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

I believe that prohibition should be ruled unconstitutional, in the future, by the supreme court. My basis for this reasoning is the first and ninth ammendments of the bill of rights. Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This amendment, in and of itself, does not lead to the conclusion of my thesis. I am using it here for a specific reason, and that is to dodge any argument along the lines of "there is no 'right to do drugs' amendment in the constitution". Obviously, there is not, but one should be wary about assuming that since something isn't in the bill of rights, it isn't deserved by the people. Furthermore, if I can show that the first amendment will back my argument, I can simultaneously show that the ninth amendment is also in violation. Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech... "Note that the document uses the word "speech," although a long succession of court decisions has expanded this concept far beyond ordinary verbal communication. Protected expression now includes such non-verbal expression as wearing a symbol on one's clothing, dance movements, and a silent candlelight vigil." ( http://www.csulb.edu... ) So I have a few weapons to work with, in my argument. I will interpret prohibition to violate 1) the free exercise of religion 2) freedom of expression 3) ninth amendment non-enumerated rights 4) Also, I will have a implied argument - "prohibition is a failure", because I think we will find that many of our arguments depend on how successful prohibition is. If it is a success, then the con has a very good grounds to dismiss my argument, even though my thesis does not address it. If I can question the results of prohibition, then it opens up to the question of why we would commit to such a wasteful practice for no good reason. 1) Religion- I believe prohibition violates the people's rights to free exercise of religion, because if a religion did include the use of drugs (think about peyote with native americans, and LSD with hippies), then that religion is automatically oppressed. Now, preacherfred is amazingly thorough with definition, which is his technical skill that attracts me to want to debate with him, so I will discuss the exact definition of religion. There turns out to be several interpretations of the word, so we must agree which one the constitution is supporting. If this has been determined in the past through the judicial process, then I am unaware. The #1 definition from dictionary.com is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. I would assume this would be a good definition to use, but please enlighten me if there is a better one... Now I think that this definition is vague enough for me to make some extrapolations. a) religion is a very loose term, simply because of the different forms of it. If I decided to start my own religion, I could certainly do so legally, without fear that if it didn't resemble Christianity, in procedure or belief, that I would be denied practice. b) "cause, nature, purpose of the universe..." - This sentence is attempting to contain the meaning of religion, but somewhat fails to do so, since the meaning of religion is somewhat elusive. The meaning of religion, based on this sentence, can be inferred as "personal philosophy in respect to the universe". Since the universe is everything, this opens up the door to a very general interpretation of what religion truly is, far from sitting in pew's praying and putting dollar bills in baskets. I can provide examples, if necessary to back up this interpretation. c) "ritual observances..." - this can be construed as including drug use Basically, my point is that the concept of religion resists a succinct definition. If you use Chrisianity, islam etc as examples of religion, you must realize that these practices are examples, but not the whole spectrum, of religion. Therefore, I can have my own religion, even if there is no one else that practices it, no church/preachers and the like, no long history of it, and even if it does not resemble Christianity in any way. That is my constitutional right, and anyone that questions it, is doing me a grave injustice. Obviously, drug use can be a factor in religion, as the two examples I posted earlier explain. For our government, composed mostly of Christians, to suppress the use of drugs in religion, is a serious human rights violation. I think that Christian rituals, including praying and the whole song and dance in church, would appear just as peculiar to an impartial outside observer as peyote consumption, marijuana smoking, and LSD tripping. 2) Freedom of expression - Back in the sixties and seventies, hippies make an impact on our nation's history. Their attempts at expressing themselves, through marijuana and LSD use (among other things, of course), are still widely known today. A person's mind set can be construed as their expression just as easily as can clothes, dance, and speech. Furthermore, the way your speech is affected has to do with expression (ex. I express myself so much better to the opposite sex when I am drunk). Therefore, by the gov't attempting to control our MIND SET through prohibition, there exists a violation of our 1st amendment constitutional rights. If I want to express myself artistically as a drug addicted individual, the gov't should have no right to stop me. 3) non-enumerated right to do drugs - I know most of you won't respect this, because sometimes it is hard to respect something in which you personally have no desire, but it really is the drug users choice to choose to stay clean. You can't force it on them, or obviously prohibition would be a lot more successful. Drug use is a personal choice, which does not directly affect others. Sure, a drunk driver can kill a family, but he is not guilty of intoxication, he is guilty of driving while intoxicated (failing sobriety tests are illegal, and should be expanded to drug use. Inability to test for sobriety for certain drugs can simply be alleviated by performance based sobriety tests. Please do not assume that breathalizers are the only way to test for soberness. Performance based sobriety tests are very effective at determining a driver's abilities.) There is no law against alcoholic intoxication, at least in the privacy of your own home. While your actions certainly should be judged by the law, your mind set itself should be protected. How can you possibly effectively control MIND SET? Why should the gov't have the right to tell us how to think? 4) Prohibition is a failure. Drugs are easily procurable in schools by children, and easily procurable by adults on streetcorners. We spend $1 billion a week on the WoD, to attain nil results. 1/3 of our prisons are filled with drug offenders. Drug users are pushed to the margins of society, because their actions are illegal. Existing in the margins hampers their abilites to recover effectively, as does fines, jail times, conviction record, etc. How are these people supposed to recover once they fall into this situation? I believe that pushing drug users to the margins has another fatal mistake. Children have very little knowledge of them, and don't fully realize the potential of drugs to ruin their lives. All they see is the cool kids doing them, and it seems like a good idea when you've never seen a strung out junkie before. Alcohol is just as dangerous as any drug, yet we recognize the right to drink.