[JP1201]

Given what happened during Prohibition, that will NEVER happen. For one thing, it would require another Constituional amendment, and we know how hard it is to get another Amendment on the books....

********************************************************************************

Would it?

All it would take would be congress amending the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and it’s over.

THe CSA of 1970 exempted alcohol and tobacco from the definition of controlled substances... Tobacco and alcohol are exempted from drug scheduling, despite their detrimental impacts on individual health and society as a whole, due solely to economic reasons.

No constitutional amendment needed.

[sargon]

All it would take would be congress amending the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and it’s over.

THe CSA of 1970 exempted alcohol and tobacco from the definition of controlled substances... Tobacco and alcohol are exempted from drug scheduling, despite their detrimental impacts on individual health and society as a whole, due solely to economic reasons.

No constitutional amendment needed.

That's about the same as saying "no Constitution needed", if Rights can be redefined away by bureaucratic shenanigans...

[hanamizu]

For one thing, it would require another Constituional amendment,

---

Alas, it wouldn’t, not now. The 18th Amendment was passed at a time when the Constitution was believed to mean what it actually said. Powers not granted to the Federal government were reserved for the states. States could prohibit alcohol but the Federal government could not. Legal thinking has “evolved” quite a bit in the last century. Congress could outlaw (and apparently mandate—see ObamaCare) anything and it would pass Constitutional muster.