Replies

I'm well aware of the collateral effects from alcohol prohibition. That wasn't the point. My point was, prohibition reduced the overall consumption of alcohol.

And in any case, the War on Some Drugs is NOT like alcohol Prohibition...because no Constitutional amendment has been passed to prohibit any drugs, like was done for alcohol. So the War on Some Drugs is completely in violation of The Law.

Your minority opinion is noted, for the record.

Now onto the facts.

America's current national drug control policy, is part of the National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 and is based on the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. There is nothing unconstitutional about this policy. Link here to the CSA of 1970 and link here to the USSC decision. Tobey v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) that supports the CSA of 1970.

The basic constitutionality of the act is not addressed because it is not even arguable. Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause. The ONLY issue was one of delegation, can Congress delegate it's legislative authority to an executive-branch agency. Again, under fairly settled law, Congress can so long as it limits the discretion of the agency and provides the overall structure/guidance to the agency in the grant of delegation, and so long as the agency follows established principles of administrative law (due process, review and comment, etc).

Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause.

Complete BS. Why do you think the government didn't regulate alcohol under the Commerce Clause, but instead passed a Constitutional amendment. (The answer is obvious: they FOLLOWED The Law for alcohol, and BROKE it for other drugs.)

The Controlled Substances Act is NOT Constitutional! Anybody who can actually read the Constitution (and the supporting material of those who wrote the Constitution) should be able to see that. Or else they need a remedial reading course.

"The basic constitutionality of the law is not addressed because it is not even arguable."

So! You are part of the Dark Side!

Now I understand why you won't answer any of my questions.

I hope they pay you enough to compensate for the loss of your eternal soul.

I'm well aware of the collateral effects from alcohol prohibition. That wasn't the point. My point was, prohibition reduced the overall consumption of alcohol.

Your point is noted. And I agree. I've seen data that show reduced alcohol consumption during Prohibition, too. But that's a silly reason to call Prohibition a "success"...unless reduced usage is the SOLE factor in your definition of "success."