Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What right do states have to ban certain substances?

  1. Sep 18, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As I'm reading http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia_law2.shtml

    I become more and more.. how should I say it.. pissed off at the politicians in this country. I can understand the Australian governments hasty ban of Salvia Divinorum - them being down under the rock and all that. But here we have a certain substance, which poses no health risks to human beings, and yet it gets scheduled.

    Now run this riddle by me instead: why cant the United States put Nicotine on Schedule I ? I would personally like to file that to either a local DA or directly write to DEA and have Nicotine added to Schedule I list. It qualifies perfectly to be on that list and I would really like it to be there, as well as about a few dozens of million people in this country as I'm sure
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 19, 2005 #2
    I have never understood how this works either. Does no one here know?
  4. Sep 19, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    God i cant even read that webpage right now. I'll get back to this when I'm not exausted and caughing up my lungs.

    And no, i don't smoke.
  5. Sep 19, 2005 #4
    This is rather off topic but it should help anyone interested in discussing the topic; if you hold the control key on your keyboard and roll your mouse wheel down the text in your web browser should get bigger. :wink:
  6. Sep 20, 2005 #5


    User Avatar

    over regulation of natural substances, many use medicinely by herbalist and naturalist is...of course a state right. I don't believe that in situations where it is not crossing state borders that it should be something that the federal government can intervene with. That being said..I don't believe salvia..or maryjane should be regulated, but until public outrage becomes loud enough or mainstream enough to force change.....
  7. Sep 21, 2005 #6
    I don't understand how it would be a state right? I mean, is such right expressed or enumerated in state constitutions somehow? If so, I'm interested in seeing an example of such.
  8. Sep 21, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I think states have a right to regulate any commerce taking place within them, such as the sale of any substance. I'm not too sure where they get the right to keep a person from using, though. It could just be a very broad interpretation of the commerce regulation. It's an extremely broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that allows the federal government most of its rights to regulate different activities.
  9. Sep 21, 2005 #8
    So, for example sake; if my state happened to have a legislature controlled by atheists and they wanted to ban the sale of the Bible, they could do so?

    And what about the giving away of salvia mentioned in the law, that wouldn't fall under commerce, would it?
  10. Sep 21, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The federal government is limited by the constitution to what actions it can take within the states, and frequently bases its action on the Commerce Clause - the stated right of the feds to regulate interstate commerce. But the states have, by the 10th amendment, all the powers that haven't been allocated to the people by the Bill of Rights or to the federal government (except as modified by later amendments). That's an enormous recognition of powers. If a state wants to declare sarsaparilla illegal it has the right to do so.
  11. Sep 21, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Here is what I have a problem with. The states should be allowed to make recommendations as to which substances are to be or not to be used, and since FDA is nowhere near being competent enough to make such recommendations, they should instead reroute their money from DEA and into restructuring FDA. Why should the tax payers pay for having their liberties limited??

    Since when is it that those people somehow know whats better for you? If there was no cloud of incompetence surrounding most of the federal government, perhaps they'd have a good recommendation, but until they do I think the Nixon's federal drug schedule should be revised and terminated as it is simply unconstitutional.
  12. Sep 21, 2005 #11
    I have no idea why anyone would want more government regulation but for some reason people think that the government knows what is best...seems like a truly retard concept if you ask me.

    I don't think in the history of the world there has ever been a competent government. The less the government gets involved the better in just about every case...
  13. Sep 21, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, it should be illegal to take advantage of other people - to rape them through the use of drugs or etc. But it is until you are doing drugs and killing people that you are innocent - its that fine line between the good and bad

    I think if the today's laws werent so deeply rooted in money rather than common sense, perhaps we'd have a happier society. If Heroin is banned - I want Nicotine to be right next to it. And heroin used to be an analgetic, while nicotine? practically no uses. I want the justice and I want it soon.
  14. Sep 21, 2005 #13
    You might as well just relax because making any real change takes a lot of money and time. That doesn't mean it can't happen, it just takes some perseverance.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: What right do states have to ban certain substances?
  1. States have rights? (Replies: 7)

  2. What was NOT banned (Replies: 13)