Constitutional Question 18 Ammendment

The Twenty-first Amendment (Amendment XXI) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide Prohibition on alcohol on January 16, 1919. The Twenty-first Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution -

Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...

So why did they feel they had to have an amendment back then to make alcohol illegal?

Why has no amendments been passed to legitimize the war on drugs?

Does this make the war on drugs illegal and show that the want to kill folks over drugs to be against the law?

Is it premeditated attempted murder to try to enforce such or just a conspiracy against the U.S.A.?

Those are all fantastic questions.

I personally view the war on drugs as an illegal assault on people.

Now I get drugs are not good for people in general, but the notion of jailing addicts and killer dealers is antithetical to what is traditionally seen as American values.

Something I wish the administration would consider as they move forward with their reefer madness agenda.

a reply to: projectvxn

Even if drugs were completely legal we still would have ways to regulate them coming into our country and ethics violations for anyone who helps ruin lives and kill people.

Just like a bartender being held responsible for serving beyond ones ability to handle such.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

The Twenty-first Amendment (Amendment XXI) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide Prohibition on alcohol on January 16, 1919. The Twenty-first Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution -

Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...

So why did they feel they had to have an amendment back then to make alcohol illegal?

With what it takes to pass an amendment how the hell did they get this to pass in the first place? Some made a major killing off of prohibition. Maybe that's why. As to the drug problem, maybe there are those making a killing off of it without the need of an amendment.

Drugs bans are international treaties.

While the UN does have a hand in some of them, the international treaties started well before the UN was around.

a reply to: projectvxn

They don't jail addicts for being addicts. Addicts get jailed because their addiction generally leads to crime, which would make them criminals.

While it would undoubtedly be more effective to go after the root of the problem. There is logic in outlawing substances that invariably lead to crime and suffering.

I think the war on drugs is a colossal failure. But it's tricky to find right way of going about tackling the problem.

So that means that every drug arrest has been against the law because it was done through the removal of God givin constitutional rights.

I say this because the 18th was deemed to be unconstitutional. Therefore any attempts to ban all substances is in itself unconstitutional. However regulations on such are in many cases acceptable.

a reply to: howtonhawky

You see what is happening today with guns.

Once upon a time the same thing happened with booze. Shortly after suffrage, the suffragettes felt empowered. That, along with a healthy dose of religion in the federal halls, drove the war on booze.

In short, a movement was made that had merit. Then that movement was bastardized and used as a weapon to stifle freedom.

a reply to: watchitburn

There is logic in outlawing substances that invariably lead to crime and suffering.

Unconstitutional logic you can keep it all for yourself.

But it's tricky to find right way of going about tackling the problem.

not very tricky at all

it is called morality and when taught to children....seeming magic happens

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you think there is a chance in hell that an amendment would pass to repeal the 2nd? I don't.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you think there is a chance in hell that an amendment would pass to repeal the 2nd? I don't.

Nope.

But an end around? I see that happening at some point. At some point someone will realize they can enact gun control simply by messing with the markets behind their manufacture. And from what i've seen over the last week, im not certain that it will be a government that does it.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you think there is a chance in hell that an amendment would pass to repeal the 2nd? I don't.

I know you were not asking i but i will tell you my feeling is that the constitutional convention could remove many rights.

If enough undercover commies are in power at the time of the convention then bam we would fall.

The irony is that currently the commies are lobbing against the convention for us.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: howtonhawky

In short, a movement was made that had merit. Then that movement was bastardized and used as a weapon to stifle freedom.

Banning booze in the first place stifled freedom. The goal of "the movement" was to ban booze. It wasn't an after-effect. And it was a complete failure, causing a great deal of organized crime to circumvent the ban. And when the ban was lifted organized crime moved on because "running rum" was no longer profitable. The sufragettes wer a bunch of do-gooders who thought they could cram their morality onto the entire population. I'm sure they thought their movement "had merit," but as a result the crime rate soared and the public ignored the law. Although it is difficult to quantify the effects, the suffering it saved was at least by the suffering it caused.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: howtonhawky

The Twenty-first Amendment (Amendment XXI) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide Prohibition on alcohol on January 16, 1919. The Twenty-first Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution -

Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...

So why did they feel they had to have an amendment back then to make alcohol illegal?

With what it takes to pass an amendment how the hell did they get this to pass in the first place? Some made a major killing off of prohibition. Maybe that's why. As to the drug problem, maybe there are those making a killing off of it without the need of an amendment.

Believe it or not, it was one of the few times you had Progressives in bed with the Christian busybodies. They did it for the "greater good."

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: howtonhawky

In short, a movement was made that had merit. Then that movement was bastardized and used as a weapon to stifle freedom.

Banning booze in the first place stifled freedom. The goal of "the movement" was to ban booze. It wasn't an after-effect. And it was a complete failure, causing a great deal of organized crime to circumvent the ban. And when the ban was lifted organized crime moved on because "running rum" was no longer profitable. The sufragettes wer a bunch of do-gooders who thought they could cram their morality onto the entire population. I'm sure they thought their movement "had merit," but as a result the crime rate soared and the public ignored the law. Although it is difficult to quantify the effects, the suffering it saved was at least by the suffering it caused.

The movement i refer to was suffrage. once the suffragettes could vote, they turned attention to their drunk ass husbands.

If we are being honest, it likely wasn't a bad thing overall. Sure, it created organized crime. But industrialization was struggling, and people living in the bottom of a bottle was really an issue. Remember: this was only a generation or 2 removed from Jim Crow, and there were still very poor and miserable people trying to forget their problems.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: watchitburn

There is logic in outlawing substances that invariably lead to crime and suffering.

Unconstitutional logic you can keep it all for yourself.

But it's tricky to find right way of going about tackling the problem.

not very tricky at all

it is called morality and when taught to children....seeming magic happens

Nope...not very tricky at all...legalize the drugs...then jail the dealers...

With progressively stiffer penalties for the class of drug...then the ones selling poison that leads to overdose get to live the rest of their lives breaking big rocks into smaller rocks...or just force feed them the same poison they sold until they OD...then flush them out...revive them and do it again for however many OD's they caused by pushing their product...

Win...Win...





YouSir

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: howtonhawky

In short, a movement was made that had merit. Then that movement was bastardized and used as a weapon to stifle freedom.

Banning booze in the first place stifled freedom. The goal of "the movement" was to ban booze. It wasn't an after-effect. And it was a complete failure, causing a great deal of organized crime to circumvent the ban. And when the ban was lifted organized crime moved on because "running rum" was no longer profitable. The sufragettes wer a bunch of do-gooders who thought they could cram their morality onto the entire population. I'm sure they thought their movement "had merit," but as a result the crime rate soared and the public ignored the law. Although it is difficult to quantify the effects, the suffering it saved was at least by the suffering it caused.

The movement i refer to was suffrage. once the suffragettes could vote, they turned attention to their drunk ass husbands.

If we are being honest, it likely wasn't a bad thing overall. Sure, it created organized crime. But industrialization was struggling, and people living in the bottom of a bottle was really an issue. Remember: this was only a generation or 2 removed from Jim Crow, and there were still very poor and miserable people trying to forget their problems.

Ummm...so your essentially arguing...not for legalization of drugs...but to pass an amendment against usage and ban all illicit substances...

Cool...I could get behind that...however...as you so eloquently stated...organized crime would skyrocket...so maybe not such a good idea after all...

Let them have their cake...they just have to bake it themselves and can't sell or give it away...





YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

People want to legalize drugs? Fine, but I don't want to become a state enabler. In other words, you end up on the street because of your habit? You are on the street. Actions and habits have consequences and you need to realize that.

I am only interested in helping those who really want to help themselves. I don't have the time or resources to support a cadre of addicts.

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: howtonhawky

In short, a movement was made that had merit. Then that movement was bastardized and used as a weapon to stifle freedom.

Banning booze in the first place stifled freedom. The goal of "the movement" was to ban booze. It wasn't an after-effect. And it was a complete failure, causing a great deal of organized crime to circumvent the ban. And when the ban was lifted organized crime moved on because "running rum" was no longer profitable. The sufragettes wer a bunch of do-gooders who thought they could cram their morality onto the entire population. I'm sure they thought their movement "had merit," but as a result the crime rate soared and the public ignored the law. Although it is difficult to quantify the effects, the suffering it saved was at least by the suffering it caused.

The movement i refer to was suffrage. once the suffragettes could vote, they turned attention to their drunk ass husbands.

If we are being honest, it likely wasn't a bad thing overall. Sure, it created organized crime. But industrialization was struggling, and people living in the bottom of a bottle was really an issue. Remember: this was only a generation or 2 removed from Jim Crow, and there were still very poor and miserable people trying to forget their problems.

Ummm...so your essentially arguing...not for legalization of drugs...but to pass an amendment against usage and ban all illicit substances...

Cool...I could get behind that...however...as you so eloquently stated...organized crime would skyrocket...so maybe not such a good idea after all...

Let them have their cake...they just have to bake it themselves and can't sell or give it away...

YouSir

Ummm...no.



Not arguing that at all. Just trying to lay context for what it was like in that day. Back before the standard 40hr workweek, people had a lot of time to kill.

a reply to: watchitburn

Addicts get jailed because their addiction generally leads to crime, which would make them criminals.

so you say this lol

there is logic in outlawing substances that invariably lead to crime and suffering.

then you say this... Wow wouldnt it be more logical to legalize said substance and make it easier to obtain?

Then they would not have to be criminals to get it..


ITs only a crime because its illegal..