In the wake of the 1984 amendments, appellees (a brewers' trade association and major producers and importers of beer) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and claiming that the effect of the amended law was not different from that of the law struck down inHealy I.^[8]SeeUnited States Brewers Assn.v.Healy,669 F. Supp. 543, 544-545 (1987). In response to appellees' complaint, Connecticut filed a "Declaratory Ruling" by the Department of Liquor Control, interpreting the statute as amended as requiring out-of-state shippers to affirm that their posted prices in Connecticut were no higher than their lowest prices in any

330

*330border Stateonlyat the time of posting the sixth day of each month.Id.,at 547, and n. 9. After the moment of posting, the ruling stated, the statute imposes no restrictions on the right of out-of-state shippers to raise or lower their border-state prices at will.Ibid.

Appellees argued, however, that the Connecticut beer-affirmation statute, even as modified by the declaratory ruling, regulated out-of-state transactions, constituted economic protectionism, and unduly burdened interstate commerce, all in violation of the Commerce Clause. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court upheld the statute as modified by the legislature and construed in the Department of Liquor Control's declaratory ruling, resting its decision onSeagram, supra,and distinguishing this Court's subsequent decision inBrown-Forman Distillers Corp.v.New York State Liquor Authority,476 U. S. 573 (1986),which struck down a statute analogous to Connecticut's 1981 beer-affirmation statute. The District Court found the 1984 Connecticut law constitutional on its face because, "unlike the version inHealy IandBrown-Forman," the 1984 law "leaves brewers free to raise or lower prices in the border states before and after posting in Connecticut and does not, therefore, regulate interstate commerce."669 F. Supp., at 553.

Question 1

I would like to know the exact mechanism of entry of potassium into

cells under the influence of insulin.

Question 2

I am seeing an increasing number of diabetic patients in primary care

who have elevated fasting blood glucose readings but postprandial

measurements that are normal or only slightly high. Does this indicate

insulin resistance in these patients? What is the reason for this trend?

Question 3

What are the latest diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes

mellitus?

Question 4

What test is recommended for diabetes and can the same be used to

diagnose diabetes in a child?

Question 5

What is the value of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1C) in diabetes

mellitus?

Question 6

I read in a book that in diabetics the random blood sugar is more

important than the fasting; on a medical website I noted that, for a

patient with type 2 diabetes, the fasting blood sugar level is more

important. What do you say?

Is it acceptable to let the fasting blood sugar remain at approximately

1.5 mmol/L above the upper limit in a patient of60 years with type 2

and presently on oral therapy?

Question 7

In type 2 diabetes, which blood sugar - fasting or random - is more

revealing prognostically?

Question 8

Why are the fasting and 2-hour blood glucose levels needed in a diabetic

patient being treated with oral antidiabetic drugs?

Question 9

Is it sufficient to use a fasting blood sugar and glycosylated haemoglobin

(HbA1C) level as a guide to modify the insulin or oral antidiabetic dose

without considering the 1 and 2 hour postprandial values?

Question 10

What is the value of the 2-hour postprandial blood sugar level above

which the dose of an oral antidiabetic should be increased if this value is

exceeded several times despite dietary modification?c19