Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right?
The 14th makes clear that governments cannot deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. - In other words, laws must be both written & enforced using Constitutional due process.
Justice Harlan on due process:
"-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . "
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777
Thus we see that prohibitory laws violate due process, since they declare you guilty by mere possession of the 'sinful/illegal' object.
The 14th Amendment does not make a case for the legalization of drugs.
Of course it doesn't. -- It makes clear that governments must use due process in the writing & enforcement of valid laws. Prohibitions on drugs violate due process, as per Harlan.
As for due process, there is a case that you can make concerning certain aspects of drug enforcement.
Yep, - a case you avoid in favor of prohibitory 'laws', - laws repugnant to our Constitutions principles.
I am doin my best here to make heads or tales of the cryptic points being made, but no one appears likely to define a clear agenda any time soon.
FR's clearly stated 'agenda' is constitutional restoration. -- What's yours?
Like I said, I'm closer than 95% of the population to you folks and you're shootin to kill. You have zero chance of persuading anyone of anything until you can get beyond your own indignation. If you can't, simply pick out a bar stool, sit down on it, and spend the rest of your life bitching.
Whatta bunch of bull. -- You are simply another prohibitionist, trying to get your own 'agenda' across by using subterfuge, as your initial question above proves.
I don't concur with your interpretation of the stated case.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
Arbitrary would be random and without reason. To say that the purposes for banning and regulating drugs is random and without reason is unfathomable. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it arbitrary.
Don't think you'll have much luck getting to a majority with your attitude either, so I'm not much worried about it. Assuming that taxation equates to a form of regulation, the outcome of the Whiskey Rebellion provides another lesson in how the framers read the Constitution on this subject.
I'm curious about how far you've thought this out though. Is regulating certain drugs such as antibiotics for the purpose of general public health OK, and if so why penicilin, but not crack? If not, do you find legitimacy in any regulations on water, food preparation, radio frequencies, etc.