[perez24]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs.

[BrooklynGOP]

...or alcohol...or cigarettes...or sex...

[BlackbirdSST]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs.
Well, show me in the Constitution the authority to wage a WOD's. Blackbird.

[Rodney King]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs

An interesting interpretation that the only rights that we have are those enumerated in the contitution.

[ravinson]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that we should have no liberties that aren't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights unless you wish to affirm that the government has a right to control practically every aspect of your life.

[jejones]

Read the Tenth Amendment; it seems pretty clear to me.

[fod]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs.

I suppose that is why it took an amendment to the Constitution to wage a war on alcohol.

BTW, your arguement holds water if you interpret certain clauses like a tax and spend and create a welfare state to control behavior liberal...

[JohnGalt]

That the Consitution and the Declaration of Independence are written on hemp fiber, notwithstanding.

[Mikey]

Check out the 9th &10th Amendments.

[All-American Medic]

your right, but it should be treated as a public health problem instead of a criminal justice one. You very rarely see alcoholics locked up just for being drunk (without getting into a car) they are sent to rehab facilties, maybe its time to let the non-violent drug offender out of jail and into treatment where they belong.

[realpatriot71]

You're right, there is no "drug right" clause, or "drug right amendment. However, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Right were all based on natural inalienable rights, these being life, liberty, and property. These are rights that cannot being given nor taken away, but rather just "are" by the nature of being human. Humans had these rights long before there ever was a society or government, so to now say that society and government now grant these rights is rediculous. The logical extension of life, liberty, and property rest on the body of the individual human himself, because if one has nothing, one still has his own body. Therefore we have a natural inalienable right to do what we want to our bodies, including drugs. However, I'm sure this is too much for you and other drug warriors to understand.

[68 grunt]

I quess the 'pursuit of happiness' is right out, huh?

[Beenliedto]

there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs.

The Constitution limits the power of government, and only deliniates certain rights which are "God Given." It is not the purpose of the document to list every right held by man.

[AUgrad]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs

After all this time I can't believe people still use that intelectually bankrupt argument. The Constitution does not enumerate all of your rights. It mainly deals with restricting the power of government.

[kari]

Can you tell me the section that grants the federal gov the right to say people can't? I'm not being a smarty, just curious.

[THEUPMAN]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

effects=bongs .... sorry I just couldn't resist, it's hard to believe that the debate over the WOD is still alive considering the "proof" of the pudding all around us

[NC_Libertarian]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs.

The constitution limits government authority not individual liberty. Dummy.

Further I'll refer you to the 9th and 10th amendments.

The constitution is written in plain English, don't be a liberal!

[Eagle Eye]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs

The Constitution is NOT a list of what citizens MAY do, but a list of what GOVERNEMNT may NOT do. Now go read the 9th again. There are other, non-enumerated rights that are retained by the people.

[LazarusX]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs.

There's also nothing to support the feds prohibiting drugs. They needed a constitutional amendment to ban the killer/date rape drug alcohol, but banned marijuana through a tax act. Can you explain why someone who grows and smokes a plant in the privacy of his own home is any of the feds damn business?

[Virginia-American]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs.

More to the point, ther's nothing that allows Congress to regulate 'drugs'. Remember that in 1937 the GOP argued in Congress that the Marijuana Tax Act was an unconstitutional attempt to get around this lack of authority by a regulation as a 'tax', in blatant contradiction to USSC rulings that taxes are to raise money, not regulate (I forget the name of that precedent)

The GOP was right then, and they're wrong now.

[jammer]

Your argument doesn't hold up because there's nothing the in the constitution which guarantees the right to use drugs.

Wrong answer from the wrong perspective. There's nothing in the Constitution which gives the government the right to prohibit drugs. If you want to prohibit them, fine. Pass an Amendment and do it legally. I would probably even support it. Until then, the 10th Amendment says the government is now intruding in a prohibited area.