🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bz9Dzy.Ln2@avalon.nwc.navy.mil>, jd@parcival (John de la Garrigue) writes:
>Don't know about other states, but the State of California explicitly
>states in thier driver's license policy that driving is a privilege, *not*
>a right.  Just because we take it for granted does not mean we are entitled
>to it.

I've heard about legislation that says that pi is 3, but the existence
of such legislation doesn't really change the value of pi.  Equally,
just because a policy document somewhere says that something isn't a
right, it doesn't make the right nonexistent.

>>(2) come and go as we please  -  as long as we dont intrude on
>>other peoples "property".  
>
>Actually, I think this is a right guaranteed by the US government, but I could 
>be wishful thinking.  Any lawyers care to confirm this?

US government doesn't guarantee rights - it recognizes them (see the
Bill of Rights).

>>(3) drink alchohol, take drugs etc - again as long as it doesnt
>>intrude on other peoples rights.   
>
>Again, not a *right*.  The government clearly states drug use is illegal, and
>which drugs can't be used or can only be used when properly prescribed.

Again, this is an example of where the U.S. government (and many
others) don't recognize people's rights, and wrt drug laws blatantly
violate them.  Unconstitutionally in USA, I think - also in Germany
marijuana prohibition is thought to be against the Constitution and
some judges have been working on it.

>Good point.  Which group should this go to?

Perhaps alt.society.civil-liberty, alt.politics.usa.constitution.

Followups directed to alt.society.civil-liberty.

//Jyrki