Florida's Drug Dilemma

There are, of course, important differences between the known effects of the opiates including morphine, its derivatives and synthetics, and either cocaine or cannabis. Any of the opiates has the potential for physical as well as psychological dependence. In addition, tolerance — a characteristic which requires a person's increasing his dosage to obtain the same effect — occurs with chronic opiate use. Neither cocaine nor cannabis produces physical dependence or tolerance.

A study by the Research Office of the California State Assembly revealed a precipitous increase in the number of marihuana arrests between 1961 and 1967 after an optional penalty of 0 to 12 months in the county jail for possession of marihuana was changed to a mandatory 1 to 10 years in the state prison. “In 1961, 3,500 persons were arrested for marihuana offenses; in 1967, over 37,000 persons were arrested for marihuana offenses.” Crowther C. , “Crimes, Penalties, and Legislatures,” The Annals, January 1969, p. 150.

“Continuing emphasis on the incompatibilities between a primarily punitive approach toward those who experiment with or become dependent on drugs and modern concepts of treatment and rehabilitation could lead to further improvement of legislation and enhance the opportunities for the drug dependent person to obtain treatment.” Wolman W. , Drug Dependence, A Guide For Physicians, The American Medical Association, (Chicago, 1969), p. 2.

“Certainly, savagely repressive and punitive laws cannot be defended as a solution to the marihuana problem. It destroys our criminal justice system to have penal statutes that are not uniformly enforced — and perhaps in some instances, are unenforceable. Our committee heard many general statements of harsh and oppressive prison sentences that had been meted out to young marihuana users or possessors. Many lament that we are ‘making criminals of our young people’. The facts, however, do not support these statements. We have observed that the penalties for marihuana possession or even for selling are generally not imposed and that jail sentences are the rare exception rather than the rule. No society can exist if disrespect for its laws is widespread.” U.S., Congress, House, Marihuana - First Report By The Select Committee On Crime, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, 1970, p. 114.

Roger Egeberg Dr. , Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs, in a letter to a Task Force adviser dated November 19, 1969, stated, “I feel strongly that the present mandatory penalties for possession and use of marihuana are unrealistic and can lead to unnecessary human suffering, expecially among the young. These laws impose on the marihuana user a degree of punishment that, in my view, can be more damaging to him and to society than is his use of this drug. I am convinced that we need a reasonable program of enforcement which recognizes the differences between marihuana and the hard narcotics. The enforcement program must be coupled with accelerated research into the long-term effects of marihuana and other drugs and to an educational program to communicate the facts about these drugs to potential drug users.” Dr. Stanley Yolles, the former Director of the National Institute of Mental Health in a statement to the House Select Committee on Crime which he gave October 15, 1969, indicated his concern about harsh drug penalties, “In the case of marihuana, legal penalties were assigned to its use that are strict enough to ruin the life of a first-time offender, with total disregard for medical and scientific evidence of the properties of the drug or its effects. I know of no clearer instance in which the punishment for an infraction of the law is more harmful than the crime.” On November 25, 1969, the National Commission of The Causes and Prevention of Violence headed by Dr. Milton Eisenhower advocated, “relaxation of both federal and state laws to make use and incidental possession of the drug no more than a misdemeanor.” See also Lindsmith A. , Introduction to The Marihuana Papers, Solomon D. , ed. (New York: Signet Books, 1968), p. 111. Also Chayet N. , “Legal Aspects of Drug Abuse,” Drugs and Youth, Proceedings Of The Rutgers Symposium on Drug Abuse, (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1969), p. 236.

Roccograndi A. , “The Proposed Controlled Dangerous Substance Act of 1969”, Speech presented by the Assistant Chief Council at the Western Association of Food and Drug Officials Meeting, (Seattle, August 4, 1969).

The most significant features of this law are: 1) the establishment of a four part schedule into which all controlled dangerous substances will be classified according to their therapeutic value and risk potential; 2) first offender treatment would be available for persons charged with possession and probation may be granted and a record wiped clean upon satisfactory completion of a probation term. The sale or manufacture of drugs for illicit purposes remains a felony; 3) a controversial “no knock” provision will permit an officer with a search warrant to break into a home when the judge issuing the warrant is satisfied that to do otherwise could lead to the destruction of evidence or result in danger to the officer; 4) tighter registration requirements for manufacturers, wholesalers, jobbers, repackers and pharmacies handling controlled dangerous substances; 5) authorizes establishment of a two year marihuana study commission. Regarding the last provision, Dr. Stanley Yolles commented: “There are few fields in which there have been so many competent and through investigations by committees and commissions over the years as there have been in the area of narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Instead of favoring another commission, I find myself asking, How long, Oh Lord, how long are we going to suggest new committees, new commissions, and new task forces in lieu of doing something?” U.S., Congress, House, “Crime In America — Views On Marihuana,” 91st Congress, 1st Session, 1969, p. 35.

“What is unique about this bill is that unlike S. 3246 (The Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act) it does not misclassify veterinary anesthetics as opiates; it does not place the dangerous amphetamines in the same class with a minor tranquilizer such as valium or librium, or meprobamate; it does not place domestic marihuana in the same category of dangerousness as heroin; it will not classify the dangerous short-acting barbiturates — abused as ‘red devils’ but very valuable as medically prescribed hypnotics — in the same category as phenobarbital. This is a sedative unlikely to be abused …” Statement of Dr. Daniel X. Freedman, Professor and Chairman, Department of Psychiatry, University of Chicage, U. S. Congress, Senate, “Federal Drug Abuse and Drug Dependence Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act of 1970, Hearings before The Special Subcommittee On Alcoholism and Narcotics”, 91st Congress, Second Session, 1970, Part I, March 16, 1970, p. 870.

Narcotics Law Violations — A Policy Statement, Advisory Council of Judges of The National Council On Crime And Delinquency, (New York, 1964), p, 13.

Dole V. Nyswander M. , “A Medical Treatment For Diacetylmorphine (Heroin) Addiction,” JAMA, 193; 646–650, 1965.

Gollance H. , “Remarks On The Methadone Maintenance Treatment Program — Presented at The Governor's Conference On Drug And Alcohol Abuse (Miami Beach, January 13, 1970).

Jaffe J. , “Experience With The Use of Methadone In A Multi-Modality Program For The Treatment Of Narcotics Users,” The International Journal of Addictions, September, 1969, pp. 481–490.

Yablonsky L. , The Tunnel Back: Synanon, (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1965).

Jaffe J. Brill L. , “Cyclazocine, a Long Acting Narcotic Antagonist: Its Voluntary Acceptance as a Treatment Modality by Narcotic Abusers,” The International Journal of Addictions, March 1966, pp. 99–123.

Jaffe J. , “A Review of the Approaches to the Problem of Compulsive Narcotics Use,” Drugs and Youth: Proceedings of the Rutgers Symposium on Drug Abuse, (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1969), pp. 86–87.

Narcotics Law Violations, supra note 9, p. 14.

Preble E. Casey J. , “Taking Care of Business: The Heroin User's Life on the Street,” The International Journal of Addictions, March 1969, p. 12.

Lindesmith A. , The Addict and The Law, (New York: Vintage Books, 1965), pp. 38–39.

Kaplan J. , “What the Legislator Should Consider”, Drugs and Youth. (Springfield, Ill.; Charles C. Thomas, 1969), p. 252.

Fort J. , “Drug Use and Drug Policies”, The International Journal of Addictions, June 1970, p. 327.“Narcotics Scene in Chicago Today”, The Chicago Sun Times, Nov. 22, 1970, p. 4.

The President's Commission On Law Enforcement And Administration Of Justice, Task Force Report: Narcotics And Drug Abuse, 1967, p. 7.

See statement by Dr. Sidney Cohen in Crime In America — Why 8 Billion Amphetamines?, U. S., Congress, House, 91st Congress, 1st Session, 1969, p. 4, 10.

Skinner W. , “Abused Prescriptions Drugs: Sources of Helpful Drugs That Hurt,” Drugs and Youth: Proceedings of the Rutgers Symposium on Drug Abuse, (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1969), pp. 149–150.

Statement by Sidney Cohen, supra note 21, p. 12.

Lindesmith A.R. , The Addict And The Law, Vintage Books, (New York: Vintage Books 1965) pp. 298–299.

Yolles, supra Note 7.

State of Florida: Report of the Task Force on Narcotics, Dangerous Drugs, and Alcohol Abuse, (Tallahassee, 1969), p. 64.

In Miami, 38 narcotic and narcotic related deaths occurred during 1969 as compared with 20 over the previous 13 years; 18 or 47% of these deaths were of young people between 15 and 25 years of age. From January 1 to May 10, 1970, seventeen narcotic and narcotic related deaths were reported; 9 or 53% involved 15–24-year-olds. Interview with Davis Joseph Dr. , Chief Medical Examiner, Dade County, Florida, May 7, 1970.

Simon W. Gagnon J. , “Children of the Drug Age,” SATURDAY REVIEW, September 21, 1968, p. 62.

Pittman D. , “Public Intoxication and The Alcoholic Offender in American Society”, The President's Commission of Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Drunkenness (Washington: 1967) p. 8.

Davis , supra Note 27.

City of Jacksonville: “Application For Tentative Action Grant”, submitted to the Governor's Task Force on Narcotics, Dangerous Drugs and Alcohol Abuse, November 7, 1969.

Ibid.

City of Miami, Alcoholic Rehabilitation Office: “Application For Tentative Action Grant,” submitted to the Governor's Task Force on Narcotics, Dangerous Drugs and Alcohol Abuse, supra note 21.

Ibid.

Broward County Commission on Alcoholism, “Application For Tentative Action Grant,” submitted to the Governor's Task Force on Narcotics, Dangerous Drugs and Alcohol Abuse, February 24, 1970.

Pinard M. , “Alcoholism, A Problem For Florida Civil Courts,” quoted in, State of Florida: Report of the Governor's Task Force on Narcotics, Dangerous Drugs and Alcohol Abuse, supra note 21.

Pittman , supra note 29.

“Florida Alcoholic Rehabilitation Program,” State of Florida, Bureau of Alcoholic Rehabilitation, 1969.

Miami Herald, September 28, 1969, p. ik.

Ibid.

Egeberg R. , Crime In America-Views on Marihuana, U. S. Congress, House, Select Committee On Crime, Hearings, 91st Congress, 1st Session, October 14, 1969, p. 3.

Goodman and Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics 171 (1960), and Eddy Halbach Isabell Seevers , Drug Dependence: Its Significance and Characteristics, 32 Bull. WLD. Hlth, Org. 721, 729 (1965)., quoted in Task Force Report: Narcotics and Drug Abuse, The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967) p. 14.

Miami Herald, supra note39 p. 3k.

17 Project Community Involvement, a big brothers type program for young people in Pompano Beach.