Re: DOES THE 9th AMENDMENT PROTECT RESPONSIBLE REC DRUG USE?

Manny Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> (ulTRAX) wrote: 
>  
> > I personally believe that people should have the right to do anything
> > that doesn't harm others. 
> 
> They do.
> 
> >But that doesn't mean I overlook the "harm"
> > part of the equation. Therefore I believe that any law that exceeds
> > legitimate intent is an abuse of state power.
> > 
> > We all know politicians can be a lazy lot, frequently writing bad laws
> > that take away rights from individuals or groups that are NOT causing
> > any social problems. For instance about 10 years my state, in attempt
> > to get young men from killing themselves while driving drunk the
> > legislature  simply raised the drinking age from 18 to 21. Groups who
> > were not even part of the problem were caught in the net... those who
> > drink responsibly and don't drive, young women, etc. If the problem
> > was drunk driving then THAT behavior should have been targeted thus 
> > covering ALL age groups. 
> 
> You have just disregarded your own belief that "people should have the 
> right to do anything that doesn't harm others". You driving with alcohol 
> in your blood, in and of itself, does not violate anyone else's rights.

You ALMOST make a good point. But fleshing out the "harm" half of the
equation is a work in progress. You make it sound as if there must
there be a direct link between ONE person's actions and ONE person's
harm. Close calls don't count. I don't agree. One person's polluting
vehicle may not harm anyone but the aggregate pollution does. There is
great validity to the idea of "social costs".

As for your example... one person's driving insanely drunk on a
deserted road may not harm anyone. But a 3000 pound moving car that is
not fully under the control of its driver EASILY has the potential to
cause death, injury and property damage. If someone is not in firm
control of their vehicle it's just luck that there ISN'T an accident.
I would maintain that people DO deserve protection from others who are
irresponsible and drive impaired just as I would want protections from
someone who brandishes or fires a gun in public while drunk.

Generally I believe laws should be written in a manner that maximizes
rights for responsible people and targets irresponsible ones. For
example I believe marijuana should be legalized. But there are people
who have proven in the past that they can NOT handle this freedom. I
would not be opposed to some licensing scheme if it was the best way
to strike a balance between individual freedom and protecting society
from the social costs or irresponsible people. As part of legalization
I'd advocate for a tax to be placed on pot but ONLY to cover the
social costs of law enforcement and rehab. If you have any better
suggestion on how to strike this balance... feel free.

I'll try get to the rest of your post later. But it is digressing from
the point of my article. Whatever your philosophical beliefs about
government are... there already is a legal framework we stuck in.