Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
1–10 of 135 posts
Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
#2[flagged]
Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
#3[flagged]
Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
#4I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.
Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
#5I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.
The Ninth doesn't mean "you can't regulate anything we didn't mention".
It just says that any mere omission shouldn't be construed to mean anything. The lack of an enumerated right to privacy doesn't forbid the courts from deciding we have one.
Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
#6I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.
The Ninth doesn't mean "you can't regulate anything we didn't mention". It just says that any mere omission shouldn't be construed to mean anything. The lack of an enumerated right to privacy doesn't forbid the courts from deciding we have one.
Agreed, and virtually anything not enumerated would fall under either the Elastic Clause[1] or the Commerce Clause[2] giving Congress power to regulate it.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause (technically an enumerated power, but the broadest and vaguest one by far)
Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
#7I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.
What’s the basis of the argument for prohibition if someone isn’t hurting others?
Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
#8I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.
What’s the basis of the argument for prohibition if someone isn’t hurting others?
It usually boils down to someone's sky daddy not liking it.
Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
#9I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.
What’s the basis of the argument for prohibition if someone isn’t hurting others?
Societal harm
Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
#10I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.
To oversimplify, that's why prohibition 1.0 had to be done via constitutional amendment; but since then, we had the Wickard v. Filburn ruling, which made virtually everything regulatable under the Commerce Clause with its extremely broad interpretation of the phrase "interstate commerce".
In Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer grew grain on his farm. He did not sell this grain, whether across state lines or otherwise; he merely fed it to his own livestock on the same farm. SCOTUS ruled that this could be regulated via the Commerce Clause because, if he grew his own grain, he could be expected to buy less grain on the open market, which could indirectly affect interstate commerce. By that logic, virtually anything can affect interstate commerce, and be regulated as such.