Just because a tool works well in one instance is no guarantee it will work well in another. What was good for getting rid of Jim Crow isn't necessarily "good" in all instances. Stronger more effective federal regulations would be preferable to nothing but a local legal patchwork but since we don't have that discarding the litigation options leaves us with the worst of both possibilities intact. Make the FDA a truly effective regulatory body free from the corrupting influence of Pharma and the litigation process will still be necessary, only less so. I'll actually trust 12 random persons chosen from the local brew-pub over the hand picked "expert" of Pfizer every fucking time where Pfizer's possible negligence is the issue at hand. I have a personal interest in this as my younger brother died from taking a newly approved pharmaceutical product that was pulled from shelves not long after. The idea that the drug company involved should have immunity because the FDA's new-at-the-time streamlined process for approving drugs failed to protect people is obscene since the new process was put in place at the behest of those pharmaceutical companies. If companies aren't responsible for the negligence caused by their greed then who the hell is? Incidentally we were not involved in the class action lawsuit against the company nor did my family sue independently. They felt to do so would be attempting to profit from his death more than to punish the pharmaceutical company. A position I strongly disagreed with then and now.
John Thornton