OK, so now I don't have the right to free speech. Aside from things like yelling fire in a movie theater, all I have to say to that is: Whatever. The federal government has a compelling interest in abortion as it is a medical procedure which must be regulated. They have not proven such an interest when it comes to drugs, they simply claimed that there was one and *poof* we are all supposed to believe and accept it. Besides, if they banned abortion I would be on the states rights side on that issue. The federal government should not be in the business of banning things, it should regulate things that are dangerous to mitigate the hazards. If a state wants to ban something, that is up to them (although it is generally still a bad idea).
On a side note, it will be nice when the Supremes come down on the side of the 9th on this one. Maybe it will be a wake up call for the prohibitionists.
1. no court has ever said the fed govt has a compelling interest in abortions...compelling interests come into play when a government wishes to restrict someone's liberties...to prohibit something. let's just stop talking about compelling interests...they're virtually inapplicable to everything we've talked about, and they just confuse the issue. and i certainly don't want this to become an abortion thread. 2. no...you do not have an absolute right to free speech. never have...never will. you can't walk up to airport personnel and joke that you're a terrorist and expect to get away with that...you don't have an unlimited right to have a demonstration whereever and whenever you like...you don't have a right to access p*rnography at the county library...and the list goes on and on. there are time, place and even content restrictions on free speech. keep rolling your eyes...keep saying whatever you like. but i didn't write the laws or craft the opinions and neither did you. they exist, nonetheless. 3. the last part of the post is your opinion...and i respect it. you have every right to that opinion. i tend to agree with you, though i don't think ALL drugs should be legalized. but please don't confuse opinion for fact.
I TRIED to stop using compelling interest, replacing that term with legitimate interest. Here is what I said - "I may not be using the term in the correct legal sense, but I would say that the patient has a legitimate interest in substances that could keep them alive." As I stated in the post you are responding to, "Aside from things like yelling fire in a movie theater," which would encompass the things you mentioned. I do have the right to free speech so long as it does not impinge on other people's rights. Just as a doctor should have the right to a candid talk with his/her patient free of government interference. True enough, it is an educated opinion. I personally believe that once we start experimenting with new policies for the so called "soft" drugs, the numbers will support my opinion and we will end up regulating all drugs. The true point of the original post was to show how far the government is trying to reach. It is a travesty that they are keeping doctors from prescribing viable medicine to their patients.
