"Pardon me, where did that right exist? I must have missed it."
Then you missed the part about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It's government's job (as defined by the people) to set the conditions under which these are possible.
"Is it like, "the right not to be offended?"
False argument. I'm offended by the fact that I can't smoke a cigarette in a bar, but more than willing to admit that it does offend others and maybe presents a health risk to non-smokers. In the grand scheme of things, while it's inconvenient to interrupt my merry-making to go outside and light up, no one has taken my cigarettes away. It's a trade-off I'm willing to make because I wasn't raised to be a selfish slob, nor educated to believe that being one was simply a matter of exercising a "right". It's called compromise and it's a fact of life. I'm willing to make that compromise, are you?
"So? If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out."
No, but if thine eye results in unbearable and unreasonable costs to society and human suffering, in contravention to the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", then pluck it out. At what point did prgamatism die a silent death? When did having consideration for others and recognizing the potential consequences of your actions cease being a requirement for civil society?
The argument is that society allows this or that evil but not this particular evil is irrelevant: society, by consensus, has decided which forms of evil it's willing to put up with and which ones it is not, and it empowers government to regulate both. That's one of the byproducts (and engines) of civilization...and compromise.
All the laws about concerning this issue (WOD) are not the dictates of a rampant government, but the result of an elected legislature, acting upon the concerns of it's citizens, creating and enforcing laws on behalf of those same citizens. You may not like it, but it is legal, it is constitutional and until the general public says otherwise, necessary.
If you think you are, you are kidding yourself.
Hence, no such "right" exists.
It is like saying, "If we toss a virgin in the volcano, it will not erupt."
Sorry, my friend - entropy exists.
Uhh pardon me but the term "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not in the U.S. Constitution. It can be found in the Declaration of Independence, but it is not in the U.S. Constitution nor it's amendments, which is the document that enumerates our rights.
I'll tell you who is responsible for the most part. Harry Anslinger (FBN)and Randolph Hearst. Obviously at least in part, Harry was used as a puppet by the likes of Hearst, Mellon, and the Duponts to protect their business interests.
So, based on your reply above, I don't think you've done your homework on what brought about prohibition...and how it has evolved into what it is today.
I will leave you with this. If the citizens and the legislatures were truly involved as you suggest,then it was because they were duped by the likes of Anslinger the puppet,and then Hearst, Mellon, and the Duponts (pharmaceuticals) who were merely promoting their own agenda (business profits.) Not exactly a call by the citizens nor the legislatures. It was a bureacrat setting policy on behalf of the above groups in total disregard to the citizens.
You may not like it, but it is the history as we know it. If you know otherwise, then please feel free to bring me up to speed.
All the laws about concerning this issue (WOD) are not the dictates of a rampant government,
Yeah right -- not! Harry Anslinger lying before congress and Refer Madness propaganda film. That's your rampant government. Certainly not a beacon of honesty and integrity.
but the result of an elected legislature, acting upon the concerns of it's citizens, creating and enforcing laws on behalf of those same citizens. You may not like it, but it is legal, it is constitutional and until the general public says otherwise, necessary
Exposing the WOD Hoax --
Racist WOP (War On People)
The New LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) Promotional video:
"End Prohibition Now"
"Anyone concerned about the failure of our $69 billion-a-year War on Drugs should watch this 12-minute program. You will meet front line, ranking police officers who give us a devastating report on why it cannot work. It is a must-see for any journalist or public official dealing with this issue." -- Walter Cronkite LEAP"In four years we went from five founding police officers to a membership of over 5,000. We are no longer just police. Now LEAP is made up of police, parole, probation and corrections officers, judges, and prosecutors. We even have prison wardens, FBI and DEA agents who help make up our bureau of over 100 speakers. LEAP has members and supporters across the United States and in fifty-six other countries, which is fitting since U.S. drug policy has ramifications that affect the entire world.
"LEAP presents to civic, professional, educational, and religious organizations, as well as at public forums, but we target civic groups; Chambers of Commerce, Rotaries, Lions and Kiwanis Clubs, etc. The people in these organizations are conservative folks who mostly agree with the drug-warriors that we must continue the war on drugs at any cost. They are also very solid members of their communities; people who belong to civic organizations because they want the best for their locales. Every one of them will be voting in every election. Many are policy-makers and if they are not, they are the people who can pull the coat tails of policy-makers and say, "We have someone you must hear talk about drug policy."
"After making more than two-thousand presentations where LEAP calls for the government to "end prohibition and legalize all drugs--legalize them so we can control and regulate them and keep them out of the hands of our children," we have discovered that the vast majority of participants in those audiences agree with us. Even more amazing is that we are now attending national and international law-enforcement conventions where we keep track of all those we speak with at our exhibit booth. After we talk with them, only 6% want to continue the war on drugs, 14% are undecided, and an astounding 80% agree with LEAP that we must end drug prohibition. The most interesting thing about this statistic is that only a small number of that 80% realized any others in law enforcement felt the same.
"This also holds true for policymakers. In August 2005, five LEAP speakers staffed an educational booth at the National Conference for State Legislators in Seattle, Washington. We spoke with 450 of the 5,000 attendees on a one-on-one basis and 86% of them agreed that we should legalize drugs--only 4% wanted to continue the war and the other 10% were undecided. If we can show these legislators that they won't lose one more vote than they will gain by backing drug policy reform, they will end drug prohibition.
"The way to do that is to show them LEAP has a huge membership. By November 2008, we want to be able to say we have ten thousand members of law enforcement calling for an end to drug prohibition and a MILLION private citizens who agree this is the correct policy." -- About LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
You may not like it, but it is legal, it is constitutional and until the general public says otherwise, necessary.
Wrong!
Congress knew that to stay within the bounds of the Constitution they needed to create and passed amendment to the constitution in order to prohibit alcohol. Congress passed Amendment XVIII in 1917 and ratified in 1919,
The current laws that prohibit the manufacture, possession, transportation and sale of certain drugs are unconstitutional.
"Pardon me, where did that right exist? I must have missed it. Is it like, "the right not to be offended?"
Then you missed the part about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It's government's job (as defined by the people) to set the conditions under which these are possible.
Cockeyed opinion. -- We the people defined the government's job in our Constitution, -- which also protects our rights to life, liberty, or property.. -- There can be no right to "not be offended". Every one can be offended over most anything.
False argument. I'm offended by the fact that I can't smoke a cigarette in a bar, but more than willing to admit that it does offend others and maybe presents a health risk to non-smokers.
You make our point. -- Your "false argument" bit is nonsensical.
In the grand scheme of things, while it's inconvenient to interrupt my merry-making to go outside and light up, no one has taken my cigarettes away.
Numerous 'legislators' are busy trying to do exactly that. -- Belmont, Ca is voting next month to ban ALL smoking in the city, even in private homes. -- Prohibitionists claim they have the power to do so. Do you? -- Are you willing to compromise with those who advocate that a majority rules?
It's a trade-off I'm willing to make because I wasn't raised to be a selfish slob, nor educated to believe that being one was simply a matter of exercising a "right". It's called compromise and it's a fact of life. I'm willing to make that compromise, are you?
No.
-- if thine eye results in unbearable and unreasonable costs to society and human suffering, in contravention to the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", then pluck it out. At what point did prgamatism die a silent death? When did having consideration for others and recognizing the potential consequences of your actions cease being a requirement for civil society? The argument is that society allows this or that evil but not this particular evil is irrelevant: society, by consensus, has decided which forms of evil it's willing to put up with and which ones it is not, and it empowers government to regulate both. That's one of the byproducts (and engines) of civilization...and compromise.
All the laws about concerning this issue (WOD) are not the dictates of a rampant government, but the result of an elected legislature, acting upon the concerns of it's citizens, creating and enforcing laws on behalf of those same citizens. You may not like it, but it is legal, it is constitutional and until the general public says otherwise, necessary.
That the war [prohibition] on drugs is an unconstitutional act of Congress ~is~ the issue here.
Majority rule [the general public] does not have the 'say' on such matters unless & until the Constitution is amended as per Article V.