The reason that our Constitution begins by saying that We, the people are creating “a More Perfect Union” is that we had a very imperfect union under the Articles of Confederation, which followed the success of the Revolution.
One of those imperfections was the problem of trade wars between the states. Under the Confederation, a state could impose restrictions and/or tariffs on imports from another state.
It just so happened that the other important thing that happened in 1776 was the publication of Adam Smith’s classic on economics, The Wealth of Nations, which argued that free trade was preferable to imposing tariffs on imports. Free trade serves the public, while tariffs and other restrictions serve special interests. (And politicians who get to decide what the tariffs should be.)
Because of that, the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government exclusive power to regulate trade between the states, not just precluding tariffs, but also any restrictions that may serve as a restraint of trade.
Ironically, this has immediate relevance to marijuana prohibition: “The Commerce Clause is the source of federal drug prohibition laws under the Controlled Substances Act.
“In a 2005 medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause.”
More recently, I have written about the mess that several states are making as politicians who were ardent prohibitionists yesterday, now are experts on regulating a new industry.
See full here: