[dangus]

I'd say that one of the few things the commerce clause DOES allow is for the Congress to regulate the trade of deadly substances. Hence, requiring perscriptions should be constitutional. And if a substance is in generally illegal to sell, that advertising its sale is generally illegal, except when religious or political issues (e.g., "Tell your congressman to legalize Xantax") make it protected speech outside of commerce.

Our Constitution is not libertarian, it merely requires that there be a valid state interest in restricting the lisence of the public.

[jammer]

You are debating an argument that was not made. Where in the world did you get the idea that I said anything about requiring prescriptions?

The error in your reasoning is your premise of illegality--which is not correct. No advertising promotes illegality, but promotes patients asking physicians for a prescription, an odious but legal practice.