You keep mentioning hang gliding. But there are--I presume--laws regulating peoples' ability to hang glide. E.g. I assume that I can't hang glide off of a building or over a crowded outdoor concert unless given permission. Nor can I buy a drink if under 21, or a gun in many states if I have a criminal record--or drive drunk, or use a gun except in very restricted ways and locations. So why should I be able to buy any Rx drug I want without restriction--or without the most prominent restriction now in use, a doctor's Rx?

It seems to me that taken to its logical limit, your argument means that the vast majority of regulations limiting our ability to obtain and use any number of currently regulated and restricted "things" should be removed. Is this so?

I also find your use of the legal example to be unconvincing, since, unlike all these other "things", my understanding is that the constitution guarantees my ability to represent myself in all legal matters, however unwisely and adversely, without benefit of or against the advice of legal counsel, but it does not guarantee my right to obtain and make use of such other "things" without restriction--and, in fact, grants lawmakers the right to pass regulations restricting such use. Am I wrong on this, and if so, how?

You certainly make some excellent and hard to refute theoretical "moot court" arguments in favor of your position. It's on a practical level that I object to it. E.g. the ship has long since sailed on restricting access to alcohol, the constitutional argument, the fact that various regulations exist to restrict peoples' access to and possession and use of virtually all other potentially dangerous "things", etc. While I appreciate your arguments, I remain unconvinced that on a practical level, what you propose is doable, necessary or wise.

My immediately preceding comment was composed before (but obviously posted after) you posted your brief comment to me--I've been on a very cellular connection this week and I don't refresh the screen often. I of course look forward to your responses, if time allows. I view this as the closest to moot court as I'm likely to ever come (although clearly this is a very important issue to you, and not just of theoretical interest or use).

Perhaps the question would be better put not as, since you can reject legal advice in legal matters, why shouldn't you be able to dispense with medical advise in obtaining Rx drugs, but rather as, since you are require to obtain the latter, why shouldn't it also be so with the former? It would, after all, save both foolish laypersons and the judicial system a lot of needless grief, suffering and inconvenience.

I don't know the answer to this other than that my understanding of the constitution is that imposing such restrictions might be unconstitutional, and so even though they might make sense in some ways, they would not be valid from a constitutional perspective.

I don't know about the rest of you but I need to think about this more. Glenn and others make good arguments, but I'm not as yet convinced. Thankfully, I am legally entitled to make up my own mind about this without first obtaining the permission of a legal expert.

I take full responsibility for any consequences to myself and/or others for this. ;-)