More propaghanda from a federal agency trying desperately to hang on to their funding and prevent states from decriminalizing. I'll ask again... if the federal gov't's actions are Constitutional why did it take an amendment to make alcohol illegal but not marijuana?
That is the million dollar question -- one that is not asked anywhere near as often as it should be.
I'll answer again ... An amendment was not required for alcohol.
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding.
-- druglibrary.org