GG writes:

"... if someone has cancer and there is a treatment that can save their lives, they have the right not to take that treatment, preferring to die rather than undergo the treatment. That includes medicine. Do you think we should send the police to wherever they are and force them to undergo that treatment?"

I agree with what I believe your general point to be -- that competent adults should have access to these drugs -- even if a doctor will not prescribe them. What doesn't make sense to me is the idea of using the police (or other authorities) to force people to undergo certain treatments. The police will only become involved if a crime is committed. Currently, the laws only allow access to these drugs with a doctor's prescription. If someone accesses these drugs without that prescription, that person has broken a law and can be arrested. It is not currently against the law to refuse medical treatment that may save a life. This is a minor distinction, but I believe it is important -- and it takes away from your argument.

The criminal aspect only comes into play if someone breaks the law. The Terry Schiavo argument is similar -- and it is why the people who thought they knew better eventually lost in their attempt to force the feeding tube to remain in Terry Schiavo. The law doesn't allow (in most cases) forced medical treatment to adults.

GG wrote:

"There are all sorts of legal activities FAR more harmful than most of these drugs -- people who shove themselves full of unhealthy foods and live a sedentary life and are therefore obese, or people who drink themselves to sleep every night, or who smoke cigarettes every day, or people who risk their lives purely for recreation and thrill. We don't stop people from doing any of those things because part of life is being able to make choices for yourself that other people think are dumb, and that might even be dumb, even fatally dumb."

I agree that (most of) these drugs should be legal and accessible without a doctor's prescription. But as long as is the law, it is different than the cases you describe. As another poster so aptly wrote, "It is not illegal -- nor should it be -- to be a moron". The police will only become involved if a law is broken.

Peace.

Frank Quinn Jr

Annonymous wrote:

"Over 30,000 people unintentionally overdose on acetaminophen (Tylenol) every year in the U.S. Many of them competent adults assuming that if a little is good, more will be better, trashing their livers. People overdose on water, cough medicine and all sorts of things that leave one wondering what the hell they were thinking.

And you want to give everyone free reign to self-prescribe?"

Yes. We already allow people to self-prescribe with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, water, cough medicine, etc. Some people screw up and harm themselves (and sometimes others). Yet, we still allow it -- and most people want us to keep allowing it. Just because some can't handle certain substances is no reason to outlaw them for everyone.

Peace.

Frank Quinn Jr

... as if something is wrong with that.

There is a difference. As Glenn states, Politico purports to be non-partisan and free of any political agenda and is treated as such. Media Matters for America makes no such claim. Their claims are quite different:

http://mediamatters.org/about_us/

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.