Well, I can't fathom how SSRIs get in the water supply short of pee. But it is my right to take them -- or not -- depending on my own decision. My doctor can give me his/her best opinion, but it is and should still be up to me.

(But if I ask for their informed, professional opinion and they fail to tell me all the pluses and minuses -- which actually happened to me -- I can get mad enough to sue. I didn't only because overall it is so beneficial to me. I googled the problem the pill presented for me when I stopped taking it for 3 days and only meant it to be a temporary surcease, and after release from the ER when I thought I was surely dying [abrupt cessation doesn't actually kill, but you might wish it did at the time], Nice Doctor got all discombobulated, telling me he had never known of such a thing as what happened to me, which is horseshit -- Lexapro withdrawal, well, just google and you'll get tens of thousands of hits.)

The other case of requiring strict drug regulation is in the case of anesthesia and sedation. Those drugs include the paralytics, anesthetic gases and solutions and sedative drugs. Self epidurals? I think not? Intubation and anesthetic staging a la carte? Unh. Unh.

And who are YOU to tell them "unh unh"?! Vodka and Nyquil are legal; how many people drink those daily in combo from a.m. until pass-out whenever? Sure, a teensy minority, but most people have lives and no interest in such destructive and absurd behavior. How many folks, by the same token, are going to wake up and decide they want to spend their days on sedatives and anesthetic gasses? But if they do, prison is not the answer. And prohibition = prison.

While Glenn speaks no good of Dennis Kucinich, most of the Paulist issues Glenn wants "discussed" most passionately (like war and imperialism and ethics and ending the Drug War and restoring the Constitution and the Rule of Law and such) are more clearly worked out by Dennis Kucinich than by Ron Paul. Yet according to Glenn, Kucinich isn't even running a "real" campaign, whatever that means, whereas Paul is, somehow, and therefore, Ron Paul should be listened to and not Dennis Kucinich. OK, if that's what you want, but it doesn't make any sense.

I've written paeans to Dennis Kucinich, as I have about Paul. But for good or ill, and for whatever reason, the groundswell of notoriety and MONEY from the little people has come to Paul, not Kucinich. Thus, the Keepers of Seriousness are having conniptions and don't know how to "handle" Paul, since they can't just ignore him. So they Russert him, instead of ignoring Paul, as they do Kucinich.

Glenn is right to note that all this unprecedented fundraising success and enthusiasm for Paul -- from citizens -- means something. Whether it means we should endorse Paul, or accept the entire panoply of his views is another thing -- but he is driving the proper issues into a spotlight that the Beltway cannot completely ignore. That is a GOOD THING.

Restricting use is not necessarily prohibiting use. Just clarifying

And what do you propose to do to enforce the "regulation," if not penal sanction?

How do you deal with the cases where denial is one of the symptoms? People frequently deny they are having heart trouble, it's one of the symptoms. When you hear it, it starts all sorts of warning bells ringing, but people get really adamant about it.

Their choice, just let 'em die?

Denial is part of the human condition in many areas, substance addiction being just one. But I reject imprisoning fellow citizens as a solution -- if they decide they want help, it should be there. But if they refuse it, the state (via and you and I empowering it) has no business locking them in a cage to "save" them. Some will be ultimately destroyed, and even die -- I've lost two family members to the results of alcohol addiction, including a younger brother -- he passed out with a BAC of .3 and a lit cigarette; the result was gruesome and can be guessed at (the funeral was closed casket). But I am glad he never had to suffer a terrifying day in prison.

(I have a family history, btw, that almost defies belief. Fortunately, Glenn knows me, and so I can't credibly be accused of lying because he knows it all.)

You too, LWM. But I'm reporting you to the Secular Progressive Police for not wishing me Happy Holiday's. ;) Tremble -- Bill O'Reilly may show up at your arrest.

Yes, my mother also "poofed" her hair, and spoke of my sister and I doing so as well in the 60s. What she never would have done is say that my father or brother poofed their hair; it was/is a strictly female practice.

Peggy Noonan, whatever her faults, uses words with a purpose -- she didn't get to be Reagan's speechwriter for nothing. I suspect she meant to deploy "poofing" in both respects, the dictionary one cited by Glenn and the way women (at least in the era of big hair) used it, and both or either of which uses are meant to convey that John Edwards is a faggot.