for example, we use the term abuse, generically, but also it's a diagnostic label, it's actually a, a dsm diagnostic label, which creates a lot of confusion when you see it written. are they referring to the more generic issue, you know, regarding the whole range of problems versus a particular diagnosis, that has specific meaning? so it's imprecisely used and this is a problem, of course, in communication. so one of the things that i think we need to, we need to have a term that describes these problems generically... and the institute of medicine has tried to deal with that, have they not? yes and the world health organization too, so in the 1970's they were advocating against using the term abuse, even though the american psychiatric association adopted that term which is unfortunate because then that gives rise to the term abuser, naturally. and that was the warning actually, back in the '70's that was saying, this is what's going to happen is that you're going to you're going to generate this term by using that term. so what do we replace that with? so there are, there are a couple o

the case which today we take for granted the a dsm how the u.s. and great britain were ideas, a partner '04 one and world war ii know the special relationships. up from 1700 breaking away from the british empire when the british kindly burn down the white house to the balance of 19th century, britain was enemy number one. in the uk america was number one. we kept our cruisers that the ready and troops on the border and almost went to war on numerous occasions but everything starts to change 1895 and the precipitating event is a dispute that breaks out from venezuela of the border and you say what does that have to do with anglo-american relations? united states keep in mind to the u.s. is coming and negative a great power and the levying with the growing economic power, the president dispatches a note to london that says this dispute is in the western hemisphere and is in our backyard and we recommend you take this to neutral arbitration. lowered sells very discusses this with his cabinet sees it as the affront to the british empire and dispatches

a text dsm uralist is born, and neither is broad regulatory scheme or anything else the supreme court came up with that the defender of obama care rely on and there's no quote intrusiveness, unquote, standard in the constitution either. would you agree with that, professor barnett? >> of course. that's not a constitutional standard or doctrine i'm aware of. >> none of them are. mr. carvin? >> no. obviously things that substantially affect commerce is something the court says are within the commerce clause but has been pointed out is a number of things that affect commerce, violence against women, possessing guns, which the court has said no, no, those don't come within the ambit and i would argue economic inactivity is far more afield from the commerce power than things like buying and possessing guns. >> i'm very grateful to have professor fried here, a grand old friend and professor dellinger is an old friend, both of whom i admire greatly. i don't know you, mr. kroger, but i'm sure you're just fine. now, the congressional budget office in the past has said that requiring individual

a text dsm uralist is born, and neither is broad regulatory scheme or anything else the supreme court came up with that the defender of obama care rely on and there's no quote intrusiveness, unquote, standard in the constitution either. would you agree with that, professor barnett? >> of course. that's not a constitutional standard or doctrine i'm aware of. >> none of them are. mr. carvin? >> no. obviously things that substantially affect commerce is something the court says are within the commerce clause but has been pointed out is a number of things that affect commerce, violence against women, possessing guns, which the court has said no, no, those don't come within the ambit and i would argue economic inactivity is far more afield from the commerce power than things like buying and possessing guns. >> i'm very grateful to have professor fried here, a grand old friend and professor dellinger is an old friend, both of whom i admire greatly. i don't know you, mr. kroger, but i'm sure you're just fine. now, the congressional budget office in the past has said that requiring individual

a text dsm uralist is born, and neither is broad regulatory scheme or anything else the supreme court came up with that the defender of obama care rely on and there's no quote intrusiveness, unquote, standard in the constitution either. would you agree with that, professor barnett? >> of course. that's not a constitutional standard or doctrine i'm aware of. >> none of them are. mr. carvin? >> no. obviously things that substantially affect commerce is something the court says are within the commerce clause but has been pointed out is a number of things that affect commerce, violence against women, possessing guns, which the court has said no, no, those don't come within the ambit and i would argue economic inactivity is far more afield from the commerce power than things like buying and possessing guns. >> i'm very grateful to have professor fried here, a grand old friend and professor dellinger is an old friend, both of whom i admire greatly. i don't know you, mr. kroger, but i'm sure you're just fine. now, the congressional budget office in the past has said that requiring individual

a text dsm uralist is born, and neither is broad regulatory scheme or anything else the supreme court came up with that the defender of obama care rely on and there's no quote intrusiveness, unquote, standard in the constitution either. would you agree with that, professor barnett? >> of course. that'sot a constitutional standard or doctrine i'm aware of. >> none of them are. mr. carvin? >> no. obviously things that substantially affect commerce is something the court says are within the commerce clause but has been pointed out is a number of things that affect commerce, violence against women, possessing guns, which the court has said no, no, those don't come within the ambit and i would argue economic inactivity is far mor afield from the commerce power than things like buying and possessing guns. >> i'm very grateful to have professor fried here, a grand old friend and professor dellinger is an old friend, both of whom i admire greatly. i don't know you, mr. kroger, but i'm sure you're just fine. now, the congressional budget office in the past has said that requiring individuals t