Constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act?

The U.S. federal governments stance on having the constitional authority to be able to make substances illegal, prior to the 1970 Controlled Substance Act was based on the ability to tax. This was the foundation of the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act and later the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. During the prohabition era, alcohol was able to be made illegal because it was a constitutional admendment. It was legally thought that the federal government did not have the authority to make substances illegal as it is the states right to do so and a personal right. Sense those acts were repealed and replaced by the C.S.A., which is act of Congress and not a consitutional admendment or related to taxation, what right does th goverment claim to be able make this legislation?

 

they can basically do what they want.

we are the slaves.

they have the power and will use violence.
we lose until we decide to change something

 

They wish they had that kind of power. They spend everyday trying to control things, when really, the harder they squeeze, the more it slips through their fingers.

 

Yes it is. Whether it is against the letter of the constitution, well that can be debated and the constitution really doesnt deal with substances. It is however against the spirit of the constitution. The constitution, well moreso bill of rights insure our freedom to do what we want.

the war on drugs should have started with a amendment being passed, That way it would be legal and way easier to end.

 

No, it is against my freedom as a human being. If I am in a position where I cannot harm others, what business is it of anybody to tell me what I can or cannot consume? I'm going to smoke, eat or drink what I want, regardless of what "moral" stance it has with certain people.

 

The thing is that legislative officials may be considered rather fool hearty if they reinstated previous non prohibition status. With such a move, no doubt, any possible adverse consequences by those that they represent would induce cowardness which shields them of the glory they ought to have for bringing forth civil liberty. In recent times the option is in functional equivalences. Finding a particular molecule or biomaterial which leads to similar states as an illicit one. Such a drug may be substancially different in structure and thus more difficult for the anti drug warlords to swiftly prohibit and demonize. Thus as such substances are created it is ever more important that people use them as judiciously and with sufficient knowldege to enjoy such a substance safely as possible.

 

i might have it mixed up, but im pretty sure that the tenth ammendment says something along the lines of "powers not delegated to the federal government in the constitution are therfore reserved as a right of the states..."
in laymans terms, the word drug is not in the constitution...meaning it should be up to the states to decide what is and isn't illegal,,

on top of that, even if this was a states right i still do not think it is constitutional to tell someone what they can and can't put in their body...