Replies

When they had a federal ban on alcohol, they recognized that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to do so without an Amendment.

Where’s the “marijuana prohibition” amendment?

I’m not in favor of legalized marijuana or any other elicit drugs, but it is NOT in the powers of the federal gov’t to have a say in it.

"When they had a federal ban on alcohol, they recognized that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to do so without an Amendment."

I would sincerely like to see any documentation you might have on that -- cites, articles, opinions, etc.

You see, everything I have says that an amendment was not necessary -- that it was desired, not required. For example:

"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."

Thomas Jefferson banned alcohol sales to the Indian tribes without an amendment. Anyways, I hope you find my link helpful. I look forward to receiving yours.

When they had a federal ban on alcohol, they recognized that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to do so without an Amendment. Where’s the “marijuana prohibition” amendment? I’m not in favor of legalized marijuana or any other elicit drugs, but it is NOT in the powers of the federal gov’t to have a say in it.

Your statement just blew me away. I never thought of it that way before. Why did it take a constitutional amendment for a federal ban on alcohol but not for a federal ban on marijuana or any other drug?

I looked real quick via google and it seems the authority came via a broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. It seems that since the 20th century the growing federal govt has advanced its powers through technicalities and broad interpretations of the constitution to the point where the constitution is a mere shadow of itself. The constitution has been nickled and dimed to death as the federal power over the states has grown and centralized.

PS: The reason I stumbled onto this thread is I am watching the Hillbilly documentary on the History channel and they mentioned that Kentucky hillbillys are now in the pot growing business switching from moonshine to pot. I consider Appalachian hillbillies the canaries in the mine - if the Feds are going after them for a reason I take notice.

So I did a trace on FR to see if there was any articles on the subject and came across your post.

Thanks again.

When they had a federal ban on alcohol, they recognized that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to do so without an Amendment.

Where’s the “marijuana prohibition” amendment?

I’m not in favor of legalized marijuana or any other elicit drugs, but it is NOT in the powers of the federal gov’t to have a say in it.

In 1969 the SCOTUS declared the Marijuana Tax act of 1937 unconstitutional and for a time was legal until Congress got creative and made it a controlled substance. So it's not really illegal per se, but made a controlled substance with a classification of having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment and lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.