PC and WI Harrison Act Overturned

Just learned something interesting: it seems the Harrison Act -- UIAM the first time the US government sought to regulate narcotics at a national level (second if you count the FDA in 1906) -- was only just upheld as constitutional in 1919 by a 5-4 decision. (This was US v Doremus)

Suppose it had gone the other way -- is it possible, if no replacements come in the next couple of years, that the national prohibition of cocaine and opiates is averted for another decade? (I'm thinking, maybe combined with a late PoD for averting OTL Prohibition -- though that may be another thread.)

If so, what could be the general effects -- on culture, the prospect for a "war on drugs", what have you?
 
I think the cultural impetus for Prohibition was too strong. Nobody had ever tried it on a big enough scale to find out what a bad idea it was.

That said, if the War on Drugs were fought on a state-by-state basis, the states where cocaine and such was legal, regulated and taxed would get very rich at neighboring states' expense, injecting a lovely note of interstate hostility into U.S. politics.
 
That said, if the War on Drugs were fought on a state-by-state basis, the states where cocaine and such was legal, regulated and taxed would get very rich at neighboring states' expense, injecting a lovely note of interstate hostility into U.S. politics.

Why would it do so any worse than prostitution or gambling?
 
Why would it do so any worse than prostitution or gambling?

Not for any logical reason, you can be sure. The problem is that drugs (some drugs, anyway) are more addictive than either. The Puritan streak in American culture goes back a lot further than 1919 and is not open to reason on the subject of anything addictive. Having legal hard drugs in some parts of the country, giving doctors more opportunities to study addiction in the light of day, would eventually give the nation a little more perspective, but this would take a few decades.

The big difference would be the absence of a nationwide anti-drug industry intertwined with law enforcement. No DEA, no DARE, no private prisons lobbying for harsher penalties.
 
When I get into my car, chances are I won't be on the road with any drivers who are on cocaine. ITTL the odds are much higher.
 
I think this makes a Prohibition Amendment much more likely, perhaps even inevitable, and much less repealable. It will apply to both alcohol and 'noxious and immoral substances,' something like that.

Hopefully its somewhat different than OTL so Congress has some flexibility to modify or make it more lenient. Like if it just authorizes Congress to regulate or ban those substances without the amendment doing it directly.

Doremus was one of the early cases in the Commerce Clause revolution. Having it go the other way preserves much more substantial limits on federal Commerce Clause power than in OTL or, much more likely, it gets reversed in the 30s or even sooner.

Interesting POD, by the way.

Just learned something interesting: it seems the Harrison Act -- UIAM the first time the US government sought to regulate narcotics at a national level (second if you count the FDA in 1906) -- was only just upheld as constitutional in 1919 by a 5-4 decision. (This was US v Doremus)

Suppose it had gone the other way -- is it possible, if no replacements come in the next couple of years, that the national prohibition of cocaine and opiates is averted for another decade? (I'm thinking, maybe combined with a late PoD for averting OTL Prohibition -- though that may be another thread.)

If so, what could be the general effects -- on culture, the prospect for a "war on drugs", what have you?
 
I think this makes a Prohibition Amendment much more likely, perhaps even inevitable, and much less repealable. It will apply to both alcohol and 'noxious and immoral substances,' something like that.

This gives me an interesting thought -- is it possible then that the federal regulation of narcotics and alcohol become tied together in the minds of Americans enough that a Repeal Prohibition movement comes to include opiates and cocaine?
 
This gives me an interesting thought -- is it possible then that the federal regulation of narcotics and alcohol become tied together in the minds of Americans enough that a Repeal Prohibition movement comes to include opiates and cocaine?

Perhaps, but if so its unlikely to succeed, or will succeed only in a modified form that continues to allow Congress to regulate and ban, which regulations will probably be different for opiates/cocaine than for alcohol.

Your POD is an interesting one, but if you're looking for a drug legalization POD, its exactly the wrong sort of thing.
 
Top