100 years ago, prohibition went into effect

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by hirundo on Thursday January 02, 2020 @12:00PM (#21937088)

The fact that a constitutional amendment was needed to prohibit alcohol, but is no longer needed to prohibit a long list of substances, is evidence that our constitutional protections have been watered down. Such prohibition is a great stretch to fit within the enumerated powers and should be reserved to the states by the 9th and 10th amendments. The laboratories of democracy should be allowed to experiment with chemicals, within their borders, as their own legislatures see fit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by jack_h on Thursday January 02, 2020 @12:29PM (#21937459)

The expansive reading of the Commerce Clause has allowed drug prohibition. See Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by exegete on Thursday January 02, 2020 @12:41PM (#21937624)

Additionally the Federal government withholds grants if States don’t pass applicable laws (e.g., drinking age and highway funding).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by technothrasher on Thursday January 02, 2020 @12:45PM (#21937673)

Drug laws, gun laws, civil rights laws... a lot of federal regulation has been enacted under the commerce clause.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by rayiner on Thursday January 02, 2020 @12:55PM (#21937782)

Health care. Note that only some civil rights laws are rooted in the Commerce Clause. Others rest directly on the Fourteenth Amendment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by mstade on Thursday January 02, 2020 @12:19PM (#21937361)

I always thought the prohibition amendment was about enforcing a nationwide ban, but individual states could (and did, no?) prohibit the personal consumption of alcohol as they saw fit before then? Is this not the same with other substances, and that's why some states have now legalized weed whereas others have not, because there's no nationwide law against these substances?

As an outside observer with an interest (but no formal education!) I find U.S. state/federal laws really confusing, and I'm sure I have all of the above mixed up. Would love to hear you expand your comment with some examples of how the constitutional protections are different now compared to then, and as you say watered down.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by currymj on Thursday January 02, 2020 @12:41PM (#21937631)

The states can legalize marijuana, meaning that the state police and courts no longer prosecute it.

But currently the federal government can still come in and make arrests, although they typically choose not to enforce the law, because doing so would be politically unpopular. Plus it's not like there are FBI agents walking the beat trying to make low-level drug busts.

The most confusing is Washington D.C., a federal territory, which has been granted limited home rule. They voted in a referendum to legalize and regulate marijuana, but then were prohibited by Congress from spending any money to actually draft the necessary regulations. The result is that marijuana is illegal to buy or sell but legal to possess or use, except in many public parks which are technically part of the federal National Park system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by stcredzero on Thursday January 02, 2020 @01:09PM (#21937963)

I always thought the prohibition amendment was about enforcing a nationwide ban, but individual states could (and did, no?) prohibit the personal consumption of alcohol as they saw fit before then?

There are "dry counties" in the US today, so local jurisdictions can do this. (Note that most local jurisdictions become "dry" after 2am, anyhow.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by jrs95 on Thursday January 02, 2020 @12:26PM (#21937427)

States have changed their own laws on marijuana, but it is still a Schedule 1 drug according to the federal government and is still technically illegal as a result. It’s just not very heavily enforced. Still, the federal government claims to have the authority to ban these things when 100 years ago that was not the case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by Glyptodon on Thursday January 02, 2020 @12:36PM (#21937554)

My understanding is that it didn't require an amendment, but that those supporting prohibition wanted to make it very difficult to undo compared to typical laws and thought that by making it an amendment it'd be much harder for a popular revolt against prohibition to overturn it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by Koremat6666 on Thursday January 02, 2020 @02:56PM (#21939117)

It is always easy to take away people's rights. Federal government's strategy has been to isolate tiny groups and take away their rights with the support of the majority without realizing those laws will bite everyone's ass eventually. While most of us do not do drugs we all are less safe, have less rights because of the war on drugs that we have supported. We want our politicians to be "tough on crime" which only means harassing people who have been on wrong side of a complex legal system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:100 years ago, prohibition went into effect by jdkee on Thursday January 02, 2020 @02:01PM (#21938516)

Agree. Illinois just legalized marijuana as of January 1st.

[ Parent | on HN ]