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.
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.
Well, at least someone was finally clear about advocating the free use of drugs (I'm not saying you think being a crack head is good, so let's not get bogged down on that).
Straw argument. Drug use can be reasonably regulated by the States, without using prohibitions.
I don't concur with your interpretation of the stated case.
[Harlan on Due Process] "-- 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.
Word game again. -- Banning ~some~ drugs, and not alcohol is, for instance, "arbitrary".
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.
The war on ~some~ drugs is an arbitrary prohibition, unconstitutional as proved by the 18th Amendments necessity.
Don't think you'll have much luck getting to a majority with your attitude either, so I'm not much worried about it.
Your 'slip' shows. A "majority" does not rule in our Constitutional Republic.
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.
That specific whiskey tax was repealed, proving how the people behind the framers read the Constitution on this subject. -- And again, your support for it proves your agenda.
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?
Get real. Reasonable regulations about drugs are Constitutional. Prohibitions are not.
If not, do you find legitimacy in any regulations on water, food preparation, radio frequencies, etc.
So much for your previous claim:
"-- I'm not trying to trick you, I'm trying to understand your position. If you can't have a civil, honest discussion with me, where you address the challenges to your ideas, ---"
I see hypocrisy.
Care to address my challenge to your ideas, sampleman?
Even though this question was not directed at me, I'd like to answer it. I think that the case for regulating antibiotics is much stronger than the case for regulating recreational drugs, as there is a legitimate public health concern in the overuse of antibiotics; specifically, the threat of drug-resistant diseases. By restricting the use of these drugs, the government is protecting you from the threat of contracting a disease that cannot be treated due to another's misuse of them.
In the case of recreational drugs, all or nearly all of the harm associated with their use falls on the user, and usually even they are not hurt. Most of the justification given for regulating recreational drugs is that of protecting people from hurting themselves. I don't see that as a legitimate function of government.
Of course, I do believe that regulating recreational drugs by placing a minimum age on their use is legitimate. That is not what I mean by "regulate".
If regulating drugs for the purpose of general public health is OK, why not have Hillary Care, with the government being in firm control of any drugs you might take your entire life?
It would be a logical extension of the arguments they make that extend their control of interstate commerce to encompass the internal commerce of the states. The only way they can effectively regulate the drugs you take is to control all the means by which you might acquire them.