I thought many of you would find this interesting. The prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional amendment, Amendment 18, why wasn't this the case in marijuana prohibition?
Because our leaders twist the phrase "promote the general welfare of the public" in the constitution to mean they can pass any laws they want if they think it will help.
This is too true, but they could have used that phrase in the prohibition of alcohol, but they decided to do it legally anyway.
I don't think that it actually did require a Constitutional Amendment. I am not aware of any Supreme Court cases declaring that the Commerce Clause did not reach alcohol. Perhaps those at the time thought it would make a stronger case as opposed to federal legislation banning alcohol. Currently it is the Commerce Clause that gives Congress the ability to make it illegal. I think the line of cases that have increased the power of the Commerce Clause has been pretty poor, especially Wickard v. Filburn, which was was Scalia's main support in Raich.
An amendment isn't necessary to pass a law -- a law simply can't violate the guidelines set out by the Constitution. What's more, it can be fairly difficult to "prove" that a law violates those guidelines -- any savvy person who really WANTS the law will know how to twist, distort, and "re-interpret" the words of the Constitution to extrapolate any meaning from it that they want. In other words, unless it states something explicitly (such as the articles in the first protecting free speech, or the ones in the 25th setting term limits for the presidency), it can be danced around easily. The truly egregious thing about alcohol prohibition is that it is the one of the worst examples of an attempt to use the Constitution to actually RESTRICT the rights of citizens. It violated the very spirit of the document. There's a reason the first ten amendments are referred to as the "Bill of Rights." It's there to protect what we've got -- not take away more.
the sad part is people have to twist and contort the constitution in order to actually get what they need instead of just following the amaendments set forth. We live in a world of scumbags who twist heavy handed words in order to fill their pockets.
The words under the commerce clause have not really been distorted and twisted. Really, it has just been carried to an extreme logical conclusion.