Transcript Chapter 10

SUBSTANCE ABUSE
CRIMES
Chapter 10
ALCOHOL PROHIBITION AND REGULATION
 Drug defined
 First part refers to use for positive reasons
 Second suggests negative meaning
 Concerns criminal law
 May be used to alter structure and function of body
 May be done in illegal or legal ways but to excess or abuse
 Abuse of drugs is issue for society
 Defining is difficult
ALCOHOL PROHIBITION AND REGULATION
 General agreement alcohol is a drug
 Most frequently used of them all
 Alcohol comes in many forms
 Can be considered medicinal
 Can lead to various health issues when used in excess
 Not always been legal for use in United States
 Eighteenth Amendment
 Ratified in 1919
 Prohibited manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors
within country, along with importation of exportation of alcohol
ALCOHOL PROHIBITION AND REGULATION
 Twenty -First Amendment
 Ratified in 1933
 Repealed Prohibition
 Still regulated today
 Regulations not always criminal
 Many appeal in special code
 New York
 Statutes and ordinances govern which institutions may serve and
under what circumstances
 For those contained in sections other than criminal code,
statutes may provide for criminal penalties
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
 Any drug statute in question has designated as such
 Governments have power to regulate possession, sale,
distribution, and classification
 Uniform Controlled Substances Act
 Establishes five categories of controlled substances
 See Focus 10.1
 Categorized primarily in terms of perceived potential for abuse
 States free to devise own acts
 Must not conflict with federal act
POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
 Possession may be
 Actual
 Person has actual physical control over drug in question
 Constructive
 Occurs when person who may not have actual possession has power to
possess
 Minor in possession
 Refers to minor in actual possession of alcohol (or other drugs) but
may also encompass all minors in designated areas in which law
enforcement find alcohol, even if not all the minors know about the
illegal beverages
 New York statute
POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
 States prohibiting possession may categorize as felony or
misdemeanor
 Vary in terms of categories used and extent of sanctions imposed
 Marijuana is most frequently used illicit drug
 Possession statutes may specify various degrees of of fenses
 May also be categorized in terms of intent
 Small amounts may carry stiff penalties
POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
 Criminal laws may also prohibit possession of drug
paraphernalia
 Any item, product, or material that could be used to violate controlled
substance statutes
 Statutes may require accused be in possession with intent to violate
controlled substance statute
 Statutes may also specify other illegal acts
 Statutes may also divide into degrees of seriousness,
separate sections for minors, and specify traf ficking
THE MANUFACTURE, PRESCRIPTION, AND
SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS
 Governments may permit manufacture, prescription, and sale
of drugs, including controlled substances
 Licensed manufacturers, pharmacists, and specified medical persons
 Persons under care may possess provided they follow rules
 Governments can establish restrictions and regulate
DRUG TRAFFICKING
 Illegal sale of controlled substances
 One of the most widespread criminal problems in world
 Statutes may be simple






May provide long list of conditions
May specify types of drug
May specify amount of drug required
Often written in terms of degrees
May also involve sale of drug paraphernalia
Other crimes may be involved
DRUG TRAFFICKING




May be committed by small -time of fenders
Government targets large sales
Statutes present law enforcement of ficials with challenges
Significant quantities of illegal drugs smuggled into United
States




Difficult to detect
Brought in by couriers
Brought in using many different ways and methods
Can be large or small amounts
DRUG TRAFFICKING
 Violence also common in drug traf ficking
 Used to reduce or eliminate competition, expand markets, and
intimidate anyone who interferes with trafficking
 Many dealers are addicts
 Habits consume profits
 Drug lords from other countries have big impact
PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE
 Of fice of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) classifies
prescription drug abuse as fastest growing problem in United
States
 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) describe as an epidemic
 Revealed as second most frequent type of substance abuse
 Over 70% got supply from family or friends
 Drug induced deaths second only to motor vehicle fatalities
PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE
 Seriousness led ONDCP to develop prevention plan
 See Focus 10.2
 National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
 Emphasizes harmful effects may also come from abuse of drugs
available over the counter
 Often mixed with other substances
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF DRUG ABUSE
 Impossible to know nature and extent
 FBI reported for 2014, 83.1% of arrests were for drug
possession
 Highest was for marijuana (39.7%)
 Death rate from heroin overdose almost quadrupled between
2000 and 2013
 Number four times as high or men as for women
 Highest rates for non-Hispanic black persons between ages of 45 and
64
 Death rates increased in all regions of country
 Greatest was in Midwest
 Increase in heroin-caused deaths in 2014 alone increased
28%
THE IMPACT OF DRUG ABUSE:
ECONOMIC COST
 Impossible to measure accurately
 There are many facets
 Federal estimates alone are staggering
 NIDA estimates annual cost of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit
drugs is over $700 billion in costs related to crime, lost work
productivity, and health care
THE IMPACT OF DRUG ABUSE:
DRUGS AND CRIME
 Substance abuse and drug traf ficking have been associated
with other criminal acts
 Some users commit crimes to finance drug habits
 Association must be given serious attention
 Evidence does not show drug use causes crime
 Argued drugs are driving crime
 Drug abuse may lead to crime on part of victims of abuser, or
lifestyle changes by abuser that lead to other criminal activity
 Implications complicated by other factors
THE IMPACT OF DRUG ABUSE:
FETAL ABUSE
 Abusing a fetus
 Some jurisdictions use criminal law to cover pregnant women
using drugs, including alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription
drugs, causing injury (or death) to her fetus
 Variety of injuries may result
 Most cases have not resulted in convictions
 Johnson v. State (Fla. 1992)
 In re Valerie D. (Conn. 1992)
 State v. Peppers (S.C. 2001)
THE IMPACT OF DRUG ABUSE:
FETAL ABUSE
 Ferguson v. Charleston (2001)
 U.S. Supreme Court ruled pregnant women suspected of drug abuse
may not be tested for drugs without their permission if purpose is to
alert police to substance abuse
 Even with possibility that substance abuse could endanger fetus
 Babies born to women who abuse drugs can suf fer from
multiple health problems
 Florida response
THE IMPACT OF DRUG ABUSE:
HEALTH OF ABUSERS
 NIDA describes drug abuse as major public health problem
 Cites research showing some major diseases may be related to drug
abuse
 Can also contribute to major social problems
 Mental illness and deaths are associated with substance
abuse
 Health issues associated account for significant lost work
days
THE IMPACT OF DRUG ABUSE:
CLUB DRUGS, ALCOHOL, AND CAMPUS
ISSUES
 Illegal use of alcohol and other drugs on college and
university campuses is extensive
 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
 See Focus 10.3
 Date rape often associated with use of club drugs
 Ecstasy and GHB
 Latter often called date rape drug
THE IMPACT OF DRUG ABUSE:
CLUB DRUGS, ALCOHOL, AND CAMPUS
ISSUES
 In 2000, President Clinton signed bill into law toughening
penalties for possession and distribution of GHB
 Placed GHB in Schedule I category of federal Controlled Substances
Act
 Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act of
2002
 Prohibits renting, leasing, or profiting form any place in which club
drugs are used
THE IMPACT OF DRUG ABUSE:
CLUB DRUGS, ALCOHOL, AND CAMPUS
ISSUES
 Many states have passed legislation to regulate club drugs
 One problem is substitute drugs have been developed to avoid
reach of statutes
 Some statutes include chemicals that are similar in chemistry or
effect to named drugs
 Some also prohibit specific sexual acts with someone under
influence of date rape or similar drug
THE IMPACT OF DRUG ABUSE:
EFFECTS ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS
 Every aspect of system af fected by drug abuse and ef forts to
control it
 Also present personnel with some of their most frustrating
problems
 Escalation of drug traf ficking results in serious issues in all
elements of system
 Significant number of court cases involve drug -related issues
THE CONTROL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE
 Various approaches used in national ef forts to control illegal
drugs
 Forfeiture
 Permits government to order personal or real property acquired from
money derived through illegal acts be turned over to government
 Approximately 100 federal statutes permit even if criminal charges
not formally filed
 Also permitted under state statutes
 May occur without prior notice
 Some require bond posted over specified percentage
THE CONTROL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE
 U.S. Supreme Court has shown some concern with potential
unfairness of forfeitures
 Court has ruled value of seized property must not be excessive
when compared to seriousness of crimes in question
 Court views forfeiture as punishment and applies cruel and
unusual punishment clause of Eighth Amendment to analysis
of forfeitures
 Austin v. United States (1993) and Alexander v. United States (1993)
THE CONTROL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE
 Bennis v. Michigan (1996)
 Court upheld forfeiture of property belonging to innocent owner who
was not aware property would be used in crime
 Recent ef forts to control drug -related crimes have focused
primarily on long prison sentences
 Must be considered in light of total impact on system
THE FEDERAL LEVEL
 Major attempt at controlling high -level traf ficking is at federal
level
 Efforts relatively recent
 Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914
 Enacted for purpose of recording sale of drugs and as tax measure
 Drugs became increasingly difficult to get from physicians
 Boggs Act in 1951
 Provided stiff mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses
THE FEDERAL LEVEL
 Narcotic Drug Control Act of 1956
 Provided even stiffer penalties
 Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of
1970
 Generally called Controlled Substances Act
 Established five categories of controlled substances
 See Focus 10.1
 Other acts passed in recent years
THE FEDERAL LEVEL:
U.S. WAR ON DRUGS: A BRIEF HISTORY
 Initiated by President Nixon in early 1970s
 Continued by President Reagan in 1980s
 Passage of Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
 Increased penalties for federal drug-related offenses
 Provided funding for treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation
programs
 Has withstood some constitutional challenges
THE FEDERAL LEVEL:
U.S. WAR ON DRUGS: A BRIEF HISTORY
 Passage of Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988
 Directed President to examine extent and nature of drug problem and
propose policies for dealing with it
 ONDCP established within of fice of president
 Federal drug-control strategy also contained provisions for
federal grants to state and local agencies for law enforcement
purposes
 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
 Increased penalties for drug offenses
THE FEDERAL LEVEL:
U.S. WAR ON DRUGS: A BRIEF HISTORY
 War on drugs has been hotly debated
 Is expensive, costing billions of dollars while showing little
success
 May have dif ferential impact on persons of color and the poor
 Racial discrimination has been suggested in sentencing as
well
 Ratio for penalties of crack versus powder cocaine
THE FEDERAL LEVEL:
U.S. WAR ON DRUGS: A BRIEF HISTORY
 African Americans argue they are more often selected for drug
prosecutions
 United States v. Armstrong (1996)
 U.S. Supreme Court ruled defendant alleging racial bias must show
similarly situated persons of other races were not prosecuted
 Subsequent presidents tried dif ferent drug policies
THE FEDERAL LEVEL:
RECENT WHITE HOUSE DRUG-CONTROL
POLICIES
 R. Gil Kerlikowske confirmed national drug czar in May 2009
 Focus would be on reducing demand for illegal drugs
 2012 strategy focused on law enforcement, drug prevention,
and public health care approach
 Focused on populations disproportionately affected by drug abuse
THE FEDERAL LEVEL:
RECENT WHITE HOUSE DRUG-CONTROL
POLICIES
 In 2014, emphasis placed on drug treatment rather than
incarceration
 2016 Companion to the National Drug Control Strategy
 Requested increase of more than $1.2 billion over previous year’s
budget for drug control
 Obama administration drug plan includes incentives and
financial support for state initiated programs to reduce drug
abuse
THE STATE LEVEL:
MANDATORY SENTENCING
 Typical statutes of harsh sentencing ef forts to control drug
traf ficking and use of illegal drugs
 New York
 Rockefeller Laws
 Went into effect in 1973
 Increased penalties for drug possession and sale of drugs
 Passed with two purposes in mind
 Frighten drug users and drug dealers into quitting
 Curb drug-related crimes
 1977 report concluded neither goals met
THE STATE LEVEL:
MANDATORY SENTENCING
 Study of New York laws revealed significant increase in court
congestion, increased costs, and overcrowding of jails and prisons
 Crimes related to drug use did not go down
 New York judges openly criticized laws
 New York legislature passed reform bill in 2004




Expanded drug treatment
Reduced prison sentences for certain offenders
Permitted residential treatment for some offenders
Permitted resentencing for some offenders
 Other changes made in subsequent years
 Still argued needed fixing
THE STATE LEVEL:
MANDATORY SENTENCING
 Other states also have long mandatory minimums for drug
of fenses designed to incarcerate hard -core traf fickers for
years
 Has not been result
 Analysis of 58,000 drug convictions won by local prosecutors
in Houston, TX area revealed 77% involved defendants who
had less than a gram of drug in their possession
 Types of laws under fire in many jurisdictions
THE STATE LEVEL:
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND TREATMENT
 Treatment approach seen in reactions of some jurisdictions,
including federal government
 Idaho statute
 No prosecutions solely based on consumption
 Declares government should utilize resources to facilitate research
and treatment for alcoholism and drug addiction
 California’s Proposition 36
 Provided for treatment for first time or second minor drug offenses
THE CONTROL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE:
DRUG COURTS
 Based on diversion and treatment approach
 Began in Miami, FL in 1989
 Constitute alternative to traditional prosecution in criminal
courts
 Described as “supervised by a sitting judge, a drug court is an
intensive, community -based treatment, rehabilitation, and
supervision program for drug defendants”
THE CONTROL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE:
DRUG COURTS
 1994 federal criminal code revision included provision for
federal drug courts and grants to states to develop drug
courts
 Drug courts in operation in all states in 2001
 Programs vary in size and type
 Family drug courts exist in some jurisdictions
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA
 Many agree some aspects of substance abuse should be
included in criminal law
 Not much agreement on criminalization of possession of
small amounts of drugs such as marijuana
 Many consider use to be private matter
 Others say it is dangerous
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA:
MARIJUANA FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES
 Movement led by California in 1996
 Passed Proposition 215
 Compassionate Use Act of 1996
 Legalized use of marijuana by seriously ill persons, with physician’s
prescription
 In reaction, Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative organized
 Provided distribution of marijuana to people qualifying under new act
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA:
MARIJUANA FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES
 Subsequently, federal district court enjoined cooperative
 Group refused and was held in contempt of court
 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled necessity defense applies
in such cases
 Medical need would constitute defense to prosecution of federal
statute
 U.S. Supreme Court reversed Ninth Circuit
 Necessity defense not applicable
 California court issued injunctions
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA:
MARIJUANA FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES
 Injunctions allowed government to process violators through
civil courts and avoid criminal courts with harsher penalties
 Challenge for advocates is now to convince Congress to
amend Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act
 Congress has made some changes
 Included amendment prohibiting federal prosecutors from using
federal funds to prosecute medical marijuana charges legal in in
states in which they occur
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA:
MARIJUANA FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES
 Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
 U.S. Supreme Court ruled Congress has authority to enact
legislation to regulate growth of marijuana by persons who use it
for medicinal reasons even though state permits use
 In 2011 , federal agents began conducting raids of some
dispensaries in California
 In August 2013, DOJ sent memo to all U.S. Attorneys stating
agency priorities regarding drug enforcement
 Memo listed eight priorities
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA:
MARIJUANA FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES
 In 2015, Supreme Court of Colorado decided state’s medical
marijuana amendment is “lawful activity” under state’s
“lawful activity statute”
 Coats v. Dish Network, LLC (Colo. 2015)
 Employer may discharge employee for violating law, including state
law permitting medical use of marijuana
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA:
RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA
 Some states have legalized possession of small amounts for
personal use
 Colorado first state to decriminalize possession of small
amounts for personal, recreational use
 Sales have gone rather smoothly since beginning in
December 2012
 Other jurisdictions have reduced penalties or reclassified
marijuana
 California
 District of Columbia
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA:
RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA
 Some jurisdictions have reduced number of arrests made for
possession of small amounts
 New York
 Many practical, social, legal, medical, philosophical, and other
issues arising from trend toward decriminalizing possession of
small amounts