Why Did Prohibition Require a Constitutional Amendment?

[Maceman]

I have been wondering lately how come the US Government needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but did not need one to outlaw marijuana and other drugs.

Can any scholarly Freepers explain this to me? As always, your briliant insights, cogent reasoning, encyclopedic historical knowledge and smart-assed remarks wlil be eagerly appreciated.

[AdA$tra]

...Marijuana and opiates laced with racism and xenophobia...

I prefer marijuana laced with opiates!

< /i> works better than < i/>.

[justlurking]

The Harrison Narcotics Control Act, which criminalized most possession and sale of opiates and cocaine, was passed in 1918 -- the same year as the Eighteenth (Prohibition) Amendment.

No, the Harrison Narcotics Act preceded Prohibition by 4-5 years, in 1914.

I've slapped the histories around until I'm tired, and I can't find anywhere a rationale for the Constitutionality of the Harrison Act, without an equivalent of the Eighteenth Amendment.

The Harrison Act was ostensibly a revenue measure. It was law enforcement's narrow interpretation of a clause that turned it into a prohibition.

But, the constitutionality of the Harrison Act was based on the taxing authority of Congress. I wasn't able to quickly dig up the decision, but I believe that Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937) was decided on the same rationale:

"Here the annual tax of $200 is productive of some revenue. We are not free to speculate as to the motives which moved Congress to impose it, or as to the extent to which it may operate to restrict the activities taxed."

[Robert A Cook PE]

Don't know the specific "why" part of your question.....

BUT

What scares me is that it simply took a rammed-through constitutional amendment to REMOVE Prohibition from the list of Amendments...

Can anyone think of "why" the Second Amendment (or Tenth for that matter) might seem threatened by the PREVIOUS case of a Bill of Rights item being simply deleted by popular ("democratic") pressure under the influence and propaganda of the mass media?

[AdA$tra]

Woodrow Wilson layed the groundwork for big government with the income tax and the fed.

Good point!

[justlurking]

Weren't a lot of the Congressional debates about Marijuana and opiates laced with racism and xenophobia?

I'm not in a position to dig it up at the moment, but you are correct. Like early gun control laws, drug prohibition laws were targeted at specific racial and ethnic groups, while the white majority's mood-altering drug(s) of choice -- caffiene, ethyl alcohol, and nicotine -- remain legal.

[FreeTally]

Thanks for linking that. Some very good stuff there. Bookmarked.

[justlurking]

Can anyone think of "why" the Second Amendment (or Tenth for that matter) might seem threatened by the PREVIOUS case of a Bill of Rights item being simply deleted by popular ("democratic") pressure under the influence and propaganda of the mass media?

It's a possibility. For several congressional sessions, a congressman in PA introduced a bill to create an Amendment to do just that. It never got out of committee.

Frankly, I'd like to see them try. I think it would settle the issue for the forseeable future -- and not in the favor of the anti-gunners.

[FreeTally]

Can anyone think of "why" the Second Amendment (or Tenth for that matter) might seem threatened by the PREVIOUS case of a Bill of Rights item being simply deleted by popular ("democratic") pressure under the influence and propaganda of the mass media?

"Prohibition" was not in the Bill of Rights. It was a Constitutional Amendment. Only the first ten are the Bill of Rights, and they can not be changed via Constitutional Amendment.

[sawsalimb]

Somewhat off topic,but related-I've heard persistent stories over the years that a lot of law enforcement types started to carry .38 and .45 caliber pistols thanks to a pervasive belief that .32 caliber pistols wouldn't be able to stop an assailant that was under the influence of cocaine. Can't cite a source,so this has to be considered anecdotal.

[pepsionice]

The actual electoral part of this discussion...from the mid-1700s to the early 1900s...there was a fierce fight from women and New England conservitives (former Puritans) who felt alcoholism was becoming a natinal problem. In a sense, it was...on election day, free alcohol was standard for almost 90 percent of America. By the 1890s, women began to realize that their having the vote meant that they could kill of alcohol and make it illegal to drink it. So when Wilson came around and helped to give women the right to vote....it simply took 10 years for women to mount a national agenda and make alcohol a illegal drink. Nobody in 1918 would have dared think that such a thing could happen. Five years into this national amendment...the whole thing became a joke. You could buy alcohol anywhere...day or night....and the cops did not enforce the law. Congress began to realize the tax implications...that everyone was drinking it but no taxes were occurring. So it became a item for discussion. Revoke the amendment, and then tax alcohol. Precisely what occurred...was never really talked about. Most newspapers didn't talk about it after about four weeks. It was nothing worth national debate. Women simply gave up on the problem....until the 1980s...when MADD became a reality and states started to make their age limits rise. This act was more successful than anyone could have every gotten out of the amendment.

[pepsionice]

The actual electoral part of this discussion...from the mid-1700s to the early 1900s...there was a fierce fight from women and New England conservitives (former Puritans) who felt alcoholism was becoming a natinal problem. In a sense, it was...on election day, free alcohol was standard for almost 90 percent of America. By the 1890s, women began to realize that their having the vote meant that they could kill of alcohol and make it illegal to drink it. So when Wilson came around and helped to give women the right to vote....it simply took 10 years for women to mount a national agenda and make alcohol a illegal drink. Nobody in 1918 would have dared think that such a thing could happen. Five years into this national amendment...the whole thing became a joke. You could buy alcohol anywhere...day or night....and the cops did not enforce the law. Congress began to realize the tax implications...that everyone was drinking it but no taxes were occurring. So it became a item for discussion. Revoke the amendment, and then tax alcohol. Precisely what occurred...was never really talked about. Most newspapers didn't talk about it after about four weeks. It was nothing worth national debate. Women simply gave up on the problem....until the 1980s...when MADD became a reality and states started to make their age limits rise. This act was more successful than anyone could have every gotten out of the amendment.

[weikel]

The 19th amendment was a horrible mistake as was all extension of the franchise beyond upper class men of property.

[carenot]

I correct posts on FR because it makes me feel smart. If I don't see enough factual errors, I just correct spelling and grammar :P

Wow!

Y'all shore would have to work overtime ifn y'all follered me around!

[inquest]

I'd agree with what you say about the 19th amendment, but not so much about the extension of suffrage to all classes. The working class, in many ways, tends to be more conservative than the landed class. The biggest mistake of all, of course, was the 17th amendment (which I doubt you need convincing of). Every society needs a stable, independent "Council of Elders" of some sort, that exists apart from the rest.

[steve50]

Similar story in one of the schaffer articles. The blacks on "coke" would take 4 or 5 rounds in the chest rather than go willingly to the KKK parties.

[Robert A Cook PE]

""Prohibition" was not in the Bill of Rights. It was a Constitutional Amendment. Only the first ten are the Bill of Rights, and they can not be changed via Constitutional Amendment.

Granted: the 19th, and the Amendment that revoked it, were not in the original ten AMENDMENTS.

But the Bill of Rights are "merely" (slight exaggeration there!) Amendments to the Constitution itself. We have previous Amendments that radically change Constitutional procedures: as significant as the change to require direct voting of the Senators!

So, where are the words that actually prohibit removing the 2nd Amendment... and how do you justify prohibiting an new "Amendment" that either removes those words prohibiting removal of the 2nd, or simnply changes the 2nd to allow "only the government" to have guns "for the protection of the people."? You KNOW the mass media could get 1/2 the population to suport that... given enough time and pressure on the "kids" in public schools.

Example: Wouldn't this amendment have passed by popular demand IF the terrorists on 9/11 had USED even ONE gun in their hijackings?

[weikel]

The upper class may have a reputation for being liberal but believe me its not true( unless your a Kevin Curry type who would call them "moral liberals" they do tend to be pretty hedonistic). The people who run the media are liberal but they ain't representive of the upper class.

[FreeTally]

So, where are the words that actually prohibit removing the 2nd Amendment... and how do you justify prohibiting an new "Amendment" that either removes those words prohibiting removal of the 2nd, or simnply changes the 2nd to allow "only the government" to have guns "for the protection of the people."? You KNOW the mass media could get 1/2 the population to suport that... given enough time and pressure on the "kids" in public schools.

Actually, I have been in this discussion before. There are many who believe as I. I ask you, to show me where any founder indicated that the BoR could be altered. The Constitution amended, yes, but an alteration of the BoR would be an act of war. Why make it if it could be changed a few years later?

The BoR is set in stone. It can not be changed. the notion that it could be is contrary to the entire spirit of the Constitution.

[steve50]

So what you're saying is that our government was and still is corrupt, bullying, thoughtless, and power hungry

With the Patriot Act in place I'm not sure I would say that, I wouldn't argue with it tho. :-)