Does The Ninth Amendment Protect RESPONSIBLE Drug Use? [View All]

[ulTRAX]

I personally believe that people should have the right to do anything
that doesn't harm others. This does not mean I define "harm" in narrow terms. Pollution or second hand smoke would qualify in my book.

Therefore I believe that any law that exceeds legitimate intent... where there is no compelling state interest, to be an abuse of state power.

We all know politicians are a lazy lot frequently writing bad laws
which take away rights from individuals or groups that are NOT causing
any social problem. For instance about 10 years my state, in attempt
to get young men from killing themselves driving drunk they simply
raised the drinking age from 18 to 21. Groups who were not even part
of the problem were caught in the net... those who drink responsibly
and don't drive, young women, etc. If the problem was drunk driving
then THAT behavior should have been targeted thus covering ALL age
groups. We saw how politicians, fearing that they would be accused on
being soft on drug use, got into a blood frenzy writing scorched-earth
laws that raise penalties beyond all reason. The high penalties
against crack vs. ordinary cocaine are good examples. So are the draconian Rockefeller drug laws in NY.

In the Constitution is that forgotten 9th amendment that the states insisted be written into the Constitution: "The enumeration
in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
or disparage others retained by the people." There's some overlap
with the 10th. Here's a discussion of it:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/index.html
Probably the most famous case involving the 9th is Griswold v
Connecticut in which restrictions against birth control were found
unconstitutional.

It seems clear that the original intent of this amendment was to
uphold John Locke's doctrine of natural rights... that rights exist
as a state of being (minus slaves, of course), and government must have some legitimate intent before restricting them. Here's a source: http://radicalacademy.com/lockebio.htm I don't
know if it's the best discussion. Here's an additional contemporary source on how natural rights were viewed by the French in 1789:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm If you've never read
the Rights of Man... do yourself a favor. It builds a much more reasoned argument about rights than is in our Constitution.

So, can a case be made that under the 9th amendment
scorched-earth laws written by Neanderthal or lazy politicians that
unjustly restrict the rights of responsible citizens are
unconstitutional? Can a case be made that the 9th REQUIRES laws to be written in ways that clearly state legitimate intent, target ONLY a well-defined problem, and in ways that maximize the freedoms of responsible people? Should citizens have the right to sue politicians for "political malpractice" if they willfully push for laws that violate this standard? Which brings me to my question: does the 9th protect responsible drug use?