[10thAmendmentGuy]

We got federal drug prohibition without an amendment because federal drug prohibition really came into being in 1970-71, three decades after the Supreme Court had upheld the power of Congress to regulate pretty much anything under the Commerce Clause. Alcohol prohibition, by contrast, came before the post-New Deal Commerce Clause cases, so Congress needed to pass an amendment to prohibit alcohol. It’s unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says, and it’s an abject failure.

[GourmetDan]

"We got federal drug prohibition without an amendment because federal drug prohibition really came into being in 1970-71, three decades after the Supreme Court had upheld the power of Congress to regulate pretty much anything under the Commerce Clause. Alcohol prohibition, by contrast, came before the post-New Deal Commerce Clause cases, so Congress needed to pass an amendment to prohibit alcohol. It’s unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says, and it’s an abject failure."

That's what I mean about politicians learning from their 'mistakes'.

Undermining the Constitution takes time, but apparently there was enough to get from there to here.

[GourmetDan]

"We got federal drug prohibition without an amendment because federal drug prohibition really came into being in 1970-71, three decades after the Supreme Court had upheld the power of Congress to regulate pretty much anything under the Commerce Clause. Alcohol prohibition, by contrast, came before the post-New Deal Commerce Clause cases, so Congress needed to pass an amendment to prohibit alcohol. It’s unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says, and it’s an abject failure."

That's what I mean about politicians learning from their 'mistakes'.

Undermining the Constitution takes time, but apparently there was enough to get from there to here.

I do appreciate the explanation though. :-)