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

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>...
> 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.

You obviously are unable to grasp the key concepts here. The social
problem that was an issue was some teenage boys driving drunk and
killing themselves. The problem as defined then was NOT legal drinking
by 18-21 year olds.

Given this, laws COULD have been written to attack the targeted
problem: drunk driving by teenage boys. In fact the ONLY real problem
here was drunk driving presumably by anyone of any age. This could be
dealt with with roadblocks or other measures. This is NOT what the
state did. The state took the easy way out and punished even those who
were NOT responsible for the targeted problem.

So if you are claiming that bad laws that restrict or trample on the
rights of
innocent people are justified just because they may be "effective"...
then I hope you NEVER get into a position of authority to implement
your irrational authoritarian views.