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

In light of the fact that the Supreme Court rulings to date (such as United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Employment Division vs. Smith) have upheld the constitutionality of the present laws making certain drugs illegal, how can one assert that "the court will possibly agree" that the present laws are unconstitutional at some future date? The court's record to date has been to uphold the present drug laws as being constitutional. The prohibition of alcohol in the United States occurred during the period from 1920 to 1933, during which alcohol sale, manufacture and transportation were banned throughout the United States as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since it was effected by a change in the constitution and not legislated, the Supreme Court was never involved. Therefore, you cannot use the 18th Amendment as a supporting argument that the court may be willing to alter its views on the present drug laws. I may have not accepted your challenge to debate this issue is you had substituted the word "could" for "should" in the main focus of this debate. Naturally, "could" means that one may launch a constitutional challenge to the present drug laws with due process to the Supreme Court. Could is the past tense of "can" which is defined as "to be able to do, make, or accomplish." Anyone with the proper resources could muster a constitutional challenge to any existing law. The probability that such a challenge would be successful might make someone question on whether or not they should instigate such a challenge. Based upon the court's track record, I believe that one should not find it logical to challenge the constitutionality of the present laws. As I suggested before, the way to reverse the effects of the present drug laws is to have them repealed in the legislature, not by challenging their constitutionality. Despite your personal beliefs, anyone who deliberately takes a drug that is illegal is breaking the law and, no matter the mind-set, is therefore subject to arrest, conviction and punishment according to the law. It is the civil law that has been violated, not civil liberty. The government has never punished anyone for thinking about using drugs, just for the physical act of actually ingesting an illegal substance. No tyranny is involved on the government's part so no theoretical prediction that the government will determine a person's mind-set in the future could be valid. Being an agnostic is certainly your right but agnosticism is not a religion. While you do have the right to call your beliefs a religion, in of itself, that does not constitute that it is, in fact, a religion. Whether or not you accept the definition of religion that I supplied in round 1 is irrelevant since it is the definition that is used by the Supreme Court. While you may want to remove the word "organization" from the definition in order to make your argument seem to be more legitimate, it would not pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. All men may certainly believe in anything that they choose. However, men cannot put those beliefs into actual practice if doing so would violate the law. I would certainly use the word faith when discussing religion while you call that faith "ignorance." Again, why "should" the court change its definition of religion other than the fact that you do not agree with it? Your whole debate, again, centers on the constitutionality of the drug laws as you presented it. There is no need for me to provide any personal viewpoints if I can demonstrate by the court's own rulings, it has declared that the present drug laws are constitutional. While you may believe that the laws should be viewed as unconstitutional, I have provided solid evidence that they are not which makes your belief invalid. The evidence that you have amassed thus far is flawed.