The 9th Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to do drugs. Rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable limitations and regulations. Drug laws are lawful and reasonable limitations on your rights. You contradict yourself. First you say the 9th doesn't guarantee a right to do drugs, then you say that drug laws are lawful and reasonable limitations on your rights. So we have confirmed that it is a right, and you present the only good argument, which is that this is a reasonable limitation on those rights.
The 9th Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to do drugs. Rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable limitations and regulations. Drug laws are lawful and reasonable limitations on your rights.
You contradict yourself. First you say the 9th doesn't guarantee a right to do drugs, then you say that drug laws are lawful and reasonable limitations on your rights. So we have confirmed that it is a right, and you present the only good argument, which is that this is a reasonable limitation on those rights.
I did not contradict myself. I clearly stated there is no right to do drugs. I still stand by my statement.
I disagree, because the drug use is not causing crime, people cause crime. You agree with that logic as it applies to guns, so it's curious that you do not also recognize it when it addresses something other than guns.
Buying drugs is a crime. Dealing drugs is a crime. Smuggling drugs is a crime. Drugs hurt many people, including those who do not use them.
Naturally this is a big issue, and I do not expect us to all agree, but at least we ahve cut to the chase on it, and the only issue is weather this is reasonable limitation or not, and we do not agree on that. I say that laws should address crimes, not things like guns, drugs, etc. They are inanimate objects that by themselves do not cause anything beyone what they do to the user, and I have no vested interest in the user. My concern is for you and I. As long as the drug user is not hurting us, then I say leave him (or her) alone.
Some drugs are legal...some are not. Some guns are legal...some are not. Those who truly need help through drugs should see a doctor and get legal drugs.
Drug use is a crime. When crimes are committed, everyone is hurt in one way or another.
Guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Drugs are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall be in fringed. No such specific wording exists for the use of drugs. I hope you are wrong about the second amendment, because if it does read that "the right to keep and bear arms shall be in fringed", then we are all going to loose our gun rights... (kidding, I know what you meant to say). Have you read the ninth amendment? It specifically says that mentioning a right has nothing to do with the validity of the right, so your statement "no such specific wording exists for the use of drugs" is invalid. Here it is, please read it thoroughly... """Amendment 9 - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."""
Guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Drugs are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall be in fringed. No such specific wording exists for the use of drugs.
I hope you are wrong about the second amendment, because if it does read that "the right to keep and bear arms shall be in fringed", then we are all going to loose our gun rights... (kidding, I know what you meant to say). Have you read the ninth amendment? It specifically says that mentioning a right has nothing to do with the validity of the right, so your statement "no such specific wording exists for the use of drugs" is invalid. Here it is, please read it thoroughly... """Amendment 9 - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."""
I know what it says. I know it doesn't guarantee a right to do drugs.
Nope. You do not have the right to do anything that is illegal. I agree, BUT, for something to be illegal, it must be proved that it infringes on someone elses rights. Making things illegal for the sake of someones personal moral code is illegal in itself. This is the basis of my argument.
Nope. You do not have the right to do anything that is illegal.
I agree, BUT, for something to be illegal, it must be proved that it infringes on someone elses rights. Making things illegal for the sake of someones personal moral code is illegal in itself. This is the basis of my argument.
Drug laws were not enacted for the sake of a moral code.
______________
::: I did not contradict myself. I clearly stated there is no right to do drugs. :::
Followed by... """Rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable limitations and regulations. Drug laws are lawful and reasonable limitations on your rights."""
That is clearly a contradiction.
::: Buying drugs is a crime. Dealing drugs is a crime. Smuggling drugs is a crime. Drugs hurt many people, including those who do not use them. :::
Those are unconstitutional infringements of our rights, not crimes. Tax evasion is a crime, but it's hard to enforce as long as we keep the drug industry in the hands of the mob. What reason do you have for supporting the mob's monopoly on drugs and the tax evasion and murder etc that is acssociated with it? If people are hurt, that is a crime, and we already have adequate laws to deal with those crimes. Have you even read anything I have posted? You continually post as if in a vaccuum. If you do not comprehend my posts, you should read them more carefully, if you do comprehend and still choose to ignore what I am saying in favor of redundancy what is the point of this discussion? Your statements do not include the reasoning behind them or why you think my solution to the problem is not viable. Flat statements of the type you have made do not show any thought or reasoning, it's just opinionated, stubborn, lack of debate.
You are entitled to your opinion, but if you can not explain your reasoning, your opinion only shows a lack of thought.
::: I know what it says. I know it doesn't guarantee a right to do drugs. :::
If you know what it says, and you know it doesn't guarantee a right to do drugs, then I know that you have a comprehension problem. The only thing in question is weather limitations are reasonable, the issue as to weather it is a right is non existant, because anyone who reads and comprehends the meaning of the constitution knows that virtually everything is a right unless laws are created to say otherwise.
::: Drug laws were not enacted for the sake of a moral code. :::
If you intend to argue that, you need some supporting facts, and so far I see nothing. Some drug laws were created because well meaning people thought as you do, and that is a moral issue since it has proven to be totally inefective in stopping crimes and even the drug use itself. Pot was made illegal because of the lobby from the cotton industry in a take over pushing hemp clothing out of the market. Prostitution is illegal because married women didn't want their husbands availing themselves of the services of prostitutes. Plus back then disease was less treatable. But that is a moral issue as well. Moral issues have no business in law making. If you can't use logic, then you are just infringing on others due to ignorance and a feeling of moral superiority.
"If you know what it says, and you know it doesn't guarantee a right to do drugs, then I know that you have a comprehension problem."
Such statements from you will only serve to make me not discuss any issue with you. If you do that one more time, I will put you on ignore.
::: Such statements from you will only serve to make me not discuss any issue with you. If you do that one more time, I will put you on ignore. :::
All you ever have are short quips about how "it is" well, that's not a logical debate, I have told you a couple of times that an opinion that can not be backed up with at least a line of reasoning (not talking proof, just talking your personal line of reasoning) is not an acceptable argument. If that's all you are capable of, then my comment stands, and I would prefer that you put me on ignore. Have a wonderful day. ;-)
1. You need to learn what a "quip" is.
2. It is a fact that the 9th Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to do drugs. Since it is a fact and not an opinion, I don't have to supply any reasoning.
3. Resorting to insults during a polite discussion is not necessary. Those who resort to insults lose. Since you insulted me, you lost.
::: 1. You need to learn what a "quip" is.
3. Resorting to insults during a polite discussion is not necessary. Those who resort to insults lose. Since you insulted me, you lost. :::
It's not a fact just because you say it's a fact.
Questioning your comprehension skills at a time when you have shown that you do not understand the intent of the ninth amendment is not an insult, it is a logical statement based on the facts.
Facts and reasonable lines of thought win debates, and since you have presented neither, you certainly have not won anything. But feel free to delude yourself.
In my opinion, you do a great disservice to the "don't tread on me" slogan from the war of independence, and you also do a great disservice to the second amendment as well as the ninth, by failing to understand the bedrock of our republic. Right, don't tread on you, but you will tread on others. That's not freedom, that's insulting to freedom. So, there you have it, you have insulted the rest of us, not I, you.
1. You need to learn what a "quip" is. 2. It is a fact that the 9th Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to do drugs. Since it is a fact and not an opinion, I don't have to supply any reasoning. 3. Resorting to insults during a polite discussion is not necessary. Those who resort to insults lose. Since you insulted me, you lost. It's not a fact just because you say it's a fact.
You are the one who is trying to fool us with that kind of folly. You have supplied no proof that the 9th Amendment protects the right to do drugs.
You should consider the following:
Your belief that I do not understand does not mean that I do not understand.
It is your who has not presented either facts or logical reason. You have presented nothing but folly and insults. .
I guess it is a good idea that I don't give a damn about your hilarious opinion.
::: You should consider the following:
* No court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has ever ruled that the 9th Amendment protects the right to do drugs. * No court has ever ruled that drug laws are unconstitutional. * Nobody had every been able to successfully contest drug laws based on the idea that the 9th Amendment protects the right to do drugs. * Nobody has had their convictions overturned based on the idea that the 9th Amendment protects the right to do drugs. :::
Very good. You are the first to actually present a solid argument. I will give you credit for this line of reasoning.
I think you are right on all those counts, although I wonder if this has ever made it to the supreme court.
My argument is that these laws are unconstitutional and that if they made it to the supreme court, they should be overturned, however; I agree that in this society they probably will not be overturned. That doesn't make it right, and it certainly does nothing to dispute my claims that it would be better if we handled it my way.
I can further argue that there are many anti gun laws on the books that are unconstitutional, and we would both be on the same side of any argument to overturn those. Up to a point, where you seem to think that society has a right to take our rights away without reasonable cause. I think we would agree that it is wrong to not allowing people to get carry permits in certain areas. You may require more back checking, and you may also disagree that all citizens should have access to carry permits if they are not currently on parole. I am of the opinion that past felons should be allowed, and you may not be. My reasoning is that not all felons are violent, and those that were should be "rehabilitated", and if they are not, then they should not be out on the street. Once they get back on the street, I feel they should have the right to self defense.
::: I guess it is a good idea that I don't give a damn about your hilarious opinion. :::
That's actually too bad, because you should. My opinion while somewhat radical by todays thinking is a more logical way to run things. Neither drugs or guns by themselves are dangerous, they only become dangerous when people are in the picture. I say drop all frivolous laws, and start fresh by institution only the restrictions that become necessary, and use the police to actually go after criminals who are harming others. It's a more logical position than you are giving me credit for.
Very good. You are the first to actually present a solid argument. I will give you credit for this line of reasoning. I think you are right on all those counts, although I wonder if this has ever made it to the supreme court.
It won't.
My argument is that these laws are unconstitutional and that if they made it to the supreme court, they should be overturned, however; I agree that in this society they probably will not be overturned.
They wouldn't.
That doesn't make it right, and it certainly does nothing to dispute my claims that it would be better if we handled it my way.
It does make it right because we do not allow people to harm themselves or others.
I can further argue that there are many anti gun laws on the books that are unconstitutional, and we would both be on the same side of any argument to overturn those.
Some are unconstitutional and some are not. Some laws represents lawful and reasonable limitations on our rights.
Up to a point, where you seem to think that society has a right to take our rights away without reasonable cause.
I have never stated nor have I implied that I believe society has a right to take our rights away withour reasonable cause. As I matter of fact, all of my statements have been the complete opposite of what you said.
I think we would agree that it is wrong to not allowing people to get carry permits in certain areas.
That would depend upon the areas in question.
You may require more back checking, and you may also disagree that all citizens should have access to carry permits if they are not currently on parole.
I have stated that anyone who is qualified to have a carry permit should be able to get one if he wishes to have one.
I am of the opinion that past felons should be allowed, and you may not be. My reasoning is that not all felons are violent, and those that were should be "rehabilitated", and if they are not, then they should not be out on the street. Once they get back on the street, I feel they should have the right to self defense.
Some felons are able to have their gun rights restored. It is up to a judge to decide whether or not one's gun rights are restored.
People never lose the to lawfully defend themselves, whether they are felons or not, however, some people do lose the right to keep and bear arms.
I guess it is a good idea that I don't give a damn about your hilarious opinion. That's actually too bad, because you should. My opinion while somewhat radical by todays thinking is a more logical way to run things.
That's actually too bad, because you should. My opinion while somewhat radical by todays thinking is a more logical way to run things.
That is your opinion. I don't agree with your opinion.
Neither drugs or guns by themselves are dangerous, they only become dangerous when people are in the picture.
Some drugs can be dangerous even when people don't touch them. Naturally occurring drugs...nicotine, alcohol, LSD, and pot...can be dangerous when acted upon by nature.
I say drop all frivolous laws, and start fresh by institution only the restrictions that become necessary, and use the police to actually go after criminals who are harming others. It's a more logical position than you are giving me credit for.
I say keep all the drug laws in place and inact some new laws that are even more strict.
::: It does make it right because we do not allow people to harm themselves or others. :::
That's the problem. It's none of your business if someone wants to hurt themselves.
::: Some are unconstitutional and some are not. Some laws represents lawful and reasonable limitations on our rights. :::
I agree that some reasonable limitations should be in place, but we do agree that in some cases that has been taken too far. I'm sure you would want stricter, and I would want less strict restrictions, but the only thing in question is where to draw the line.
::: I have never stated nor have I implied that I believe society has a right to take our rights away withour reasonable cause. As I matter of fact, all of my statements have been the complete opposite of what you said. :::
That all depends on your definition of reasonable cause, and in my opinion, there is no reasonable cause for banning drugs. That is a cop out. We have had a problem controling crime, so we get anxious and go after things that in themselves are not crimes, in an attempt to head off the crimes, but it isn't working.
::: That would depend upon the areas in question. :::
Well, for instance, this area, the entire inland empire East of LA. You couldn't get a carry permit here if someone had a gun pointed at your head and was threatening to pull the trigger.
::: I have stated that anyone who is qualified to have a carry permit should be able to get one if he wishes to have one.
I know that is your position. I am using that position as an example of the hypocrisy you show towards the similar case of drug use. They are both examples of where society has tried to ban the object rather than go after the criminal. This is a basic concept that is wrong.
::: Some felons are able to have their gun rights restored. It is up to a judge to decide whether or not one's gun rights are restored.
People never lose the to lawfully defend themselves, whether they are felons or not, however, some people do lose the right to keep and bear arms. :::
I was not aware that felons could have their rights restored. And I do understand that they do not loose their right to defend themselves, but if attacked with a gun, what do they use a sharp stick?
::: That is your opinion. I don't agree with your opinion. :::
I hadn't noticed.
::: * A pot forest can go up in flames without the help of humans and humans could accidentally breathe in the smoke. :::
Now that's funny. Hmmm, the forrest foes up in flames here regularly, we have a bad fire season, and sometimes the air quality from the fires is enough to kill people. Should we outlaw forrests in general too?
::: I say keep all the drug laws in place and inact some new laws that are even more strict. :::
I say I made a mistake thinking that you could carry on a reasonable discussion in the abstract while putting aside your personal prejudices. I was wrong, so you have a good life.
It does make it right because we do not allow people to harm themselves or others. ::: That's the problem. It's none of your business if someone wants to hurt themselves.
It does make it right because we do not allow people to harm themselves or others. :::
That is your opinion and your opinion doesn't stand up to the law.
Some are unconstitutional and some are not. Some laws represents lawful and reasonable limitations on our rights. I agree that some reasonable limitations should be in place, but we do agree that in some cases that has been taken too far. I'm sure you would want stricter, and I would want less strict restrictions, but the only thing in question is where to draw the line.
That is for the people, the courts, and our legislators to decide.
I have never stated nor have I implied that I believe society has a right to take our rights away withour reasonable cause. As I matter of fact, all of my statements have been the complete opposite of what you said. That all depends on your definition of reasonable cause, and in my opinion, there is no reasonable cause for banning drugs. That is a cop out. We have had a problem controling crime, so we get anxious and go after things that in themselves are not crimes, in an attempt to head off the crimes, but it isn't working.
I never stated what you said I stated. Whether I made the statement or not does not depend upon my definition of reasonable cause.
I believe there is reasonable cause to ban drugs.
Trying to control drug-related crime is important. If our attemtps are not working, we need to try a little harder. We also need to get tougher and adobpt stiffer penalties so some people would think twice.
That would depend upon the areas in question. Well, for instance, this area, the entire inland empire East of LA. You couldn't get a carry permit here if someone had a gun pointed at your head and was threatening to pull the trigger.
When you mentioned areas, I thought you were talking about specific places such as court rooms and other sensitive areas. I didn't know you were referring to specific cities. I don't think any city or state should be allowed to ban the issuing of carry permits.
I have stated that anyone who is qualified to have a carry permit should be able to get one if he wishes to have one. I know that is your position. I am using that position as an example of the hypocrisy you show towards the similar case of drug use. They are both examples of where society has tried to ban the object rather than go after the criminal. This is a basic concept that is wrong.
Drugs are not legal and they are not protected by the Constitution, so I am not being hypocritical.
Some felons are able to have their gun rights restored. It is up to a judge to decide whether or not one's gun rights are restored. People never lose the to lawfully defend themselves, whether they are felons or not, however, some people do lose the right to keep and bear arms. I was not aware that felons could have their rights restored. And I do understand that they do not loose their right to defend themselves, but if attacked with a gun, what do they use a sharp stick?
He would have to use whatever weapon is available or becomes available. When one defends himself, one can use his attackers own weapons against him.
* A pot forest can go up in flames without the help of humans and humans could accidentally breathe in the smoke. Now that's funny. Hmmm, the forrest foes up in flames here regularly, we have a bad fire season, and sometimes the air quality from the fires is enough to kill people. Should we outlaw forrests in general too?
* A pot forest can go up in flames without the help of humans and humans could accidentally breathe in the smoke.
Nope. Trees are necessary to have around.
I say keep all the drug laws in place and inact some new laws that are even more strict. I say I made a mistake thinking that you could carry on a reasonable discussion in the abstract while putting aside your personal prejudices. I was wrong, so you have a good life.
You were wrong to think that I am speaking without putting aside my personal prejudices. I have not said anything that would indicate that I have any personal prejudices regarding this matter.
Most people (if not all) who are against the legalization of drugs choose that stance for one of several reasons. They might believe all of the misinformation bandied about by government agencies, regardless of the facts. They might hold their stance due to personal moral codes, which they wish to impose on everyone else. Or, they simply ignore the facts about drugs, and make their decisions based on complete ignorance.
That sounds like an opinion with no basis in fact. By the way, none of the three examples you gave apply to me.
I believe there is reasonable cause to ban drugs.<<For the record, please state these "reasonable" causes, and why these "reasonable" causes shouldn't be applied to everything else, including guns.
Reasonably causes apply to everything, including speech.
Controlling drug-related crime is pretty much a lost cause. And there are a lot of law enforcement officers that will agree with me on that score. The US government spends billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars every year trying to fight the war on drugs. The US government also uses armed troops trying to control illicit drugs. Our prisons have been stuffed to overflowing with non-violent drug offenders, taking up valuable space that could be better occupied by murderers, rapists, and congressmen. ;^) We've already done that, and it has been shown to be largely ineffectual. Our prison systems are literally bursting at the seams, and the population base of illicit drug users is growing, not shrinking.
Controlling drug-related crime is pretty much a lost cause. And there are a lot of law enforcement officers that will agree with me on that score.
The US government spends billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars every year trying to fight the war on drugs. The US government also uses armed troops trying to control illicit drugs. Our prisons have been stuffed to overflowing with non-violent drug offenders, taking up valuable space that could be better occupied by murderers, rapists, and congressmen. ;^)
We've already done that, and it has been shown to be largely ineffectual. Our prison systems are literally bursting at the seams, and the population base of illicit drug users is growing, not shrinking.
So what.
When my Dad was 18, him and some of his friends took a car for a joyride. He was arrested and convicted and was given a choice of the Army or prison. So my Dad chose the Army, and subsequently fought in the Korean War.
Manypeople in my family served in the military. Not one of them had to make the choice your father made.
He is now in his 80's, and is still not allowed to carry (or own, for that matter) a firearm.Is that justice?
How should I know unless you tell me why he is not allowed to own or carry a gun.
Nope. Trees are necessary to have around.<<And plant life isn't?
Pssssst....trees are plants.
I have not said anything that would indicate that I have any personal prejudices regarding this matter.On the contrary.
Show some proof that I indicated that I have personal prejudices regarding the matter.
Tell me. If they were to outlaw all firearms, would you simply obey the law and meekly turn over any and all guns in your possession? I have a CCW, but I'll be damned if I'd allow the government to take my firearms based on a newly enacted law.According to statistics, firearms harm far more people than all the illicit drugs combined. Based on that logic, shouldn't we ban all firearms?
Tell me. If they were to outlaw all firearms, would you simply obey the law and meekly turn over any and all guns in your possession?
I have a CCW, but I'll be damned if I'd allow the government to take my firearms based on a newly enacted law.According to statistics, firearms harm far more people than all the illicit drugs combined. Based on that logic, shouldn't we ban all firearms?
