[Roscoe]

The power of the state to enact the prohibition law consistently with the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the exclusive power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states:

"That government can, consistently with the due process clause, forbid the manufacture and sale of liquor and regulate its traffic, is not open to controversy; and that there goes along with this power full police authority to make it effective, is also not open. Whether the general authority includes the right to forbid individual use, we need not consider, since clearly there would be power, as an incident to the right to forbid manufacture and sale, to restrict the means by which intoxicants for personal use could be obtained, even if such use was permitted. This being true, there can be no doubt that the West Virginia prohibition law did not offend against the due process clause of the 14th Amendment." -- JAMES CLARK DISTILLING CO. v. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO. , 242 U.S. 311 (1917)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=242&invol=311

[WyldKard]

"That government can, consistently with the due process clause, forbid the manufacture and sale of liquor and regulate its traffic, is not open to controversy; and that there goes along with this power full police authority to make it effective, is also not open. Whether the general authority includes the right to forbid individual use, we need not consider, since clearly there would be power, as an incident to the right to forbid manufacture and sale, to restrict the means by which intoxicants for personal use could be obtained, even if such use was permitted. This being true, there can be no doubt that the West Virginia prohibition law did not offend against the due process clause of the 14th Amendment." -- JAMES CLARK DISTILLING CO. v. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO. , 242 U.S. 311 (1917)

They were talking about a STATE Prohibiting a substance. OF COURSE States have every right to prohibit a substance, as per the 10th Amendment. This does not prove any argument about the FEDGOV having the Constitutal authority to usurp state sovreignty and force all of them to be "dry". You need a Constitutional amendment to do this, which is why one was required inorder to enact Prohibition. If your Socialist reading of the Constitution was correct, the Amendment would never have been needed...

First, try actually reading the material you use to defend your points with...

[tpaine]

From that same decision, quoting the state law in question:

"There was no express prohibition against the individual right to use intoxicants and none implied"

Contrast it with the portion you posted:

"Whether the general authority includes the right to forbid individual use, we need not consider, since clearly there would be power, as an incident to the right to forbid manufacture and sale, to restrict the means by which intoxicants for personal use could be obtained, even if such use was permitted."

Obviously, Justice White was bound on glossing over the 'right to forbid individual use' issue.
-- "Clearly there would be power" is a VERY arguable point.
-- I say he was begging the constitutional individual rights question in order to justify making governmental regulatory powers become prohibitive unconstitutional law.