Pubdate: Mon, 15 May 2000 Source: Orange County Register (CA) Copyright: 2000 The Orange County Register Contact: P.O. Box 11626, Santa Ana, CA 92711 Fax: (714) 565-3657 Website: http://www.ocregister.com/ 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. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk