When will pot become a mainstream political issue?

[Razgovory]

Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.

This may have actually been better placed in the thread on Obamacare and the Supreme Court, but I find it very interesting that in 1919 we didn't think Congress had the power to ban alcohol without a Constitutional amendment, less than 20 years later we repealed that amendment (so, in theory Congress no longer had the power to ban alcohol, right?), and then Congress started criminalizing other recreational drugs.  Yet, oddly, I don't recall ever hearing an advocate for decriminalization of pot (or other harder drugs) argue for a strict interpretation of the commerce clause.

Interesting. I've never thought of it that way before. 

I've actually been thinking about this for some time.  It seems obvious to me that if before the 18th Amendment, the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal Government the power to outlaw alcohol, then it didn't have the power to outlaw other drugs, either.  Of course, the conception of what the Commerce Clause did allow underwent a profound change during the 1930s, but I've become increasingly convinced that the courts have allowed the Federal government to take to much power through virtually unchecked use of the Commerce Clause (combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause).  At this point, I think that many Federal drug laws are simply unconstitutional, especially those that criminalize mere possession (hint to Fireblade--if you get caught by the Feds, don't try this argument in court, especially if the individual mandate is upheld).  Note that state drug laws are a different matter, since states have general police powers that the Federal government isn't supposed to have.

Why does it seem obvious to you?  The US criminalized certain drugs years before prohibition.

[dps]

Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.

This may have actually been better placed in the thread on Obamacare and the Supreme Court, but I find it very interesting that in 1919 we didn't think Congress had the power to ban alcohol without a Constitutional amendment, less than 20 years later we repealed that amendment (so, in theory Congress no longer had the power to ban alcohol, right?), and then Congress started criminalizing other recreational drugs.  Yet, oddly, I don't recall ever hearing an advocate for decriminalization of pot (or other harder drugs) argue for a strict interpretation of the commerce clause.

Interesting. I've never thought of it that way before. 

I've actually been thinking about this for some time.  It seems obvious to me that if before the 18th Amendment, the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal Government the power to outlaw alcohol, then it didn't have the power to outlaw other drugs, either.  Of course, the conception of what the Commerce Clause did allow underwent a profound change during the 1930s, but I've become increasingly convinced that the courts have allowed the Federal government to take to much power through virtually unchecked use of the Commerce Clause (combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause).  At this point, I think that many Federal drug laws are simply unconstitutional, especially those that criminalize mere possession (hint to Fireblade--if you get caught by the Feds, don't try this argument in court, especially if the individual mandate is upheld).  Note that state drug laws are a different matter, since states have general police powers that the Federal government isn't supposed to have.

Why does it seem obvious to you?  The US criminalized certain drugs years before prohibition.

Individual states did (and in some cases, individual cities) but AFAIK the Federal government didn't outright ban any drugs before prohibition.  Certain drugs were heavily regulated but none were out-and-out illegal.

And if Congress had the power to outlaw certain drugs, why did they need a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?

[Razgovory]

I don't know why they opted for a constitutional amendment, but the US had effectively banned the recreational use of heroin and opium before alcohol prohibition.

[Josquius]

You probably got all Rodney King on people who fed their cats generic cat food too. 

I was rather...strong-armed with animal abusers.  Catching my first Little Dazzling Urbanite shits setting a cat on fire, the name plate came off.   

We need more bobbies like you


But boo to the picking on people with weed. Stoners do tend to rather suck but more people than stoners do weed, even as a regular thing.

[Neil]

I don't know why they opted for a constitutional amendment, but the US had effectively banned the recreational use of heroin and opium before alcohol prohibition.

They thought that people would respect the Constitution.

[CountDeMoney]

But boo to the picking on people with weed. Stoners do tend to rather suck but more people than stoners do weed, even as a regular thing.

Doesn't matter. 

"I judge marijuana by the company it keeps."
--Joe Friday, Det. Sgt., LAPD

[The Minsky Moment]

It seems obvious to me that if before the 18th Amendment, the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal Government the power to outlaw alcohol, then it didn't have the power to outlaw other drugs, either.  Of course, the conception of what the Commerce Clause did allow underwent a profound change during the 1930s . . .

In 1919, certainly the Commerce Power would not be considered sufficient basis to outlaw the production of alchohol for purely local consumption.  By the time Wickard v. Fillburn was decided around 1942, that had changed, but by then Prohibition was gone.

[MadImmortalMan]

It seems obvious to me that if before the 18th Amendment, the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal Government the power to outlaw alcohol, then it didn't have the power to outlaw other drugs, either.  Of course, the conception of what the Commerce Clause did allow underwent a profound change during the 1930s . . .

In 1919, certainly the Commerce Power would not be considered sufficient basis to outlaw the production of alchohol for purely local consumption.  By the time Wickard v. Fillburn was decided around 1942, that had changed, but by then Prohibition was gone.

Honestly, we're just fumbling around in the dark at this point. Nobody gets the amendments they need anymore. We just get the court to decide the powers were somehow already there and call it good. I see no reason why we can't just make an amendment for each of the ambiguous things now and pass them. Just in case Ron Paul get elected.

[CountDeMoney]

Nobody gets the amendments they need anymore.

Like the ones about heterosexual marriage, flag burning, and abortion?  Be glad they don't.

[Ed Anger]

But boo to the picking on people with weed. Stoners do tend to rather suck but more people than stoners do weed, even as a regular thing.

Doesn't matter. 

"I judge marijuana by the company it keeps."
--Joe Friday, Det. Sgt., LAPD

I'm shocked Josq is sticking with his fellow drunkards and stoners.