Why wasn't an Amendment required to prohibit the sale/possession/use of cannabis, and

[Occulus]

why WAS an Amendment required to do the same (effectively) for alcohol?

If the answer relates to the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act, how does the capability extend to other drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines?

I've never understood this. The Constitution required an Amendment to ban the sale and production of alcoholic beverages; why doesn't it require a separate Amendment in order to ban the production, sale, and/or use (and especially use) of each or any other substance?

Would anyone care to try to sort it out for me and the rest of us? This has always confused me, and by my reading of the Constitution, does not make sense at all.

[NightWatcher]

1. a roundabout prohibition? you can legally buy, sell, grow pot you just have to have the stamp

The same way you can send mail through the postal service, you just have to have the stamp to validate the transaction/possession.

Oh wait they're not issuing tax stamps for pot, so if you have some pot without the stamp, you're in trouble.

Just my best guess, but I've seen where people have applied for the stamp before (but did not get)

[Occulus]

3. Fair enough. What are the requirements for obtaining a Marihuana Tax Stamp?

As an aside, I just love how they use an 'h' instead of a 'j'. Says it all, doesn't it?

Given Prohibition (and its repeal), how is the Marihuana Tax Act (or whatever it's called) remotely Constitutional?

[Fumesucker]

2. The commerce clause of the Constitution is what is used to prohibit cannabis..

Apparently you having a common weed growing in your yard has an effect on interstate commerce.

[Occulus]

4. I just did some Googling on that particular interpretation

The US Government has to tie the law into a pretzel to make it come out in their favor on this subject.

Unbelievable.

[Statistical]

10. It goes far beyond just marijuana too.

The SCOTUS via a series of horrible decisions has essentially gutted the vast majority of Constitutional protections via the Commerce Clause.

Basically anything you do *can* have an impact on interstate commerce thus the govt can regulate it. You growing tomatoes in your backyard can affect the interstate price of tomatoes thus a law banning backyard gardens would be Constitutional (under SCOTUS current interperation).

The sad thing is some on DU don't think this goes far enough. The "logic" with mandate (HCR) is that NOT DOING SOMETHING affects interstate commerce and thus can be regulated.

So if the lawsuit against mandates fail we will have the situation that.

Anything you do, or don't do affects interstate commerce and thus can be regulated. In essence the govt can do anything via this giant hole called the Commerce Clause and the Constitution is merely this quaint old piece of paper.

Of course those cheering for mandates don't realize the huge implications this will have way beyond HCR. Take for example if Microsoft convinced (lobbied) the government that it is in the country best interest for force consumers to use Windows OS and be forced to upgrade to each version that would be Constitution.

Buying another OS affects interstate commerce - Check good w/ Commerce Clause.
Not buying any OS or not buying upgrades (inaction) - Check good w/ Commerce Clause.

The govt could force under any penalty that can be found to be reasonable (not cruel and unusual) you, me and every citizen to purchase windows OS and every single upgrade until the day we die.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Because Some Citizens Have More Constitional Rights Than Others

It's not supposed to work that way, but it does.

[pnwmom]

6. Maybe they used an Amendment to make sure it would apply

to ALL of the states. Otherwise, alcohol probably would have been regulated on a state by state basis.

I read something interesting about prohibition recently. Apparently the suffragettes were active in the movement to ban alcohol, because alcohol use was so high in that time period (quite a bit higher than now) and alcoholism was so devastating to so many families -- and the mothers had few options for supporting their families on their own. No wonder they pushed for the prohibition.

[NWHarkness]

7. An Amendment was not required for Prohibition

Many states and local jurisdictions already banned sale of alcoholic beverages. Passing an Amendment was a means of enforcing Prohibition into parts of the country where it was not a popular idea.

[Bucky]

8. It wasn't *required*. Using the Constitution for alcohol laws was an abuse of the Constitution

It was a bad idea, just like the prayer-in-school and flag burning amendments.

[Statistical]

9. Simple the constitution actually meant something at one time.

At the time of prohibition the Constitutional actually had meaning to all parties. The government, those who wanted to prohibit alcohol, and those who didn't.

By the time Marijuana came up for prohibition the sentiment had changed. Many people today consider the govt "right". Government wants to mandate you purchase private goods well if it "helps" healthcare let them do it. If the govt wants to ban guns well let them do it (think about the children). If the govt wants to decide who can get married and who can't well let them do it.

This is by both sides and an a host of issues (including marijuana). Political expediency at its finest. The commerce clause was the final death blow to the Constitution. The SCOTUS has interpreted the latitude of the Commerce Clause to be almost anything. Anything you do or don't do affects commerce thus the govt can regulate it. People on both sides are happy for this "short cut". Amendments are hard. Crafting laws that are still Constitutional is hard.

It is far easier to slam any Unconstitutional piece of shit through congress and then flash the get out of jail free card; the commerce clause.

The founding father would likely kill themselves (or start a second revolution) if they saw what we did to the gift they created.