Need help finding a post

Taso · #1 10-29-2007, 06:01 PM

lmao, wow. I KNEW I didn't imagine it. That's it exactly borodog. What thread was that in?

Thanks a lot.

Edit - AHHH, the one thread I didn't think it could possibly be in, the California fires thread. Doh. Thanks to inthedark for posting that as well.
Also, if anyone knows, what is that qoute from? Federalist papers?

PLOlover · #2 10-29-2007, 06:10 PM

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_n16720180

PLOlover · #3 10-29-2007, 06:13 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowi...ynowicz47.html

basically same, but note this

[ QUOTE ]
A constitutional amendment (the 18th, since repealed) was required to outlaw alcohol nationwide. When was the constitutional amendment ratified which authorizes the similar outlawing of marijuana, cocaine, and opium? What is its number?

[/ QUOTE ]

totally awesome argument I had never heard before.

Taso · #4 10-29-2007, 06:45 PM

Well...I don't want to turn this into a real thread (I prefer it be a record of my stupidity, until the ends of time) but there doesn't need to be an amendment to outlaw said drugs, it seems the states have the right to do that.

PLOlover · #5 10-29-2007, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well...I don't want to turn this into a real thread (I prefer it be a record of my stupidity, until the ends of time) but there doesn't need to be an amendment to outlaw said drugs, it seems the states have the right to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

come on. r u kidding? feds needed amendment to outlaw booze, but they need only a law to ban marijuana (federal laaw), for example. see the difference? why? why the difference? could the feds outlaw alchohol today with a simple law? if yes, then why amendment needed before? obviously sometihng changed.

Taso · #6 10-29-2007, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well...I don't want to turn this into a real thread (I prefer it be a record of my stupidity, until the ends of time) but there doesn't need to be an amendment to outlaw said drugs, it seems the states have the right to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

come on. r u kidding? feds needed amendment to outlaw booze, but they need only a law to ban marijuana (federal laaw), for example. see the difference? why? why the difference? could the feds outlaw alchohol today with a simple law? if yes, then why amendment needed before? obviously sometihng changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much, if anything about drug laws. Are they federal laws or state laws? The reason an amendment was needed for prohibition in the 1920's was because Congress had no ability to create a law banning alcohol, they needed to change the constitution to make that law.

The states, individually, do have the ability to regulate alcohol sale, according to the 10th amendment. They also have the ability to create drug laws.

So, if the drug laws you are talking about are federal, then I agree with you, that shyttt ain't right. But states have the ability to make such laws.

mjkidd · #7 10-29-2007, 08:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well...I don't want to turn this into a real thread (I prefer it be a record of my stupidity, until the ends of time) but there doesn't need to be an amendment to outlaw said drugs, it seems the states have the right to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, and the states can currently pass laws to prohibit the sale of alcohol. But the feds needed an amendment for alcohol...