Virginia justified its enactment of the regulation on the grounds of maintaining the professionalism of pharmacists, asserting that aggressive price competition among pharmacists would make it difficult for pharmacists to provide the proper professional services. Blackmun responded that while regulation of the pharmacy profession was both necessary and within the prerogative of the several States through their police power, the statute promoted consumers’ ignorance, effectively keeping them in the dark about prescription drug prices. Blackmun dismissed this rationale as paternalistic, saying that if consumers had sufficient access to information regarding drug pricing and availability, it would only serve to aid them in their decisions about choosing a prescription drug supplier. Blackmun concluded his opinion by explaining that states still retained the power to regulate some commercial speech, via content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations. Likewise, states retain the power to prohibit false or deceptive advertisements. However, he held that the states could not suppress truthful information about a lawful economic activity, simply out of fear of potential consequences. Burger's concurrence Chief Justice Burger concurred on largely practical grounds, citing the fact that since 95% of the prescriptions being filled required prepackaged medications, prepared by their manufacturers to be sold immediately. These drugs had a large enough market to be sold in such a manner, so the state’s justification based on professionalism carried little weight. Burger instead concentrated on limiting the scope of Blackmun’s majority opinion, stating that it did not extend to professional services such as medicine or law. Burger reasoned that since regulation of these professions governed a different set of risks, and since the services involved were unique and personalized to the client, the holding of this case should not apply to them. Stewart's concurrence Justice Stewart wrote a concurrence explaining how the holding of this did not limit the states’ ability to restrict deceptive or false advertising. He cited various libel cases to demonstrate that while the press cannot be harshly restricted for fear that journalists may occasionally get their facts wrong, an advertiser is much more likely to know whether or not the material he was publishing was true. Thus, states should have greater latitude in regulating the content of advertisements for the veracity of their content. Even though commercial advertising and ideological expression are clearly different, advertisements which convey truthful information are worthy of First Amendment protection, and the elimination of deceptive claims serves to