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

On 28 Nov 2003 16:21:40 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ulTRAX) wrote:

>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?

Obviously.

Only a moron would argue otherwise.

My right to kill my wife if she burns the toast is severly limited,
and that's not a bad thing.



 Gee...
>that's certainly a slippery slope!  

Ok, maybe I should be able to kill her.


Banning all guns would end gun
>crime. Would you advocate that? 

Yes, if possible I would ban all guns.

But it does not seem possible, and in the US that would require
amending the constitution.

I favor banning all nuclear bombs too. I think the view that my
neighbor should be able to keep a thermonuclear device in his
basement, even though he is innocent, is not a good idea.

You disagree?

Limiting freedom is a good idea.

I do not complain when I am ordered to drive on the right side of the
road.

But feel free to argue to the contrary.





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.

Did you notice the word "balance" in my post?

I guess not.

>
>>  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?