# Prohibition & Drugs **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 15, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-drugs/161495 "2003-03-15T02:21:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mkurland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@mkurland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mkurland)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-drugs/161495/1 "2003-03-15T02:21:38Z")
This one has been bothering me for a while… The 18th Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol in the U.S. - which was such a spectacular success that the 21st Amendment came along 14 years later to repeal it. But last time I looked, there are no Constitutional Amendments to prohibit narcotics, marijuana, designer drugs, etc. Why did it require amending the Constitution in 1919 to ban liquor, when apparently Washington can now prohibit anything they want without one? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-drugs/161495/2 "2003-03-15T02:33:37Z")
Banning liquor required a Constitutional amendment because there was no federal jurisdiction for regulating the sale of liquor within states, and many state governments were unwilling to do it themselves. Simple drug crimes such as posession and trafficking of small amounts are almost always prosecuted in state jurisdictions, because every state has voluntarily outlawed narcotics. However, there have been some federal precedents in more recent decades that have vastly increased the scope of federal jurisdiction, usually based on the “interstate commerce” clause in the Constitution. Federal courts have found that “interstate commerce” can apply even in the most specious of circumstances, leading to increased federal action concerning drug trafficking. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-drugs/161495/3 "2003-03-15T02:35:34Z")
As I understand it, the Supreme Court can strike down a law, but not a Constitutional Ammendment. Knowing that not every state, county and town would go along with Prohibition, it was necessary to make an Ammendment to force compliance. Drugs are seen differently than alcohol. No state supports their use for recreational purposes, and so an Ammendment is not necessary to ban them. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-drugs/161495/4 "2003-03-15T02:37:08Z")
Whoops! \*\* friedo \*\* beat me to it (and said it better than I did, I might add). ---
**Author:** ![mkurland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@mkurland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mkurland)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-drugs/161495/5 "2003-03-15T04:03:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by friedo \* > \*\*However, there have been some federal precedents in more recent decades that have vastly increased the scope of federal jurisdiction, usually based on the “interstate commerce” clause in the Constitution. Federal courts have found that “interstate commerce” can apply even in the most specious of circumstances, leading to increased federal action concerning drug trafficking. \*\* So, in short, the courts had lately been finding the federal government to have jurisdiction which in the first half of the 20th Century it was generally understood that the Feds did not possess… through a ‘creative’ interpretation of its power to regulate interstate commerce. No matter how cynical one gets, you just can’t keep up. ---
**Author:** ![Southerner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Southerner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Southerner)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-drugs/161495/6 "2003-03-15T04:54:57Z")
Here is a chapter from a book written by Peter McWilliams that explains how our government circumvented the constitution to outlaw “some” drugs. [http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/303a.htm#illegal](http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/303a.htm#illegal) ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-drugs/161495/7 "2003-03-15T07:18:32Z")
**Southerner** : That’s a great book. Everyone ought to [own a copy](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0931580587/103-3409438-5116667). > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Lissa_ > **Drugs are seen differently than alcohol. No state supports their use for recreational purposes, and so an Ammendment is not necessary to ban them.** A few states support their use for medical purposes (e.g. California), but the federal government insists the states don’t have the power to allow such use.