Wartboy - the following was your statement yesterday long before pswope got involved; "What I am saying is that government has no moral right to outlaw such behavior." The problem with discussing this and explaining this is that it aboslutely requires more than just listing those areas/activities.etc. where the courts have or have not found a compelling state interest such that government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests is permitted. There are so many permutations. Its not an easy area for lawyers to understand and would require an analysis of the 14th amendment and the particular right or freedom at question (free speech, religion, right of privacy, etc.)and whether its analyzed using strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and rational basis. (And we're not even getting into equal protction issues.) Moreover, off the top of my head I can't think of a due process case that didn't involve a split court and mutilple opinions even among those justices who agreed with each in the result or agreed with each other not in the result. Wartboy if you are really interested I'm sure a search of the web would give you places to do some reading about it. There is one case involving drugs and religion which is quite interesting (as well as its aftermath) I beleive the case is Employment Division v. Smith (involving the use of peyote in religious rituals. What I remember uniquelsy about this case was that after the decision a coalition of religious fundamentalists joined forces with civil libertarians, religious leaders of virtually every faith, and constitutional scholars organized to persuade get Congress to pass legislation which would in effect trumpt the Court's decision. I beleive that legislation was called something like the Religious Freedom Act (early 90's). A few years later the Supreme Court struck down that law. I swear you can't make this shit up.