Why Did Prohibition Require a Constitutional Amendment?

[Wolfie]

I also recommend this online book:

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do

Its an entertaining read, with lots of historical tidbits thrown in.

[E Rocc]

The first marijuana law was passed in 1937. Interestingly, the Gov't still respected the Cosntitution enough to ban it in the form of a tax law (thus, it was known as the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act). Harry J. Ainslinger and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics boys were really in a quandary over how to get this accomplished without raising the dreaded "P" word (Prohibition, which, when repealed, coincidentally put ol' Harry out of a job), but were ecstatic to find precedence for passing a law requiring a Tax Stamp for an item, and then refusing to issue the Stamps, thereby de facto outlawing said item. The model which they were so happy to discover was the Machine Gun Tax Stamp from a few years earlier.

Both of these laws were, as mentioned, passed to give the Prohibition bureaucracy something to do. "Unintended Consequences" has an excellent review of the (non)constitutionality of the 1934 Gun Control Act.

-Eric

[sawsalimb]

And an R.I.P for the author of it.

[AdA$tra]

The thing is you needed the marijuana in hand to get the stamps thus you were already breaking the law.

Hence my original supposition that we started down that slippery slope around the WW II era.

[fporretto]

This question is not as easy as one might suppose. 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.

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.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[Conservative til I die]

This almost sounds like you're setting up the drug warriors here. But I like this approach. The burden is on them to show why one needed a Constitutional amendment and not the other.

[Conservative til I die]

No. Prohibition had nothing to do with drugs. Drugs had been banned piecemeal by various Congressional acts.

[Conservative til I die]

Wolfie, a question. Wouldn't posession and intake of alcohol in all practice be illegal, since you couldn't buy, sell, make or transport it? Was this the FedGov being coy and saying "We're not really taking away your freedom."

Unless you are talking about religious exemption for the Catholic Eucharist.

[weikel]

Not actually it was around the WWI era the communist Woodrow Wilson layed the groundwork for big government with the income tax and the fed.

[Conservative til I die]

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

[Conservative til I die]

Quotation marks go outside the period!!

[Conservative til I die]

Reagan reduced the tax code to two brackets and brought the highest one down from 70% to 28%. What the heck are you talking about? Are you talking about when he was governor of California?

[justlurking]

The model which they were so happy to discover was the Machine Gun Tax Stamp from a few years earlier.

Actually, the prototype for the National Firearms Act in 1934 (for a variety of firearms and firearm accessories) was the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914.

If you read the Congressional record of committee hearings on NFA '34, you will find exactly this: the Attorney General assuring that it would be constitutional because the Harrison Narcotic Act had already survived scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

[Conservative til I die]

Weren't a lot of the Congressional debates about Marijuana and opiates laced with racism and xenophobia? I seem to recall reading posts talking about how Congressmen used scare tactics of dirty Mexican men high on the demon weed raping white wimmen. And Chinamen doing opium, probably raping white wimmen too.

[weikel]

Well Texasforever in an arguement said he passed a tax increase which he called a "revenue enhancement".

[stinkypew]

Related question: From where do the feds derive power to prohibit church/state entanglement? The First Amendment says that "Congress" shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. It says nothing about the states. And it is well known that Mass. had an established religion (congregationalism, I think) well into the 19th century.

The answer is not that the 14th Amendment grafted the federal bill of rights onto the states, because that would simply mean that the states were protected from "Congress" making any law respecting religion - a right they already had. It may have something to do with the privileges and immunities clause, but I don't know.

A clear answer or cite to a case would be greatly appreciated.

[weikel]

Yep

[decimon]

That probably has to do with the "Commerce" thing. There is no Constitutional basis for the Fed to control behavior.

[AdA$tra]

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

I prefer marijuana laced with opiates!