5 ms·

I'm confused. If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol how did it have the power to criminalize other drugs without an amendment?

mises 7y ago
It used to be that we recognized the fact that the feds had a very limited constitutional scope. That has been obliterated in the 20th century, with everything being justified under the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause. A centralized bureaucracy has been gradually sapping the sovereignty of individuals, municipalities, and states; and replacing effective, local solutions with broad-brush national solutions that don't work for every one. This also diminishes the ability of the individual to push for change: one man may convince enough people in a town to do something, but it is much harder for him to do so on a national level.
- tinix 7y ago
  Imagine if all of Europe was supposed to fall under a common legal system. Yeah, it's that absurd, geographically, politically, and realistically. Don't get me started about EU mandates. I'm all for standardization, but only if adherence is elective.
  - mises 7y ago
    I assume this is sarcastic? I wasn't saying any thing about the EU. It's quite different from America, if for no other reason than because citizens of EU nations see themselves first and foremost as citizens of said nation, not the EU (which is understandable, as that is the case). The question here was concerning America. Do you really believe the bulk of federal overreach in America is comprised of "standardization"? The Constitution authorizes such measures: weights and measures, currency, etc. That's not part of it.
    - tinix 7y ago
      It was tongue in cheek, for sure. My contrast of the EU was to draw a parallel between many sovereign nation states falling under a common union. Hey, kind of like a United States or something. We are not in disagreement there... and also, I'm definitely not against standards... as long as said standards are electively participatory, and not mandated from a high level government.
    - tropo 7y ago
      Long ago, citizens of US states saw themselves first and foremost as citizens of said states, not of the US. Famously, this influenced Lee's choice to serve in the Civil War, so the change in viewpoint is more recent than then. The EU may go through a similar transition.
      - mises 7y ago
        Maybe the EU ought to take a lesson from the fate of America, and remain a voluntary confederation of states. For reasons outlined in my above post, it may be better that way.
cbanek 7y ago
Well, congress can pass a law (as long as it's constitutional)! The law that governs mushrooms is the Controlled Substances Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act This handles all sorts of controlled substances, like prescriptions, as well as illegal substances. Now how does the federal government have control over this? It's probably related to how the FDA (Food and Drug Administration, who determine the different schedules of the substances) got started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act And that is under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause Also, since there are multiple international treaties involving drug control, that also puts it in the federal government's purview to regulate.
tomatotomato37 7y ago
Wickard v. Filburn, fucking up the separation of powers since 1942. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Matticus_Rex 7y ago
  In my Constitutional Law class in law school the professor said something like "only in a room full of lawyers could you end up with this interpretation of the Commerce Clause," which I appreciate more and more as time goes by.
Lazare 7y ago
In principle, the constitution outlines a federal government with specific, limited, enumerated powers. Over time, our interpretation of what those powers are and how they can be applied has changed a lot. The 18th was considered to be needed because although Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, obviously selling alcohol isn't really interstate commerce. You might be brewing your own beer, or buying whisky at a local bar that was distilled in the next city over. Since it's not interstate commerce, it's not one of the enumerated powers, so Congress can't do it without an ammendment. No ammendment was considered to be needed for marijuana because, by the time the issue came up, our understanding of the commerce clause had changed. Today we would say that everything is interstate commerce. Even if you grow it yourself, you could choose to sell it across state lines, and your decision to grow versus buy was probably impacted by the price of buying it, which in turn depends on the price in other states. In Wickard v. Filburn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn), the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce, because his decision to do so had an economic impact on interstate commerce. In Gonzales v. Raich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) the court made it clear this applied even if there is no (legal) interstate commerce. Under these precedents, the 18th amendment would not be necessary. Whether that suggests the poor benighted fools back then just didn't understand their own constitution, or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true meaning of the text, or whether the constitution is a living document that may mean different things in different eras, even if the wording doesn't change is a matter of heated debate. :)
- tinix 7y ago
  > the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce ONLY because it affected the sale of other grains... in theory, because instead of buying grain off the market to feed your chickens, you used your own grain, which not only deprived the market of your purchase, it also took grains away from the market also... since you didn't sell them. there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin. i'd love to see this argued in court. > or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true meaning of the text mhmmmmmmmmmmm
tinix 7y ago
Ultimately? It comes down to interstate trafficking, and interstate commerce. edit someone above me hit it in way more detail, but yep...
sbov 7y ago
Not really. Abolitionists wanted an amendment because its harder to reverse than a simple law.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Goes to show you that if something is really that big of a flop it WILL get repealed.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol It didn't, it needed an amendment to make it impossible to repeal prohibition by mere legislation. Prohibition was passed by statute before the Amendment, which did not authorize prohibition but mandated it.

mises 7y ago

It used to be that we recognized the fact that the feds had a very limited constitutional scope. That has been obliterated in the 20th century, with everything being justified under the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause. A centralized bureaucracy has been gradually sapping the sovereignty of individuals, municipalities, and states; and replacing effective, local solutions with broad-brush national solutions that don't work for every one. This also diminishes the ability of the individual to push for change: one man may convince enough people in a town to do something, but it is much harder for him to do so on a national level.

tinix 7y ago
Imagine if all of Europe was supposed to fall under a common legal system. Yeah, it's that absurd, geographically, politically, and realistically. Don't get me started about EU mandates. I'm all for standardization, but only if adherence is elective.
- mises 7y ago
  I assume this is sarcastic? I wasn't saying any thing about the EU. It's quite different from America, if for no other reason than because citizens of EU nations see themselves first and foremost as citizens of said nation, not the EU (which is understandable, as that is the case). The question here was concerning America. Do you really believe the bulk of federal overreach in America is comprised of "standardization"? The Constitution authorizes such measures: weights and measures, currency, etc. That's not part of it.
  - tinix 7y ago
    It was tongue in cheek, for sure. My contrast of the EU was to draw a parallel between many sovereign nation states falling under a common union. Hey, kind of like a United States or something. We are not in disagreement there... and also, I'm definitely not against standards... as long as said standards are electively participatory, and not mandated from a high level government.
  - tropo 7y ago
    Long ago, citizens of US states saw themselves first and foremost as citizens of said states, not of the US. Famously, this influenced Lee's choice to serve in the Civil War, so the change in viewpoint is more recent than then. The EU may go through a similar transition.
    - mises 7y ago
      Maybe the EU ought to take a lesson from the fate of America, and remain a voluntary confederation of states. For reasons outlined in my above post, it may be better that way.

cbanek 7y ago

Well, congress can pass a law (as long as it's constitutional)! The law that governs mushrooms is the Controlled Substances Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act This handles all sorts of controlled substances, like prescriptions, as well as illegal substances. Now how does the federal government have control over this? It's probably related to how the FDA (Food and Drug Administration, who determine the different schedules of the substances) got started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act And that is under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause Also, since there are multiple international treaties involving drug control, that also puts it in the federal government's purview to regulate.

tomatotomato37 7y ago

Wickard v. Filburn, fucking up the separation of powers since 1942. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Matticus_Rex 7y ago
In my Constitutional Law class in law school the professor said something like "only in a room full of lawyers could you end up with this interpretation of the Commerce Clause," which I appreciate more and more as time goes by.

Lazare 7y ago

In principle, the constitution outlines a federal government with specific, limited, enumerated powers. Over time, our interpretation of what those powers are and how they can be applied has changed a lot. The 18th was considered to be needed because although Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, obviously selling alcohol isn't really interstate commerce. You might be brewing your own beer, or buying whisky at a local bar that was distilled in the next city over. Since it's not interstate commerce, it's not one of the enumerated powers, so Congress can't do it without an ammendment. No ammendment was considered to be needed for marijuana because, by the time the issue came up, our understanding of the commerce clause had changed. Today we would say that everything is interstate commerce. Even if you grow it yourself, you could choose to sell it across state lines, and your decision to grow versus buy was probably impacted by the price of buying it, which in turn depends on the price in other states. In Wickard v. Filburn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn), the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce, because his decision to do so had an economic impact on interstate commerce. In Gonzales v. Raich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) the court made it clear this applied even if there is no (legal) interstate commerce. Under these precedents, the 18th amendment would not be necessary. Whether that suggests the poor benighted fools back then just didn't understand their own constitution, or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true meaning of the text, or whether the constitution is a living document that may mean different things in different eras, even if the wording doesn't change is a matter of heated debate. :)

tinix 7y ago
> the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce ONLY because it affected the sale of other grains... in theory, because instead of buying grain off the market to feed your chickens, you used your own grain, which not only deprived the market of your purchase, it also took grains away from the market also... since you didn't sell them. there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin. i'd love to see this argued in court. > or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true meaning of the text mhmmmmmmmmmmm

tinix 7y ago

Ultimately? It comes down to interstate trafficking, and interstate commerce. edit someone above me hit it in way more detail, but yep...

sbov 7y ago

Not really. Abolitionists wanted an amendment because its harder to reverse than a simple law.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Goes to show you that if something is really that big of a flop it WILL get repealed.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol It didn't, it needed an amendment to make it impossible to repeal prohibition by mere legislation. Prohibition was passed by statute before the Amendment, which did not authorize prohibition but mandated it.