The Constitution does not GRANT or GUARANTEE rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees several rights (free speech, RKBA, freedom from unreasonable search/seizure, right to counsel), but in the context of guarantee of restrictions upon the govt -- and the 9th guarantees the rest of the unenumerated rights.
Spartacus I believe we are getting into semantics here. If I stated the Constitution does not address the right to abuse drugs, I would also include the Bill of Rights. I sort of link them both together.
Yes the people are given the rights not listed in the Constitution by the 9th Amendment, unless the state legislature or the Congress decide otherwise. If the people want to ban drugs, they can go to Congress and do so. True, it might not be the way the Founding Fathers and libertarians don't want things to run, but it is possible and it is set practice. They could even repeal the 2nd Amendment with another Amendment. Nothing is absolute.
True we can make the argument that we have God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those three things were important and thus the Bill of Rights came about. Restrictions on the government to respect its people. However, if people do not exercise their opinions and take action, those things are not guaranteed. Sure we have a 2nd Amendment, but if we let them take away our guns, we let them take away our guns. That is it, it is over.
I think I see that mainly you were getting onto me for lumping the Constitution and Bill of Rights together. That has been noted and I will try not to make that mistake again.
The "war on drugs" is a hard subject. Do I want to support the expanded instrusive powers of the federal and state governments? Do I want to regulate other people's activities. Do I want to spend money on something that could be legalized, regulated, and generate money?
Do I want to legitimize a group of substances that have such negative effects on others they often enslave their victims. Do I want to become an apathetic individual that says if someone wants to completely throw their life and their family's life down the drain at the expense of these drugs that is their right?
And this is not a simple issue, but people try to make it a simple issue. Carpettbaggerr brings up food and walking down the street. Eating food is a very necessary and legitimate means of sustaining life. Everyone eats food, it is pretty much required. Some people abuse food and we sometimes have to pay for the costs of that abuse. The same for the 2nd Amendment. There are millions of positive experiences with firearms. From recreation, hunting, self-defense, and deterance. Just about every counter issue people bring up with me, there is a legitimate use of that substance or object that in my mind makes the sometimes negative effects unfortunate, but necessary.
Can someone make that case for cocaine, heroin, PCP, and all of the other abusive drugs (include marijuana if you want just because I am on the border with that one). Please someone tell me what positive benefits people will get from using these drugs. And please be sure that these positives outweight the negatives. It would also persuade me if you could reason out that the highly addictive nature of these types of drugs can enable a user to keep a good job, be a good father or mother, and not enable the abuse to a "crime" where it effects others, but merely a "vice" that only effects the user. That is really what it comes down to for me, I see not one positive reason to use these drugs other than to gratify your own needs and wants at the expense of your loved ones.
And be reasonable. Sure I could make the argument that firearms are the same way. I get so wrapped up in shooting events, buying guns and reloading supplies, and I really don't share in that with my wife. I do share it with my friends occassionally. But wait! There is that whole self-defense and the defense of my house and immediate area. See that makes firearms not just a vice, but a necessary activity that I beleive is justified to make everyone's life happy.
