First of all, I said the regulation of drugs was within Congress' constitutional power. You asked for "evidence to support my position" and I gave it to you.
WTF does that have to do with Prohibition?
Second, if you wanted me to cite pre-Prohibition court cases, or pre-FDR cases, or 19th century cases, you should have said so. I'm not going to play your little back-and-forth game. Next time be more specific.
"If it was then there would not have been a need for a constitutional amendment to have prohibition." -HTB
--------------------------------------------
An amendment was desired. But it was not required. -robertpaulsen
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes it was. -HTB
---------------------------------------
Again, do you have anything at all to support this statement? -robertpaulsen
--------------------------------------------------
The Constitution it's self.
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
You notice that it does not say with in the states.
Do you have any evidence to support your position? -HTB
------------------------------------------------
It would be better if you read this case yourself: http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/DPF/visman.html-robertpaulsen
----------------------------------------------------
"Sorry but that ex post facto. That case was heard long after the 18th and the 21st amendments were passed."-HTB
------------------------------------------------
WTF does that have to do with Prohibition?-robertpaulsen
Clear now?