Quantcast

If prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment?

Freedomwatcher 2009/10/06 19:02:42
Because the "War on Drugs" does not require a Constitutional Amendment
It should require a Constitutional Amendment.
Because our society demands the government to do something about illegal drugs in this country.
Because alcohol was more dangerous than drugs.
Because it is too hard to pass a Constitutional Amendment
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Many people seem not to care what the Constitution requires.

Drug control is NOT a Constitutional power of the federal government. At the very most the federal government could, perhaps, ban the importation of drugs, and prohibit their sale across state lines under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.
But nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to prohibit the sale or possession of any item within state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment dictates that whatever Congress is not empowered to do must be left to the States, or to the people. This means Congress cannot . . .
* forbid the personal possession or use of drugs
* prohibit drug sales within the same state
* intervene in other countries with money or troops to fight undeclared drug wars
This means that drug prohibition laws can only exist at the state level. Imagine what could happen if some states had no prohibition laws, while other states had prohibition laws of differing severity. Competing claims about drug prohibition could be tested, in the real world. As it is . . .
Federal prohibition laws not only prohibit the sale and use of drugs, they also prohibit us from learning what would work best.
The 10th Amendment's Constitutional restrictions on federal power used to be well-known and understood. For instance, those who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the 1910's knew that the Constitution didn't give Congress the power to do this. So they had to pass the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919.
Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

So in order for there to be a Federal Ban on Drugs, shouldn't there be a Constitutional Amendment?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas 2009/10/07 01:11:50
    It should require a Constitutional Amendment.
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +8
    But you left out the right answer...


    The People in this country are retarded and do not understand the processes...

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Ihr Has... Maahkenzie 2009/10/07 07:28:58
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +3
    And there is a reason that it is a long process....
  • zyledr 2009/10/07 02:54:27
    It should require a Constitutional Amendment.
    zyledr
    +2
    Since when did the people or our politicians actually care about the constitution?

    Good points I've always felt that the drug war was illegal.
  • Divided States of America 2009/10/07 01:59:52
    Because our society demands the government to do something about illegal drug...
    Divided States of America
    I have no idea ,but assume it is why it is.You can see it now with the sugar taxes some want.Demonizing sugar and getting the people to think it's terrible,then the people will allow a tax on it.Then I'm sure it will be on to caffine.Tax the overweight,and so on.All this so the top 10% can keep getting richer. I appolgise to the top 10% for messing up your prorit margins.For in the end that is what it is all about.Laws are made to keep use productive,and now more so than ever to keep us cheap to repair.We are nothing more than livestock to big business,and or government is the auction house.Keeping workers looking like a good investment,or trying anyway.That's hard to do when you combine heath issues with poor education.The problem is how much will it cost to fix the "worker" in the end,and what do we want to do about the cost of higher education. These are things or government needs to work on,NOT FUCKIN STUPID WARS.We have all the safety we need,and if other countries agree it's all over for some country.Goverment isn't the problem ,it is who it sides with.It is certainly not siding with the people,so to the people it seems like a problem. I'm pretty confident things would be worse with no government,unless we want a two class soceity,where freedom means more than money.
  • 9th of 9 2009/10/07 01:39:15
    Undecided
    9th of 9
    +3
    Because it is not the drug of choice for the government personalities. Yet some puff it up I'm sure. They prefer their scotch wiskey, and their oderless poop.
  • marquise 2009/10/07 01:15:41
    It should require a Constitutional Amendment.
    marquise
    +6
    Very good point.....but then why would they bother with it, as either way they would prohibit it....
  • Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas 2009/10/07 01:11:50
    It should require a Constitutional Amendment.
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +8
    But you left out the right answer...


    The People in this country are retarded and do not understand the processes...
  • Ihr Has... Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 03:52:16
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +4
    For an example look at my conversation below...
  • BK Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 12:52:20
    BK
    +4
    I wonder if that guy knows his brain died a while back?
  • Freedom... Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 13:22:35
    Freedomwatcher
    +3
    OMG!! LOL!
  • Ihr Has... Freedom... 2009/10/07 14:09:41
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +3
    Amazing, isn't it?
  • Freedom... Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 14:13:26
    Freedomwatcher
    +3
    In a way yes.. but not surprising.
  • Ihr Has... Freedom... 2009/10/07 14:23:49
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +3
    I am waiting for him to claim that all laws that are present today were always laws, and always the case...
  • Freedom... Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 14:26:19
    Freedomwatcher
    +3
    According to his so called logic, that is what I would expect him to say next. Surely he has figured it out by now that he is making a complete ass out of himself.
  • marquise Freedom... 2009/10/08 01:53:40
    marquise
    +3
    I'm not so sure....
  • BK Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 12:52:02
    BK
    +4
    Maybe the feds should mandate helmets and short busses for some of these people...
  • cuz BK 2009/10/09 00:08:28
    cuz
    +1
    LOL..........
  • Freedom... Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 13:18:36
    Freedomwatcher
    +3
    My bad..LOL
  • HALPme Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 20:27:21
    HALPme
    That does not answer the question. Please tell us "retards"
  • Ihr Has... HALPme 2009/10/08 08:42:35
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +4
    Primarily, The United States Constitution has only one restriction on individuals, it is the 9th Amendment, which say that any rights listed in the constitution cannot be use to deny or disparage the rights of the people. This means, in plain English (despite my thought that the Constitution is in plain English), The Government (including the states), and The People are bound to not violate the rights of others, this amendment protects (so long as the involved parties are going to honor the rules) individual rights from arbitrary law making...

    The reason the 18th amendment had to be an amendment is because it added a negative right, alcohol trade, that is to say it made alcohol consumption illegal by way of removing the individual right to manufacture, transport, import or export alcohol for beverage purposes. It added the positive right for the government to legislate against this, which if it were not an amendment, the 9th would hold up as making the laws unconstitutional.

    Basically, whether you like "illegal" drugs or not, if you are a person of integrity and wish to follow the Constitution to the letter of the law, without an amendment granting the government the right to administer laws regarding such, all laws are unconstitutional unless the right is specifically granted...

    Primarily, The United States Constitution has only one restriction on individuals, it is the 9th Amendment, which say that any rights listed in the constitution cannot be use to deny or disparage the rights of the people. This means, in plain English (despite my thought that the Constitution is in plain English), The Government (including the states), and The People are bound to not violate the rights of others, this amendment protects (so long as the involved parties are going to honor the rules) individual rights from arbitrary law making...

    The reason the 18th amendment had to be an amendment is because it added a negative right, alcohol trade, that is to say it made alcohol consumption illegal by way of removing the individual right to manufacture, transport, import or export alcohol for beverage purposes. It added the positive right for the government to legislate against this, which if it were not an amendment, the 9th would hold up as making the laws unconstitutional.

    Basically, whether you like "illegal" drugs or not, if you are a person of integrity and wish to follow the Constitution to the letter of the law, without an amendment granting the government the right to administer laws regarding such, all laws are unconstitutional unless the right is specifically granted by the Constitution to the government. You see the Lockean Concept of natural rights applies to sentient beings, not to government, therefore, the rights the government has to do anything must be granted by the people and the ONLY way we signify that is by the amendment process.

    And to Answer the question, it does require an amendment, the reason why it has not happened or likely to happen is because the people in this country are too retarded to understand the Plain English of the Constitution combined with the government's real task, controlling individuals...
    (more)
  • Freedom... Ihr Has... 2009/10/08 13:19:43
    Freedomwatcher
    +3
    Bravo! I wish I remebered how to put pictures in post, but it has been too long I forgot. SO... you only get a rave and a bravo from me. ;-)
  • Ihr Has... Freedom... 2009/10/08 15:42:50
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    It is the add photos button in the lower right corner of the comment box...
  • Freedom... Ihr Has... 2009/10/08 18:57:29
    Freedomwatcher
    +2
    AH... okay.
  • Illjwamh 2009/10/07 01:07:38
    Because our society demands the government to do something about illegal drug...
    Illjwamh
    The government does a lot of things it has no business doing based on the demands of society.


    Not that it's *always* a bad thing, but it sets a bad precedent.
  • 1oct1 "Marko" 2009/10/07 00:55:42
    It should require a Constitutional Amendment.
    1oct1 "Marko"
    +2
    But that hasn't stopped them and it won't.
  • <--That guy 2009/10/07 00:52:50
    It should require a Constitutional Amendment.
    <--That guy
    +3
    The War on Drugs is unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.
  • jaymz 2009/10/06 23:17:43
    Because the "War on Drugs" does not require a Constitutional Amendment
    jaymz
    +1
    because drugs have never been legal therefore they dont require an amendment !
  • Ihr Has... jaymz 2009/10/07 01:09:41
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +6
    Sure have...

    They were always legal (Federally, much like prostitution is still), unless you consider the late 1930's to be when the US was founded...
  • jaymz Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 02:25:24
    jaymz
    explain to me when coc pot and meth were legal ! oh and heroin pcp shrooms , must i say more
  • Ihr Has... jaymz 2009/10/07 03:15:52 (edited)
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +4
    The laws were written beginning in the 1900's if they were not illegal, what were they then?

    House democrats were complaining about "cocaine crazed negros" in the early 1900's (as part of their argument to make cocaine illegal), this was the beginning of the war on drugs...

    Cocaine... Before 1914 (STATUS LEGAL) Before 1970 (Not legal to sell or distribute, but legal to own and use)

    Marijuana... Before 1937 (STATUS LEGAL)
    Look up DuPont and Marijuana, it was their lobbying that made it illegal, simply because they wanted a market for their product without a superior competitor that grows naturally, Hemp...

    Meth is a newer drug, in the smoking format, but it is legal to use it in medications, prescription, of course, as Desoxyn...

    Heroin... Before 1924 (STATUS LEGAL)
    EDIT TO ADD PROOF
    medications prescription desoxyn heroin 1924 status legal edit add proof

    Do I need to do more of your homework for you, please provide proof of your claim or admit that you have no idea what you are talking about...
  • jaymz Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 03:18:03 (edited)
    jaymz
    when was the last time you bought legal drugs from the street ?oh and get caught with meth or cocane and see how legal they are
  • Ihr Has... jaymz 2009/10/07 03:31:37
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +4
    Where is your proof????

    Provide with me the statute legislation that made these things illegal, with the dates, I am sure you will have them dated back to the beginning of the US, since Opium, Heroin, Marijuana, Cocaine and Mushrooms predate the US Constitution...

    I am not over 70, it is impossible for me to have bought them legally...

    Are you claiming that what happens before you are born does not count, if so, you would be an exemplary citizen of Oceania....
  • jaymz Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 03:35:00 (edited)
    jaymz
    ok let me tell you this they are illegal and thats all i give a shit about now leave me alone so i can snort, smoke, eat, and drink, my legal meds ! i have more important things to do in my life than get out dated history from you ! they aint been legal in my days is that good enough for you i dont give a fuck about yesturday or tomorrow !
  • Ihr Has... jaymz 2009/10/07 03:37:42
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +4
    The point of the Poll, is that the laws making them illegal are unconstitutional, and please do not forget to take your meds, you obviously need them....
  • jaymz Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 03:42:41
    jaymz
    so what you are really saying is you dont think the gov. should make that choice ! well good luck with that and all the other things you think the govmnt. is doing wrong !
  • Ihr Has... jaymz 2009/10/07 03:51:30
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +4
    I thought you were done crying....

    The government does not have the authority...
    Have a nice life...
  • jaymz Ihr Has... 2009/10/07 03:53:45 (edited)
    jaymz
    i dont never cry real men dont cry or eat yogert ! yuckert ! and same to ya ! ! !!
  • marquise jaymz 2009/10/07 01:14:24
    marquise
    +6
    Sure they were! Learn your history...
  • jaymz marquise 2009/10/07 03:11:25
    jaymz
    ive forgotten more history than you know !
  • zyledr jaymz 2009/10/07 03:01:16
    zyledr
    +5
    Everything is legal unless there is a law specifically stating it as being illegal.
  • jaymz zyledr 2009/10/07 03:11:28 (edited)
    jaymz
    you need to do some research because last time i checked pot pcp meth ect were ilegal ! and you still havent proven to me that any of those fore mentioned are legal ! and in what state do you live cause in texas prostitution is not legal or there wouldnt be any girls going to jail for it !

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/02 12:01:25

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals