A setback for privacy rights

An appeals court in Florida has released a ruling today in regards to Rush Limbaugh and his alleged "doctor shopping". Not having read the ruling, I'll speak only generally about the issues here which conern me. One, freedom means being able to make bad choices. Drug abuse in and of itself is NOT harmful to other human beings. Throughout his period of addiction, Rush continued to operate his business and perform on his radio show. To my knowledge, he did not commit any other criminal act while high on or addicted to oxycodon. Second, when will the War on Drugs be declared a quagmire? Huge amounts of money have been spent combatting drug laws. Courts hear cases, prisons house abusers, and law enforcement is distracted from other issues. So long as drugs remain attractive and mysterious, they will be in demand. So long as they remain in demand, they will be supplied. The only rational solution is to combat the most serious and damaging drugs, such as heroin and crack. Third, the foundation of this country is not to require individual citizens to relinquish privacy in order to prove themselves innocent of charges levied by the government. It is precisely the other way around in fact. The government must somehow prove a person guilty while going out of its way to preservethe "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

Not to mention that somehow the right to privacy now grants legal protection to mothers who murder unborn babies but not to those who abuse drugs.