[biggerten]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but-

There are 'dry' counties and states that ban alcohol, why is this different?

[Vicomte13]

"I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but-
There are 'dry' counties and states that ban alcohol, why is this different?"

Because there are two amendments to the US Constitution dealing with alcohol, one prohibiting its manufacture and importation, and the second one striking that one down and explicitly leaving its regulation to the states.

So, the Constitution says, explicitly, that the states can prohibit alcohol, even though that's interfering with interstate commerce. The Constitution doesn't say that about tobacco. Now, a state's rights advocate could assert that therefore it's entirely up to the states, but a free-market, free-flow-of-commerce capitalist could argue that banning tobacco locally interferes with interstate commerce generally, and he would have a good argument under the commerce clause cases of the last 70 years or so.

Alcohol is different, because it's actually in the Constitution. No other product is.

How this one comes out depends on the judges deciding it.

[Texan5]

"dry counties and states that ban alcohol"

I was wondering the same thing, but I don't see any difference, since any town with a stupid mayor who buys into any kind of prohiobition on sales like that will lose tax revenue in either case. And I'm not a lawyer, either- (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night)...

[The Foolkiller]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but-

There are 'dry' counties and states that ban alcohol, why is this different?

---

It's different because they make more money from smokes, since the taxes are about 100 times higher.