Not only that, but the federal laws against drug prohibition flout the Constitution in at least one other way.
I strongly disapprove of alcohol prohibition, as do just about all sane people (a group in which I do not include MEGoody), but at least the alcohol prohibiters did it right: they amended the Constitution. Given that the Constitution contains no authority for the federal government to ban drugs, and given that we have the precedent of a Constitutional amendment being necessary to ban a particular drug, how can anyone find room in the Constitution as it is today to allow the government to ban illegal drugs?
Which, by the way, is why Gonzales v. Raich cost Justice Scalia my respect. We have one and only one Justice who respects the Constitution, and his name is Clarence Thomas.
No level of government, fed, state or local, is authorized to outright prohibit guns, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.. -- Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.
Not only that, but the federal laws against drug prohibition flout the Constitution in at least one other way.
I strongly disapprove of alcohol prohibition, as do just about all sane people (a group in which I do not include MEGoody), but at least the alcohol prohibiters did it right: they amended the Constitution.
Given that the Constitution contains no authority for the federal government to ban drugs, and given that we have the precedent of a Constitutional amendment being necessary to ban a particular drug, how can anyone find room in the Constitution as it is today to allow the government to ban illegal drugs?
Tis a wonder that self described conservatives can advocate a "Power to Prohibit", but they sure do. -- Some here even go so far as to say that States [like CA] have a power to prohibit arms.. -- Figure that.
Which, by the way, is why Gonzales v. Raich cost Justice Scalia my respect. We have one and only one Justice who respects the Constitution, and his name is Clarence Thomas.
I agree. Thomas gets better with every decision, and Scalia seems to get worse. It's sad.