A Thought on Drug Prohibition

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-23 02:55am

It took a Constitutional Amendment to enable to national prohibition of alcohol. Why not the same for other controlled substances?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-23 03:00am

Why bother? The type of drugs that would be effected are already illegal and heavily punished when caught (I could violently carjack someone and get a lesser sentence than if I was caught with some pot), and people do it anyway. What would making it an official amendment do?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-23 03:01am

I'm asking why the government can get away with drug prohibition without writing it into the Constitution. Precedent holds that it should take no less than a Constitutional amendment to make drugs illegal on the federal level.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-23 03:07am

Oooh... I see. I misread your comment.

I think because they can get away with it. People like alcohol enough that even a constitutional amendment wasn't able to make this country dry, but but they can get away with outlawing most drugs without such a severe effort.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-23 03:11am

The gov't has been knee-deep in drug selling operations since the stuff went illegal. Maybe Teh Fedz feel safer if they don't work the illegality into the constitution.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-23 09:27am

Durran Korr wrote:I'm asking why the government can get away with drug prohibition without writing it into the Constitution. Precedent holds that it should take no less than a Constitutional amendment to make drugs illegal on the federal level.

Because half the population of men aren't off fighting wars so women can completely control the vote and pass yet another moronic prohibition amendment. Almost any significant opposition to an amendment will derail it. Aside from that, precedent on the constitutional level holds that prohibition of narcotics is a stupid idea. If they try getting an amendment passed, then more people will wake up and associate drug prohibition with alcohol prohibition, which will lead to, "Hey, we've tried this before, and it didn't work. Why are we doing it again?"

Also, a constitutional amendment wouldn't allow them to tack on insane asset forfeiture clauses because the very same document says that such things are illegal. The whole point of the drug war is to stay as far away from the Constitution as possible because the Constitution guarantees these weird things called rights, which the drug war is the antithesis of.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2003-06-23 11:53am

Durandal wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:I'm asking why the government can get away with drug prohibition without writing it into the Constitution. Precedent holds that it should take no less than a Constitutional amendment to make drugs illegal on the federal level.
Also, a constitutional amendment wouldn't allow them to tack on insane asset forfeiture clauses because the very same document says that such things are illegal. The whole point of the drug war is to stay as far away from the Constitution as possible because the Constitution guarantees these weird things called rights, which the drug war is the antithesis of.

The Federal gov gets the authority through its constitutional power to regulate trade. (Art I, section

. It's a catch all used in that if you're selling marijuana grown in your back yard to your next door neighbor, if anything (or a part its history) used in the production/sale/purchase/use of said weed is procured/made in another state/country, it falls under their jurisdiction. This is not saying that Federal drugs laws shouldn't be challenged (they're based on what I consider a loose interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause), but even without the federal laws, you'd still have to deal with the drug laws in all 50 states.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-23 12:45pm

they started the ban of drugs by requiring a permit to buy possess or use a drug, but they never gave out permits. eventually they just began scheduling drugs, making them restricted but not illegal so you need lots of permission to mess with them.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-06-23 02:38pm

kojikun wrote:they started the ban of drugs by requiring a permit to buy possess or use a drug, but they never gave out permits. eventually they just began scheduling drugs, making them restricted but not illegal so you need lots of permission to mess with them.

They don't even follow that anymore. Cocaine is stage 2? Marijuana is what, stage 1?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-23 07:49pm

Erowid.org wrote:Cocaine and Crack (freebase cocaine) are both DEA schedule II. This is defined federally as a drug which :

Has a high potential for abuse.
Has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Cannabis is federally illegal to grow, sell, buy or possess in the US. It is DEA schedule I in all forms (hash, hash oil, cannabis, thc) except synthetic THC (Marinol) which is schedule III. It was moved from schedule II to schedule III in July of 1999. Schedule 1 is federally defined as drugs which :

Have a high potential for abuse.
Have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
Have a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.

johnmarkley · Post by **johnmarkley** » 2003-06-24 05:07am

Marijuana was outlawed in 1932 or so, wasn't it?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-24 05:40am

johnmarkley wrote:Marijuana was outlawed in 1932 or so, wasn't it?

Thereabouts. It was also given that name back then to make it sound Mexican, under the logic that if it was considered Mexican, people would stay away from it. And that doesn't even touch on all the "reefer madness" talk that was thrown around.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-24 01:25pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
johnmarkley wrote:Marijuana was outlawed in 1932 or so, wasn't it?
Thereabouts. It was also given that name back then to make it sound Mexican, under the logic that if it was considered Mexican, people would stay away from it. And that doesn't even touch on all the "reefer madness" talk that was thrown around.

Yes, lets not forget how they used drug illegalisation as a means to round up minorities. Too many black people you dont like? Blame them for snortin' lines and smokin' crack and raping white women in a man RAGE! Lots of fuckin chinese bastards in california? Ban opium! Arrest them all! Too many cheap fucking Mexican workers during the depression? Ban pot and get rid of all those fuckers! Too many hippies saying dont go to Vietnam? Ban LSD too! Round them up on TWO drug charges at once: Pot AND Acid!

Drug laws exist not for public health or safety, otherwise alcohol would be gone. No, drug laws exist for TWO reasons: reason one is prejudice, reason two is FUD stemming from the early campaigns against drugs, the ones that said "Smoke a joint and you'll jump out of buildings" or "Do LSD and you'll jump OFF of buildings!" See? Drugs make you jump off buildings! (funny thing is, a friend of mine DID jump off a building but wasnt on pot nor acid but heroin and a shitload of downers:)).

Say it with me people, DRUGS AREN'T BAD.