4 ms·

I always thought the prohibition amendment was about enforcing a nationwide ban, but individual states could (and did, no?) prohibit the personal consumption of

by 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.)

by mstade 7y ago

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.)