Drug Laws

The prohibition of drugs through legislation or religious law is a common means of controlling the perceived negative consequences of recreational drug use at a society- or world-wide level. Present-day attempts to enforce drug prohibition in the U.S. are frequently considered to be part of the ongoing War on Drugs instituted by President Richard Nixon in 1971.

The prohibition of non-medical drug use is controversial. Opponents often feel that prohibition unfairly impinges on the perceived right of individuals to alter their consciousness. They also argue that prohibition is an expensive and ineffective means of controlling the negative effects of non-medical drug use. Proponents of prohibition feel that the use of psychoactive drugs outside of a medical context is dangerous, and that prohibition is the best means of control. Some people also oppose the use of certain drugs on moral or dogmatic grounds.

In the United States today, mandatory sentencing laws are being questioned, due to prison overcrowding and the controversial ethicalness of convicting non-violent drug addicts. Starting in 1989, a new institution was created, called the Drug Court, which offers non-violent drug users accused of crimes the opportunity to successfully complete substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The program, supported by the Department of Justice grew to over 1200 Drug Courts in each of the Fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia by 2003. Drug Courts are touted as one way to reduce criminal justice costs and recidivism, although those who support drug legalization criticize them as "forced treatment."

The current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug Czar, John P. Walters has described the drug problem in the United States as a "public health challenge," and purports to eschew the notion of a "war on drugs." He has supported additional resources for substance abuse treatment and has touted random student drug testing as an effective prevention strategy. However, the actions of the Office of National Drug Control Policy continue to belie the rhetoric of a shift away from primarily enforcement-based responses to illegal drug use.

Drug control strategy

Present drug control efforts utilize several techniques to achieve their goals of eliminating recreational drug use:

* Disrupting the market for drugs
* Prevention efforts that rely on community activism, public information campaigns to educate the public on the potential dangers of drug use
* Law-enforcement efforts against current users, through medical screenings, workplace testing and Drug Courts
* Law-enforcement efforts against elements of the supply chain, through surveillance and undercover work
* Providing effective and targeted substance abuse treatment to dependent users

Methods of enforcement

Disrupting the Market relies on eradication, interdiction and domestic law enforcement efforts. Through cooperation with governments such as Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan, coca (the plant source for cocaine) and poppy (the plant source for opium and heroin) are eradicated by the United States and other allies such as the United Kingdom, so that the crops cannot be processed into narcotics. Eradication can be accomplished by aerial spraying or manual eradication. The government of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has resisted criticism of aerial spraying of coca and poppy and has seen major reductions in both crops according to the United Nations Office of Crime and Drugs.Note 7: The United States government's Plan Colombia has been quite effective. In 2003, over 1,300 square kilometres of mature coca were sprayed and eradicated in Colombia, where at the start of the year, approximately 1,450 square kilometres had been planted. This strategic accomplishment prevented the production over 500 metric tons of cocaine, sufficient to supply all the cocaine addicts in both US and Europe for one year. Further, it eliminated upward of $100 million of illicit income that supports narco-terrorism in Colombia.Note 8:

Interdiction is carried out primarily by aerial and naval armed forces patrolling known trafficking zones. From South America to the United States most drugs traverse either the Caribbean Sea or the Eastern Pacific, usually in "go-fast" boats that carry drug cargos and engines and little else.

Investigation on drug trafficking often begins with the recording of unusually frequent deaths by overdose, monitoring financial flows of suspected traffickers, or by finding concrete elements while inspecting for other purposes. For example, a person pulled over for traffic violations may have illicit drugs in his or her vehicle, thus leading to an arrest and/or investigation of the source of the materials. The federal government has placed a premium on disrupting the large drug trafficking organizations that move narcotics into and around the United States, while state and local law enforcement focus on disrupting street-level drug dealing gangs. Law enforcement has been effective in arresting and disrupting large-scale drug trafficking organizations, but often lament the fact that with such a lucrative commodity, others move in to take over quickly.

Legal provisions

The following frequently used drugs are prohibited or otherwise regulated for recreational use in most countries:

* Benzodiazepines such as diazepam (Valium)
* Cannabis products, e.g. marijuana, hashish and hashish oil
* Dissociatives such as dextromethorphan (DXM), phencyclidine (pcp), and ketamine
* Hallucinogens such as LSD, mescaline, peyote, and psilocybin
* Opium, opiates such as heroin, morphine and codeine, and opioids such as hydrocodone (
* Sedatives such as GHB, and methaqualone (Quaalude)
* Stimulants such as amphetamines (Adderall, Dexedrine), coca leaves and their derivative cocaine, MDMA (Ecstasy), methamphetamines, methcathinone, methylphenidate (Ritalin), and nicotine
* Pregabalin (Lyrica)

The regulation of the above drugs varies in many countries; cannabis and hashish, for example, are sometimes legal for personal use, though not sale. In some countries Dextromethorphan is available in ordinary over-the-counter products such as cough medicines. Alcohol possession and consumption by adults is today banned only in Islamic countries and various parts of India. The United States, Finland, and Canada banned alcohol in the early part of the 20th century; this was called Prohibition. Tobacco is not illegal for adults in most countries, with the notable exception of Bhutan (as of 2005). In some parts of the world, provisions are made for the use of traditional sacraments like Ayahuasca, Iboga, and Peyote.

In countries where alcohol and tobacco are legal, certain measures are frequently undertaken to discourage use of these drugs. For example, packages of alcohol and tobacco sometimes communicate warnings directed towards the consumer, communicating the potential risks of partaking in the use of the substance. These drugs also frequently have special sin taxes associated with the purchase thereof, in order to recoup the losses associated with public funding for the health problems the use causes in long-term users. Restrictions on advertising also exist in many countries, and often a state holds a monopoly on manufacture, distribution, marketing and/or the sale of these drugs.

In the United States, there is considerable legal debate about the impact these laws have had on Americans' civil rights. Critics claim that the War on Drugs has lowered the evidentiary burden required for a legal search of a suspect's dwelling or vehicle, or to intercept a suspect's communications. However, many of the searches that result in drug arrests are often "conrmission to search a person or the person's property.

People who consent to a search, knowing full well that they possess contraband, generally consent because they are ignorant of the fact that they have the right to decline permission to search. Under the laws of most U.S. states, police are not required to disclose to suspects that they have the right to decline a search. Even when a suspect does not give permission to search, police are often known to state in arrest affidavits and even provide sworn testimony that the suspect consented to the search, secure in the knowledge that a judge will normally weigh all questions of credibility in favour of law enforcement and against the accused.

The sentencing statutes in the United States Code that cover controlled substances are notoriously intricate. For example, a first-time offender convicted in a single proceeding for selling marijuana three times, and found to have carried a gun on him all three times (even if it were not used) is subject to a minimum sentence of 55 years in federal prison. U.S. v. Angelos, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Utah 2004).

Drug sentencing guidlines under state law in America are generally much less harsh than the draconian federal sentencing guidelines. The vast majority of drug felonies and almost all drug misdemeanors in the United States are prosecuted at the state level. The federal government tends to prosecute only drug trafficking cases involving large amounts of drugs, or cases, which have been referred to federal prosecutors by local district attorneys seeking harsher sentences under the federal sentencing guidelines. In rare instances, some defendants are prosecuted both federally and by the state for the same drug trafficking conduct. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant does not face double jeopardy if he is convicted and sentenced by both the state and federal government for the same underlying criminal conduct.

Sometimes, crimes not directly related to drug use and sale are prohibited. For example, the United States recently brought charges against club owners for maintaining a place of business where a) Ecstasy is known to be frequently consumed; b) paraphernalia associated with the use of Ecstasy is sold and/or widely tolerated (such as glow sticks and pacifiers); and c) "chill-out rooms" are created, where Ecstasy users can cool down (Ecstasy raises the user's blood temperature). These are being challenged in court by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Drug Policy Alliance.

Many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs. Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction. Some people have criticized this practice as failing to ensure equality under the law because it grants police officers the right to commit crimes that no other citizen could commit without potential consequences.

The War on Drugs has stimulated the creation of international law enforcement agencies (such as Interpol), mostly in Western countries. This has occurred because a large volume of illicit drugs come from Third-World countries.

United States Penalties

In the U.S., the penalty for illegal drug possession and sale can vary from 1 year to a life sentence. Most non-violent first time offenders guilty of drug possession get a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years with no parole, or 10 years with no parole if he has a large quantity of drugs. This prison time is doubled (10 or 20 years) if has been imprisoned for drug possession before. Selling drugs, carrying a gun during a drug transaction, and other factors add more prison time. Mandatory minimum sentence can be avoided in rare situations when the defendant helps authorities to turn in other defendants or qualifies for the 'safety valve', a program that can help non-violent first time offenders by sentencing under the sentencing guidelines instead. Maximum sentences can be up to a life sentence.

In the U.S., the War on Drugs is causing a prison overcrowding problem. In 1996, 59.6% of prisoners were drug-related criminals. U.S. population grew by about +25% from 1980 to 2000. In that same 20 year time period, U.S. prison population tripled. To make room in prison for incoming drug users and dealers, all inmates, including violent criminals are having their sentences shortened or are being paroled early. This is why mandatory sentencing laws are being repealed.