3 ms·
The Constitution is pretty explicit in stating that it limits the scope of government, which is the opposite of being a starting point.
by mason240 11y ago
The Constitution is pretty explicit in stating that it limits the scope of government, which is the opposite of being a starting point.
- oldmanjay 11y agoPoliticians are pretty clear in their POV that the Constitution is a bother to be worked around, so there's realistically no point in going down the path you've chosen.
- jessaustin 11y agoWhy wasn't there an equivalent of the 18th Amendment in order to allow the drug prohibition?
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoBecause drugs were already illegal? You could perhaps argue that they shouldn't have been illegal, constitutionally. But, IIRC, they were, and so new change was required to start the war on drugs. It was just "we're going to get serious about stopping this stuff".
- jessaustin 11y agoThis doesn't really make sense. If that arrangement had made legal sense for opiates, marijuana, etc. it would have made legal sense for alcohol. In fact it was perfectly legal to distribute, purchase, and use those in numerous places through at least 1914, when the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act passed. Even that Act attempted to finesse the issue by limiting imports rather than just outlawing the substances directly. The Volstead Act didn't go in for such half-measures, because it had the backing of the Constitution. Neither Harrison nor any of its successors could say that. Frankly, I was mostly attempting to engage with mason240's rather strict legal philosophy in a way that would cause most strict constructionists some discomfort.