The Constitution was not intended to protect our rights, but to limit the power of government. Some thought it necessary to add a list of rights, others were afraid that would make people think the Constitution granted those rights, so they specifically added the amendment that states that we retain all our other rights, including the rights to vice, unless the constitution specifically grants the government the power to regulate those vices.
In my opinion, the government has no right to limit what I do to myself, unless it impacts other people. I've never used illegal drugs, but it bothers me that I can get drunk if I want (I don't drink either), but I can't EVER legally try pot just to see what it is like.
And what REALLY bothers me is that I can't grow pot in my back yard, even if I never smoke it -- and that if I do so, they could take my house away without ever taking me to court. God for whatever reason made this plant, and the government says that I forfeit my property if that plant grows in my yard.
I agree. But since the Constitution does not specifically protect these vices, they are *not* comparable to gun legislation, which is the accusation being cast upon me - The RKBA specifically *is* Constitutionally protected, and serves a specific purpose, far more important and noble than these petty vices which others would compare it to. For that reason, the comparison is made null and void, and that is the gist of my point.
Incidentally, while the Constitution does limit the federal government, and I will declare (as I have already) that federal legislation in this vein is unlawful, with the exception of import/export, and interstate trafficking, It puts no such limitation upon the states.
If the states, singly or severally, decide to limit the public access to a substance, or to regulate it's use, or to deign it to be illegal altogether, that is well within the states' rights and is a lawful endeavor.
In my opinion, the government has no right to limit what I do to myself, unless it impacts other people. I've never used illegal drugs, but it bothers me that I can get drunk if I want (I don't drink either), but I can't EVER legally try pot just to see what it is like.
But the states do have that right, whether you like it or not. In your own words, which I agree with whole heartedly, The Constitution is a limiting document. But what it does not specifically limit, it passes on to the states, primarily, and by them, to the people.
That is the difference between a federal republic and a democracy, as you probably already understand. The sovereignty here is meant to rest in the several states, with the power of the people being the ability to depose their government, by the means provided to them, as they see fit.
Unless you would care to argue that your right to vices is extrapolated by way of penumbra, from the words "Pursuit of Happiness", your right to them is not protected.
And we are not arguing marijuana alone, as you may have surmised, it is an unlimited access to any substance which is being discussed herein.
And what REALLY bothers me is that I can't grow pot in my back yard, even if I never smoke it -- and that if I do so, they could take my house away without ever taking me to court. God for whatever reason made this plant, and the government says that I forfeit my property if that plant grows in my yard.
That bothers me too - or rather the forfeiture before the fact bothers me immensely. That is an unlawful, unconstitutional abrogation of the "Pursuit of Happiness", on it's face.
I will state yet again that I am *not* for the current status quo. I do not agree with the federal power that is currently at large.
Hell, I am not even entirely happy with the FDA- I recognize that it has a legitimate function (weights and measures type of thing, uniformity, consistency necessary for exports/imports), but I would much rather it's working structure, spending capability, and decision making capacity were made from representatives of the states severally (Governor's appointees, perhaps), rather than the current structure, where the federal government ordains and the states must obey.
I would prefer such a structure for *every* federal bureau or department whose authority is not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution, if that bureau or department must be there at a federal level in the first place...