[tahiti]

"It can’t be because there is no amendment in the U.S. Constitution that specifies a right to ingest the substance of one’s choice."

Yes, there is an "amendment in the U.S. Constitution that specifies a right to ingest the substance of one's choice," it is the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Since the Ninth Amendment is the constitutional basis for a "woman's right to her body," and thus, the right to an abortion, it surely can be the constitutional basis for ingestation in to one's body of the drug of their choice.

The federal Congress' legislative jurisdiction to make laws "prohibiting drugs" comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the "commerce clause." But this legislative jurisdiction is for the act of "distribution" across state lines only, not private and personal ingestation.

I will relunctantly grant our federal government legislative jurisdiction over the distribution of drugs across state lines. But will not grant jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state, as Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, clearly defines Congress' jurisdiction. And no where in that enumerated power is the Congress' legislative jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state, unless the state's legislature grants that legislative jurisdiction. (Missouri, where I live, has not.)

But even acknowledging interstate distribution legislative jurisdiction, Congress cannot prohibit the private "growing" or "manufacture" of drugs for personal consumption.

Unfortunately, we all have been intimidated into granting legislative and judicial jurisdiction to our federal government because of our federal government's illegal and unconstituional seizures and arrests of fellow citizens.

Oh, the high price we pay of loss liberties because we do not know how to exert our unalienable rights, guaranteed and enumerated for all to know, in our state and federal constitutions.

[JRadcliffe]

"Since the Ninth Amendment is the constitutional basis for a "woman's right to her body," and thus, the right to an abortion, it surely can be the constitutional basis for ingestation in to one's body of the drug of their choice."

Our beloved government certainly has it back-assed backwards.

If one accepts the premise that the unborn child is a living human being, then one could also argue for the criminalization of abortion. It is, afterall, the government's responsibility to protect our rights, and one certainly can't have ANY rights if they are murdered.

Now compare this to the drug war, where these same mind numbed dolts say that one individual does not have the right to treat their own body as he/she sees fit -- even when said actions are peaceful.

So much for THIS government. Our politicians are just a bunch of whores. They don't care about "we the people" nor do they care about rights.

There are a lot of politicians making a hugh amount of illegal money from this drug war. On the other hand, there's no money to be made off of a child -- so murdering them is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to them.

What a bunch of low-life, devious, evil, blood-lusting morons we have in Washington. If I happen to obey their STUPID UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws, then it will simply be a coincidence, not because I agree with a DAMN thing they've got to say. I WILL live my life as I want, and that means ingesting ANY DAMN THING I WANT. The collective be damned!