leaf

That pesky piece of paper known as the United States Constitution always seems to get in the way of things, doesn’t it, Big Brother?

The legality of the War on Drugs has been challenged on six main grounds in the US.

It is argued that drug prohibition, as presently implemented, violates the substantive due process doctrine in that its benefits do not justify the encroachments on rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. On July 27, 2011, U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven ruled that Florida’s legislation purporting to eliminate intent as an element of the crime of drug possession was unconstitutional. Commentators explained the ruling in terms of due process.
Freedom of religious conscience legally allows some, for example, members of the Native American Church, to use peyote with definite spiritual or religious motives, but the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment implies no requirement for someone to be affiliated to an official church – therefore leaving some ambiguity.
It has been argued that the Commerce Clause means that the power to regulate drug use should be state law not federal law.
The inequity of prosecuting the war on certain drugs but not alcohol or tobacco has also been called into question. Prohibition of alcohol required the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. It has been argued that prohibition of marijuana would also require an amendment to the Constitution, but no such amendment has been made.
It is argued that the reverse burden of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law in that the power to convict is effectively taken from the courts and given to those who are willing to plant evidence.
Regardless of the legality itself of the war on drugs, there have been accusations of inequality in the prosecution of that war, claiming it disproportionately targets certain regimes and ethnic groups.

Source: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Legality

—

Efficacy

10–15% of illicit heroin and 30% of illicit cocaine is intercepted. Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers’ profits were hurt.

Despite over $7 billion spent annually towards arresting^[116] and prosecuting nearly 800,000 people across the country for marijuana offenses in 2005^{[citation needed]}(FBI Uniform Crime Reports), the federally-funded Monitoring the Future Survey reports about 85% of high school seniors find marijuana “easy to obtain.” That figure has remained virtually unchanged since 1975, never dropping below 82.7% in three decades of national surveys.

Source: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Legality

—

In 1920, the Federal government had enough respect for the Constitution to add the 18th Amendment in order to grant power to said government to enforce the Prohibition of alcohol. It was repealed in 1933.

No such amendment has been ratified for the purpose of recent Drug Control laws. To put it simply, the Federal Government does not have the authority to enforce these laws. These regulations are still available and controllable by the people on a State level. Pure and simple.

Well, let’s go back to those questions. I think the answer to the first question is fairly straightforward — this idea of alcohol prohibition. We were talking about a new power that was being acquired — surrendered by the people and the states — and so the 18th Amendment was passed to give that power to the Federal government. In the case of our second question — prohibiting other drugs — I would argue that we are talking about new powers being granted to the Federal government that have never been surrendered by the people and the states. Ergo, the drug war, prohibition laws, the DEA, the whole ball of wax, are all unconstitutional. I think what we have here is a prime example of the illegal acquisition of powers by a central government through a process of slow accretion. And this was exactly the sort of thing Hamilton was warning against back in 1787. – Paul Hager

Why is Marijuana Illegal?

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

You’ll also see that the history of marijuana’s criminalization is filled with: