Some points to ponder: in the early twentieth century, the US federal government wanted to ban all alcohol.    In order to accomplish this, they had to pass a constitutional amendment.    A few years later, they decided to repeal prohibition, so a second amendment was required to repeal the first.    The important point here that nobody today seems to realize is that MERE LEGISLATION WAS NOT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO OUTLAW A SUBSTANCE.

At some point, somebody might want to ask the question of where they get the constitutional authority for the current war on drugs. Nowadays, the government says it can justify just about any action on the basis of either its power to tax, or its power to regulate interstate commerce.  In essence, they claim a virtual blank check on power. In my view, I say that such an attitude is prima facie evidence of an intention to rule the people rather than to serve them.

Also, did anyone ever wonder what is the consitutional basis for airport screenings?     You do not have to go through a metal detector (or one of the new naked body scanners) or submit to intrusive searches in order to drive your car on the highway, do you? So why on a domestic airline flight?  Well, the catch here is that the Fourth Amendment only protects you against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.  So if we just say that searching everybody who wants to fly is "reasonable," then the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply.   And we've gotten everyone to feel like this is normal and reasonable by scaring them to death by having the state-controlled media continuously headline fearmongering stories about "terrorism," 24/7, never stopping, ever since 9/11.   

I'm wondering how long it will be before they say they can just stop and search you on the street, or on the highway, for the same reason.   There is no qualitative difference between air travel and car travel on the highways.   A bomb could go off in either place, killing lots of people.   So if it's OK to subject American citizens to degrading, dehumanizing, suspicionless searches at the airports, why not have the same thing everywhere else?  That's the logical next step.  And it's already been happening.  If you search the news, you'll find that the T.S.A. has already been expanding its suspiconless search operations by deploying teams to search passengers at bus stops and other places.   In at least one case that I recall reading a few years ago, they were searching people who were DISEMBARKING from the bus ... AFTER the trip was over.

Here is a video just posted by Alaska Rep. Chris Tuck advising his constituents that they can "opt out" of the naked body scanners and be subjected to a pat-down instead, because "this is still a free country."   Actually, being subjected to a suspicionless pat-down is a Fourth Amendment violation, Rep. Tuck, because it's simply NOT reasonable in a free country to do this.

In a free country, there would be NO government searches or security measures required for people to travel in the manner of their choosing.  Airlines would be free to institute their own security policies as they deemed appropriate, based on business needs and customer demand.   

Government policy makers know that air travel is not inherently more dangerous than other modes of travel, and the true reason for these screenings has nothing to do with protecting your safety.  It is intended to psychologically condition the population to being subjected to arbitrary and intrusive searches and detentions by the government and to perceive this state of affairs as "normal."

I say it is NOT normal and it has ALL got to go. 

 Man Faces Trial for Defying TSA Agents

Related: Slavery Consummated by Physical Rape