Does The Ninth Amendment Protect RESPONSIBLE Drug Use?

[ulTRAX]

I personally believe that people should have the right to do anything
that doesn't harm others. This does not mean I define "harm" in narrow terms. Pollution or second hand smoke would qualify in my book.

Therefore I believe that any law that exceeds legitimate intent... where there is no compelling state interest, to be an abuse of state power.

We all know politicians are a lazy lot frequently writing bad laws
which take away rights from individuals or groups that are NOT causing
any social problem. For instance about 10 years my state, in attempt
to get young men from killing themselves driving drunk they 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. We saw how politicians, fearing that they would be accused on
being soft on drug use, got into a blood frenzy writing scorched-earth
laws that raise penalties beyond all reason. The high penalties
against crack vs. ordinary cocaine are good examples. So are the draconian Rockefeller drug laws in NY.

In the Constitution is that forgotten 9th amendment that the states insisted be written into the Constitution: "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.

It seems clear that the original intent of this amendment was to
uphold John Locke's doctrine of natural rights... that rights exist
as a state of being (minus slaves, of course), 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 discussion. 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 builds a much more reasoned argument about rights than is in our Constitution.

So, can a case be made that under the 9th amendment
scorched-earth laws written by Neanderthal or lazy politicians that
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 in ways that maximize the freedoms of responsible people? Should citizens have the right to sue politicians for "political malpractice" if they willfully push for laws that violate this standard? Which brings me to my question: does the 9th protect responsible drug use?

[Sulldogg]

1. Legally define

responsible drug use, then we can talk.

[wuushew]

2. Any amount of pot smoking....

since tobacco is freely available and unregulated by the FDA, logically so should pot.

As long as people are not operating motor vehicles I have no problem with them.

[Sulldogg]

3. So just legalize pot...

I can see that, but I'm not sure I'm 100% behind the tobacco argument.

The affects of pot on your temporary mental abilities is closer to alcohol than to cigarette tobacco. I'd feel 100 times better if the air traffic controller guiding my plan in had a Marlboro in his mouth and not a joint.

[ulTRAX]

18. I agree pot is not tobacco

I haven't smoked for years simply because the stuff was so strong, it wasn't any fun any more. I certainly would consider the impairment from a few hits of Thai sticks or whatever to be right up there with being plastered on alcohol.

That being said... I would want to see similar laws banning pot use while driving or operating machinery... and certainly in other positions of responsibility where impairment could lead to harm of others.

[ulTRAX]

6. alcohol is a legal drug

Alcohol is a legal drug. So what is responsible alcohol use?

Given its social costs and addicting nature, perhaps alcohol should be regulated more. While I'm all for stiff penalties for DWI or providing alcohol to a minor... I think one step that should be taken is to tax alcohol in direct proportion to its social costs. Monies collected would NOT go into a state or federal government's general fund but be used to fund rehab, for an example.

I think a drug's potential for physical addiction should be taken into account. But clearly pot and some psychedelics are not physically addicting. I think the government has NO compelling interest in whether I alter my consciousness as long as I do so in a manner that does not harm others. I'd LOVE for there to be legal psychedelic retreats.

Which reminds me... the Mass. State Corrections Dept once funded Tim Leary to do studies on the use of psychedelics and recidivism.

[Nikia]

4. I am suprised that drug laws have not been declared unconstitutional

There had to be an amendment to ban alcohol.

[HawkerHurricane]

5. There is no such thing as responsible drug use.

Drug use is illegal.
Doing something illegal is irresponsible.
Therefore...

Circular Logic 101.

[sweetheart]

7. the 9th does it, the first does it better

Amendment 1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

From the universal declaration of human rights:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


The freedom of religion includes many world religions which use drugs
as a way of experiencing "communion" with nature and god. These
religions, hinduism, american indian religions, paganism, buddhism
and others... all have traditions that have used drugs for communion
for 1000's of years.

Given your right to freedom of religion, and your right to change
your religion whenever you want, the first amendment guarantees you: ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Whats the issue about drugs. I use them for religious communion.

Fuck with the first amendment and we agree about nothing.

[Sulldogg]

8. Doesn't that argument

lend itself to abolishning all laws, because if my religion told me to kill someone, should there be no law stopping me form doing so?

[sweetheart]

9. The right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

no, it does not supercede the basis of the country.

[Sulldogg]

10. Murder is illegal

Okay,

property rights?

discrimination?

traffic laws?

Any act can be said to ahve religious meaning.

[sweetheart]

11. your agument is spurious

Religion is between you and your own body and consciousness. It
involves your own internal life. You hypothecate wild extensions
beyond the point i made. None of the world religions that have
over thousands of years used drugs in their communions, have
advocated violating traffic laws...

come on.. make sense... speak to the argument.

[Sulldogg]

12. My point is that...

The definition of religions is at best tenuous, and it is arrogant to believe all religions must have historical context to be valid today.

My point is that having a legal definition of religion goes against the amendment, since that would be a law 'respecting an establishment of religion'.

Since the government can then not interfere with the practice of religion, those religions it can not even identify, it would be very difficult to enforce any laws.

As it currently stands, the practitioners of the religions you mentioned must register with the government those people responsible for the administering of the 'controlled substances', what substances are used and where they are kept and how much they have at any time.

This arrrangement allows for religions which use the substances to do so freely, while still allowing for an orderly society.

[sweetheart]

13. The amendment

I agree that no definition should be put on religions, and that
their practices, unless they harm others, should be as best
tolerated and supported by our free society as possible.

My religion uses drugs sometimes. I don't disclose that to anyone,
expecially criminal government. My religion is what is true and
the government is a lie.

What is wrong with giving people freedom, to believe and act as
they might, within the reasonable confines of not harming others?

You have used "any laws" when i was only referencing "drugs". It
is a different argument well agreed, by most people.

I would say, that religions with a historical context do set a
precedent which is why i raised them as evidence... a much older
precedent than the 200 years old constitution. Our drugs laws
did not change the ancient precedents.... let alone the modern ones.
It is not arrogant to introduce evidence.

I don't respect the laws anyways. The government is a bunch of
corporate liars and the constitution is gone. Do whatever you want
just avoid detection. That is the real law of today. 10's of
millions of americans practice the religion of smoking cannabis,
and no where in that constitution is there any hint of a clause that
would forbid this.

I see it as an issue of religion, Ultrax sees it as a natural-rights
issue of the 9th amendment.... and all of this is positioning for
the reality that the corporate government has shredded the
constitution.

100's of millions of americans do their religious drugs. For some
it is ESPN and football, some snorting bible words, and for some
it is sex, and for some it is drugs. same same same same.

[Sulldogg]

14. We'll just have to disagree

[ulTRAX]

15. your solution doesn't cover atheists

Using your approach an atheist... and probably someone who could not prove that psychedelics were part of any traditional religion, would not be covered. And why would one to take your approach? This is NOT a religious issue.... it's an issue of fundamental rights... and ending the abuse of government power. This is why I believe the 9th is more all-encompassing... even if it's an amendment that's largely been neglected. I think it has great potential.... if someone just used it more to challenge bad and over-restrictive laws.

[sweetheart]

16. Atheism is a wholly accepted religion

And if your atheism practices cannabis smoking only, what difference
is it? I don't believe you need to prove your psychadelic use was
part of a major religion, because you have the right to change your
religion at any time TO a religion where psychadelic use is part of
the communion.

As a buddhist, i think people get narrow minded about religion in
US often with little exposure to other world religions except
branches of christianity. Buddhist religion does not have any dogma.
That said, we believe that enlightenment is inside of every person
at varying degrees of awakening. (like it takes belief to observe
the obvious) The buddhist religion is not about believing, but
about how you live your life. It frankly matters not
what your intellectual beliefs are.

This is contrasted with the branches of christianity which define
themselves historically as schools of "thought" and that membership
in the relgion means accepting the "thoughts" and dogma.

By that standard, as an atheist rejects the schools of thought
entirely, they are on equal ground with buddhists. If they have
a reverance for the sacredness of life in all things, they could
even be an atheist buddhist... there is on incompatability in this
regard. The only god in buddhism is the awakening *you* experience
in your life. The evidence speaks over the words.

I have made several pilgrimages in my life to the upper himalayan
regions where many buddhist and hindu saints (Sikh as well) have
lived in past centuries. In all these places, you will see various
denominations using cannabis as a sacrament. Some people say that
it is impossible for someone to smoke lots of cannabis and to be
a religious person, and that someone who does so cannot have "real"
awakenings. I would agree, that many of those who do that practice
do it more for the high than the religious side. Yet there is a
religious side... and sometimes the drugs are used just to gain
an insight for a day or two... like american indians might take
peyote in a sweatlodge in the southwest. It is not like they live
high on mescaline all the time... hardly.

Indeed my use of drugs REALLY is religious. I take refuge in the
first amendment. I can understand what you say, that the 9th is
a more secular argument, and does indeed make the point.

You did not bring up that the 8th and the 10th amendments are also
reasonable arguments as well. The 10th suggests that it is a states
rights issue this drugs thing, and that the DEA is unconstitutional.

The 8th (cruel and unusual punishment) also applies given the actual
nature of private taking of drugs. Legal medication abused is not
treated nearly as serious a crime, and the sentence differences
between drugs convictions across the country show the policy to be
one of arbitrary racial imprisonment for livestyle concerns....
Especially the cases against MS suffereers and those who care for
them supplying cannabis.

These assholes could give a hoot about the constitution, or they
would have read the bloody thing before they violated it.

[ulTRAX]

17. atheism is a religion?

A rejection of a supreme being is a religion?

But we stray. The point of this thread was NEVER the first amendment but the much broader assumption of rights in the neglected 9th.

[sweetheart]

19. it seemed you were asking the constitutional

support for druga legallization.

In that case it is:

1, 8, 9 & 10

If you count the drugs war as illegal search and seizure, then add
that as well.

Clearly the constituion has not been read, or understood in this
dark age, otherwise it would be enforced.

I agree with you about the 9th... just regarding responsible use of
drugs, there is more ammunition... and IMO, the 10th is the most
reasonable of all... the one that heavy anti-drugs war people focus on.

[ulTRAX]

20. drugs were only an example....

I ONLY used responsible drug use as one EXAMPLE of the sorts of issues one could challenge with a 9th amendment defense. You took the example as the main topic. What I REALLY thought was most important was to start a discussion on the meaning of the 9th amendment itself.

As an aside I have to bring ups Scalia's hypocrisy. He claims a monopoly on original intent... so much so he's said the Constitution is "dead".... dead in the sense that it's improper to use modern interpretations of the document.

Of course this is self-serving bullshit. The 9th surely protects privacy in the bedroom yet Scalia claimed in a recent USSC decision that there was no constitutional right to engage in sodomy. I believe it's clear Scalia uses his original intent doctrine as a smokescreen to hide his radical agenda.

[sweetheart]

21. "original intent" - information sources?

I've just been reading a bit of google on that, and it appears to,
like all other american things, have 2 distinct sides in its focus.
On one side, the ones who (probably like scalia) as you put it,

http://www.originalintent.org/ - is this right wing?

This table is disturbing:
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/dead.html

http://www.legallibraries.com/Original_Intent_and_the_Framers_Constitution_1566633125.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1559501278/americanpatriotnA/104-0451050-4095908

Between poking about, it seems that some people presume original
intent to mean slaves are non-humans, and not to re-interpret the
constitution since then.

I am not a law student, and obviously you are more along those
lines... can you recommend a couple of good sources i could amazon
to come up to speed on this. It is an area that concerns me and
frankly i'm underinformed to discuss it properly.

Thanks for being patient in this thread. I get hot about the drugs
war, in any form. It is wrong, no matter what kind of hemp document
people have been smoking. :-)

[ulTRAX]

22. some good sources

Here's some sources I use on a regular basis:

http://www.findlaw.com/ as a source on US law.

Here's a good source on the Federalist Papers: http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html

A great discussion on the Constitution... with additional notes from Findlaw
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html

The Avalon Project at Yale
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm