Posted: 2/3/2003 5:08:41 AM EDT
|
that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, but drug prohibition doesn't? |
|
That's a good question. Most likely it's because the war on drugs started in earnest after 1933, when a lot of the Constitution's authority really started to get shredded, all sorts of unconstitutional government entitlement programs and whatnot. Such as the government suddenly saying that no one in the country had the right to own gold anymore. But we'll take it off your hands.....for a few pieces of paper called gold certificates. |
|
One of my theories on this: Marijuana and other drugs were seen as 'fringe' recreational drugs. Specifically, the impression that marijuana was a 'colored' person's drug. It's easier to marginalize and demonize the activities of smaller groups than what is done by a much larger group. Alcohol, on the other hand, was much more widely consumed, and seen as 'legitimate' until the busybodies came along and demonized it. Have the feds ban alcohol by regular law, there would be an outcry. Ban Marijuana, and most people don't care, because they don't do it, and the people who do it aren't seen as 'one of them'. |
|
All drugs bans were targeted at specific minorities, hence white america didn't care: weed - hispanics coke - blacks opium - chinese etc... just like the original gun laws were targeted toward blacks, so whites didn't protest those... always ends up biting you in the ass in the end. |