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

On 27 Nov 2003 09:15:12 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ulTRAX) wrote:

>[My apologies if this is a duplicate posting. I mistakenly had a
>moderated NG on the original list and I have no idea it will be
>approved. If not the posts might never go up on the other boards.]
>
>I personally believe that people should have the right to do anything
>that doesn't harm others. 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.

Results if your views were incorporated into law - lotta traffic
deaths.

Results if the standard views were incorporated into law - lot fewer
traffic deaths.

It is fair for govt to do things which reduce highway deaths, if the
cost in lost liberty is worth the savings.

The balance between good results and the costs to produce it are not
as easily determined as you seem to think.


 On the federal level We saw how politicians, fearing that they
>would be accused on being soft on drug use, went into a blood frenzy
>writing scorched-earth laws that raised penalties beyond all reason.

Or alternatively they think that such laws will reduce drug usage,
saving lives and so on.

I think that they think the draconian laws have good results - in
addition to their reelection.

Why do you assume that it is only self-interest guiding them, rather
than that combined with genuine belief that such laws reduce drug
usage?

>The bizarre differential between crack vs. ordinary cocaine penalties
>are a prime example. Another example are the Rockefeller drug laws in
>NY.

The crack business has many more murders associated with it, for
whatever reason, than the powder business.

So it is arguable that penalites should be greater.

Some say crack is more addictive as well.

So again this is not necessarily an ARBITRARY distinction.

It might be - but then it might be rational too. You seem to assume
that your view is the only view which could be correct. 

I am not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that you are not
giving your opponents sufficient credit for MAYBE having a valid point
of view.

>
>In the Constitution is that forgotten 9th amendment: "The enumeration
>in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
>or disparage others retained by the people." There's some overlap
>with the 10th. Here's a discussion of it:
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/index.html
>Probably the most famous case involving the 9th is Griswold v
>Connecticut in which restrictions against birth control were found
>unconstitutional.

Too bad no one knows what the hell the ninth amendment means. I just
skidded Griswold, and it seems that the ruling, at least in the view
of some on the court, hinges on rights in the first eight amendments
too.
>
>It seems clear that the original intent of this amendment was to
>uphold John Locke's doctrine of natural rights... that rights exist
>unto themselves and government must have some legitimate intent before
>restricting them. Here's a source:
>http://radicalacademy.com/lockebio.htm I don't know if it's the best.
>Here's an additional contemporary source on how
>natural rights were viewed by the French in 1789:
>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm If you've never read
>the Rights of Man... do yourself a favor. It's intent in protecting
>natural rights is much more clear than the US Bill of Rights.
>
The problem with natural rights is that we all have different views of
what should be on the list. Do you agree that we all have a natural
right to medical care, whether we can afford it or not?

Some make that argument. Does the Ninth Amendment require
government-assured universal medical insurance?

How do we decide which rights are in the list and which are not?


>So, can a case be made that that under the 9th amendment
>scorched-earth laws written by Neanderthal or lazy politicians which
>unjustly restrict the rights of responsible citizens are
>unconstitutional? Can a case be made that the 9th REQUIRES laws to be
>written in ways that clearly state legitimate intent, target ONLY a
>well-defined problem, and contain protections to maximize the freedoms
>of
>responsible people? Does the 9th protect responsible recreational drug
>use? If
>so... what else? ;-)

No one knows, I would say. Since no one knows, the Ninth Amendment has
about zero value.