Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?
And if you can find such a reason, how can the author possibly compare drug use with that reason? No connection.
Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?
Because the framers had just fought a war against a government that tried to limit arms, not one that prohibited food, drink or drugs.
-- Lordy, if Georgie would have banned booze, the Brits would have joined us!
And if you can find such a reason, how can the author possibly compare drug use with that reason? No connection.
Its apparent that you haven't even attempted to understand the authors comparisons. -- Get real or get lost.
Because rights did not have to be enumerated to be recognized. The ten that are in the bill of rights were a ploy to promote ratification.
Our Founders supplied us with Amendment IX:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
There's an entire amendment, one tenth of the Bill of Rights, insisting that you do not do what your are doing; that is, claim that there is any significance to the ommission or non-enumeration of a right.
I suggest you refer to Amendment XIX. There you will find pretty convincing evidence that at one time the nation operated under the principle that a substance could not be outlawed by the federal government without a provision of the Constitution permitting it to do so. What changed? It was not the Constitution. It is the people who refuse to use it.