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

We agreed that the main point being debated is that it is expected, practical, and logically necessary that drug prohibition will be found to violate the 1st and 9th Amendments to the constitution. Hundreds of bills are introduced and become law in each session of Congress. With such a number, how can it be predicted that any of those laws passed will be challenged in the Supreme Court? Since I have demonstrated that the track record of the Supreme Court is to support the constitutionality of the drug laws, how can it be practical to bring additional challenges to those laws before the court? It would be tantamount to saying I will continue to challenge the constitutionality of the drug laws for however long it takes until such time as you change your mind. I would also submit that it would be logical to accept that the current drug laws are constitutional since the court has already ruled that they are. Expected, practical and logically necessary are part of the dictionary definition of the word "should." Since I have provided references to court cases upholding the constitutionality of the laws in question and you, my friend, have supplied much rhetoric but no substantial facts, I submit that you have failed to prove your premise. You have agreed that the Supreme Court has a record of upholding drug laws. You even state that that is to be expected. Conversely, then, it would not be expected that a new challenge would produce a different result. Therefore, one should not institute a new challenge to their constitutionality. You state that "It (the court) has a trend of not overturning its own rulings. It delegitimizes itself when it does." Wouldn't changing its rulings every other challenge or so bring discredit to the court rather than it continuing to uphold the laws in a consistent manner? By their very nature, debates are technical. While you assert that that while you reference the Supreme Court, my technical requirements have led us astray. That is far from the truth since it is I who have attempted to keep the debate within your reference to the Supreme Court and have provided actual court case decisions and definitions that are used by the court as my solid evidence. These have definitely had a tremendous affect on your thesis! The fact that the court has consistently found the drug laws to be constitutional has every bearing on this debate and makes it a dubious proposition that the drug laws should be found to be unconstitutional. You state: "I believe I am partially to blame for the tangents since I opened with my first line about the Supreme Court because it doesn't do anything to strengthen my case." I agree it didn't help you but how did you expect to discuss the constitutionality of the drug laws without references to THE authority on their constitutionality? You are the one who brought up religion as a way, perhaps, of circumventing the drug laws. The terms agnosticism and agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 to describe the philosophical and theological view that the truth of the un-existence or existence of God, immortality, and the like are inherently unknowable. People can have scientific or real knowledge of phenomena, but when it comes to what lies behind phenomena there can be no evidence that entitles anyone either to deny or affirm anything. "Agnosticism is a concept, not a full religion. It is a belief related to the existence or non-existence of God. However, many people have started with Agnosticism, and have added a moral code, rituals and other items to create a belief system with many of the attributes of a religion." (http://www.religioustolerance.org...) but would not pass the definition of a religion as expressed by the Supreme Court. I hardly feel superior to you in any way, including religion. Nowhere in this debate have I brought up my religious beliefs. The founding fathers certainly did not want the state to establish or make any one religion the official religion of the state, and neither do I. In fact, I have tried to be helpful in showing that for you to achieve your stated goal of getting rid of the present drug laws the best line of attack would be is advocating for the repeal of those laws in the legislature rather than launching new challenges to their constitutionality. Your thesis should be, perhaps, that the present drug laws are repressive and should be amended or repealed altogether. Based upon the evidence that you and I have provided, I believe your apples need to ripen a bit more and my oranges are just right. As I previously stated, anyone COULD launch a fresh challenge to the constitutionality of the drug laws within the court system. Looking at the hard evidence of the history of previous challenges, one probably SHOULD NOT instigate such a challenge.