| FootnoteTV, Footnote Fahrenheit, and more | By Stephen Lee |
Medical Marijuana (last updated February 7, 2004) (back to top) California and seven other states have adopted laws allowing the medicinal use of marijuana, but the federal government continues to enforce federal laws defining marijuana as a drug so dangerous that it cannot be used except under specific federal exemptions. The conflict lies in two very different views of marijuana and in the different powers associated with the federal and state governments. On one side, marijuana has long been classified by the federal government under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 as a drug that cannot be used or prescribed except under specific federal exemptions. As such a "Schedule I" drug, marijuana officially is deemed to have a high potential for abuse, to lack accepted medical use, and to lack safety for use under medical supervision. On the other, marijuana is considered by some a medicinal, relaxing substance that can relieve internal eye pressure in glaucoma, control nausea in cancer patients, and help AIDS patients. In fact, in 1988, administrative law judge Francis L. Young of the Drug Enforcement Administration reviewed the medical evidence and declared that marijuana in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man" and recommended the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. Young's recommendation was non-binding, and it was subsequently rejected by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Other petitions for transfer have been rejected. Rather than pursuing whole-sale legalization at the moment, some advocates, especially in California, have focused their efforts primarily on carving out an exception for marijuana's use for medicinal and therapeutic reasons. In 1996, California voters accordingly approved measures that de-criminalized marijuana when used for medicinal purposes, and seven other states followed suit as of 2002 (Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). Arizona voters in 1996 approved a Proposition 200 that would have allowed doctors to prescribe heroin and other narcotics if deemed necessary, but the legislature subsequently repealed some of the provisions changed by the proposition. The Clinton administration responded to California's 1996 referenda by saying it would continue enforcement efforts and that it would revoke the registrations of physicians recommending or prescribing marijuana for any use. This move was quickly criticized by the New England Journal of Medicine's editor, Jerome P. Kassirer, who wrote that the "federal officials are out of step with the public" and called government sanctions "misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane." The federal government under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush has continued to prosecute those who cultivate, distribute, and prescribe marijuana for medical purposes, arguing that such state-law changes do not affect federal law and that people authorized by state programs can still be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws. Some growers have tried invoking a "medical necessity" defense against federal prosecution, but this defense was rejected as unavailable by the United States Supreme Court in May 2001. The Court ruled 8-0 that there was no "medical necessity" exception to drug laws prohibiting the manufacturing and distribution of marijuana, saying that marijuana's classification as a Schedule I drug means that there is "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The narrow ruling does not overrule state laws but does allow federal prosecutors to continue enforcement actions. The ruling does not necessarily prohibit the "medical necessity" defense from applying to prosecutions for the use of marijuana. Accordingly, federal prosecutors have continued to prosecute people for cultivating marijuana under programs that are legal under state laws. In February 2003, for example, Ed Rosenthal, a well-known grower, was convicted in federal court for growing marijuana plants and conspiring to cultivate marijuana. Jurors were not told that Rosenthal was authorized to grow marijuana under the city of Oakland's medical marijuana program. Marijuana is the most commonly-used illicit drug, according to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse conducted by the federal government. About 36.9 percent of all persons aged 12 or older reported using marijuana at some point in their lives, though only 5.4 percent reported being a current user (defined as someone who used marijuana in the past month). Sources: A summary of the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse is on-line here. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, the United States Supreme Court's 2001 decision rejecting the medical necessity defense, is on-line here. The Schaffer Drug Library is on-line here. Conant v. McCaffrey, order granting in part and denying part cross-motions for summary judgment, dissolving preliminary injunction, entering permanent injunction, available here. Information on the marijuana-related referenda in 2002 was taken from the Secretary of States' websites for the respective states.  Marijuana Timeline (last updated July 2001) (back to top)
Use statistics (last updated January 11, 2002) (back to top) The following data comes from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.
   Prison statistics (last updated August 25, 2001) (back to top) Drug offenders made up the largest group of federal inmates in 1998, accounting for 58 percent of all federal inmates. There were 63,011 sentenced drug offenders on September 30, 1998, out of about 108,000 prisoners. Federal prisons, however, make up just a small part of the overall prison system. In the state prisons overall, there were 1.138 million prisoners in 1998 and drug offenders make up about 20 percent of this population (almost half are convicted of violent crimes as their most serious offense and another fifth of property crimes). Still, drug offenders are the fastest-growing area of offenders in state prisons; the number of people serving sentences in state prisons for drug crimes as their most serious offense went from 19,000 in 1980 to 236,800 in 1998, an increase of more than 12 times (the number of violent offenders increased by 3.1 times over the same period). Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2000 (August 2001, NCJ 188207). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional populations and facilities (available on-line here). Federal Drug Policy (last updated August 25, 2001) (back to top) Federal drug policy is coordinated by the Office of National Drug Policy, the head of which is commonly referred to as the drug czar. From 1996 to early 2001, the drug czar was - just as in the movie Traffic - a general with 31 years of previous army service, Barry R. McCaffrey. In an interview with the New York Times, McCaffrey showed himself to be quite aware of drug treatment as the core solution, though he has had difficulty getting funding for such programs. He also criticizes provisions in the federal sentencing guidelines which impose longer sentences for the selling of crack cocaine than for power cocaine, a disparity that some have called racist since whites use and sell power cocaine more than blacks. He also opposes mandatory minimums, which others have also criticized for being too inflexible and too harsh, and would rather have judges decide appropriate sentences on an individual basis (though this approach can lead to wide disparities in sentencing depending on which judge you happen to get). On top of this, he helped persuade Clinton to extend health insurance for federal employees facing addiction and mental illness. On May 10, 2001, Bush nominated John P. Walters as the new drug czar. Walters served as top deputy to William Bennett, the drug-policy director under Bush's father. Walters briefly was acting drug czar in 1993, but quit when Clinton slashed the staff and announced he would re-orient drug policy to focus on treatment of hardcore users and thus de-emphasize law enforcement and interdiction. He co-wrote the 1996 book Body Count with Bennett and John DJ. DiIulio, Jr., in which they argued that moral poverty - rather than economic poverty - had caused the rise of youthful "super-predators." Walters must be confirmed by the Senate before he can take on the post. Until then, the Office of National Drug Control Policy is being led by an interim director. Federal spending on drug programs has risen considerably over the past two decades, about 12 times since 1981 and about twice since 1990. The federal government spent $1.5 billion in fiscal year 1981, $10.96 billion in fiscal year 1991, and $18.46 billion in fiscal year 2000 (these figures are not inflation-adjusted). Where this money has gone has shifted somewhat over the years, though a mostly consistent 30 percent has gone to drug-use reduction programs for the last 15 years (the balance between treatment and prevention programs has shifted within this broad category). Domestic law enforcement has gone from about 38.9 percent in 1986 to about half of such spending by 2000. Interdiction programs went from about a quarter of spending in 1986 to about 10 percent in recent years. International programs have held constant at around 5 percent of federal spending.  Sentencing laws, mandatory minimums, and the powder-crack differential (last updated August 24, 2001) (back to top) Over the past three decades, the federal government and most states have used changes in sentencing policy as part of the war against drugs. Sentences are now imposed in the federal government through guidelines and mandatory-minimum provisions. Most states have mandatory minimum sentences as well, with the most prominent being the New York's Rockefeller Drug Laws passed in 1973. These sentencing systems face frequent criticism for giving too much discretion to prosecutors and for disparate impact on minorities. In particular, critics have attacked the differential between powder cocaine and crack cocaine, wherein low-level people involved with crack cocaine are subject to harsher penalties than higher-level people involved with powder cocaine. Even the United States Sentencing Commission has twice recommended eliminating the "100-1" sentencing differential, first in 1995 and then in 1997, though Congress and President Clinton rejected such recommendations. Current sentencing policy at the state and federal levels emerged in the 1970s and 1980s as attitudes towards prisons moved from correction to incarceration and as the war on drugs developed. Beforehand, the federal government had imposed mandatory minimum sentences with the Narcotic Control Act of 1956 but had backed away from such laws by 1970, when it found that the increased sentences "had not shown the expected overall reduction in drug law violations." But even as the federal government backed away, states began implementing mandatory minimums on their own. New York began this trend in 1973 when it passed the Rockefeller Drug Laws requiring 15-year prison sentences for possession or sales of small amounts of narcotics. Michigan followed in 1978 with the enactment of the "650 lifer law," requiring life imprisonment for possession, sale or conspiracy to sell or possess 650 grams (about 1.25 pounds) of cocaine or heroin (actor and comedian now known as Tim Allen was arrested and sentenced under this Michigan law). By 1983, 49 of the 50 states had passed some mandatory minimum provisions, usually adding them piecemeal instead of making comprehensive changes. The federal government then began reforming its sentencing provisions in the 1980s, first setting up a system of sentencing guidelines to try to create more uniformity in the sentences given out by judges, and then through new laws imposing mandatory minimums, mostly for drug-related offenses. The United States Sentencing Commission, established by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, created a system of guidelines designed to limit judges' discretion in sentencing and to create more uniformity and proportionality in the sentences (one 1974 pre-guidelines study gave identical files to 50 district judges in three northeastern states; the judges varied widely in the sentences they would have given, with one judge giving 20 years and another giving just three years for same extortion case). These guidelines first went into effect in 1987 and have been modified regularly ever since. At the same time, Congress began passing laws that imposed mandatory minimum sentences for certain violent and drug-related crimes. Such laws are triggered by certain factors, such as the weight of drugs involved in a charged crime, and once triggered, set the floor for the defendant's sentence. There are now about 100 federal mandatory minimum provisions codified in about 60 different criminal statutes. The most noteworthy are the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act and the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988; both targeted drug distribution and imposed longer sentences on more people involved in drug-trafficking. Accordingly, federal judges now follow a multi-part system combining the guidelines and the mandatory-minimum laws in determining a person's sentence after conviction. First, judges determine a person's offense level (based on the crimes for which he/she has been charged and relevant circumstances) and compare that against the person's prior criminal history in a 258-box grid to determine the permissible sentence range. Then, judges determine whether circumstances justify an upward or downward departure from the guidelines (upward if circumstances are particularly egregious, downward if the defendant has helped authorities). Then, judges decide a sentence from within the final range permitted. Finally, judges determine if a mandatory minimum sentence has been triggered. If the guidelines calculation is lower than the minimum sentence required by statute, then the minimum sentence controls. A "safety valve" provision was enacted as part of the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to exempt certain non-violent drug offenders with little or no criminal history and who did not use violence or a weapon in the convicted crime. Many aspects of this system have been attacked. Some attack the sentencing guidelines, some attack the mandatory minimums, and some attack particular aspects of how such systems are applied. Ideally, the sentencing guidelines thus ensure that people convicted of the same crime receive the same sentence and allow for adjustments based on particular circumstances related to the crime and the defendant. However, many have criticized the guidelines as too harsh - especially for drug crimes that could be better dealt with in some circumstances by treatment programs - and for moving discretion over sentencing decisions from judges to prosecutors, since the system is based on what a person originally was charged with. The guidelines also allow judges to raise someone's sentence based on conduct for which they have not been convicted. Mandatory minimums have faced even more criticism, especially from judges. At least two Supreme Court Justices - William Rehnquist and Stephen Breyer - have publicly attacked such minimums as working counter to the guidelines. In addition, one particular aspect of the overall system that has been criticized is how the federal system distinguishes between powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Small amounts of crack cocaine trigger the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence that much greater amounts of powder cocaine will not (it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the sentence and just five grams of crack cocaine). In addition, simple possession of more than five grams of crack cocaine triggers a minimum sentence of five years, and simple possession without intent to distribute of any quantity of powder cocaine is a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of one year. This differential has been criticized on many grounds. First, some say that Congress imposed the difference in the 1980s without sufficient understanding of how crack cocaine differed from powder cocaine and with ungrounded assumptions about how much crack cocaine alone causes violent crime. Second, because more blacks are involved with the crack-cocaine trade whereas more whites are involved with powder cocaine, the difference has resulted in much longer sentences for blacks. In February 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission issued a report in which its members unanimously recommended that Congress change the cocaine-sentencing scheme and somehow reduce the 100-to-1 differential. The Commission split 4-3 on how much the ratio should be reduced; the majority recommended total elimination of the differential, whereas the minority recommended keeping some. Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation in 1995 rejecting the majority's proposal and directing the commission to submit new recommendations. In 1997, the Commission again unanimously recommended some change to the cocaine-sentencing scheme and some reduction of the 100-to-1 differential. This time, the Commission recommended unanimously that Congress raise the five-gram trigger for crack cocaine to 25-75 grams and reduce the 500-gram trigger for powder cocaine to 125-375 grams. This way, a differential would be maintained but reduced to somewhere between 5:3 and 15:1. Nevertheless, such proposals have failed to meet with success, and the differential remains. Sources: United States Sentencing Commission, Mandatory Minimum Policies in the Federal Criminal Justice System (August 1991). United States Sentencing Commission, Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (February 1995). United States Sentencing Commission, Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (April 1997). Ecstasy and Club Drugs (last updated August 29, 2002) (back to top) Ecstasy is the most popular of several illegal drugs that are commonly available at nightclubs and raves. Penalties related to Ecstasy-trafficking were increased in 2001, although deaths related to Ecstasy and other such club drugs are considered rare. Originally developed by a German company in the 1910s as a weight suppressant, Ecstasy (scientifically known as 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA) has stimulant and hallucinogenic effects in humans. It reportedly reduces inhibitions, eliminates anxiety, and suppresses the need to eat, drink or sleep. MDMA use is heaviest among youths and young adults, and its prevalence is increasing, according to studies measuring drug use in the United States. About 9.7 percent of 18-25-year-olds surveyed in 2000 had used Ecstasy once in their lifetimes, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. While Ecstasy use is growing among youths, the following graph shows that it is still less prevalent among high-school seniors than marijuana. |
|
 Index / Home FootnoteTV Footnote Fahrenheit Footnote Media Issues Cases Resources Footnote Comics Site FAQ Search via Google Election 2004 
Issues | |||||
|
|