CALIFORNIA: GOING TO POT OR TO SENSIBLE REGULATION?

I want to ask each of the former DEA directors to explain why the 18th
Amendment to the Constitution was required to provide constitutional
authority for the federal Volstead Act of 1919 which banned the
intrastate production, transportation, sale, possession and use of
beverage alcohol, even in states permitting such activities under
state law, but why no such constitutional amendment was needed to
authorize the essentially identical Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Of course, I am aware that the Supreme Court has upheld the CSA
without explaining how it is so fundamentally different from the
Volstead Act that the Constitution had to be amended to authorize one
but not the other.

In these administrators' zeal to uphold a federal statute, they have
forgotten that they have a higher duty to uphold the limits to central
government power required by the Constitution.

S. Shaw

Clifton, Va.