Sometimes it really seems like the War on Drugs and the Bill of Rights will never get along. For starters, there is that pesky business about unreasonable searches and seizures which keep preventing drug cops from bashing down doors on anonymous tips (well, at least raising some eyebrows after they've done it). Then there is the question of how to reconcile mandatory drug testing with the right not to incriminate oneself. Compulsory testing for a drug user, after all, is designed with little more than self-incrimination in mind. Considering the erosion of these rights, the Holy War's latest salvo against the First Amendment should hardly come as a great surprise.

True to Drug War form, meet the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act (HR 2987), currently working its way through the House of Representatives, which would make it a federal offense punishable by ten years in prison to "directly or indirectly advertise for sale" drugs or drug paraphernalia.

Indirectly advertise for sale? Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that Liberzine posted a link to High Times magazine, a periodical well known for its marijuana-legalization advocacy, as well as a very impressive online bookstore. Also, High Times just happens to features bongs, pipes, and the like for purchase. Does such a link qualify as "indirectly advertising for sale?" Conventional wisdom says yes, and if it comes down to a matter of deciding, who wants to leave the Feds any discretion? For something more benign, how about linking to a site where users of medicinal marijuana go to purchase relief from the suffering that often accompanies terminal cases of cancer or AIDS. As it stands, the bill would likely punish this as well.

"I could see this being used and not know what was being prohibited under this law," notes Deborah Pierce, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

In addition, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act also makes it illegal for any person "to teach or demonstrate the manufacture 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, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a federal crime."

This overbroad language could have even more injurious consequences for the First Amendment. "It is going to be a tough thing for news organizations, but more importantly it strikes at the news consumer who wishes to test information provided by the media against their own experience," warns Paul McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman at the Freedom Forum.

For purposes of illustration, let's stretch the proposed law a bit. Consider a site like Dancesafe, which tests Ecstasy pills submitted by users or other curious folks (contains MDMA, caffeine, and aspirin, for example) and then posts the results for the conscientious to refer to. While certainly a most informative and interesting site, just how it would survive under this proposed legislation escapes me. Regardless of the fact that Dancesafe routinely dispels the long-standing (and quite false) myth that Ecstasy often contains Heroin, as well as other useful facts for countering Drug War hysteria, this site certainly provides a bit too much factual information for the Drug Warriors to be comfortable with.

Along the same lines, the publisher of Mel Frank and Ed Rosenthal's Marijuana Grower's Guide (the name says it all) would presumably face the maximum ten years in prison. As might the Encyclopedia Britannica, since a search for methamphetamine at that site led me to this gem: Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture: Including Recipes for MDA, Ecstasy, and Other Psychedelic Amphetamines by Uncle Fester, easily found on Amazon.com. (At the time this was written, copies of Uncle Fester's Practical LSD Manufacture are also available, FYI.)

What about some of the more scholarly work in the field of illegal drug use? In Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts, Lynn Zimmer and John P. Morganenough dispel enough of the "reefer madness" era hype that some consenting adult might conceivably find marijuana much less threatening, and, as a result, smoke a joint. Thus this largely academic book's discussion of the "use of a controlled substance" resulted in the "furtherance of an activity that constitutes a federal crime."

Is that so far fetched, or is the language of this bill so broad as to criminalize even the sharing or repetition of information? Defenders of the Bill, including its Senate sponsors Orrin Hatch and Diane Feinstein (it has already passed in the Senate, by the way), point out that illegality rests on intent. Is the information being spread with the intent that drug laws are broken? Good luck getting a negative to that question with any of Uncle Fester's books lying around. The New Republic's Jake Halpern recently noted that large booksellers like Barnes & Noble and Amazon would likely be safe, since their catalogues include such a vast array of titles that any specific intent would be impossible to pinpoint. The independent publishers, bookstores, and websites who may cater to a more specific audience, on the other hand, would have little legal recourse left to them and potentially be singled out under the new law.

That point is debatable. Whether bought online at Amazon or at your local headshop, what possible purpose would a book like Marijuana Grower's Guide serve, if not to roll your own? Even assuming Halpern is correct, however, those entrepreneurs without the sheer bulk of the mega-sellers will surely be found in violation of the law.

The First Amendment has long stood as the bulwark by which ideas and information, no matter how objectionable, passed securely between and among free persons. If the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act has its way, you and I won't live quite so freely anymore.