Logic Dictates, The Fight For The Prohibition Amendment Recognized A Right To Privacy,

[Uncle Joe]

or else why go through all the trouble of passing a Constitutional Amendment banning alcohol instead of just passing a federal law and waging "war" against it?

I believe it was because they knew, just passing a law against it was unConstitutional.

[david13]

1. Seems like

a non sequitir.
Reagan wanted a balanced budget and he/they also wanted a balanced budget amendment.
The prop 8 monsters also want a constitutional amendment, as do many other loonies, etc., for various causes.
My solution: legalize drugs, and have the government produce them and make them widely available, CHEAP.
It would end the war, save millions or billions, put ALL DRUG DEALERS out of business in this entire hemisphere.
But the anti's say, oh, then you would be encouraging people to use drugs, as they don't understand why people use drugs.
dc

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. "...they don't understand why people use drugs"

That is, they don't understand why people aren't content using the drugs they approve of.

[ThomWV]

4. ... and can make a profit on

[Uncle Joe]

3. I see those as different scenarios.

Reagen was about marketing and public relations, much more glitter than substance in regard to fiscal discipline. In his political defense, he was dealing with a Congress long dominated by the opposition party and this was his means of curbing spending on ideology of which he didn't agree with. I don't believe he seriously wanted a balanced budget Amendment so much as curbing Democratic Power to affect society.

I believe the Prop 8 people's concern is the same as the Prohibitionists in knowing they're on shaky Constitutional grounds without changing the Constitution by amending it, in both cases a right to privacy comes to bear.

I believe drugs should be decriminalized, Marijuana at the very least should be legal. The illogical Orwellian "War on Drugs" should end. Drugs and drug addiction should be treated as an educational, medical issue instead of a criminal one profiting the growing for profit prison industry.

Edit to add, I should have posted de facto recognized a right to privacy in my O.P.

[SergeyDovlatov]

5. Times have changed. Constution evolved and thus prohibition of drugs no longer ...

requires us to pass a constitutional amendment.

There were more respect for the constitution then that is now.

Unfortunately, if you go back to 1900s interpretation of constitution, 90% of what federal government does would be unconstitutional. So we are stuck with it.

[Uncle Joe]

6. That's my point, Sergey, we're not stuck with it, to slightly edit your first sentence;

"Times continue to change."

I don't believe evolution or the road to enlightenment to be a straight line.

Some things have improved from the late 1800s, early 1900s "Plessy vs Ferguson" was overturned, and Civil Rights.