[robertpaulsen]

"If a state decided to remain "dry" then they should be required to fund the actions necessary themselves."

Somehow, the existing law would have to be changed to turn the drug decision over to the states. A "dry" state will not vote for change unless it can get some protection -- if not, why even vote to support it?

My guess is that turning over the drug decision to the states would require a constitutional amendment. Bear in mind that the 21st amendment not only repealed the 18th, it also authorized each state to make their own laws regarding alcohol.

[CSM]

If an ammendment is necessary to grant control to the states over the decision, where is the ammendment that seized this control? The argument has always been the interpretation of the wonderful "commerce clause", a more accurate interpretation is all that is necessary, not an ammendment.