I honestly think it won't make much of a difference. Both sides, both political parties are traditionally anti-drug, and very rabidly pro-drug war.

Remember when Clinton had knee surgery, and he made a point of not wanting pain medication?

He did not impress me, other than with his stupidity and incredible preachiness. His behaviour told me he was 1) showing off, maybe even in order to impress some girl (j/k) and 2) he was sending the message that you have to be tough and choose to suffer for whatever reason.

It's stupid and irritating. We live in the 21st century, and shouldn't HAVE to suffer. We have the products and the technology. Let's use them instead of playing brave Christian soldier arbitrarily and forcing this becaviour on others.

Between that, and the intended schedule change for Hydrocodone, trafficking in Vicodin, for instance, is going to be a serious crime, a felony. In short, more is going to be illegal. We're being regulated to death. No wait, to death would render us useless and unproductive. How about regulated into submission? How much are we all supposed to take in a Democracy?

And if Kerry wins, he is going to continue the idiotic, cruel, expensive and useless war on drugs, because he has a similar moral background to Bush, and his ideas (whatever they may be) probably aren't all that different anyway. He hasn't made any impact on me yet. Very boring fellow, no clear ideas.

I'm just going to stop shy of the supremely unoriginal argument that he 'flip flops'. Anyone can regurgitate that phrase and come off semi-informed.
Kerry has a brain, and he thinks about issues. As a human being, he is sometimes subject to what is known among mere humans as 'a change of heart', and sometimes his opinion changes as he becomes more informed. So screw that argument!

Another beauty that's probably going to stay, or disappear way too slowly, is the Patriot Act, which Kerry voted for. We gave up freedom for the illusion of safety. 'Live a little' is the sentiment farthest from people's minds.

Something as relatively unimportant as OP's (in Bush or Kerry's judgment) isn't going to be considered, other than for its role in the flow of drugs within this country.

Either Bush or Kerry will probably do anything to curb 'widespread addiction' and the 'prescription drug epidemic' (in their warped way of seeing it), and pat themselves on the back for finally creating a federal law dealing with these 'scofflaws'. Just my wild guess.

Now, if either of these clowns ever has a case of chronically bad back pain or TMJ, and their doctors tell them they have to make do with facet joint injections, and Vioxx or Ibuprofen, even for the long term, then they would probably want opiates.

The disorders we get, when doctors tell us so convincingly: "opiates aren't the best option for this particular problem, we recommend Tylenol and herbal tea", well, I am sure that's good enough for some Oxy for these folks. Surely these educated leaders know their bodies!

And you can bet they'd have their own doctors writing them what they want. No need to change laws, no need to order meds online, and no need to question existing policy. It's always the same story, always has been. No matter what country or political system; if you have the money, you can get the medication you need. Any time. And if you're rich and have the right representation, yes of course you'll be able to convince the prosecutor that it is YOUR own body, and is therefore no one else's business.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think we need to have similar protection for us 'poor' folks. We need to organize, get our own lawyers, have Congress insist on a Bill of Rights for patients in pain, and also redeclare a proper Right of Autonomy

(it's long overdue), which lays out our rights to have full dominion over our own bodies, for starters. Ah one can only dream of such freedom.

I think I will try to dream of that

PS Oh Geez I certainly did not keep it brief and to the point, eh? so sorry about that folks. Just skim as necessary - thanks!