This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
With the precedent of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution demonstrating that in order to ban or prohibit a substance from manufacture, sale, or distribution, the Constitutional right would need to be circumvented via an amendment, why is it a much broader bill, in this case the Controlled Substances Act remains viable despite not having an amendment to back it up, like the Volstead Act required?
I'm not interested in trade, sale, taxation, or distribution, but rather how the law conflicts with an individual's Constitutional rights.
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 6 years ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/asklaw/comm...