Marijuana & the Constitution?

[quietfan 233]

Just something that crossed my mind the other day and I thought it might be interesting to discuss (from a legal/Constitutional standpoint, not to re-fight the legalized marijuana debate):

Why was it necessary to amend the Constitution (18th amendment) in order to ban alcohol manufacture/sale/transportation, but Congress/the Executive can ban other substances without Constitutional revision? I.e., what's the constitutional difference between alcohol vs other drugs?

(I'd be particularly interest to hear from the barristers among our AU family who have studied constitutional or drug enforcement law.)

[cptau 169]

Just something that crossed my mind the other day and I thought it might be interesting to discuss (from a legal/Constitutional standpoint, not to re-fight the legalized marijuana debate):

Why was it necessary to amend the Constitution (18th amendment) in order to ban alcohol manufacture/sale/transportation, but Congress/the Executive can ban other substances without Constitutional revision? I.e., what's the constitutional difference between alcohol vs other drugs?

(I'd be particularly interest to hear from the barristers among our AU family who have studied constitutional or drug enforcement law.)

None really. The difference was in the politics and public concern that drove the banning.

Prohibition was a major issue with women seeking the right to vote. The 18th amendment passed in 1919, women obtained the right to vote nationally in the 1920 elections.

Several states had prohibition already, but crossing state lines to wet states made it difficult to enforce.

The thinking back then was that an amendment would never be reversed (they were wrong) as laws are often overturned by Congress or the courts.

Wilson had actually banned the use of grain to produce alcohol during WWI and then removed the ban.

Even with an amendment, Congress had to pass the Volstead Act in 1919 to setup the enforcement mechanisms.

Prohibition failed and more crime was created due to bootlegging and organized crime.

During FDR's administration in the 1930s several SCOTUS rulings allowed the Commerce Clause to be used by Congress to regulate almost anything. Had prohibition been enacted then, it would have been just a federal statue, no amendment required. The federal government thus became all powerful with its ability to directly tax businesses and individuals and regulate commerce.

Narcotics and Opiates were not the problem that alcohol was. The federal government felt comfortable banning opiates and cocaine in 1914 with a federal law. They banned imports in the 1920s, but the federal government has clear control over customs.

In the 1930s with FDR's administration and new Commerce Clause rulings is when many new drug laws passed Congress.

[quietfan 233]

Just something that crossed my mind the other day and I thought it might be interesting to discuss (from a legal/Constitutional standpoint, not to re-fight the legalized marijuana debate):

Why was it necessary to amend the Constitution (18th amendment) in order to ban alcohol manufacture/sale/transportation, but Congress/the Executive can ban other substances without Constitutional revision? I.e., what's the constitutional difference between alcohol vs other drugs?

(I'd be particularly interest to hear from the barristers among our AU family who have studied constitutional or drug enforcement law.)

None really. The difference was in the politics and public concern that drove the banning.

Prohibition was a major issue with women seeking the right to vote. The 18th amendment passed in 1919, women obtained the right to vote nationally in the 1920 elections.

Several states had prohibition already, but crossing state lines to wet states made it difficult to enforce.

The thinking back then was that an amendment would never be reversed (they were wrong) as laws are often overturned by Congress or the courts.

Wilson had actually banned the use of grain to produce alcohol during WWI and then removed the ban.

Even with an amendment, Congress had to pass the Volstead Act in 1919 to setup the enforcement mechanisms.

Prohibition failed and more crime was created due to bootlegging and organized crime.

During FDR's administration in the 1930s several SCOTUS rulings allowed the Commerce Clause to be used by Congress to regulate almost anything. Had prohibition been enacted then, it would have been just a federal statue, no amendment required. The federal government thus became all powerful with its ability to directly tax businesses and individuals and regulate commerce.

Narcotics and Opiates were not the problem that alcohol was. The federal government felt comfortable banning opiates and cocaine in 1914 with a federal law. They banned imports in the 1920s, but the federal government has clear control over customs.

In the 1930s with FDR's administration and new Commerce Clause rulings is when many new drug laws passed Congress.

Thanks, cptau. Appreciate the lesson!

I sort of suspected it was mostly just an artifact of the times, when the Commerce Clause was not interpreted so expansively.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Little known fact... the US Constitution actually is penned ON Hemp paper.

Yep.

It's true.