DRUG BILL THREATENS RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

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.

Tucked away in a bill to increase penalties for possession, sale or
manufacture of methamphetamines are some provisions 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 a radio program to discuss sensitive topics. For instance, the
doctor might vehemently oppose drug use, but might offer advice regarding
what dosages are harmful or what other drugs a controlled substance might
interact with to cause even more harm than the controlled substance itself.

The Controlled Substance Act, remember, regulates not just substances on
Schedule I, which are illegal to use at all under federal law, but
prescription drugs such as Valium and Tylenol with codeine.

A few groups in Washington are trying to get this provision changed, and an
amendment will almost certainly be introduced 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 an 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 and will
overwhelming approve amendments to strip the bill of its offending
provisions.