Yes, as was the writing of the Constitution. You seem to have not bothered to study the history of either event. May be they could have enforced alcohol prohibition, through Congressional legisaltion, instead of a constitutional amendment.
:-/ It's tough to judge whether to laugh or cry. The question isn't "whether they could"...it's whether they SHOULD. The members of Congress, the President, and Supreme Court ALL take an oath of office to follow the Constitution.
So once again, why was the 18th amendment needed (or not needed) to follow the Constitution, but apparently NO amendment was needed for drugs (according to you)? I'd call that a wild attempt to condemn anyone, who may disagree with your opinion, about the subject of marijuana and its proper medical uses. You may be an expert on smoking marijauna, but I'll leave the medical community to handle issues specifically related to medical marijuana.
No, it's called the attempt to call evil as it is. NO ONE has the legitimate authority to tell any sick person what he or she may put in their body, in an attempt to get well (or simply relieve pain). Not you. Not any legislature. Not any doctor. It's one thing to counsel that a particular drug or method of use is inappropriate, or even dangerous. But it's evil to force an adult patient to endure pain and suffering, by denying any medication.
I understand the history of both alcohol prohibition and what transpired during the debate over the US Constitution. I happen to consider the period of alcohol prohibition, to be irrelevent in todays world. Its obvious you agree with the constitutional amendment process that was followed for alcohol prohibition. It's also quite obvious, you believe the same process, should have been followed with todays drug prohibition. You want me to agree with you on both issues. I won't and that gets you angry. Too bad!
We have two different viewpoints and come from differing political backgrounds. Your's is mired in reactionary absolutism, while my is more open to traditional values like pragmatism, compromise and negotiation. Truth is, in the real world, my political strategy is far superior to yours. Your political strategy has been proven, not to work.
And this idea, that you're capable of defining what is evil and what isn't, when it comes to civilized society, is a total joke. I'm not an evil person and consider your personal insults uncalled for. I also don't consider doctors and legislators, who are simply doing their jobs, to be evil people either. Your continued use of this term, for people who disagree with you, is misplaced and unwarranted.
I can understand and appreciate passionate debate on political issues. I can even accept some exchanges, getting very heated. But I can't accept and won't stand for personal insults. So cut the crap already!