Smoking tobacco is a preference, and smokers claim a right to smoke.
Smoking marijuana is also a preference, but there is no claim of a right, and in fact it is illegal to do it.
In both cases there is smoking.
In both cases there are dangers from smoking.
Yet one is allowed and the other is illegal?
"Smoking marijuana is also a preference, but there is no claim of a right, and in fact it is illegal to do it."
You'd be wrong there: many people who are pushing for the legalization of cannabis assert that they have a right to smoke pot if they choose to.
President Obama and the federal government are against and had CA legalized Marijuana, Obama said he would have the DOJ enforce marijuana as illegal under the Controlled Substance Act.
you're damned right they do - I have a right to blow my brains out with a shotgun so long as I don't harm anyone else.
...does it matter....what's the point you are making......i think there is an inherent/intrinsic right for some people to smoke...........whether it's legal or not.....
smoking was an example and the question speaks for itself,
...next yourself......what'd i say wrong?
And the ansser is perfectly good - most people might agree that on a personal basis we each have an intrinsic RIGHT to do what we want, whatever it is, legal and illegal are separate issues.
...next to you to....you must live in China or somewhere like that ....
...just your friendly GLTG member...........................
GLTG ?? what is that Giggle Lips To Go or something? I was replying to Quack , who appeared to have missed the valid point of your answer - don't pick on me ! you Canadian hunter-killer you !
What constitutional Rights are there for preference or genetic defects
These are different issues, smoking or whatever is a matter of choice, genetic defects are a result of natural selection, legislating against them requires preventing conception which isa 'third hand' issue. Like legislating against going out in case you get run over.
My fault, I should have said that preferences and genetic defects were not linked,they are just two issues under Constitutional Rights.
"most people might agree that on a personal basis we each have an intrinsic RIGHT to do what we want, whatever it is, legal and illegal are separate issues."
Indeed, as long as what you're doing doesn't harm or infringe on the rights of others.
For example, I can listen to my stereo in my home, and I can crank the volume if I want to. But if I crank the volume up so loud that it disturbs my neighbors, I've exceeded my rights, and infringed upon theirs. So I need to turn it down a few notches.
What constitutional Rights are there for preference or genetic defects
In the example on smoking, why doesn't the Constitution treat them the same.
I think that they should be treated the same, both legal, or both illegal.
Because they are in the same class and they have the same attributes.
There are other preferences besides smoking and what Cosntitutional Right do they have.
Also does having a genetic defect give you any rights under the Constitution.
Sure if you have one that causes a disability then you are covered by law, but what about a genetic defect that is not a disability?
........like what....gimme an example.....?
if it is not a diability then society does not need to worry too much abut it I guess ? You could argue that stupidity is a genetic defect and so creationsist should be subject to some kind of law to prevent them spreading their genetic desease to others - if you took the line of legislation for genetic defects ??
My right to do what I like includes a lot more than smoking - I would personally argue that I have the right to take drugs or not wear a seat belt, among many other things that affect nobody except myself. Laws should be for the protection of others not from yourself.
They only affect others in the same way as just being anywhere affects others, like bad breath or getting in each others way on the path. Seat belts don't affect anyone except the wearer or non-wearer?
If you are not wearing a seat belt and during an accident are thrown about your vehicle and therefore cause greater damage to other vehicles that is not just about you. If you are thrown from your vehicle and become a greater medical burden on the state as a result that is not just about you. If you buy drugs and thereby support criminal organizations that is not just about you. If under the influence of drugs you commit acts detrimental to society that is not just about you.
You will find that marijuana was outlawed because a certain business man pressured congress to make the law doing so....Dupont?
Hemp was competition for him, and he wanted to get rid of it.
Can you guess why? *punch-line*: To eliminate competition and choice, So he could have a monopoly make more money.
It's the usual history of Robber Baron America. Paying for laws that benefit them alone.
So money and greed and power can trump our Constitution.
In the case of tobacco you can stay the constitution and allow a dangerous product to be sold and smoked legally.
While at the same time, you can take a similar product like marijuana and prevent it from having the same rights.
It doesn't seem like the constitution is a real conser stone of America if it can be manipulated to devious ends.
The purpose of this question was to get your view whether a Constitution Right exists for either preferences or genetic defects.
I gave an exmaple preference.
An example of genetic defects that are not physical disabilities would be being born with six toes or fingers. Web feet, being born without pigmentation, being born with male and females parts.
There is so much talk these days about constitutional rights that I wanted some opinions on them.
You cannot be prevented from doing something, but you could be punished or sanctioned if you do.
ok - I am not in a position to comment really as they do not affect me. But from the outside they do appear tobe in need of an overhaul to bring them up o date but also now would not be the time to do it with so many divisions in society, perhaps one day when things are more stable?
Well, as for genetic variations, a polydactyl person has the same rights under the law as someone with the usual number of fingers or toes.
As for preferences, a person who likes to listen to rap music has the same rights under the law as someone who likes country music.
Was there some specific 'preference' or 'genetic variation' you were thinking of? (I bet I know, but golly wouldn't it be cool if you'd actually ask the question that's on your mind, rather than trying to couch it in this oblique line of questioning to obscure your intent?)
The question in this forum was created by me to explore the fallacy of Constitution Rights under guise of the Constitution.
It is intended to show that a minority, meaning less than the majority in our population can manipulate the constitution to the end.
Political Correctness is one of those Constitutional based fallacies.
The example of smoking illustrates that the constitution can be used by those that have political power, wealth, and the abilit to use the media to make their perception of their right look reasonable to the sheep of this country.
Smokers have no constitutional right, but that didn't stop them for excercising those virtual rights. By your own example, second hand smoke would be even more of an example than playing your stereo too loud.
The problem with these constitutional created rights is that it leaves the rest of the population without any.
If a person gets fired at their job, and they are one of the enumerated class, like race, female, age and now gay they can have the government put pressure on their employer. But in that same situation the rest of us have no government cord to pull.
This would be in a situation where there really was no issue of discrimination, but that wouldn't stop it from by wrongly asserted as the cause.
This constitutional hammer of discrimination can overpower the all to popular "At Will Work Contract" that basically says your employment is at the will of the employer and the employee. So the employer doesn't even have to have a reason to let you go. But if you can assert a discrimination cause, then the employer has to defend themselves against the government.
That is great for those cases where discrimination is really the cause, but the rest of us don't have any protection from abusive and nasty employers.
I do think like the smokers that the LGBT is also fabricating a constitutional right that doesn't really exist. They are politically powerful, well funded, and they own the entertainment field so they insert a form of brainwashing on the rest of us with their continued inclusion of gays into most of our TV shows and movies.
This is as wrong as the old subliminal advertisement in the movies that inserted very short burst of advertisements that were not perceived by the audience directly, but perceived by their brains.
An example of this was in the Movie "Chuck and Larry" where two heterosexuals are in a position where they need to appear to the authorities as a homosexual couple. The whole plot was to make the homosexuals as the underdog and how they were persecuted by society. Of course everyone wants the underdog to win.
While these story lines are very transparent, they are effective because most of the people in the world are sheep. I believe that the LGBT is a big sheep dog.
My point is that I am against any political powerful, well funded organization that can use any means, including our entertainment, and especially our constitution to get their own way, at the rest of the country's expense.
The founders didn't create the constitution for this kind of mal manipulation.
This includes illegal aliens, the first word should be meaningful. These illegals or rather the organizations that want them here, manipulate the constitution to get around the illegal aspects. Meanwhile hundreds of thousand of people from other countries that are going through the legal process are turned away, after having spent much time and much money trying to meet the requirements of our immigration laws.
Isn't it discrimination by the government itself to reward "illegals", while punishing legal applicants.
The illegal alien problem is another example of what is wrong with calling things a Constitutional Right.
All of these practices and examples are affecting the country and its culture. And they are not making the country better, in fact they are wasting the very sparse resources of the government.
While I have gone in to details in this forum, others, including you use a very braod conclusionary stroke which doesn't present your argument.
Is Gay a Right under the Constitution?
Is Gay a preference or a genetic defect?
At least the people that dance around answering these questions could put some music to it.
The issue on constitutional rights is larger than just the questions on LGBT, but it certainly does include them.
These very subjective and social issues cannot and shouldn't be decided by the law. Abortion has those same characteristics and it is been argued and tried for over three decades after the Supreme Court decison of Roe v. Wade.
But every year we go through the distraction of trying to decide it, and every year it continues to elude finality.
Gays are a fact of life, but so is death and disease and none of them will go away. We fight disease, and we try to push death farther away so what is the point.
Again so you don't get distracted, the issue here is Virtual Constitutional Rights, and why should they exist and be treated as Real Constitutional Rights?
Because they are citizens?
There is no official organization or gay agenda.
Wow, I feel as though reading the above post from OpinionDuck may have actually made me stupider. Gimme a minute to recover.
Okay, now that I've gotten the slime off my brain, I can refute that entire ball of feckless meandering with just one quote. Here it is:
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What that means is this: just because the constitution doesn't say you have the right to smoke, or listen to country music, or bugger a willing partner, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to smoke, or listen to country music, or bugger a willing partner.
So even though the constitution doesn't specifically say that it's okay for two men to love each other, and commit to a lifetime of mutual affection and fidelity, it's okay for two men to love each other and commit to a lifetime of mutual affection and fidelity.
"Is Gay a Right under the Constitution?"
Yes it is (see Amendment IX).
"Is Gay a preference or a genetic defect?"
The legal answer is this: It doesn't matter.
The real answer is this: It is neither a preference nor a defect.
He thinks being gay is a genetic defect or a preference so he is looking for ideas to bolster his argument that gay people don't deserve any constitutional rights. Am I right?
The question is not if you can do something, but is there an existing Constitutional Right to do it.
This is about the constitution and how it has been manipulated to mean something it was never intended to do.
I still don't have answers from anyone on the specific questions that I have asked repeatedly here.
I will leave this forum to those that refuse to answer questions, and let them run about with vague and ambiguous words.
I am not aware of smoking anything that is specifically protected by the constitution. There are natural laws specifically listed in the constitution, however, none of which guarantee a right to smoke. I think smoking is just something presumed we can do since we have always done so. Skateboarding is a presumed right although we are seeing more and more restriction to its free exercise (liability issues) It isn't that far fetched to presume that 2nd hand smoke may seriously curtail the privilege of smoking down the road, although it is so entrenched in consent that it will prove difficult. Tobacco isn't a drug considered to alter moment by moment perception as is canabis and therefore, considered a risk to the general population (as is alchohol)when abused (driving under the influence). The appropriate use of canabis is certainly no more harmful than alcohol and I think a more suitable analogy.
by Mike Russo3 years ago
I watched Piers Morgan's show twice, once with Alex Jones as his guest and then again with Ben Shapiro as his guest. Both of these people believe that is necessary for citizens to have high capacity assault...
by leeberttea6 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is...
by Melissa Barrett4 years ago
I am a Unitarian. My faith supports same sex marriages and wishes to perform these ceremonies within our church yet most states say this is illegal. If marriage is a religious right then these states are...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Every day we hear from hubbers about how Obama is out to destroy the Constitution. Across this great nation there is a movement of very vocal, very serious "pro-contitutionalists."The Constitution is suddenly...
by Joelle Burnette7 years ago
What do you think about the Wisconsin man (an Iraq war veteran) who flew the American flag upside down outside his business in protest of the local government not granting him a liquor license after spending $200,000 to...
by Laurel Rogers6 years ago
Thank God for civil rights!NPR BREAKING NEWS:Reports: California's Ban On Same-Sex Marriages Ruled UnconstitutionalA federal judge in San Francisco has overturned Proposition 8 in a landmark case that could eventually...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.