# Why was a constitutional ammended needed to ban booze but not drugs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 14, 2000, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634 "2000-12-14T22:50:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/1 "2000-12-14T22:50:53Z")
Why was a constitutional ammended needed to ban booze but not drugs? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/2 "2000-12-14T23:12:06Z")
Because “drugs” aren’t illegal: there’s no single substance, like alcohol, called _drugs_ (I just took an aspirin, myself). _Specific_ drugs are illegal. ---
**Author:** ![cegan523](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/fbc32d/32.png) [@cegan523](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cegan523)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/3 "2000-12-14T23:32:28Z")
hmmm… good question. I’d really like to see if anyone knows the history and/or legal reasons behind this. If I were to WAG, I’m thinking that a constitutional ammmendment WASN’T NEEDED to outlaw alcohol, but there was some political reason to do so. Also, on a side note, wasn’t that ammendment the first and/or only ammendment that could be classified as revoking a freedom instead of guaranteeing one? ---
**Author:** ![Oblong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c0e974/32.png) [@Oblong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oblong)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/4 "2000-12-14T23:41:21Z")
I thought booze was a drug… ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/5 "2000-12-14T23:42:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cegan523 \* > \*\*hmmm… good question. I’d really like to see if anyone knows the history and/or legal reasons behind this. > > If I were to WAG, I’m thinking that a constitutional ammmendment WASN’T NEEDED to outlaw alcohol, but there was some political reason to do so. > > Also, on a side note, wasn’t that ammendment the first and/or only ammendment that could be classified as revoking a freedom instead of guaranteeing one? \*\* Not really. The amendment outlawing slavery revoked a person’s freedom to own slaves. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/6 "2000-12-14T23:42:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cegan523 \* > \*\*…Also, on a side note, wasn’t that ammendment the first and/or only ammendment that could be classified as revoking a freedom instead of guaranteeing one? \*\* I feel too lazy to look right now, but what amendment took away the freedom to own slaves? That question’s just to make a point – it’s all a matter of perspective. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/7 "2000-12-14T23:44:00Z")
Wow! I must have beaten **Balthisar** to that by only a few seconds!! Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/8 "2000-12-14T23:46:31Z")
oh. my. god. The _freedom_ to own slaves? I’m going to assume that the TWO above posts are weak attempts at sick humor, and not examples of the dregs of humanity that find their way to SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/9 "2000-12-14T23:56:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lissener \* > \*\*oh. my. god. > > The _freedom_ to own slaves? > > I’m going to assume that the TWO above posts are weak attempts at sick humor, and not examples of the dregs of humanity that find their way to SDMB. \*\* No. I’m not sick humor and I’m not a dreg of humanity. But there was, in portions of the United States, a legal right to own slaves. That right was taken away by a constitutional ammendment. What’s so hard to understand about that? Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/10 "2000-12-14T23:58:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lissener \* > \*\* > examples of the dregs of humanity that find their way to SDMB. \*\* If you have something to say about me personally, please take it to the Pit. This is not the forum for it. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2000, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/11 "2000-12-14T23:59:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lissener \* > \*\*oh. my. god. > > The _freedom_ to own slaves? > > I’m going to assume that the TWO above posts are weak attempts at sick humor, and not examples of the dregs of humanity that find their way to SDMB. \*\* Hey, if you truly read my post, then you know I said it _just to make a point_! Zev, dang you!! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/12 "2000-12-15T00:09:37Z")
At the time the 18th Amendment was adopted, not every state wanted to ban alcoholic beverages. The proponents of prohibition felt that an amendment to the Constitution would be the best way to ensure this. Also, if you check the 21st Amendment, it is still legal for a state to ban the sale of alcohol within its borders. The 18th Amendment gave Congress the right to implement to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages in the ENTIRE United States. Most laws against the sale of drugs are state laws. There are Federal laws as well of course. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/13 "2000-12-15T00:09:47Z")
The answer is that a constitutional amendment was not required, and in fact, it was totally inapropriate. But there was a huge prohibition movement, especially among women who had recently gained the right to vote, and it was an amendement-happy time. The right to own slaves was revoked by Amendment XIII: > [@](#): > > Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/14 "2000-12-15T00:11:54Z")
Here ya go… > [@](#): > > An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a > statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to > pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and > backsliding. So a Constitutional amendment wasn’t **needed** to ban alcohol. They just wanted one. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/15 "2000-12-15T00:11:56Z")
. . . speechless, horrified several minutes before I can respond . . . In the first place, [ul]Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/ul] Where is the language by where a right is taken away? In the second place, do laws against murder take away a “right”? No, because murder is not a “right.” [sputter] _How is slave ownership a “right”?_ [/sputter] ---
**Author:** ![Gregor\_Samsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a6a055/32.png) [@Gregor\_Samsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gregor_Samsa)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/16 "2000-12-15T00:13:24Z")
One theory: "In his study of alcohol prohibition, Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement,3 Joseph Gusfield examines the components of criminal law and separates them into “instrumental” and “symbolic” aspects. Applied to antidrug laws, the “instrumental” aspect is what the law states as its intention-i.e., the prevention of the use and availability of certain drugs. The “symbolic” aspect may have an importance as great as or greater than that of the instrumental\*: In the case of antidrug laws, part of the symbolic function has been to define users of particular drugs as abnormal and to designate their behavior as criminal. When this labelling process was attempted with alcohol prohibition as well, it failed because the number of alcohol users in the country was so large and diverse that no one group could be singled out and designated as “abnormal” exclusively because of drinking alcohol. \*These two functions of the law were best exemplified by the report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, which called for the retention of laws against simple marijuana possession but not enforcement of those laws. The law by itself would discourage use, it was argued, and not enforcing it would avoid stigmatizing those who did use the drug. However, the use of certain drugs, such as opium, heroin, and-until the 1970s-marijuana was most often primarily confined to subgroups and minorities, whose separation and isolation were more easily accomplished. This fact partly explains why only congressional approval was needed to ban narcotics and marijuana, while alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, and why when antidrug laws have appeared to be unsuccessful their total repeal has never been seriously considered, although repeal was possible with alcohol prohibition." [From druglibrary.org](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/fada/fada2.htm) ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/17 "2000-12-15T00:15:00Z")
Sorry; c/p’ed 14th instead of 13th, but it’s oddly appropriate to the discussion anyway, and reads as if it would have outlawed slavery if the 13th hadn’t explicitly come first. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/18 "2000-12-15T00:21:38Z")
However, the 14th was adopted because the 13th didn’t go far enough and the Southern states weren’t granting any civil rights to newly freed slaves. There were so called “black codes” passed by Southern governments that effectively kept the black population in a form of slavery. The 14th Amendment was a way to end those. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/19 "2000-12-15T00:22:26Z")
How about this logic… People have the right to property from the 5th Amendment (“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property”). The 13th Amendment undeniably altered the definition of property, in that it could no longer include persons, so a portion of the rights given in the 5th Amendment was taken away. Which was the original contention. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634/20 "2000-12-15T00:23:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lissener \* > \*\*. . . speechless, horrified several minutes before I can respond . . . > > In the first place, > > [list]Amendment XIV \*\* First of all, **lissner** , you quoted the wrong ammendment. The correct one is the 13th. The text of it is here: > [@](#): > > Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History > > 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. > > 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Now then, in some states, there were laws on the books that permitted people to own slaves. Owning property is a **right**. See Ammendment 5 (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, **nor be deprived of life, liberty, or _property_, without due process of law;** nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. As such, if owning slaves was legal in your state, it was a **right** protected by the 5th ammendment. That right was taken away by the 13th. > [@](#): > > \*\* > In the second place, do laws against murder take away a “right”? No, because murder is not a “right.” \*\* No, because murder, unlike owning property, was never a right protected by the Constitution to begin with. > [@](#): > > \*\* > [sputter] > > _How is slave ownership a “right”?_ > > [/sputter] \*\* You may not like. I certainly don’t. It’s one of the darker periods of our history. But, like it or not, people in certain states had the **legal right** to own slaves. You can stop sputtering now. Zev Steinhardt [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-a-constitutional-ammended-needed-to-ban-booze-but-not-drugs/45634.md?page=2)