The Misuse of Drugs Act Constitutionality

Steodonn

Well I am doing a law course ( to see if I I would like to go study properly) and the case of Mcgee vs The Attorney General.
For reference form wikiepdiea though

The government was obliged to regularise and legislate for the outcome of the McGee v. The Attorney General[2] a 1973 case in which the Supreme Court found that there was a constitutional right to marital privacy which also allowed for the use of contraceptives. Initially the government was slow to respond to the Supreme Court ruling, and a number of proposed bills failed to make it to the statute book. Indeed Taoiseach Jack Lynch admitted at one point that the issue had been put "on the long finger".

I know this has probably come up before but could one not argue a right to privacy in regards to possession and cultivation for personal use especially. The new bill to outlaw legal high would be a even bigger violation

The reason the McGee case amde be think about it was that contraceptives were basically a controlled substance ( in a way )

Now more experienced people destroy my theory

Jev/N

Rights aren't absolute and it's about balance - that's what I'd imagine the argument against would be

Arrogance

Personal Rights aren't absolute. They will only be applied when to not do so would lead to a grave injustice. In McGee v AG the prohibition of contraceptives was a threat to the life of the plantiff and was interferring with her married life - both instances that the constitution unambigously states are protected rights (right to life, protection of marriage). In the instance of legal highs there is no such issue that would even remotely lead to a violation of expressed personal rights. When dealing with unenumerated rights that are not absolute, courts will generally use a balancing act to ensure that justice is in agreement with state morality.

I should add I'm not a lawyer or anything so apologies if I am completely off.

Delancey

My understanding has been that the crucial fact of the McGee case was that the plaintiffs were a married couple and thus enjoyed special ' protection ' under the constitution.

Steodonn

delancey42 wrote: »

My understanding has been that the crucial fact of the McGee case was that the plaintiffs were a married couple and thus enjoyed special ' protection ' under the constitution.

Yes but what I am getting at is that marital privacy is not written down anywhere in the constitution . One could argue that a right to privacy also inferres a right to but what one whats in their body

Personal Rights aren't absolute. They will only be applied when to not do so would lead to a grave injustice. In McGee v AG the prohibition of contraceptives was a threat to the life of the plantiff and was interferring with her married life - both instances that the constitution unambigously states are protected rights (right to life, protection of marriage). In the instance of legal highs there is no such issue that would even remotely lead to a violation of expressed personal rights. When dealing with unenumerated rights that are not absolute, courts will generally use a balancing act to ensure that justice is in agreement with state morality.

Thats a very good point. I really couldn't see the current judges ruling in favour of my argument

Dose anyone think it would be possible if their was a more liberal supreme court

Steodonn

Steodonn wrote: »

Yes but what I am getting at is that marital privacy is not written down anywhere in the constitution . One could argue that a right to privacy also inferres a right to but what one whats in their body

The Misuse of Drugs Act is proportional to its objective and is, therefore, not unconstitutional. The social objective of the Act is, if you'll excuse the potential tautology, objectively proportional as drugs are, according to empirical evidence, bad for the community as a whole.

The objective of the anti-contraceptive laws was not proportionate to the method by which it was enforced. The infringement upon the marital right to privacy could not be justified by a subjective social policy decision.

In the example of the MUDA the infringement upon the right to privacy is proportionate as all the normal legal protections for a person's privacy within the context of a criminal investigation exist.

These arguments tend to arise with regard to marijuana rather than heroin, cocaine or LSD because people see it as harmless. That is an entirely different debate.

Bosco boy

Steodonn wrote: »

Well I am doing a law course ( to see if I I would like to go study properly) and the case of Mcgee vs The Attorney General.
For reference form wikiepdiea though


I know this has probably come up before but could one not argue a right to privacy in regards to possession and cultivation for personal use especially. The new bill to outlaw legal high would be a even bigger violation

The reason the McGee case amde be think about it was that contraceptives were basically a controlled substance ( in a way )

Now more experienced people destroy my theory

What your saying is that your right to privacy should outweight the states right to search you or your premise for illegal substances. ?

In that case illegal firearms held by you would be covered, maybe if you happened to be a serial killer the 3 woman you might have chained in the basement should be covered by your right to privacy, if its illegal and you are in possession of it then generally the law provides for power of search in respect of it, theres loads of case law. if your theory was applied we would have a total breakdown in society.

Reloc8

Steodonn wrote: »

Yes but what I am getting at is that marital privacy is not written down anywhere in the constitution .

Have you come across the doctrine of unenumerated rights yet ?