"Drug laws - should I be allowed to ingest any drug, since it is my body?"


Yes - it's your body.
You should be able to put whatever you want in it.
You should be able to have an abortion.
And you should be able to end your life if you want.
And of course I am referring to an adult making these decisions.

I am not saying that children should have whatever drugs they want or hurt themselves.

What does it matter? They're minorities now. To answer your question, two. For purposes of this discussion, wouldn't "minor" be an arbitrary term legislated by the tyrannical minority?

Yes, one makes me sleepy and the other causes me to make really bad decisions!

woah, you really ran too far with the 'minority' concept. if this were just a country of laws, majority would ALWAYS rule. the constitution protects minorities but i never said that it guarantees their PoV.

do i really have to go further with this since you admit this?
(the self-determination or whatever privacy right, etc involved with the pedophile has a direct impact on another person.)

I'm am lost. Are we arguing there is a Constitutional right to assisted suicdie?

no, swimware just jumped into some argument. you may feel free to actually read where he started and my responses and debate with me from there.

I am not looking to debate, unless you are arguing that there is a Constitutional right to assisted suicide.

Yes. Ron impled their is a constiutional right to AS by saying that those who oppose AS are "forcing their beliefs down our throats" when all they are really doing is expressing their opinion through the legislative process.

there might be though not an enumerated one. (please see roe v wade)

One makes me hungry and one makes everyone look really sexy

LOLoad! So, when are we getting drinks?!?!?

And this is where the slippery slope argument takes hold isn't it? The unenumerated privacy right extends now to AS, what is next?

Drugs? My body, my rights.
Bestiality? My body, my rights, so long as I don't harm the animal.

Do you see how that argument logically extends beyond all belief, which has always been my concern about Roe and its case line?

beastiality

indeed i do.

and i don't know if that is necessarily a bad thing (to conservatives it is) especially since you can look at the merits of each of those cases to contrast them with one another. remember the scales, counselor!

No, you must stop, STOP, looking at the outcome to arrive at a decision in a Constiutional case. The outcome is a result of the Constitutional rule.

If the rule results in a negative outcome too bad.

You keep trying to balance the interests when there is no balancing to be done. Unless there are two, competing Constitutional rights, there is no balancing.

The rule you agree with means that I can strike down just about any law that infringes on me, so long as the activity I seek to do causes no harm to anyone else, regardless of societies interest, as determined by the legislator.

In balancing the scales, you are giving too much weight to the Constitution and the Court, at the expense of the legislature and States powers.

Remember that counslor?

Federalism.

you may have heard it in passing in your law school.

why? drugs: some drugs are so harmful to society that the consitutional duty of the congress is bigger than that of the individual. for drugs like pot, congress is making stuff up so the individual triumphs. THAT's the balancing to be done.

stop assuming that you know what i am talking about. you are simply thinking that you are smart enough to know my points.

what duty of Congress would that be?

I didn't realize that COngress can write a law that violates a citizen's right to privacy.

No, I am clearly not smart enough to know your points, since they are not based on legal principles, but rather your own concepts.

I'm always fascinated by how much support Big Death has on BOL - I don't know what that's a function of...hopefully just ignorance.

But Kevorkian was (is) a first-rate nutjob. As mad a scientist as real life provides. Most of those killed weren't dying (at least, no more than everyone else) - they were disabled and/or depressed.

And his motive wasn't sympathy - it was to experiment on those he killed. This isn't conjecture - it's from his own published accounts.

I guess I am ignorant then.

I have an aunt who has been bedridden with MS for the last ten years, totally immobolized. Cannot move, losing her ability to speak clearly, diapered, recieves fluids, but is still mouth fed like a baby, lays in bed all day watching TV or the world go by, having people read to her, and she is severly depressed and wishes she could just go. Could go on like this for several more years.

Her body has totally betrayed her to the point it is a limp mound of fleash, yet her mind remaines totally intact.

My ignornance would also lead me to believe a dignified passing with family and friends before it got to this point would have been preferrable over this current situation. It is how I would wish to go.

I know it would be easier for her family to deal with her illness too if we did not have to remember her in this condition for her last 10-20 years.

That's a tragic situation. But I don't agree with your assessment that a quick death is the solution to depression. Even if it was, involving third parties from the medical profession is a dangerous precedent.

It is so much more than just depression though...there is a total lack of any quality of life.

I would ask you, if your intact mind was in that lifeless body, is that a quality of life that you could live with upwards of 20 years?

My grandfather had parkinson's it was about the same way at the end, his mind was there and day by day his body gave out on him.

The last week his organs started failing and he had a living will in place, so basically they let him starve to death, because it stated no IV's to sustain his life. My only regret in following his wishes, is that it lasted a week, I wish it had been quicker for him.

I have a religious quandry: suicide is the only sin that can't be forgiven, since you aren't around to repent. It breaks the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

But what if you refuse dialysis? Or refuse a feeding tube or chemotherapy? Is letting yourself die, or not doing anything to prevent dying the same as killing yourself?

We do things everyday that don't prevent dying, smoking, driving after drinking, tanning, etc. So if you can do those things, I think it should be your choice to not get treatment for illnesses