Newsgroups: alt.hemp,talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: [c--se--l] at [world.std.com] (Bernie Cosell)
Subject: Re: Prohibition Constitutional?
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 13:23:19 GMT

In article <[CEoFrE 4 sL] at [genie.slhs.udel.edu]>, Tim Starr writes:
} In the 1850s, the Maine laws prohibited alcohol on a statewide
} basis in Maine and some other parts of New England.  However, they worked
} so badly that they were repealed within the decade.  After that, the
} Anti-Saloon League took the national strategy of Constitutional Amendment,
} getting Congress to propose it and then ratify it by the States.

This leaves out a bit of the story.  Yes, the state laws of the 40s and
50s were mostly repealed relatively quickly, but Tim kind of ignores
the next forty or fifty years.  There was a spirited 'competition'
afoot, with _lots_ of temperance organizations set up [Susan B Anthony
started the "Women's State Temperance Society of New York" in 1852,
The WCTU was started in 1874.  There was apparently a "Prohibitionist
Party" formed.

The temperance movement had been gaining strength throughout the
end of the 19th century [including laws requiring temperance-education
in schools... can you say "DARE"?].

Note, also, at this same time there was a LOT of prohibitionist activity
surrounding opium.  [and much of it ALL, alcohol and opium, surrounded
[with our hindsight] with the same kind of hysteria and misinformation
we see today].

In 1914, I believe, the idea of an amendment prohibiting alcohol was first
kicked around in Congress.  On the heels of WWI, in 1917, the AMA
[among others] joins the push for a Constitutional Amendment.  In 1917
the amendment is proposed, and in 1919 it becomes law.

I'm not surre how much of a player the Anti-Saloon League was.  They
did hit upon the tactic of making prohibition a matter of patriotism.
I haven't seen anything that indicates that the Prohibition was
particularly the strategy of the A-S L.

My point is [in addition to dispelling the impression Tim gave _me_,
at least, that it was a short, straightforward path from the failed
state laws to the Constitutional Amendment] is to highlight that there
were a _lot_ of players in the tale, and even with hindsight I think it
is hard to pin Prohibition on any particular group.


As for how they've managed the War on Drugs _without_ a constitutional
amendment, I'm less sure.  As far as I know, I think the real culprit
is the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 [I know you folks have heard me
say this before].  It is probably ought to be the centerpiece of any
'slippery slope' argument you might be considering.  While all of
this stuff was going on over prohibition, and there was a similar mess
going on over opium,  the PFDA gave the feds the authority to regulate
"food" and "drugs".  And so you get things like labelling requirements
for everything, you get things like sanitary requirements for food
preparation, you get things like the legal force behind the "prescription
drug" machinery.  At the federal level, you'll see that the crimes are
always "possession of a controlled substance".  This is basically a
by-product of the drug regulating machinery [basically the same stuff
that is giving the vitamin folks a headache these days, too].

What has happened, to my view, is two things: 1) the drug scheduling
machinery has been subverted by political considerations, and 2) they
have gone *wild* enforcing those laws.  As I've mentioned [and a little
bit of research has confirmed as true], the "War on Drugs" as *most*
[not all, to be sure] activitits perceive it could be made to go away
in ten minutes.  No need for a law or anything dramatic like that: if
the DEA just un-scheduled marijuana, marijuana would, for all practical
purposes, be _legal_ at the federal level.  Such actions, of course,
are just minor administrative matters for the DEA.  With some sensible
rescheduling of cocaine and heroin and a few other 'drugs', you could
probably deflate all but the most philsophically-adamant of the
WoD-opposition.

The state regulations are a different matter, but I think that with the
feds *out* of the picture [and federal money and forfeiture laws out of
the picture], the various state laws would fall pretty quickly.

  /Bernie\
-- 
Bernie Cosell                               [c--se--l] at [world.std.com]
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA         (703) 921-2358