US Constitution Discussion, Part 29: Amendment XVIII

[Martin Blank]

Previous discussion part: US Constitution Discussion, Part 28: Amendment XVII

Articles and Sections are offset by bold text; and underlined text has been modified, superseded, or repealed by Amendments, and generally are no longer in effect.

Article XVIII.

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. [Repealed by Section 1 of Amendment XXI.]

Ratification completed January 16, 1919

[Martin Blank]

Little-known fact: It was legal to drink alcohol during this time, so long as the alcohol was made and bought before the amendment and associated legislation took effect. This is why wine cellars survived, while public bars did not.

Viewed by most as an unmitigated failure, Prohibition allowed the rise of the organized crime into a true force while attempting to legislate morality. While a number of counties in the US remain "dry" or prohibit sales on certain days, for the most part drinking alcohol has been accepted as a cultural past-time, whether it's sipping a bit of wine at dinner or downing a few at the local bar.

What we have now, though, is a prohibition on the consumption of most narcotics without medical oversight, and even that is blocked in some forms by the federal government while allowed by state laws (medical marijuana being the most common).

Should the federal government be involved in this business? Did any good come from the Prohibition Era?

[Dr. Tower]

I figured the whole owning alcohol was still legal due to ex post facto type argument, i.e. if you did it while it was still legal, you couldn't be tried for it once it was made illegal. However, on a quick search I didn't see where I would have gotten this idea that ex post facto was actually written into the Constitution.

I personally think that the states should make the laws concerning drugs. The use of drugs could easily be considered a right or priviledge, and so the governing thereof should fall to the states under the Ninth Amendment.

Did any good come from the Prohibition Era?

Well, they were the roaring 20s, which seemed to be an exciting time. Whether this was due to prohibition or not is another subject. But it was indeed the Prohibition Era .

[D-Mac]

I believe the federal governament should butt out of substance laws. According to the original concept of the USA, it should be a state matter. I acknowledge the Federal Gov't has had more power than the state governments since the civil war, and that the role of a federal governmant has been rising ever since.

When you have issues such as drugs, gay marriage, CHRISTMAS LIGHTS IN GEORGIA, gun rights, they are obviously state issues according to the constitution. However, One of the reasons the US is a major power is due to the strong Federal govenrment.

[Beware of the Leopard]

funny how the 20s were characterized by a lot of drinking...

I also always found it amusing that the US was able to drink again at Amendment 21... it was almost poetic. Thats how I remembered the two amendments in high school US Government. 18 you're an adult, but you can't quite drink yet... 21 woohoo!

[Romulus]

I was just randomly browsing the Constitution articles and suddenly was compelled to reply to this year-old thread.

Automobile racing technology made leaps and bounds during this era, because gangsters modified their cars to get away from police cars that were chasing them. I'm not too sure of the details as I'm not a car person, but it makes sense. However, if there was no Prohibition, car technology would have prospered anyway; it would have just got a late start in WWII. Now that I thing about it, I remember that most airplane motor companies were automobile companies that switched over, so the aviation industry might have had some help from Prohibition.

[TDINTBL]

Well my take on MB's prompt is, well that no one should be legislating strict utter morality. There should be social leniency within a range of not going way way outside of what is quote "socially acceptable." Basically, common sense and respect for others, and that goes both ways.

However, my take on the drug issues is, medical marijuana is acceptable, but others I'd think not. I've hung around enough druggies to know that the "hard core" drugs make people too dangerous in public or private. Where in alcohol, a lot must be consumed over a period of time to start becoming dangerous, time in which others can intervene, all it takes is a minute and a rail of crank to become... way violently spazed, no time for intervention. You never know what a person hopped up on some weird drug is going to do, thus it is too dangerous for legalization. Medical Marijuana, when prescribed and properly regulated, in the privacy of one's own home, provides no danger, because it does take quite a while even with blatant abuse of the drug to become a danger, once again time for intervention. In public situation, I'd once again say no on that, for the reason that it would send the wrong message to the general populous, especially young kids who aren't old enough to understand the concept of medical marijuana but are quite old enough to steal off with a joint.

That of course is my stance.

[The Coyote Kid]

I saw a discovery channel show that actually talked about moonshiners and their origins in prohibition. One of the most interesting things, in my opinion, was how you could make good moonshine, but that many of the people who ran distilliries in the backwoods were doing things improperly, or adding dangerous chemicals, which ended up killing a lot of people because the booze was bad. I think this was one of the reasons they eventually got rid of it.

Concerning drugs and the regulation thereof, I do feel that it should be the Federal government that handles that end of the scale. The reason being is that drugs, whether over the counter or off the street, affect people in very different ways based on their body chemistry and physiology. One state could perform tests on ten people with a drug and get totally differenct results from another state using another ten people and the same drug. When I think about whether or not a drug should be regulated, I don't consider the morality of the matter, but rather I consider "Is it in the best interest of the public good?"

And as Martin Blank pointed out, prohibiting alcohol outright (and also basing the prohibition on moral reasons) gave rise to organized crime. You've got the same result from banning drugs like marijuna, cocaine, etc. However, I don't feel that making these drugs legal is going to solve that problem. Things like ritalin (sp?) are legal, if only available through perscription. However, kids in schools will trade their medications for other things (sometimes other types of medications). People sell vicadin on the street (I've heard a pill goes for like ten or fifteen dollars a pop in some places). And we've all heard the jokes about getting viagra off the street...but it doesn't make it any less true. Therefore, the legalization of marijuna isn't going to take away the problem of organized crime selling it.

[bort]

[quote="The Coyote Kid";p="442383"]Therefore, the legalization of marijuna isn't going to take away the problem of organized crime selling it.[/quote]

oh, but it might. if selling marijuna is made legal, the demand wont increase much, but the supply will, as there will be little or no risk in selling it. this will drive the prices down, making it much less profitable. organizations that focused on selling marijuna will either have to re-focuse on more hardcore drugs(which have a much smaller demand and higher risk) or to fall apart. sure, this wouldnt get rid of all drug rings, but it would significantly reduce their size and numbers.

on the other hand, im not sure i approve of the legalization of marijuna because i dont think it would be for the public good.

also, if it is made legal, it might be heavily taxed, which would drive the price back up and give some incentive for illegal activity.

[Deacon]

[quote="bort";p="442567"]if selling marijuna is made legal, the demand wont increase much[/quote]
That, good sir, is a wild-eyed guess on your part, one I personally would believe to be somewhat incorrect.

[Nitz Walsh]

The US Prohibition era was great for the Canadian Brewers who supplied the smugglers.

[peter-griffin]

hay guys this thread is like a year old ; ) ) )) ))

[Nitz Walsh]

I didn't revive it, I just posted in it.

[D-Mac]

(Penny Arcade)

[bort]

[quote="Nitz Walsh";p="442906"]I didn't revive it, I just posted in it.[/quote]

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it