"All the News That's Fit to Print"

I believe that was once the motto of the New York Times, and maybe it still is. One  of our teachers at Gage Park, I believe it was Fred Sears, brought a copy of that paper in to class one day to show us. That thing must have weighed at least five pounds! Who's got time to read all that? I don't think that anybody reads a whole newspaper like that every day anyway, they just flip through the pages and read the parts that interest them. For some it's the sports, for others it's the financial pages, for others it's the comics. We got the Detroit Free Press once for a year, and we didn't renew it after that because we hardly read any of it.

My parents used to get both the Chicago Sun Times and the Tribune, I think it was mostly so they could make a big contribution to the Cub Scout scrap paper drives. We used to tie it up in bundles and store it in our garage until there was enough to justify renting a truck to haul it to the scrap yard. One time, the money they got for the paper didn't even cover the rental on the truck, so the dads got together and invented the paperless paper drive. Once a month they would gather at the tavern on our block and each throw a dollar in the kitty. It was pure profit for the Cub Scouts because they didn't have to rent the truck or do any work either. Then they would start another kitty to buy drinks with. Meanwhile, the wives gathered around our kitchen table and talked about matters that didn't concern us kids, so we went and hung out in our yard. If it was raining, we could hang out in our garage because it was no longer filled up with bundles of newspapers stacked to the ceiling.

Now where was I? Oh yeah, while I may not read all the news that's fit to print, I read all the news that I want to, and that's good enough for me. It's not like an school assignment, you know. That's what's nice about not going to school, you can read what you want, when you want, and there won't be a test on it afterwards. I think I told you before that I subscribe to National Geographic and read it cover to cover every month. While it's not primarily a news periodical, they often have articles about stuff that's been in the news lately, with more depth and background information than you get from the newspapers or the TV.

I think that you missed the point about Prohibition. The 18th Amendment authorized the federal and state governments to prohibit the "manufacture, sale, or transportation, of intoxicating liquors". A constitutional amendment was necessary to enable this legislation because these governments did not previously have this power. The 21st Amendment repealed this power at the federal level, but allowed the states to continue the ban if they so desired. I don't think that any of them did, but I think that a few states still have "dry" counties within them. I think you will agree that alcohol is just as intoxicating as pot, and most medical sources classify it as a drug. So, while pot is not a liquor, alcoholic liquor is certainly a drug, ergo pot and alcohol should reasonably be included in the same category of substances. My point being that, if a constitutional amendment was necessary to prohibit alcoholic liquor, why wasn't a constitutional amendment required to prohibit pot?

As far as that states rights thing you were talking about: The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This one has been shot full of loopholes over the years by various court decisions, and there are some of us who believe those court decisions to be in error. Nevertheless, unless a specific loophole can  be identified, it would appear that the feds never did have the power to prohibit pot, except maybe in interstate commerce. We will probably hear more about this issue in the future and, if we do, remember that you heard it first from Talks With Beagles.