I agree to a certain extent. True, the federal government doesn't have that right but, in keeping with the spirit of the 9th and 10th Amendments, the various state governments should be allowed to decide these issues. That is the true essence of federalism. If Minnesota wants a drinking age of 45 and Nevada wants a drinking age of 3 months, that should certainly be allowed to happen in a constitutional republic. Of course, being a Minnesotan who likes Sam Adams (the beer and patriot), I would fight that kind of law tooth and nail!
You're right about the Constitution, but I don't think, as a philosophical matter, that any government at all has a right to make laws against substances.
I agree to a certain extent. True, the federal government doesn't have that right but, in keeping with the spirit of the 9th and 10th Amendments, the various state governments should be allowed to decide these issues. That is the true essence of federalism. If Minnesota wants a drinking age of 45 and Nevada wants a drinking age of 3 months, that should certainly be allowed to happen in a constitutional republic. Of course, being a Minnesotan who likes Sam Adams (the beer and patriot), I would fight that kind of law tooth and nail!
A freeper attorney explained this state prohibitory law issue one night some time ago:
--- State criminal law covers the protection of children. Thus, - criminal prohibitory law is OK. --
But states/communitys can only regulate exchanges of goods & services between adults, in public, using civil law.
-- Governments do NOT have the power to criminally prohibit nonviolent conduct, nor common products used in private; -- in constitutional theory, of course.
-- Obviously, -- this view of the law is being violated on a massive scale, by all levels of government.