The other day, I ran across an article on headlined Marijuana and States’ Rights: A Reason Debate. Intrigued, I clicked the link and perused the article.

How disappointing.

Kevin A. Sabet, PhD, director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida and a former senior advisor in the Obama Administration’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, and Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, debated the following question:

Should states be free to chart their own course with regard to marijuana policy (both medical and recreational)?

Predictably, the former federal drug adviser said, “Nope. Not outside of  federal ‘law.'”

“My basic answer is that states can chart their own course, but that their course should remain within bounds of national and international law,” Sabet said.

He goes on to talk about all of the potential horrors of legalization.

Nadelmann counters with a pretty good point.

“Federal law in this area will only change as a result of political pressures associated with changes in state laws.”

Then he goes on at length refuting Sabet’s horrors of legalization with factoids about the evils of prohibition.

I don’t disagree with Nadelmann, but he completely misses the most basic argument. In fact, I can blow Sabet out of the water with one sentence.

“The federal government lacks the Constitutional authority to enforce a federal drug policy.”

There. Done!

I don’t care how horrible legalization might turn out. I don’t really care about the evils of prohibition (and there are plenty) – at least not when it comes to the question of a federal drug policy. Doesn’t matter. The feds can’t legitimately do it.


End of story.

Doubt me? Then answer me this question: if the federal government actually has the constitutional power to prohibit drugs, why did it take a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol? Why didn’t the feds just create an Office of National Alcohol Control Policy and embark on a “War on Booze?”

Because they didn’t have the authority. They knew it. And at that point in history, Americans still cared about constitutional limits.

How sad that two men debating on the authority of states to chart their own drug policy never once mentioned the Constitution.


For information on how states are pushing back against unconstitutional federal drug laws, click HERE.

Mike Maharrey

The 10th Amendment

“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.”



Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles


Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog


State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report


Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty


Maharrey Minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today


Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!



The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment



Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.