[1] Mike Tidwell, IN THE SHADOW OF THE WHITE HOUSE:
DRUGS, DEATH, AND REDEMPTION ON THE STREETS OF THE NATION'S
CAPITAL, (1992), 40, ("What, you've never heard a gun
go off at night before? ... They're not shooting
at you, man. Those dope fiends shooting at each other.
Stay out of their way and be cool -- that's all
you've got to do. You're in the ghetto now, man. You've
got to get used to it."); Life in a Shooting Gallery.
Mother, Girls Pray a lot in Deadly Neighborhood,
MIAMI HERALD, Feb. 9, 1997 at 1A, ("'Bullets fly through
this neighborhood every day,' says 13-year-old sister,
Bertha ...The area ...was named Germ City
more than 20 years ago because of crowding and
unsanitary conditions.").
[2] The annual survey of student drug use sponsored
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
is "Monitoring the Future," conducted by the Institute
for Social Research of the University of Michigan. Current
use of drugs is considered use at least once in the
past 30-days. The percentage of 8th graders reporting
use of marijuana in the past 30-days increased from
3.2% in 1991 to 11.3% in 1996. The percentage of 10th
graders increased from 8.7% in 1991 to 20.4% in 1996,
and the percentage of 12th graders increased from 13.8%
in 1991 to 21.9% in 1996. The percentage of 8th graders
reporting use of "any illicit drug" in the past 30-days
increased from 5.7% in 1991 to 14.6% in 1996. The percentage
of 10th graders reporting use of "any illicit drug"
in the past 30-days increased from 11.6% in 1991 to
23.2% in 1996. The percentage of 12th graders reporting
use of "any illicit drug" in the past 30-days increased
from 16.4 % in 1991 to 24.6% in 1996. Alcohol consumption
by children in junior high and high school is illegal
in all states, and this is a part of most anti-drug
education programs. This fact may effect this answer
even though the researchers define illicit drug in terms
of 10 classes of drugs, and self-reporting of alcohol
consumption by such students exceeds the use of "any
illicit drug" for all age groups and years. See infra
note 11 for a discussion of statistics relating to alcohol
consumption by minors.
[3] Daniel D. Polsby at, Ending the War on Drugs
and Children, 31 VAL. U. L. REV. (1997).
[4] Dr. Trebach began his 1982 opus on heroin by quoting
Peter G. Bourne, MD, then advisor to presidential-hopeful,
Jimmy Carter:
What was once the "American Disease" has become a
worldwide affliction. Heroin addiction has become
a major problem in a dozen countries, with the number
of addicts continuing to increase by several thousand
every month. Not only are those who are becoming addicted
for the most part the children of the social and intellectual
elite of these countries, but the massive amounts
of money now involved in trafficking have corrupted
many high level officials and undermined already unstable
economies.
ARNOLD S. TREBACH, THE HEROIN SOLUTION, 1 (1982). Trebach
then commented:
The years that have passed since that time [1976]
have shown, sadly enough, that Dr. Bourne's remarks
understated the dimensions of the problem. The number
of new addicts in the world every month is becoming
enormous, unknown to be sure, but certainly more than
"several thousand." In any event, there is no doubt
that heroin addiction has become, as Dr. Bourne said,
a worldwide affliction.
Id.
This is hardly a lack of an appreciation of the problem
of heroin addiction. Trebach frequently has described
the problems of the abuse of drugs, noting, for example,
the shock of parents in discovering that their children
are abusing drugs. ARNOLD S. TREBACH, THE GREAT DRUG
WAR 136 (1987). He notes that in his concept of "drugpeace,"
the police would "continue ... to apprehend the
often despicable people involved in the illicit drug
trade." Id. at 355.
Dr. Nadelmann reflects that "all the benefits of legalization
would be for naught, however, if millions more Americans
were to become drug abusers." Ethan A. Nadelmann, The
Case of Legalization, THE PUB. INTEREST, Summer
1988, at 3, 24. He observes that "China's experience
with the British opium pushers of the nineteenth century,
when millions became addicted to the drug, offers one
worst-case scenario." Id. at 28. "There is no
question that legalization is a risky policy, one that
may indeed lead to an increase in the number of people
who abuse drugs. But that risk is by no means a certainty."
Ethan A. Nadelmann, Drug Prohibition in the United
States: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives, 245
SCI. 939, 946 (1989).
[5] Polsby, supra note 3, at 537.
[6] Id. at 538.
[7] Eric E. Sterling, The Sentencing Boomerang:
Drug Prohibition Politics and Reform, 40 VILL. L.
REV. 383, 399-405 (1995).
[8] THOMAS SZASZ, OUR RIGHT TO DRUGS: THE CASE FOR
A FREE MARKET (1992).
[9] Id. at 106-107.
[10] See Seth Schiesel, On the Web, This
Bud's for Your Children, NEW YORK TIMES, Mar 7,
1997, at A1.
[11] Very high percentages of teenagers report that
they used alcohol (redefined as a "drink" instead of
"more than a few sips" in 1993) in the past 30-days,
and these percentages have increased over the past four
years: for 8th graders from 24.3% in 1993 to 26.2% in
1996; for 10th graders from 38.2% in 1993 to 40.4% in
1996; and for 12th graders from 48.6% in 1993 to 50.8%
in 1996. Asked whether they have been drunk in the past
30-days, last year an astonishingly high percentage
of teenagers responded affirmatively: 9.6% of 8th graders,
21.3% of 10th graders, and 31.3% of 12th graders. University
of Michigan News and Information Services, The rise
in drug use among American teens continues in 1996,
Press Release, Dec 19, 1996 (11), Table 1. Asked if
they engaged in binge-drinking at any time in the past
two weeks (defined as consuming 5 or more drinks at
one occasion), 15.65 of 8th graders, 24.8% of 10th graders,
and 30.2% of 12th graders responded affirmatively last
year. Id. Table 1a. Asked, "How difficult do
you think it would be for you to get alcohol if you
wanted some?" The percentages responding, "fairly easy"
or "very easy" to get were 75.3% for 8th graders, and
90.4% for 10th graders. 12th graders weren't asked.
Id. Table 10.
[12] Liquor law violations constituted only 15.5% of
all alcohol offense arrests in 1994. There was a very
wide variation in the rate among the states. BUREAU
OF JUSTICE STAT., U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, 1995 SOURCEBOOK
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATISTICS 431 tbl. 4.29 (1996).
[13] See Bruce Horovitz & Melanie Wells,
Ads for Adult Vices Big Hit With Teens, USA TODAY,
Jan 31, 1997, at A1.
[14] "Just one year after California raised its cigarette
tax 25 cents in 1989 -- earmarking some of it for
anti-smoking campaigns -- per capita consumption
declined 9%. Researchers estimate that a 50-cent tax
increase would result in 2.5 million fewer smokers."
INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POL'Y, BRANDEIS U., SUBSTANCE ABUSE:
THE NATION'S NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM, KEY INDICATORS
FOR POLICY 54 (1993).
[15] MARK MOORE, BUY AND BUST, (1977 ).
[16] For an extensive discussion of the factors comprising
heroin availability, see Charles Faupel, SHOOTING DOPE
(1991).
[17] National Transportation Safety Board, Accidents,
Fatalities, and Rates, 1982 through 1996, U.S. General
Aviation, (visited Feb. 21, 1997) <http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Stats.htm>
.
[18] University of Michigan News and Info. Servs.,
supra note 2, at 6.
[19] Polsby supra note 3,
at 538.
[20] See Native American Church, 21 CFR § 1307.31
(1995).
[21] J.H. Brown et al., Students and Substances:
Social Power in Drug Education. 19 EDUC. EVALUATION
AND ANALYSIS 65, 79-80 (1997). See also
Marianne D'Emidio-Caston & Joel H. Brown, The Other
Side of the Story: Student Narratives on the California
Drug, Alcohol, Tobacco Education Program, (unpublished
manuscript, on file with author).
[22] See Brown et al., supra note 21,
at 79.
[23] MARK HELPRIN, MEMOIR FROM ANTPROOF CASE 273 (1996).
[24] Polsby, supra note 3, at 539.
[25] See Thomas B. Roberts, Academic and
Religious Freedom in the Study of the Mind, in ENTHEOGENS
AND THE FUTURE OF RELIGION 137, 141 (Robert Forte, ed.,
1997) at 141, and Eric E. Sterling, The Bill of Rights:
A Casualty of the War on Drugs, VITAL SPEECHES OF
THE DAY (52:2), Nov 1, 1990 at 45-46.
[26] Eric E. Sterling, Law Enforcement Against Entheogens:
Is it Religious Persecution?, in ENTHEOGENS AND
THE FUTURE OF RELIGION (Robert Forte, ed.) (1997) at
165-170.
[27] Jay Stevens, STORMING HEAVEN: LSD AND THE AMERICAN
DREAM 276 (1987).
[28] 5 MAPS BULL., Summer 1994, at 43 (reporting a
telephone conversation between Dr. Kary Mullis &
Rick Doblin in the Spring of 1994).
[29] See Tidwell, supra note
1, at 67-71.
[30] See Dorothy K. Hatsukami and Marian W.
Fischman, Crack Cocaine and Cocaine Hydrochloride:
Are the Differences Myth or Reality, 276 JAMA 1580,
1583 (1996).
[31] Paul J. Goldstein, et al., Crack and homicide
in New York City, 1988: A Conceptually Based Event Analysis,
16 Contemp. Drug Probs. 651, 652-53 (1989); Paul J.
Goldstein, et al., Volume of Cocaine Use and Violence:
A Comparison Between Men and Women, 21 J. Drug Issues
345-67 (1991).
[32] See Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15, 34-36
(1973); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484-85
(1957).
[33] A "mission" is a "trip out of the crackhouse to
obtain crack; a visual mission is to look for possible
sale locations or for a person from whom crack-cocaine
or freebase can be acquired (term from Star Trek),"
Terry Williams, CRACKHOUSE: NOTES FROM THE END OF THE
LINE 150 (1992).
[34] Polsby, supra note 3, at 540-41 (emphasis
added).
[35] 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (1994).
[36] Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570,
100 Stat. 3207 (1987).
[37] Five year mandatory minimum. Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1986 §1002, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)
(1994).
[38] Ten year mandatory minimum. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
[39] Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988,
Pub. L. No. 100-690, §6470, 102 Stat. 4377 (codified
at 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 963 (1994)).
[40] See Pub. L. No. 100-690, § 6454,
102 Stat. 4372 (1986) (directing the Sentencing Commission
to set certain penalties). See also Juvenile
Drug Trafficking Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, § 1102,
100 Stat. 320 (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. § 861
(1994)).
[41] Alfred Blumenstein, Youth Violence, Guns, and
the Illicit-Drug Industry, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology
10 (1995); Eric E. Sterling, Anti-Crime Strategies
for the 1990s: A Report on the Campaign for An Effective
Crime Policy Conference, NEWSBRIEFS, Dec. 1994 at
10.
[42] Mark A. R. Kleiman, Reducing the Prevalence
of Cocaine and Heroin Dealing Among Adolescents,
31 VAL. U. L. REV. 551 (1997).
[43] PHILIPPE BOURGOIS, IN SEARCH OF RESPECT: SELLING
CRACK IN EL BARRIO, (1996).
[44] Id. at 142-43.
[45] Id. at 265-266.
[46] Id. at 263.
[47] Id.
[48] Id. at 335.
[49] Kleiman, supra note 41,
at 558.
[50] See Joel H. Brown & Marianne D'Emidio Caston,
On Becoming "At Risk" Through Drug Education: How Symbolic
Policies and Their Practices Affect Students, 19 Evaluation
Rev. 451 (1995). The authors posit:
[B]y implementing mass-application services, [school}
district personnel can say they have complied with
DATE [Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Education] service
delivery requirements. This study supports other recent
evidence showing that formative policy language provides
the symbolic rationale for mass delivery of ineffective
services like those found in DATE...it is difficult
to escape the conclusion that use of the risk-based
model of substance use and abuse does not appear to
help these students [who individually need help].
[51] Bourgeois makes this point clear:
Street dealers tend to brag to outsiders and to themselves
about how much money they make each night. In fact
their income is almost never as consistently high
as they report it to be. Most street dealers, like
Primo, are paid on a piece-rate commission basis.
In other words, their take-home pay is a function
of how much they sell. When converted into an hourly
wage, this is often a relatively paltry sum. According
to my calculations, Ray's workers, for example, averaged
slightly less than double the minimum wage --
between seven and eight dollars an hour . . . It took
me several years to realize how inconsistent and meager
crack income can be.
BOURGOIS, supra note 43 at 91-93. The author
reported that Primo earned $40 for a long night's work.
Id.
[52] Bourgois also speaks to this point:
. . . [w]orking conditions are also often inferior
to those found in the legal economy. Aside from the
obvious dangers of being shot, or of going to prison,
the physical work space of most crackhouses is usually
unpleasant. The infrastructure of the Game Room [the
principal crackhouse in which Bourgois did his research],
for example, was much worse than that of any legal
retail outfits in East Harlem: There was no bathroom,
no running water, no telephone, no heat in the winter
and no air-conditioning in the summer . . . . Indeed,
the only furnishings besides the video games were
a few grimy milk crates and bent aluminum stools.
Worse yet, a smell of urine and vomit usually permeated
the locale. Id. at 93- 94
[53] Girl's Expulsion for Legal Drug. Is Reduced,
WASH. POST, Oct. 8, 1996, at A4.
[54] James Hannah, School Cuts Term of Suspension
on Same Day It Is Named in Bias Suit, WASH. POST,
Oct. 9, 1996, at A3. Teen Barred for Legal Pills,
WASH. POST, October 3, 1996, at A18. At about the same
time, another case near Houston, Texas involved the
suspension of a junior high school honor student, Brooke
Olson, for inadvertently carrying the over-the-counter
pain medication, Advil, in her backpack. The
school principal, Steve Busch said that Advil
was "just the tip of a potentially lethal drug iceberg."
Student Suspended for Carrying Advil; Girl Says Punishment
'Too Severe'; Texas School Defends Policy, WASH.
POST, October 10, 1996, at A13.
[55] Steve Lopez, As Bullets Whiz By, A Priest Stands
Up In a Parish No Stranger to Violence, PHIL. INQUIRER,
Nov. 17, 1996, at A3, ("On Thursday, the bullets flew
once, then stopped, then flew again. You duck, you say
thanks, and you go about your day...Without better schools
and more jobs, the neighborhoods, and the cities, are
doomed."); Heidi Van Zant, Gunshot Detectors May
Stay, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, Dec. 18, 1996 at 1B
("...[T]here is anecdotal evidence that the number of
random gun firings has dropped since the sensors were
installed.").
[56] See BOURGOIS, supra note 43, at
57-74; Larry Bivins, 'The Killing and Stuff Can Be
Right Beside You,' DET.FREE PRESS, Dec. 27, 1991,
at 6G ("The neighborhood [in Washington, D.C.] of renovated
row houses and restored mansions...has seen 15 homicides
since January. [Residents are frustrated at the failure
of the police] to take back their middle-class neighborhood
from the drug dealers who hawk their goods openly.")
[57] KATHLEEN O'LEARY MORGAN ETAL., CRIME IN METROPOLITAN
AMERICA, 60tbl. 12 (1995).
[58] Id. The murder rate increased by more than
100% in Oklahoma City, OK; Eugene-Springfield, OR; Spokane,
WA; Lafayette, IN; Boise, ID. It increased by more than
50% in Trenton, NJ; Tucson, AZ; Green Bay, WI; Minneapolis-St.
Paul, MN. It increased by more than 15% in Boulder-Longmont,
CO; Naples, FL; Charlottesville, VA; Phoenix-Mesa, AZ;
Honolulu, HI; Binghamton, NY; Madison, WI; Salt Lake
City-Ogden, UT; Lansing-East Lansing, MI. In Baltimore,
MD, the murder rate increased by 6.7%. Id. at
60.
[59] WILLIAM ADLER, LAND OF OPPORTUNITY:
ONE FAMILY'S QUEST FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM IN THE AGE
OF CRACK, 318 (1995) . The author stated:
The final secret of their success [the Chambers brothers
crack cocaine organization] was discipline ...
it was necessary to come up with rules...Well, the
rules are empty unless there is a way to enforce those
rules ... The Chambers brothers had what is called
a wrecking crew or beat-up crew. The purpose ...
was to beat up or wreck people who worked for the
Chambers or people who competed with the Chambers.")
Id. at 318-319.
[60] OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, EXECUTIVE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WHAT AMERICA'S USERS SPEND
ON ILLEGAL DRUGS, 1988-1993, AT 3 (1995) ("In 1993,
Americans spent $49 billion on these drugs; $31 billion
on cocaine, $7 billion on heroin, $9 billion on marijuana,
and $2 billion on other illegal drugs and legal drugs
used illicitly ... Between 1988 and 1993, the expenditures
on cocaine and heroin appear to have fallen.").
[61] U.S. Dep't of Commerce, INFORMATION PLEASE ALMANAC
59 (1997).
[62] Id.at 60.
[63] Office of National Drug Control Policy, supra
note 59, at 20.
[64] Id. at 18.
[65] Id. at A-24; WILLIAMS, supra note
33, at 63-70.
[66] Goldstein, supra note 31, at 662. "The majority
(n=162) of the drug- related homicides [n=218], about
74%, were classified as "systemic." Id.
[67] . Drug dealers in Baltimore are accepting payment
in ground beef, steaks or other meats in exchange for
drugs. Joe Mathews, "Need a fix? Bring some hamburger,"
BALT. SUN, Sept 22, 1996 at 10A.
[68] Adler, supra note 58 at 282. (""Larry cared
for neither the brazen theft nor the showy way Poole
spent the money. Larry: 'My beeper was steady jumpin'
three zeroes' -- the code for 'smoking' Poole.
'Guys were begging me: 'Lemme smoke him.'")
[69] . Lester Grinspoon & James
B. Bakalar, Marihuana As Medicine: A Plea for Reconsideration,
273 JAMA 1875 (1995).
[70] 21 U.S.C. § 811(a) (1995).
[71] NORML v. Ingersoll, 497 F.2d 654, 660-61 (D.C.
Cir. 1974).
[72] 40 Fed. Reg. 44, 164, 44,167-68 (1975).
[73] NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 747-48 (D.C. Cir.
1977); 21 U.S.C. § 811 (a)-(c) (1995).
[74] 44 Fed. Reg. at 36,127 (1979).
[75] 44 Fed. Reg. 36,123 (1979).
[76]76.NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735 n.65 (D.C.Cir. 1977).
[77] 47 Fed. Reg. 10,080 (1982).
[78] NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 750 n.65 (D.C. Cir.
1977).
[79] NORML v. DEA, No. 79-1660 (D.C.
Cir. 1982).
[80] 51 Fed. Reg. 22,946 (1986).
[81] IN THE MATTER OF MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION,
NO. 86-22, IN 2 MARIJUANA, MEDICINE & THE LAW, 391
(R.C. Randall ed., 1989) (publishing a transcript of
the hearing of June 10, 1988) [hereinafter Marijuana
Rescheduling Petition].
[82] Id.
[83] Id. at 427 (publishing the Opinion &
Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge).
[84] Id. at 430.
[85] Irvin Rosenfeld actually suffers from Pseudo Pseudo
Hypoparathyroidism (yes, two pseudos). I MARIJUANA,
MEDICINE & THE LAW 261 (1988).
[86] Id. at 438.
[87] Id. at 444.
[88] Id. at 445.
[89] Robert P. McNeill, N.M. Health
& Env't Dep't, The Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research
Program: A Report on Progress to Date (1983); N.M. Health
& Env't Dep't, The Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research
Program: Annual Report to the Legislature (1984).
[90] Annual Reports of the Research Advisory Panel
Prepared for the Governor and Legislature of California,
(1980-1986).
[91] Michael H. Kutner, Emory U. Evaluation of the
Use of Both Marijuana and THC in Cancer Patients for
the Relief of Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Cancer
Chemotherapy After Failure of Conventional Anti-Emetic
Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity, (1983).
[92] State of Tenn., Evaluation of Marijuana and Tetrahydrocannabinol
in Treatment of Nausea and/or Vomiting Associated with
Cancer Therapy Unresponsive to Conventional Anti-Emetic
Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity (1983).
[93] John R. F. Ingall, Mich. Dep't of Pub. Health,
Evaluation of Marihuana as an Anti-Emetic in Patients
Being Treated with Cancer Chemotherapy, Trial A, (1982).
[94] Vincent Vinciguerra, et al. Inhalation marijuana
as an Anti-Emetic for Cancer Chemotherapy, N.Y.
ST. J. OF MED., Oct. 1988, at 525.
[95] Jenks v. State of Florida, 582 So. 2d 676 (Fla.
Dist Ct. App. 1991).
[96] Michael Isikoff, HHS to Phase Out Marijuana
Program; Officials Fear Sending 'Bad Signal' by Giving
Drug to Seriously Ill, WASH. POST, Jun 22, 1991,
at A14; Grinspoon & Bakalar, supra note 68,
at 1876.
[97] The legislature approved S.B. 1364 on August 18,
1994. Letter from Dale Gieringer, NORML, to Author 1
(Mar.25, 1997) (on file with the Valparaiso University
Law Review). Governor Wilson vetoed the bill on September
30, 1994. Id. The next year, the legislature
approved A.B. 1529 on September 12, 1995. Id. Governor
Wilson vetoed that bill on October 15, 1995. Id.
[98] Sabin Russell, U.S. Drug Czar Visits Haight,
Denounces Medical Uses of Pot, SF CHRON., Aug 16,
1996, at A8; Drug Chief Says No to Pot Plan,
WASH POST, Sept. 11, 1996, at A2.
[99] G.B. TRUDEAU, DOONESBURY, Wash.
Post, Sept. 30-Oct. 5 & Oct. 21- 26, 1996, at Style
Section; Greg Lucas, Lungren Isn't Laughing,
SF CHRON., Oct. 2, 1996 at A1; Jennifer Warren, "Lungren
Fumes Over Satire in 'Doonesbury,'" LA TIMES, Oct.
2, 1996, at A3; Tim Golden, "California Law Chief
Takes Drug Fight to "Doonesbury,'" N.Y. TIMES, Oct.
3, 1996) at A14.
[100] Cal. Secretary of State, Cal. Voter Info., Proposition
215. (Ge. Election, 1996) [hereinafter Proposition 215].
Section 1 of the Act provides, inter alia:
(b) (1)(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians
have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical
purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate
and has been recommended by a physician who has determined
that the person's health would benefit from the use
of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS,
chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine,
or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers
who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon
the recommendation of a physician are not subject to
criminal prosecution or sanction.
(C) To encourage the federal and state governments
to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable
distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical
need of marijuana.
(2) Nothing in this act shall be constructed to supersede
legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct
that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion
of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
physician in this state shall be punished, or denied
any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana
to a patient for medical purposes.
(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana,
and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana,
shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary
caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for
the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the
written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "primary caregiver"
means the individual designated by the person exempted
under this act who has consistently assumed responsibility
for the housing, health, or safety of that person.
[101] Medical Marijuana Measures Pass November 5th
Ballots in California and Arizona, Legal Distribution
Systems Debated, NEWSBRIEFS, Dec. 1996, at 3.
[102] Ariz. Secretary of State, Ariz. Voter Info.,
Proposition 200 (Gen. Election 1996) [hereinafter Proposition
215]
[103] Id. § 10.
[104] Id. §§ 8, 9.
[105] Id. § 4.
[106] Id. § 5.
[107] Senate Tackles State Propositions Allowing
Use of Illegal Drugs, N.Y. TIMES, December 3,
1996, at A13; Glen Martin, Prop. 215 Attacked in
U.S. Senate, Stricter Enforcement of Federal Pot Laws
Urged, S.F. CHRON., December 3, 1996, at 1.
[108] General Barry R. McCaffrey, Director, ONDCP,
Statement Submitted for Record to Senate Committee on
the Judiciary (Dec. 2, 1996) (transcript on file with
the Valparaiso University Law Review) at a hearing
on A PRESCRIPTION FOR ADDICTION? ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL DRUG USE INITIATIVES, United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary, (Dec 2, 1996).
[109] Id. at 3.
[110] General Barry McCaffrey, Director ONDCP et al.,
Webwire Holds News Conference to Discuss the Administration's
Response to State Initiatives for Legalizing the Medical
Use of Marijuana 5 (Dec. 30, 1996) (transcript on file
with the Valparaiso University Law Review).
[111] University of Michigan News and Info. Servs.,
supra note 2, at tbl. 1.
[112] Id.
[113] Id.
[114] Id.
[115] Id.
[116] Id.
[117] Id.
[118] Id.
[119] Id.
[120] E.g., Christopher Wren, Adolescent
Drug Use Continues to Rise, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 20
1996, at B12; Brad Hahn, U.S. study: Teens More Tolerant
of Marijuana, CHI. TRIBUNE, Dec. 20, 1996,
§1, at 18.
[121] Congressional Republican Drug Policy Task
Force Formed; Senate Committee Holds Hearings on Drug
Policy, NEWSBRIEFS, Feb. 1996, at 4 (Senate Majority
Leader Robert J. Dole, "Our children are using more
dope, more cocaine, and more heroin [than] at any time
in recent memory," because of a lack of leadership from
the White House.); William H. Zeliff, Jr., Missing
Leader in the Drug War, WASH POST, Dec 15, 1995,
at A25 (Representative Zeliff (R-NH) was chairman of
the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee
on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal
Justice).
[122] Richard Keil, Dole Urges Guard Role in Halting
Narcotics, STAR LEDGER (NEWARK, N.J.), Sept. 2,
1996 at 4; Peter Slevin, Military Antidrug Role Questioned,
PHILA. INQUIRER, Aug. 31, 1996 at A3 (President Clinton
had "surrendered" in the war against drugs, said Robert
Dole, Republican candidate for President.); Bradley
Graham, Military Role in Drug War Debated, WASH
POST, Aug 30, 1996, at A6
[123] Jack Nelson, Teenagers, Parents Tolerate Illicit
Drug Use, Poll Finds, LA TIMES, Sept. 10, 1996,
at A7 ("'Today, we got yet another report from the field
showing the terrible casualty count from Bill Clinton's
failure to wage a real war on drugs,' Dole's campaign
said in a statement.").
[124] In the CASA survey cited infra note --
, parents were asked ...
- 28. Do you think American culture --
I mean, movies, music, TV, fashion -- glamorizes
smoking cigarettes? 65% DOES
33% DOES NOT
2% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
- 29. Do you think American culture
glamorizes drinking alcohol?
84% DOES
15% DOES NOT
1% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
- 30. Do you think American culture
glamorizes the use of illegal drugs?
53% DOES
46% DOES NOT
1% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
- 31. Do you think American culture
glamorizes women and girls being quite thin?
92% DOES
7% DOES NOT
1% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE.
[125] House Crime Subcommittee Holds Hearings on
Marijuana Use, NEWSBRIEFS, Apr. 1996, at 16,( reporting
on a hearing held on March 6, 1996).
[126] Baby Boomers Blamed, Parents 'Resigned' to
Teens Drug Use, DES MOINES REG., Sept. 10, 1996,
at 1A; Roberto Suro, Boomers Expect Teen Drug Use,
Survey Finds, WASH POST, Sept. 10, 1996, at A3;
Jack Nelson, Teenagers, Parents Tolerate Illicit
Drug Use, Poll Finds, LA TIMES, Sept. 10, 1996,
at A1; See ALSO CASA, supra note 123,
at 76. The question, "If you had to guess, do you think
your teenager will ever try use [sic] illegal
drugs?" was the last question of a 67 question poll
(emphasis added). In response, 46% responded yes, 50%
responded no. Id. Although 1166 parents were
questioned in the survey, but the report does not indicate
how many parents answered all questions. Id.
Teenagers of these parents were also questioned. The
last question asked of them was, "And, for my final
question, how likely do you think it is that at some
point in the future you will try an illegal drug: is
it very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or
will it absolutely never happen?" 10%, very likely.
12%, somewhat likely. 27% not very likely, 51% never
happen. Id. Therefore, the most "hyped" conclusion
of the "study" was the least dependable, and one for
which there was significant disagreement between children
and their parents.
[127] Susan T. Ennett et al., How Effective Is Drug
Abuse Resistance Education? A Meta-Analysis of Project
DARE Outcome Evaluations, 84 AM.J. OF PUB. HEALTH
1394 (1994).
[128] . MATHEA FALCO, THE MAKING OF A DRUG-FREE AMERICA:
PROGRAMS THAT WORK, 41-44 (1992).
[129] See Brown, et al.,
supra note 21.
[130] Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human
Servs., Statement at Press Conference to Release Monitoring
the Future Survey (Dec. 19, 1996) (transcript on file
with the Valparaiso Unversity Law Review). Secretary
Shalala stated:
The holiday season is always a time for cherishing
children. But it is also a time to save them. That's
why now ...we must give our children clear and
consistent messages to stay away from drugs, alcohol
and tobacco. ... But we have to do much more
because our nation cannot afford to go down the dangerous
road to drug legalization as two states have done.
That means we must oppose the dangerous and misguided
effort to legalize marijuana and other drugs. We must
send clear and consistent messages to young people
that marijuana is dangerous, illegal and wrong."
Id. at 21-2.
[131] General Barry McCaffrey, supra note 107,
at 2 ("Coming at a time that marijuana use has doubled
among our youth, these initiatives [Propositions 200
and 215] threaten to undermine our efforts to prevent
drug use by our children. Labeling marijuana as 'medicine'
sends the wrong message to children that it is a safe
substance." )
[132] See text accompanying supra notes
110-29.
[133] Marijuana Pol'y Project, MARIJUANA POLICY REP.
6-7 (May-June 1996). By 1996, the laws of five states
had expired, and nine states repealed their laws.
Id.
[134] See supra notes 88-93.
[135] . Marijuana Rescheduling Petition,
supra note 80, at 248.
[136] See text accompanying supra notes
79-80.
[137] See text accompanying supra notes
82-87.
[138] University of Michigan News & Info. Servs.,
supra note 2, at 5-6. ("This research team has shown
that, in general, when young people come to see a drug
as more dangerous, or more disapproved by their peers,
they are less likely to use it.").
[139] Id. at 6-7.
[140] Proposition 215, supra note 99, § 1(d)
(codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5(d)
(West 1996).
[141] Emelyn Cruz Lat, Cops Give Back AIDS Patient's
Pot Plants, In 1st- Ever Case: Mountain View Police
Relent Because of Medical Need, S.F. EXAMINER, Mar.
2, 1997, at A1.
[142] Proposition 200, supra note 101, § 7
(codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3412.01.A
(1996).
[143] Hearings on "A Prescription for Addiction?" 104th
Congress. (statement of Thomas Constantine, Administrator,
DEA). "[H]ow are prison officials in Arizona expected
to maintain order and discipline with the inmates high
on heroin, marijuana, LSD or other Schedule I drugs?"
Id.
[144] Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971, ch. 38 § 10
(Eng.).
[145] Narcotics Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, ch. N-1,
§ 65(7), (1985) (Can.).
[146] H.R. 5290, 98th Cong., 130 CONG. REC H89760 (1984).
[147] See LESTER GRINSPOON AND JAMES B. BAKALAR,
Therapeutic Uses in PSYCHEDELIC DRUGS RECONSIDERED 192-237
(1979). See also MARTIN A. LEE & BRUCE SHLAIN, ACID
DREAMS: THE COMPLETE SOCIAL HISTORY OF LSD (1985); STANISLAV
GROF, MD, LSD PSYCHOTHERAPY (1994).
[148] Pub. L. No. 76-780 (1938).
[149] Administration Response to
Arizona Proposition 200 and California Proposition 215,
62 FED REG 6164-66 (1997).
[150] Dangerous Drug Diversion Control Act of 1984,
Pub.L.No. 98-473, §511, 98 Stat. 2073 (1984) (codified
as amended at 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(4) (1994)).
[151] H.R. REP. NO. 98-835, pt. 1, at 7 (1984)., Report
from the Committee on the Judiciary to accompany H.R.
5656, the "Dangerous Drug Diversion Control Act of 1984"
at 7, (June 12, 1984).
[152] Id. at 8.
[153] Id.
[154] Id. at 9.
[155] Id. at 10.
[156] 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) (1995).
[157] Administrative Response to Arizona Proposition
200 and California and Proposition 215, 62 FED REG 6164,
6164 (1997).
[158] Id.
[159] Id. at 6165.
[160] Id. (emphasis added).
[161] Id.
[162] Id.
[163] Administrative Response to Arizona Proposition
200 and California Proposition 215, 62 Fed. Reg. 6164,
6165 (1997) (emphasis added).
[164] Id. at 6166.
[165] Id. (emphasis added).
[166] Conant v. McCaffrey, No. C 97-0139
FMS (N.D. Cal. Jan 13, 1997).
[167] Harriett Chang, State Doctors Sue Over Medical
Pot Rules, S.F. Chronicle., Jan. 15, 1997, at A20;
Tim Golden, Marijuana Advocates File Suit to Stop
U.S. Sanctions, N.Y. Times, Jan. 15, 1997, at A10;
Jenifer Warren, Doctors Sue Over Marijuana, L.A.
Times, Ja. 15, 1997, at B1.
[168] Pearson v. McCaffrey, No. 97CV462 (D.D.C. Mar.
6, 1997).
[169] 21 U.S.C. § 843(d)
(1994).
[170] S.40 , 105th Cong. (1997).
[171] See 21 U.S.C. § 823(f), (1994).
Back to Introduction
Back to Section
II
Back to Section III
Back to Section IV
Back to Conclusion