If regulating drugs for the purpose of general public health is OK, why not have Hillary Care, with the government being in firm control of any drugs you might take your entire life?
It would be a logical extension of the arguments they make that extend their control of interstate commerce to encompass the internal commerce of the states. The only way they can effectively regulate the drugs you take is to control all the means by which you might acquire them.
I'm able to make distinctions, that aren't all or nothing. Selling antibiotics over the counter, would result in their becoming totalling useless within 10 years. Your all or nothing approach applies to everything. e.g. If speed limits are OK, then why not have Hillary ride in your right seat with a cattle prod to enforce it and make them all 5mph? I have no problem making logical distinctions.
It would be a logical extension of the arguments they make that extend their control of interstate commerce to encompass the internal commerce of the states. The only way they can effectively regulate the drugs you take is to control all the means by which you might acquire them.
I don't concur that it would be a logical extension. Fathomable, but not logical.