Iconoclasm
Council Member
How is it that no one questions the fact that a Prohibition of anything requires the Amendment process, yet this was not the case for the criminalization of drugs 50 years ago under Nixon? It is clearly required by law. The Amendment ratification process was demanded as proven by both the 18th and 21st Amendments. In fact, each substance would require its own Amendment to prohibit it.
We all learned by the Prohibition of alcohol that not only do prohibitions not work, they are abject failures., but the fact that CONgress ignored the law of the land and went ahead criminalizing behaviorisms of a sector of the population both illegally and prejudicially has never been addressed.
I know that it is unconstitutional for the government to tell someone what they can and cannot put into their bodies. I also know that government authority in our Constitutional republic should have ended with the government informing the public that drugs are bad for you and why, but that is it. Here we are 50 years later with the highest incraceration rate than the next six highest countries combined, for non-violent offenses here inthe land of the free.
We all learned by the Prohibition of alcohol that not only do prohibitions not work, they are abject failures., but the fact that CONgress ignored the law of the land and went ahead criminalizing behaviorisms of a sector of the population both illegally and prejudicially has never been addressed.
I know that it is unconstitutional for the government to tell someone what they can and cannot put into their bodies. I also know that government authority in our Constitutional republic should have ended with the government informing the public that drugs are bad for you and why, but that is it. Here we are 50 years later with the highest incraceration rate than the next six highest countries combined, for non-violent offenses here inthe land of the free.
