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

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>...
> On 27 Nov 2003 09:15:12 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ulTRAX) wrote:
> 
> >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.

Translation: bad laws that restrict or trample on the rights of
innocent people are justified because they may be effective? Gee...
that's certainly a slippery slope!  Banning all guns would end gun
crime. Would you advocate that? Big Brother surveillance cameras in
the home would reduce spouse and child abuse. GPS transmitters with
unique IDs on all citizens would prevent Alzheimer patients and little
kids from getting lost.

>  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.

Such laws make NO distinction between a responsible drug user and a
crack addict. My original question is whether the 9th REQUIRES that
any law restricting rights be justified and targeted.

 
> 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?

In the two cases I mentioned there were reported political
considerations in "bidding up" penalties.
 
> >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 murder was the actual crime targeted by these laws? 

> So it is arguable that penalties 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.

I was around back in the 80's when there was so much hysteria about
crack. But laws should not be made by hysterical lawmakers nor driven
by polls or a single spectacular event.
 
> >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.

I don't think it's a matter of no one knowing what the 9th means.
There seems to be sufficient historical documentation on the 9th. I
think the 9th is being ignored because it has potential to open up a
Pandora's Box of claims for protected rights. All I'm suggesting is
that one right we SHOULD expect from the 9th is that lawmakers intent
on restricting a right state their legitimate intent and NOT to exceed
it. We can debate crack till the cows come home. It's only an example.
Any bad law can serve that purpose.
 
> >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?

Yup... this could be a giant projection test. Guess it would have to
be done case by case. But what's the alternative? To have no
protection against abusive laws?

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

I believe that's covered by "general welfare" clause the Preamble. ;-)

> >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.

It's the Supreme law of the land. It has to have SOME value. Don't you
think? Or don't you?