[zanethomas]

strange that a constitutional amendment was required to ban alcohol, but none was required for other drugs

[zeroonetwothree]

It wouldn’t require an amendment today. Sadly the courts have supported a huge increase in the federal government’s police power over the years.

[pc86]

It didn't require an amendment in the past either.

[burkaman]

I don't think an amendment was required. Alcohol could have been banned at the time through legislation, it just would have been easier to reverse and maybe less universal.

[pfannkuchen]

That’s not correct as far as I understand it. Prior to Wickard v. Filburn the federal government did not have the power to ban substances (since it isn’t explicitly specified in the constitution). If congress had passed a law doing so, that law would have been considered unconstitutional. Wickard v. Filburn is obviously ridiculous and should be overturned, but it never will be.

[xeromal]

The amendment was a goal by prohibitionists to ensure the law wouldn't be easily repealed. To their chagrin, they didn't realize the will of the people in banning their ridiculous amendment.

[rayiner]

Prohibition obviously reflected the will of the people—it’s impossible to amend the constitution without supermajority support. The Volstead Act was approved by overwhelming majorities of both houses, and then ratified by 46 of 48 states.

It wasn’t “ridiculous.” It was one of the first things women did with the vote. It probably would’ve worked if it hadn’t been for Irish and Italian immigrants.

[pfannkuchen]

Everyone reading this who isn’t familiar with Wickard v. Filburn please look it up on Wikipedia. Greater awareness of it would be really helpful. It is a blatantly insane interpretation and a huge amount of power at the federal level is built on top of it.

[mrguyorama]

Even if you don't enjoy that interpretation of

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

You cannot deny that "among the several states" can be interpreted to mean congress can regulate commerce in the states.

[vanattab]

It was not and is not required! Many states and locations locally banned alcohol before and after prohibition. What did take a constitutional amendment was ending prohibition but only because it was implemented through a constitutional amedment.

[pfannkuchen]

It took a constitutional amendment to do it at the federal level. Congress would not have been able to pass such a law constitutionally prior to Wickard v. Filburn.

[beerpls]

Alcohol was used by more people. The governmental play that had to be carried out to make the people tolerate the tyranny was minimal.

Remember it’s not about what a piece of paper says the rules are - it’s what you can get away with in power.

[masfuerte]

They weren't bans originally. They were huge taxes that nobody could afford to pay. The bans came later after the supremes gave carte blanche to the feds.

[jk_i_am_a_robot]

It wasn't required. It was a moonshot that worked.

[willcipriano]

We used to be a republic, now we are a democracy.