I don't think that I fundamentally disagree with you. I believe that people should make their own decision and take responsibility for their choices.

But I don't think that this situation is the same as forcing someone to act in their best interest. No one is forcing anyone to take or not take a drug here. I feel like a better analogy is to say that the government is trying to maintain conditions where the consumer can accurately assess for himself what his own best interests are.

If you want to take modafinil, you can still get a prescription for it. You can find a doctor who is willing to prescribe it to you and use her training to determine and recommend the right dosage, and you can take your prescription to a pharmacy and consult with a trained pharmacist on the side effects and drawbacks of modafinil. Then, the pharmacy will dispense you a drug that you can be reasonably certain has been tested for quality. Then you can take your pills home and decide to take them, or not take them, or take them all at once, or give them to your neighbor's dog to see what happens (don't do this).

I'm not going to discuss the ability to afford the drug, because that is another issue. At each stage in the process I described, there were resources available to you to help you make a decision for yourself. I think the difference is that buying drugs online takes away these resources from your decision process.

You may say, "well, if you can't make a good decision for yourself, maybe you should just avoid buying medicine online or just accept that you face serious health consequences." This is a persuasive argument, but it's not so black-and-white for some people.

Maybe they don't have access to medical care for whatever reason, maybe they don't have enough money to buy the drug legitimately, maybe they've gotten ineffective treatments and an experimental drug available online seems like the last resort. Whatever the reason, even if the person is mistaken in his beliefs, these people aren't able to see that they have mistakenly identified the best course of action.

I think that the FDA's goal here is to try to create conditions where everyone can make choices for himself by minimizing deception, uncertainty, and risk. Since there is no good way for the government to distinguish between someone who can make well-informed decisions about a modafinil purchase and someone who is not equipped to make a decision about experimental cancer drugs for their sick child, I think that the government is trying to minimize harm for the most people.

it should not be the governments concern to keep everyone wrapped in cotton.

If you're allergic to wool, though, and a website ships you a cotton/wool blend labeled "100% cotton," would you want someone to shut down that website, or wait for the free market to do it once enough people die from allergic reactions?