4 ms·

Constitutionally only states should really have the power to regulate substances. That the federal government does so is largely an overreach.

• rileymat2 3y ago
  Maybe regulate the substances, but regulating the interstate trade of those substances which can be significant is certainly Constitutional. Sure, the power over interstate trade has also been stretched, but that is ubiquitous across all products.
  • elcritch 3y ago
    Not just stretched, but convoluted beyond recognition. The prohibitionists were a bit fanatical but at least they did it properly and passed an amendment for it.
• throwawaymobule 3y ago
  There was an amendment for that. (two, really) I'd expect some workaround to be done, like tying interstate funding to the drinking age. Would be sad to see the feds go after Oregon/Alaska in the same way.
• mrguyorama 3y ago
  >Constitutionally only states What part of the constitution limits congresses ability to regulate a substance
  • supertrope 3y ago
    "Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The Federal government should only exercise enumerated powers. Thomas Jefferson struggled with the Louisiana Purchase because buying land is not an enumerated power. Of course this document also has a Necessary and Proper Clause and an Interstate Commerce Clause. In practice judges on special courts decide if they value drug prohibition or the semi-sovereignty of states more.