We have accepted that Scalia's position is not consistent with Madison's. They can't both hold the originalist position. Again I ask, whose position is consistent with a Federal government of limited and defined powers, Scalia or Madison?
Lets say in the early days of America, the Founders were faced with a national drug abuse problem. Remember, human beings are prone to habitual behavioral patterns, with drugs being a totally destructive habit. What would the Founders have done to address this issue?
I think they would have left it up to each State. If I'm not mistaken, alcoholism was at least as widespread in the Founders' time as it is currently. (And alcohol use and abuse has always dwarfed the use/abuse of cocaine and opiates.)
Various State and local governments dealt with the problem in different ways, but it was not until the Progressive Era that a push for national prohibition on alcohol gained steam.
As to narcotics, the post Civil War era saw a big rise in addiction secondary to addicted soldiers and veterans. Yet, from 1880 to 1900 the rate of addiction fell significantly, while still remaining legal. From the USDOJ:
_______________________________
"In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor's care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S [50,000,000 census in 1880 =0.8% addiction rate- ken h]. That is twice as many per capita as there are today."
"By 1900, about one American in 200 [=0.5%] was either a cocaine or opium addict." [end excerpt]
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm
______________________________________
My calculations show that opiate addiction dropped from 0.8% in 1880 to at least 0.5% in 1900; at least a 37.5% reduction. If you toss out cocaine addicts included in the 1900 figure, the drop would be even greater.
At the end of the 20th Century:
"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992."
--www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm
"The demand for both powdered and crack cocaine in the United States is high. Among those using cocaine in the United States during 2000, 3.6 million were hardcore users who spent more than $36 billion on the drug in that year."
--http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/cocaine.htm
Using year 2000 figures from the USDOJ, and a population of 285,000,000, the rate of addiction to either cocaine or heroin is about 1.5%, or triple the rate in 1900.
I never said that. I did say, "On this specific issue, I don't see anything inconsistent with Scalia's judgement as it relates to original intent." The use of the commerce clause to extend the prohibition of illicit drugs as defined in the CSA of 1970, is valid and legal according to SCOTUS.
Once again, we've come full circle.
>>>>I think they would have left it up to each State.
Glad to see you used the word "think". Frankly, I don't know what the Founders would have done in the case of a national drug control abuse problem. And neither does anyone else.