I'll bite: the argument against prohibition is prudential, ie, the social costs are too high (as with drugs and, argably, guns), not because there is a constititional right to drink or, even after Heller, possess a habdgun outside one's home.
Sandy ________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Thu Sep 16 14:26:10 2010 Subject: Re: N.J. public transit employee fired for blasphemy Many thousands of deaths predictably result from the consumption of alcohol by persons who own motor vehicles. All bars and taverns should therefore be closed forthwith. Art Spitzer In a message dated 9/16/10 3:07:59 PM, mfailin...@gw.hamline.edu writes: I am not sure I would not stop the Qur'an burning if I were quite convinced even one death would result from suppressing it, even if the "national security" rationale is more uncertain and nebulous.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
