FREE SPEECH AND METH

The House is scheduled on Tuesday to consider a truly dangerous piece of
legislation disguised as simply another effort to make the war on drugs
effective. And the villain of this piece is none other than California
senior Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Tucked away in a bill to increase penalties for possession, sale or
manufacture of methamphetamines are some provisions, inserted by Sen.
Feinstein, that pose a threat to freedom of speech and the right to expect
some measure of safety in one's own home.

Within S. 486 and the similar but not identical House version, HR 2987,
called the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, there's a provision that
makes it a federal crime "to teach or demonstrate the manufacturing of a
controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information pertaining
to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance."

The provision is ostensibly aimed at preventing publication on the Internet
of instructions on how to make methamphetamine, but the language is so broad
that it could criminalize almost any published speech about illegal drugs.

Some fear it could apply to advice from a doctor who writes a newsletter or
goes on the radio to discuss sensitive topics. For instance, the doctor
might oppose drug use, but might offer advice about what dosages are harmful
or what other drugs a controlled substance might interact with to case even
more harm than the controlled substance itself.

The Controlled Substance Act, remember, regulates not just substances on
Schedule 1, which are illegal to use at all under federal law, but
prescription drugs such as Valium and Tylenol with codeine. Marijuana is a
controlled substance, but California voters passed a law to authorize its
use for medical purposes; that law has not been challenged in federal court
as being in conflict with federal law, so under the California Constitution
it is the law in California. This bill could make it a federal crime to give
patients advice on how they can minimize the risks associated with the use
of a medicine the people of California and six other states have explicitly
authorized.

A few groups in Washington are trying to get this provision changed, and
Rep. Tammy Baldwin's, D-Wis., spokesperson told us she would almost
certainly introduce an amendment to eliminate what we see as an
unconstitutional provision in the bill.

The ACLU has been lobbying against it, arguing that the bill is so vague
that it could even put mainstream publishers at risk. The American
Booksellers Association and some publishing associations oppose the bill.

The shocking thing is that such as effort to control speech could have been
introduced and passed through the Senate so casually, as if the First
Amendment didn't even exist.

With all due respect to the necessity to make an argument a member of
Congress might pay attention to, the First Amendment wasn't put in the
constitution to protect mainstream publishers. It was put there precisely to
prevent the government from shutting up or criminalizing unpopular speech,
speech on the margins of the mainstream or speech in opposition to its
policies and practices.

The methamphetamine overkill bill has other objectionable provisions too,
including one that would allow police to enter your house (with a warrant)
while you're not home, search it, and never notify you.

Under current law they can enter with a warrant when you're gone, but they
have to notify you that they were there.

We hope Congress retains some residual respect for the constitution, so that
when Rep. Baldwin does introduce her amendments they pass overwhelmingly.
Orange County members should get behind the proposed measure and vote with
her.