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

Al Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 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.

The fact that others are exempt doesn't seem to matter to me if I
don't have an obligation to listen to what they have to say.  If it
were up to me - I wouldn't have exempted either politicians or
non-profits.  The right to free speech entails no obligation on my
part to listen to your speech.  As for telemarketing - politicians are
some of the worst offenders.

The telemarketers are arguing they're being discriminated against -
and I would agree.  But, telemarketers aren't a protected class - so
they CAN be discriminated against.

> 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).

Again - the government is not preventing people from speaking -
they're assisting those who don't wish to be harassed in their homes.


Guido