Thanks!

LB, IINAL, esp. in NY, but the reason I asked if the senior lease was expiring was because if it weren't, the tenant in possession could file an unlawful detainer against the subtenant, starting the eviction process. In my experience, a little friendly money is better spent than legal and filing fees. You guys ain't cheap. But certainly, first just tell him the lease is up and you have to go.

When I spill antifreeze, or it overflows, I try to wipe it up so cats won't drink it; it's said to have a sweet odor that is attractive to animals.

Yah, our latest cat was rescued from an apt. complex where the landlord was killing off stray cats by setting out antifreeze for them.

I don't know what I'm going to do next time I buy medicine for my toddler.

Re: the subtenant thing, I am pretty sure Mississippi law is not relevant, so I'm keeping mum, except to agree that going quietly is always preferable.

killing off stray cats by setting out antifreeze for them

People are fucked up. Jesus christ.

happy personal threadjack: I am an aunt!!!!

Congratulations, and, of course, mazel tov.

JM: For what it's worth, the inimitable eekbeat recently went through this same situation—non-ideal subtenant who'd fallen on the real tenants' and landlord's bad graces—and the confrontation and subsequent move-out took place without a hitch. He was surprisingly reasonable and calm about the whole thing and now lives on a commune outside of town.

I'm not trying to set expections, just saying there's hope that seemingly immature people will occasionaly surprise with their mature responses.

Congrats, Katherine!

He'd be a terrible member of a commune, although I think he'd enjoy it. Well, tonight's the night!

Oh Christ. He doesn't want to leave, and he seems to believe that he has the right to stay. He also seems to believe that he can smooth things over with the landlords, which is highly unlikely. Nor does he care that his being a dick about this is going to have unpleasant ramifications for us others. This is going to get ugly.

Fortunately, the other roommate (the leaseholder) is starting to get a little pissed off as well (yayyyy), and all of her relatives are lawyers, though not real estate lawyers. She's going to try to figure out what the legal situation is, as well. But if anyone here has any advice?

Sorry, I got nothing. There has to be a tenant's hotline out there somewhere, but I don't know where it is.

You know, I've never tried this, but what would happen if you called 311 tomorrow, and asked to be directed to someone who could tell you the procedure for evicting a subtenant?

Hey, that's a good idea. At the least they might be able to direct me to laws more recent than 1995.

In our conversation tonight, we tried to make it about the landlords and him, but of course (I hate him) it's going to involve all of us.

The first hit for the search "subtenant's rights" is from the 1982 New York Times, and not particularly helpful.

It does reinforce my belief, though, that a low-unit building in which the owners live are exempted from a lot of the strong tenant-protection measures.

Is that good or bad, from your perspective?

Unclear, really. It would be nice if he could get booted without too much drama, but it would suck if we all got booted. It's hard to know exactly how to boot just him, though.