I didn't switch anything; I was hoping it wouldn't be necessary to explain it. I'm not concerned about local regulation; I prefer it.
"Local" prohibitions are done under the police power of the state. The police power can be activated by anything that presents a danger to the public health, welfare and safety. The polpow is extensive and unlimited, but the danger must be specified and demonstratable, must be constitutional, and the remedy being possible and effective. Read the Slaughterhouse cases for more.
Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow. In the case of alcohol, some states left it up to counties. I would be more than happy to see regulation of vegetation and it products where it belongs, in the STATES.
The police power is not constitutional. You probably won't find the phrase "police power" in the text of the constitutions, I haven't seen it in the several I've read through. I didn't read them word for word.
The police power is common law. Without it the state couldn't keep order at all, so couldn't exist. The existence of a state implies police powers.
The federal government has none of this, or at least is not supposed to. Every power the fed has is in the constitution because the fed originated as a construct for the states where people actually lived. People do not live in the United States unles they're living in a federal district. They live in a state.
States can't be made to enforce a federal law. The sheriff of a county can summarily eject federal officers (offfice of sheriff is second in executive power for a state). The states can't be made to do a great many things. That's why the feds came up with a redistribution of money back to the states, with strings attached.
The Anti-Saloon League sought a Constitutional Amendment because they felt it would be more difficult to repeal than legislation.
The fed's ghost of a police power has had only the authority given to it by the media. And the people they influence. That's why 1-8-3 is successful now, but wouldn't have been successful in 1919. Notice it is the only one that could be stretched with any rational excuse, but the act of choosing a 1-8 power to use shows by that very fact it was to be used for a purpose not to just to regulate commerce.
In that sense, any clause could be hijacked to authorize anything Congress wants to do, thereby producing an "alternative" to an amendment.
So, no, only an amendment could be used. Until the system had time to turn out dumb citizens.
The "Anti-Saloon League and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union" would have only considered it because they were morons, as was duly proved when by trying to prohibit an item with a large natural market.
1.Absolutely. Limitations. Not eradication.
2. I'm not concerned about local regulation; I prefer it.
Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow.
No cites, naturally. Endless baseless assertions.
The Constitutional justifications are carefully laid out in the CSA. None of the drug legalization crowd on FR have ever managed to refute them.
This title may be cited as the 'Controlled Substances Act'.
§ 801. Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances.
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:
- (1) Many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
- (2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
- (3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because -
- (A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
- (B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
- (C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.
- (4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
- (5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
- (6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.