Drug prohibition should be interpreted to violate 1st and 9th ammendment rights.

"(Pro's main argument) suggests that it is expected, practical, and logically necessary that drug prohibition will be found to violate (1st and 9th amendment) rights as guaranteed by the Constitution." I will submit to this statement, and assume the burden of demonstrating it. Yes, we could infer that "the court will possibly agree". Would not the court's decision on alcohol prohibition suggest that they *possibly* may be manuevered into ending prohibition with illegal drugs? What is the fundamental difference between alcohol and illegal drugs? How can it make sense to completely outlaw cocaine, and run beer ads during a football game? The matter of prohibition is not confined to drugs and alcohol; the entire concept is flawed, and various prohibitions have been considered by our nation in the past concerning soda pop and coffee as well. Our gov't is currently misusing the Constitution to perpetuate family values, in which it is trying to outlaw things that we *probably* shouldn't do, instead of sticking to outlawing things we DEFINITELY shouldn't do. I firmly believe prohibition WILL be ended in the future, because of the slippery slope concerning alcoholic prohibition. In our past debate, you used the logic 'prohibition is constitutional, because that is the current view of the supreme court, based on past court decisions and laws'. Correct my paraphrase if I am wrong, but I worded my focus specifically to avoid this error again. I believe you are still using that argument against me, and I would like to point out that I said it "should" be considered unconstitutional, which already implies that it is *not* currently constitutional. Again, considering the end of alcoholic prohibition, I believe the court could be expected, from at least one valid perspective, to reconsider its stance on the matter. The freedom to act is, of course, not unlimited. Neither is the freedom of speech, for that matter. Many freedoms are not unlimited, because of potential for abuse, but that doesn't make them less important. If our argument comes to the point where we disagree on whether doing drugs abuses our civil liberties, I would obviously say that drugs do not abuse our civil liberties. This may sound like cutting hairs, but I strongly maintain that our actions, while intoxicated, are to be judged accordingly, but our actual mind set (doing the drugs) is not punishable. I don't see how the gov't can punish mind set, and right now, while they can, there exists a slippery slope towards tyranny based on this fact. The gov't can currently punish a person's mind set, so they can theoretically dictate, in the future, what a person's mind set ought to be! This is very bad for all of us! In regards to whether we can do drugs and call it a religion. I put this last sentence bluntly, in order to get straight to the point. I very much see your point, in distinguishing act from belief, and how belief is ultimately protected but actions are very circumstancial. I am not considered religious, as I don't conform to theist or atheist views or anybody's views as to the metaphysical nature of the universe. The first sign of stupidity, to me, is someone trying to tell me they have inside information on matters of the supernatural, metaphysical, or any other parts of existence in which there is no viable evidence, at all, in which to make any claims. I guess this gives me a somewhat unique perspective, maybe you would call it a lack of 'faith' (the religion, not the virtue) or a deep misunderstanding of the nature of everything, but I would think that my 'religion' is just what it is, wouldn't you? Its not Christianity, its not Islam, I don't have a following, but I would certainly reserve the right to call my belief system a religion. If I chose to do drugs, as a ritual of my religion (unless, of course, you are going to argue over the nature and validity of my religion), then that would be covered under the first amendment. Of course, the first amendment is not, can not, be unlimited, so it is of course not just automatic. But it certainly is viable to consider. You say that for me to legally define my religion, I must show (1) a sincerely held belief in a sacred or transcendent reality and (2) an organization whose purpose and practice is to express that belief. I will accept these statements, except for the word organization. If you hold that "organization" can be a sole person, I will agree, but I fail to see how the number of people purporting a religion makes it any more viable. If the most accurate religion in the world only had one person, would it not be as true? If there was only one Christian left, could we just say that he/she should not have any right to call Christitanity a religion? To say that religion depends on numbers is illogical. I assume you are going to say that, since using drugs can't be effectively tied to your two conditions, I cannot effectively prove my thesis (based on law). But, you said yourself that supreme court justice's words were "Men may believe what they cannot prove". I sincerely believe that God, if there is one, not only condones my act of using drugs, but promotes it, in moderation, in order for me to experience different aspects of life, and give some diversity to this human population. He also would like me to do what I can to overturn prohibition laws. I believe that the Christian notion of God would believe the same, and that Jesus would be on my side in this argument. I don't see that Jesus would support prohibition laws at all, because of his pure sense of justice. Preacherfred, if your legal definitions of religion are in fact correct, then it sounds like you would have to be on drugs already to pass them! "Belief in a sacred or trancendent reality?" So I have to be a superstitious lunatic to have my own religion? I believe that your facts are straight, don't get me wrong, but I fail to see why religion must be accompanied by ignorance before it is valid. I would say that this all goes to show how the Court SHOULD be looking at things a different way. Your second to last paragraph is another attempt at routing my thesis, because I used the word "SHOULD". I know that it hasn't come about my way as of yet, and I know where the legislature and the Court stand on the issue. But it SHOULD not be this way! I have given many very convincing arguments in the first two rounds, and while citing the Court was able to prove your argument last debate, you are going to need to provide some more evidence on your personal interpretation of the bill of rights to combat me, other than just saying that it currently is not constitutional, based on current court rulings and laws. If you have some moral arguments, that could show why the current rulings are justified, based on the spirit of the constitution or what the framers had in mind when they wrote it, I would be glad to hear them. But saying that it shouldn't be this way because it isn't already, is faulty logic. Indeed, we need not discuss the success of prohibition if you don't depend on it in your argument. See that your arguments do not. I will repost my quote from abe, to show that its not just lunatics like me that see the faulty logic in prohibition: "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded"-Abraham Lincoln, 1840 Remember, preacherfred, this argument is about how it should be, not how it is. Your arguments do support your case, but in this debate they do not automatically win your case for you. As of now, I have amassed much more evidence for my case then you have...