You live a sheltered life in a small sparsely populated state (my County has a larger population than your state)
You can afford to live in your fantasy land with the other PaulBots.
>You live a sheltered life in a small sparsely populated state (my County has a larger population than your state)
Yes, and it’s a whole state where guns are allowed to be enjoyed by the population... There’s an ancient Chinese proverb that says “A foolish idea, held by thousands, is still a foolish idea.” So, what’s your point here?
>You can afford to live in your fantasy land with the other PaulBots.
Who said I’m living in a fantasy-land? You failed to answer my question: If we required a Constitutional Amendment to federally regulate/prohibit alcohol, why do we NOT need one for these other drugs?
So, explain why bringing up the point that in the past, in order to prohibit some substance nationwide, congress needed a Constitutional amendment AND YET it does not need one to prohibit some substance nationwide now. Going by the jurisprudence notion of precedence, the federal prohibition on drugs would need a Constitutional Amendment to be valid. {Or do you propose to discard the parts of the law you do not like while adhering to that which you do like?}