it always fun to regurgitate the outrage that Republicans expressed over the Clipper Chip proposals during the Clinton years.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm

But doing so reminds us that the battle for personal privacy cuts across party lines and that there are no shortage of Democrats who are willing to sacrifice freedom if they think it will give them "law and order" or "war on terror" cred.

I've always assumed that every link I've ever clicked as well as every case of beer I've ever purchased was available as a data point for anyone willing to dig for it. And who even knows how many servers the photos we take with our cel-phones end up on.

One of the downsides of technological advancement is that anything that can be done will be done at some point. Does everyone remember the talk of internet-enabled refrigerators?

Needless to say, the more connected we all are, the more irresistable the urge to monitor and control will become. It's just plain human nature.

Some comments suggest to me that a lot of people are unaware of why this database exists. My understanding (as always subject to correction) is that the centralized database of prescripions is so the feds can detect instances of Dr. shopping wherin people go to multiple doctors to get multiple scripts to treat the same pain. The most famous practitioner is of course our good friend Rush Limbaugh.

This is of course another instance where privacy concerns cross party lines.

If, as is reported, the registry was searched for clues into the psyche of the VA shooter, then it is already being used for purposes that exceed its mandate.

Different law....same mindset.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/methamphetamine.htm

I must count myself among those who find it amusing when self described conservatives fail to understand the difference between liberals and civil libertarians. Its especially ironic when self identified conservatives argue forcfully in favor of the nanny-state. They can't trust individuals to make decisions regarding their own bodies yet they are perfectly willing to trust a randomly selected government official with every available detail of anyones, medical history, buying habits, phone records and entertainment choices.

As for the news report's reference to anti-depressant drugs, consider the source--a media report by a reporter under deadline. Like many media reports, it is most likely flat out wrong.

At which point we can rejoin the bashing of ABC's accuracy already in progress. The paragraph in the story is remarkably unambiguous.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070412-1043-prescriptionprivacy.html

There is only one explanation I can come up with. And it only applies to a small subset of prescription drugs. There are certain substances which when ingested, affect judgment to the point where ones status as an "adult" can be called into question. That the one drug that is most accurately described in that manner is subject to less sales control than OTC decongestants, it certainly is appropriate to question how we got to this state. (I refer, of course, to alcohol)

We now know that many of the drug laws that are on the books in this country were specifically written to marginalize certain segments of the population. A quick look at prison population statistics reveals that they are still being used for this purpose. Do not expect rationality or logic to enter this debate any time soon.

If the individual lost control of his own mind, his actions are not his own.

A person who has taken drugs has NOT lost control over his own mind. He has exerted EXTRA control over it. It may be a subtle distinction, but when people attempt to use the influence of drugs as a reason to mitigate responsibility for their actions they help to demonize the drugs themselves, while at the same time, dishonestly avoid accountability for what remains "their" actions.

All the scenarios that are being plied on this thread seem to imagine that rational self interest suddenly flies out the window as soon is someone is handed a bottle of demerol. Any bus driver with a toothache is already able to self-medicate himself into irresponsible oblivion by simply taking all the pills in the bottle at once. Having seen a doctor to obtain the prescription doesn't prevent that. His desire to releive his pain but keep his job and get the children home safely does.

Anyone who wishes to use drugs irresponsibly can already do so, again we need only point to Rush if we need an example.

While Glenn has taken, what many on this thread see as an extreme position, the government on the other hand has taken things to the opposite extreme. That the Federal government is seeing fit to insert itself between doctor and patient and (in the case of medicinal marijuana) between doctors and their own state governments, points up the fact that the assumptions we have made regarding medications are to date irrational.