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

Yes, the Court has a record of upholding drug laws. That is to be expected, because if they didn't, the drug laws wouldn't be around for us to debate on. The Court has a trend of not overturning its own rulings. It delegitimizes itself when it does. However, the Court is very fallable, and very wrong at times. It has in fact overturned its own rulings before, when our culture and popular opinion evoke it to. One recent example is sodomy laws, in which the court ruled in 1986 that sodomy laws were constitutional, and reversed that decision in 2003. I hope my dates are right, if they aren't I am sure you will let me know, but the essence of my argument is clear. You cite cases in which pro-drug organizations have failed in court, to further say that they will never "possibly" turn the tides. I think this is pessimistic, to say the least. The court's record, to date, has been to uphold the present drug laws. How does this disprove my thesis? "Drug prohibition should be interpreted to violate 1st and 9th ammendment rights." Since you are very technical with these debates, let us remain very technical in this last round and stick very tightly to the focus. In my opening line, I talk about the supreme court, but by your procedural technical requirements, that in itself was astray! So I am not even technically limited to saying that it is the Court that needs to find the amendments invalid! This is pretty cheap, but since all your arguments up to date have been very nit-picky about exact wording, I suppose you are a big target for such a thing. But I don't believe I need to get that picky, because I did in fact say that they SHOULD change their rulings. Nothing you have said, up until this point, has done anything in the least bit to affect my thesis. Consider this logic: You are punching someone in the arm. It is clear that you are enjoying yourself, and have no intentions on stopping. I tell you to stop, and say "you SHOULD stop punching him in the arm". Now your logic in this debate would imply that since you have a record of punching him in the arm, and you don't seem to be in the position to change your actions, that you SHOULDN'T stop punching him. This is absolutely flawed reasoning. First, off, whether or not you WILL stop punching him is of absolutely no consequence. Somewhere along the way you started thinking that I had to prove the Court WILL find the laws unconstitutional, but that has absolutely no bearing on our argument. I specifically designed this debate, preacherfred, to be a passionate argument about the justice of the drug laws and how they relate to the constitution. I believe I am partially to blame for the tangents, because I opened with my first line about the Supreme Court, when I should have shut up about the Supreme Court because it doesn't do anything to strengthen my case, and opens up this dialogue about past court decisions. I'm sorry my religion isn't religious enough for you. Why you would say agnosticism isn't a religion I don't know, I guess it gives you a superior feeling about your own religion, to say that mine doesn't even qualify to be called one. I can give dictionary meanings of the word with and without the word religion in it, but that doesn't prove it one way or the other. You see, this is exactly the type of thing the framers DIDN'T want to happen. They said "shall not establish religion" and they meant exactly what you are doing right now. You are denying an entire religion a foothold, in effect establishing your own. Just because the gov't doesn't make Christianity the "official" religion, and make people submit to it, doesn't mean that it isn't establishing that religion by denying people like me the right to even have a religion. I guess our argument is about apples and oranges at this point, but I believe my apples are more in line with the original thesis than your oranges. Your analogy with the word "could" does not make sense to me, unless I have a severely inept grasp of the english language.