But you left out the right answer...
The People in this country are retarded and do not understand the processes...
If prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment?
Freedomwatcher ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮
2009/10/06 19:02:42
|
|
|||||
|
1 vote
|
|
3% | ||
|
27 votes
|
|
71% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
8% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
3% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
3% | ||
|
5 votes
|
|
13% | ||
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Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.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?
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?
Top Opinion
-
Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas 2009/10/07 01:11:50
Good points I've always felt that the drug war was illegal.
The People in this country are retarded and do not understand the processes...
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...
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...
Not that it's *always* a bad thing, but it sets a bad precedent.
They were always legal (Federally, much like prostitution is still), unless you consider the late 1930's to be when the US was founded...
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
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...
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....
The government does not have the authority...
Have a nice life...