4 ms·

The fact that a constitutional amendment was needed to prohibit alcohol, but is no longer needed to prohibit a long list of substances, is evidence that our con

The fact that a constitutional amendment was needed to prohibit alcohol, but is no longer needed to prohibit a long list of substances, is evidence that our constitutional protections have been watered down. Such prohibition is a great stretch to fit within the enumerated powers and should be reserved to the states by the 9th and 10th amendments. The laboratories of democracy should be allowed to experiment with chemicals, within their borders, as their own legislatures see fit.

mstade 7y ago
I always thought the prohibition amendment was about enforcing a nationwide ban, but individual states could (and did, no?) prohibit the personal consumption of alcohol as they saw fit before then? Is this not the same with other substances, and that's why some states have now legalized weed whereas others have not, because there's no nationwide law against these substances? As an outside observer with an interest (but no formal education!) I find U.S. state/federal laws really confusing, and I'm sure I have all of the above mixed up. Would love to hear you expand your comment with some examples of how the constitutional protections are different now compared to then, and as you say watered down.
- jrs95 7y ago
  States have changed their own laws on marijuana, but it is still a Schedule 1 drug according to the federal government and is still technically illegal as a result. It’s just not very heavily enforced. Still, the federal government claims to have the authority to ban these things when 100 years ago that was not the case.
- Glyptodon 7y ago
  My understanding is that it didn't require an amendment, but that those supporting prohibition wanted to make it very difficult to undo compared to typical laws and thought that by making it an amendment it'd be much harder for a popular revolt against prohibition to overturn it.
- currymj 7y ago
  The states can legalize marijuana, meaning that the state police and courts no longer prosecute it. But currently the federal government can still come in and make arrests, although they typically choose not to enforce the law, because doing so would be politically unpopular. Plus it's not like there are FBI agents walking the beat trying to make low-level drug busts. The most confusing is Washington D.C., a federal territory, which has been granted limited home rule. They voted in a referendum to legalize and regulate marijuana, but then were prohibited by Congress from spending any money to actually draft the necessary regulations. The result is that marijuana is illegal to buy or sell but legal to possess or use, except in many public parks which are technically part of the federal National Park system.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  I always thought the prohibition amendment was about enforcing a nationwide ban, but individual states could (and did, no?) prohibit the personal consumption of alcohol as they saw fit before then? There are "dry counties" in the US today, so local jurisdictions can do this. (Note that most local jurisdictions become "dry" after 2am, anyhow.)
jack_h 7y ago
The expansive reading of the Commerce Clause has allowed drug prohibition. See Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich.
- exegete 7y ago
  Additionally the Federal government withholds grants if States don’t pass applicable laws (e.g., drinking age and highway funding).
- technothrasher 7y ago
  Drug laws, gun laws, civil rights laws... a lot of federal regulation has been enacted under the commerce clause.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Health care. Note that only some civil rights laws are rooted in the Commerce Clause. Others rest directly on the Fourteenth Amendment.
jdkee 7y ago
Agree. Illinois just legalized marijuana as of January 1st.
Koremat6666 7y ago
It is always easy to take away people's rights. Federal government's strategy has been to isolate tiny groups and take away their rights with the support of the majority without realizing those laws will bite everyone's ass eventually. While most of us do not do drugs we all are less safe, have less rights because of the war on drugs that we have supported. We want our politicians to be "tough on crime" which only means harassing people who have been on wrong side of a complex legal system.

mstade 7y ago

I always thought the prohibition amendment was about enforcing a nationwide ban, but individual states could (and did, no?) prohibit the personal consumption of alcohol as they saw fit before then? Is this not the same with other substances, and that's why some states have now legalized weed whereas others have not, because there's no nationwide law against these substances? As an outside observer with an interest (but no formal education!) I find U.S. state/federal laws really confusing, and I'm sure I have all of the above mixed up. Would love to hear you expand your comment with some examples of how the constitutional protections are different now compared to then, and as you say watered down.

jrs95 7y ago
States have changed their own laws on marijuana, but it is still a Schedule 1 drug according to the federal government and is still technically illegal as a result. It’s just not very heavily enforced. Still, the federal government claims to have the authority to ban these things when 100 years ago that was not the case.
Glyptodon 7y ago
My understanding is that it didn't require an amendment, but that those supporting prohibition wanted to make it very difficult to undo compared to typical laws and thought that by making it an amendment it'd be much harder for a popular revolt against prohibition to overturn it.
currymj 7y ago
The states can legalize marijuana, meaning that the state police and courts no longer prosecute it. But currently the federal government can still come in and make arrests, although they typically choose not to enforce the law, because doing so would be politically unpopular. Plus it's not like there are FBI agents walking the beat trying to make low-level drug busts. The most confusing is Washington D.C., a federal territory, which has been granted limited home rule. They voted in a referendum to legalize and regulate marijuana, but then were prohibited by Congress from spending any money to actually draft the necessary regulations. The result is that marijuana is illegal to buy or sell but legal to possess or use, except in many public parks which are technically part of the federal National Park system.
stcredzero 7y ago
I always thought the prohibition amendment was about enforcing a nationwide ban, but individual states could (and did, no?) prohibit the personal consumption of alcohol as they saw fit before then? There are "dry counties" in the US today, so local jurisdictions can do this. (Note that most local jurisdictions become "dry" after 2am, anyhow.)

jack_h 7y ago

The expansive reading of the Commerce Clause has allowed drug prohibition. See Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich.

exegete 7y ago
Additionally the Federal government withholds grants if States don’t pass applicable laws (e.g., drinking age and highway funding).
technothrasher 7y ago
Drug laws, gun laws, civil rights laws... a lot of federal regulation has been enacted under the commerce clause.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Health care. Note that only some civil rights laws are rooted in the Commerce Clause. Others rest directly on the Fourteenth Amendment.

jdkee 7y ago

Agree. Illinois just legalized marijuana as of January 1st.

Koremat6666 7y ago

It is always easy to take away people's rights. Federal government's strategy has been to isolate tiny groups and take away their rights with the support of the majority without realizing those laws will bite everyone's ass eventually. While most of us do not do drugs we all are less safe, have less rights because of the war on drugs that we have supported. We want our politicians to be "tough on crime" which only means harassing people who have been on wrong side of a complex legal system.