Effective Drug Control: Toward A New Legal Framework

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“The sale and distribution of marihuana is not under the control of any single organized group; “The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marihuana smoking; “Marihuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes; “Marihuana smoking is not widespread among school children; and “Juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice of smoking marihuana. “The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded.” La Guardia Commission (1973 reprint), The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York, Metuchen: Scarecrow Reprint Corp., pp. 24-25. 157 William O. Walker, III (1981), op. cit., pp. 170-171. 158 Daniel Glaser, “Interlocking Dualities in Drug Use, Drug Control and Crime,” in James A. Inciardi and Carl D. Chambers, eds. (1974), Drugs and the Criminal Justice System, Beverly Hills: Sage, p. 46. 159 Id. 160 H.J. Anslinger (1951), “The Federal Narcotic Laws,” Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law Journal, v.6, pp.743-748. 161 Public Law No. 255, 82 nd Cong., approved 2 Nov. 1951. Under the Boggs Act, first convictions carried a mandatory minimum penalty of two years in jail and second or subsequent convictions could not be reduced by suspensions or probation. 162 Rufus King (1972), The Drug Hang-Up, America’s Fifty Year Folly, Springfield: Bannerstone House, ch. 14. 163 Id. at ch. 16. 164 Id. 165 Alexander T. Shulgin (1988), op. cit., p. 246. 166 David F. Musto (1999), op. cit., p. 248. 167 In 1962 President John F. Kennedy, speaking on the issue of consumer protection legislation, remarked that “one problem meriting special attention deals with the growing abuse of non-narcotic drugs, including barbiturates and amphetamines. Society's gains will be illusory if we reduce the incidence of one kind of drug dependence, only to have new kinds of drugs substituted. The use of these drugs is increasing problems of abnormal and social behavior, highway accidents, juvenile delinquency and broken homes.” 168 Rufus King (1972), op. cit., ch. 26. 169 Id. 170 The record-keeping requirements and restrictions on amphetamine production created shortages that drove up the “street” price high enough to attract criminal organizations to profit from the traffic, as was the case with opiates in the 1940s and 1950s and with alcohol in the 1920s. Richard Davenport-Hines (2002), op. cit., pp. 312-313. 171 Alexander T. Shulgin (1988), op. cit., p. 247. 172 Id. 173 Richard Davenport-Hines (2002), op. cit., p. 424. 174 Richard Davenport-Hines (2002), op. cit., p. 422. 175 Pub.L. 91-513, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1236. 176 Alexander T. Shulgin (1988), op. cit., p. 247. 177 Id. 178 Richard Davenport-Hines (2002), op. cit., p. 421. 179 See Dan Baum (1996), Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, New York: Little Brown and Co. 180 Id. 181 See Jerome H. Jaffe, “One Bite of the Apple: Establishing the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention,” in David F. Musto, ed. (2002), op. cit., pp. 43-53. 182 David F. Musto (1999), op. cit., p. 257. It was during the Ford administration that the Domestic Council Drug Abuse Task Force released its White Paper on Drug Abuse, which recognized that governmental
actions could only hope to contain the problem of drug abuse and that total elimination was an unlikely prospect. See Domestic Council Drug Abuse Task Force, White Paper, September 1975, p. 97-98. 183 In a message to Congress, President Carter stated that “penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed.” Quoted in David F. Musto (1999), op. cit., p. 261. 184 In 1982 the White House launched a coordinated effort in South Florida to fight illegal drugs entering the state. The government spent millions to seize over 30 tons of cocaine and 1500 tons of marijuana between 1983 and 1985. Richard Davenport-Hines (2002), op. cit., p. 437. Despite this massive interdiction, drug use was estimated by the DEA to have increased substantially during that time. Yet, while more money was appropriated for law enforcement, funding for treatment and research declined. David F. Musto (1999), op. cit., p. 267. 185 See Pub. L. No. 98-473, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1976; Alexander T. Shulgin (1988), op. cit., p. 250. 186 Pub. L. No. 99-570, Oct. 27, 1987, 100 Stat. 3207. 187 Pub. L. No. 100-690, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4181. 188 Alexander T. Shulgin (1988), op. cit., p. 250. 189 See King County Bar Association (2001), Is It Time to End the War on Drugs?, op. cit., pp. 59-65. 190 See discussion of drug courts in Part III, infra, “Controlling Psychoactive Substances; The Current System and Alternative Models,” pp. 62-63. 191 Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (1997), Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington: Department of Justice, table 5.37 p. 414; Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (2001), Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington: Department of Justice, table 5.19, p. 416, and table 6.51, p. 512. 192 Jonathan Caulkins and Sara Chandler, “Long-Run Trends in Incarceration of Drug Offenders in the United States,” cited in John M. Walsh (2004), Are We There Yet? Measuring Progress in the U.S. War on Drugs in Latin America, Washington, D.C.: Washington Office on Latin America, p. 7. 193 John M. Walsh (2004), op. cit., p. 7, citing U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003. 194 Lloyd D. Johnston et al. (2003), Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975- 2002, NIH Publication No. 03-5375, Bethesda: National Institute on Drug Abuse, v. I, table 13. 195 John M. Walsh (2004), op. cit., p. 5, citing National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003. 196 Lloyd D. Johnston et al. (2003), op. cit. 197 Office of National Drug Control Policy (2004), National Drug Control Strategy, March 2004. 198 Id., FY2005 Budget Summary. 199 Office of National Drug Control Policy (2004), The Price and Purity of Illicit Drugs: 1981 Through the Second Quarter of 2003, Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President (Publication Number NCJ 207768), November 2004. 200 U.S. Department of Justice (2004), National Drug Threat Assessment 2004, Washington, D.C.: National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), April 2004. PART II INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN DRUG POLICY: LESSONS LEARNED FROM ABROAD 201 U.N. ECON. & SOC. COUNCIL, SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961, U.N. Doc. UNE/CN.7/GP/1, U.N. Sales No. 62.XI.1 (1961); U.N. ECON. & SOC. COUNCIL, CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES, 1971, U.N. Sales No. E.78.XI.3 (1977); and U.N., CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES, 1988 (1988). 202 Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter (2001), Drug War Heresies, Cambridge University Press, p. 206. 203 Peter Andreas from Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs describes the political pressure on nations not to withdraw from global drug prohibition: “Open defection from the drug prohibition regime would…have severe consequences, placing the defecting country in the category of a pariah “narcostate,” generating material repercussions in the form of economic sanctions and aid cutoffs and damaging the country’s moral standing in the international community.” Richard Friman and Peter Andreas, eds. (1999), The Global Economy and State Power, New York: Roman and Littlefield, pp. 127-8. Dutch scholar Peter Cohen expresses it more dramatically: “The international drug treaties are among the holiest texts of the
Page 1 and 2:
Effective Drug Control: Toward A Ne
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS RESOLUTION - STAT
Page 5 and 6:
INNOVATIONS WITHIN THE PROHIBITION
Page 7 and 8:
PART IV STATES’ RIGHTS: TOWARD A
Page 9 and 10:
CURBING DEMAND FOR DRUGS: LIMITING
Page 11 and 12:
The Coalition and Its Task Forces a
Page 13 and 14:
6. The regulation of state-licensed
Page 15 and 16:
Further, the King County Bar Associ
Page 17 and 18:
PART I Drugs and the Drug Laws: His
Page 19 and 20:
PROHIBITIONS OF THE PAST Mind-alter
Page 21 and 22:
market in 1898 when Bayer Pharmaceu
Page 23 and 24:
ideal of a homogeneous American lif
Page 25 and 26:
Like the Chinese before them, Mexic
Page 27 and 28:
targeting patent medicine-makers wi
Page 29 and 30:
intolerance toward recreational dru
Page 31 and 32:
1919 the First World War raged in E
Page 33 and 34:
appointment was an extremely signif
Page 35 and 36:
Criticism from the Professions The
Page 37 and 38:
THE MODERN “WAR ON DRUGS” Under
Page 39 and 40:
offenders and the lengthening of pr
Page 41 and 42:
II. INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN DRUG PO
Page 43 and 44:
Since September 11, 2001, however t
Page 45 and 46:
On June 26, 2004, to mark the Unite
Page 47 and 48:
however, we can help you reduce the
Page 49 and 50:
Russian President Vladimir Putin si
Page 51 and 52:
evidence that decriminalization of
Page 53 and 54:
In Germany, the Consumption and Inj
Page 55 and 56:
to be submitted for registration as
Page 57 and 58:
LESSONS LEARNED: THE LIMITS OF THE
Page 59 and 60:
4) Other policies in Europe have he
Page 61 and 62:
III. CONTROLLING PSYCHOACTIVE SUBST
Page 63 and 64:
function of the body of man or othe
Page 65 and 66:
The black market in psychoactive su
Page 67 and 68:
the Environmental Protection Agency
Page 69 and 70:
many to stay away from the practice
Page 71 and 72:
5) Drug courts invade the confident
Page 73 and 74: Washington State Liquor Control Boa
Page 75 and 76: are used or stored by pharmacies, d
Page 77 and 78: ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF DRUG CONTROL
Page 79 and 80: a second look by police and Customs
Page 81 and 82: consumption rooms for the smoking o
Page 83 and 84: availability, would be easy to tran
Page 85 and 86: c. Adequate public health and consu
Page 87 and 88: IV. STATES’ RIGHTS: TOWARD A FEDE
Page 89 and 90: intrastate instances of such activi
Page 91 and 92: Growing Federal Commerce Power - Pe
Page 93 and 94: STEPS TOWARD A FEDERALIST DRUG POLI
Page 95 and 96: Assuming that the U.S. Supreme Cour
Page 97 and 98: Implied Foreign Affairs Power Feder
Page 99 and 100: V. PARAMETERS OF A NEW LEGAL FRAMEW
Page 101 and 102: Substances Subject to State Regulat
Page 103 and 104: potential psychotherapeutic benefit
Page 105 and 106: those drugs and thereby reducing pu
Page 107 and 108: does not result in any decrease in
Page 109 and 110: CURBING DEMAND FOR DRUGS: LIMITING
Page 111 and 112: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down
Page 113 and 114: Under a new legal framework to regu
Page 115 and 116: Preventing Increases in Crime and V
Page 117 and 118: 16 Around the year 1650 Sultan Mura
Page 119 and 120: advocates encouraged moderation, su
Page 121 and 122: 96 See Lawrence Kolb and A.G. Du Me
Page 123: 137 William L. White, “Trick or T
Page 127 and 128: down to $26.03 per gram in 2000. Of
Page 129 and 130: • understands drug use as a compl
Page 131 and 132: 299 Gordana Mijuk, “Swiss parliam
Page 133 and 134: the legal basis for heroin prescrip
Page 135 and 136: 385 The DEA is authorized to act to
Page 137 and 138: possession to be given drug treatme
Page 139 and 140: 464 RCW 13.34.174 (order of alcohol
Page 141 and 142: 484 For more information about such
Page 143 and 144: 532 21 U.S.C. §§ 801(2)-(6). 533
Page 145 and 146: 575 Reeves v. William Stake, 447 U.
Page 147 and 148: 600 Recent studies show conclusivel
Page 149: 636 RCW 13.34.176 (violation of alc
show all

Effective Drug Control: Toward A New Legal Framework

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?