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

On 1 Dec 2003 11:23:38 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guido Marx) 

>Thomas Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >>>Some argue that we have a right to medical care, whether we can afford
>> >>>it or not.
>> >>
>> >>No, that would be an entitlement, not a right.
>> > 
>> > Who says? How do we know what is covered by the ninth amendment other
>> > than by asking you?
>> > 
>> Well, in order to get (free) medical care, somebody else has to do or 
>> pay something for you. I think a right is not something that can force 
>> somebody else to do something for you - it can only force somebody else 
>> to refrain from doing something to you! There is a right for free 
>> speech, but you're not entitled to have people that listen to what 
>> you're saying. ;-)
>
>Actually - the telemarketering association here has made exactly that
>argument.  They argue that by creating a no-call list - it infringes
>on their right to free speech.

but that argument is based on the fact that non-profits and politicians
are exempt, and they are not.  It discriminates on the basis of the type
of speech (or who is speaking).

>  Which implies what you are arguing -
>that people have an obligation to listen to their sales spiels - or at
>least an obligation to not to try to avoid listening to them.  Of
>course - I think you're correct and the courts SHOULD shoot down this
>argument.  However, they are a wealthy and politically powerful
>litigant - so we shall see.
>
>> 
>> >>>Is that a right protected by the Ninth Amendment?
>> >>
>> >>No, because it is not a right.
>> > 
>> > Your argument - that it is not a right because it is not a right is
>> > not that compelling.
>> > 
>> That's not what he was aguing. He said the 9th Amendment doesn't cover 
>> it, because it is not a right and as far as I'm concerned, that's correct.
>> 
>> Of course you're always free to argue that the 9th Amendment also covers 
>> certain entitlements such as medical care. (Over here we had a court 
>> that ruled that "mushrooms are plants" - that's just about the same as 
>> "(some) entitlements are rights".)
>
>Geez - mushrooms aren't plants.  They're the sex organs of certain
>types of fungi.
>
>Guido