The United States presents a complicated patchwork of drug laws and enforcement practices. The complementary federal and state legislative regimes relating to illegal drugs overlap and, at times, appear to be in conflict. This paper will provide a brief historical overview of the development of American drug policy, a summary of the current pertinent legislative and enforcement structures and a selection of related statistical data. A synopsis of reports from significant commissions of inquiry will also be presented.

This paper forms part of a series of country profiles prepared by the Parliamentary Research Branch for the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs.

AMERICAN DRUG POLICY AND LAWS

A. The Federal-State Legislative Framework

Historically, most criminal law and its enforcement was a matter reserved to the jurisdiction of the states. Article I of the U.S. Constitution delineates the federal government’s areas of legislative authority and the Tenth Amendment expressly provides that all powers not granted to the central government are reserved to the states. Criminal law is not among the powers specified as being within the federal government’s purview and in Congress’ early days, federal criminal laws were restricted to acts injurious to the national government, such as treason and counterfeiting, or offences of an extra-territorial nature, such as piracy and felonies committed on the high seas.

Despite this, the U.S. Congress has managed to assume a significant role in the criminalization of drug use. Although the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, had assured the states that their powers were “numerous and indefinite” and those of the central government “few and defined,”^([1]) judicial constitutional analysis subsequently provided a very wide interpretation of the sphere of congressional authority. Beginning with the 1819 case of McCulloch v. Marlyland^([2]) the U.S. Supreme Court has given a broad reading to the Article I provision that the federal government may enact all laws that are “necessary and proper” for executing its listed powers. Two of Congress’ listed powers are taxation and the regulation of foreign and interstate commerce. As discussed below, the federal government has used these heads of power as the foothold for entering into the regulation of drug use.

B. Historical^([3])

From the time of the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) to the end of the 19^th century, the use and sale of opium, morphine, cocaine and other psychoactive drugs were legal and common. Opium was available with or without a prescription and was an ingredient in many patent medicines, including various pain-killers, cough mixtures and teething syrups for infants. Cocaine was also used medicinally, as well as in soft drinks and wine.

Things started to change around the turn of the century. Heroin was first isolated in 1898 and was purported to convey the same benefits as opium or morphine, without the risk of addiction. The realization of heroin’s addictive properties soon after its introduction coincided with racist appeals to protect American society from drugs. Initially, two drugs were targeted: Cocaine, associated mainly with blacks who were said to go on violent rampages under its influence, and opium, the smoking of which was associated with the Chinese. Alcohol temperance societies and religious groups also played key roles in lobbying for prohibition.

Despite strong opposition from the patent medicine industry, the U.S. Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906. This legislation required over-the-counter medicines to list the amount of drugs contained in them in the hope that this would reduce the use of such medicines. Soon to follow was the Opium Smoking Act of 1909 (as Amended, 1914) in which Congress banned the importation of the drug for non-medicinal purposes.

1. The Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914

The Harrison Act was a significant development in American drug policy. Earlier legislation enacted in 1909 had restricted the importation of opium in accordance with the international conventions against the use of the drug. Soon domestic pressures for further federal action began to escalate as state anti-narcotics laws proliferated and concern became apparent in the medical community about the freedom with which addictive drugs were being dispensed. Initially designed to medicalize cocaine and heroin by restricting their distribution to physicians, the Harrison Act was passed in 1914. Its stated purpose was soon altered by the influence of the prohibitionist fervour of the day and this legislation became the unusual model upon which the administration of American narcotics policy would develop.

Constitutional limits, as perceived at the time, meant that federal laws had to focus on international controls, interstate transfer and taxation. The Act therefore addressed drug use by requiring anyone selling drugs to be licensed and to keep records of all sales, ostensibly for tax purposes. As part of this regulatory process, users had to obtain prescriptions. Even though the Act specifically provided that doctors could prescribe narcotics, they could only do so if it was in the course of their “professional practice.”

There were court challenges to the legislation. However, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Harrison Act as a revenue act and not a policing measure.^([4]) It was subsequently held that the Act did not permit physicians to prescribe drugs to addicts to keep them physically comfortable or maintain their addiction.^([5]) The Behrman decision^([6]) of 1922 further restricted the ability of physicians to prescribe and the prosecution of pharmacists and physicians resulted in legal supplies of opiates and other drugs essentially becoming unavailable by the early 1920s.

2. Subsequent Measures

In the Depression years, fears about “degenerate Mexicans” smoking marijuana also led to legislative action. Some suggest that this represents a common thread in American drug policy; that is, the determining factor in deciding whether a particular drug was criminalized was not its inherent properties or potential for social harm, but rather the kinds of people associated with its use.^([7]) By 1931, 29 states had outlawed marijuana and in 1937 Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act which, like the Harrison Act, established federal control over marijuana pursuant to Congress’ revenue authority. Although opposed by the American Medical Association at the time, the Act had the support of the country’s top drug cop, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (“FBN”), Henry J. Anslinger.

Anslinger, a central figure in the history of American drug policy, had been named the commissioner of the FBN in 1930 and headed the organization through five presidential administrations, until 1962. Often compared to his contemporary J. Edgar Hoover who controlled the F.B.I. with similar tenacity, Anslinger did not support a public health approach to drug policy and argued that jailing users was the only proper response. He often suggested that drugs were part of a foreign plot. During W.W.II, he accused the Japanese of using narcotics to sap America’s will to fight; following the war, he asserted that it was the Communists who were attempting to do so.

C. Current Legislation and Enforcement

1. Federal Law

a. The Controlled Substances Act

In 1970 the U.S. Congress enacted the federal Controlled Substances Act (the “CSA”)^([8]) pursuant to the federal authority to regulate interstate commerce.^([9]) This Act repealed most of the earlier federal legislation, including the Harrison Act and the Marihuana Tax Act, and is the foundation of U.S. federal drug law today. Based on a series of schedules, drugs are categorized and controlled to varying degrees. The most restrictions are placed on Schedule I drugs which cannot be possessed by anyone, except for the purpose of research that has been licensed by the federal government. This Schedule includes drugs such as marijuana, heroin, MDMA, LSD and peyote which are deemed to have no medical use and a high abuse potential. Schedule II substances, which have an accepted medical use and are deemed to have an abuse potential less than those in Schedule I, are also subjected to tight controls. Included in Schedule II are cocaine, opium, morphine, meperidine (Demerol) and codeine.

The enactment of the CSA in 1970 represented a significant change in one key respect. Marijuana was differentiated from other drugs and federal penalties were reduced, not only for possession, but also for trafficking and distribution offences. This was to change, however, during the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

In 1982 President Reagan signed an executive order creating the post of White House Drug Policy Advisor. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Amendment Act of 1988 raised federal penalties for various drug-related offences (including marijuana offences), increased funding for drug control activities and sought to improve the coordination of federal drug control efforts. The National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 created the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the director of which is commonly referred to as the “Drug Czar.”^([10])

Many commentators have suggested that these laws were passed during a time of extreme anti-drug hysteria resulting from the introduction of crack cocaine.^([11]) Propagated by politicians and embraced by the mainstream media, myths regarding crack likely had a significant impact on the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences and the expansion of the American “war on drugs” during the Reagan era.

b. Scheduling under the CSA – The Example of Marijuana

An examination of a petition to the Drug Enforcement Administration to reschedule marijuana is instructive of the Scheduling process under the CSA.^([12]) In concluding that marijuana should remain in Schedule I, the Department of Justice considered eight factors:

1. The drug’s actual or relative potential for abuse;

2. Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effects;

3. The state of current scientific knowledge of the drug;

4. Its history and current pattern of abuse;

5. The scope, duration and significance of abuse;

6. What, if any, risk there is to public health;

7. The drug’s psychic or physiological dependence liability; and,

8. Whether the drug is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.

The petition to reschedule was in part denied on the basis that marijuana has a high potential for abuse. While the term “abuse” is not defined in the CSA, the administration examined various factors in ascertaining the potential for abuse. Most important was its finding that individuals are taking the substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or the community. It was determined that while marijuana has low levels of toxicity compared to other drugs of abuse, there are a number of risks resulting from both acute and chronic use, such as dizziness, nausea, time distortions, impaired judgement and short-term memory impairment. Also noted were studies from some authors who described a “marijuana withdrawal syndrome” consisting of restlessness, mild agitation, insomnia, nausea and cramping that resolves within days.

Another significant element of the analysis that precluded rescheduling marijuana was the fact that the drug has no currently accepted medical use in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration has not yet authorized treatment using marijuana. To do so would require that the following elements be satisfied:

1. The drug’s chemistry must be known and reproducible;

2. There must be adequate safety studies;

3. There must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;

4. The drug must be accepted by qualified experts; and,

5. The scientific evidence must be widely available.

c. Proposed Legislation

The legislative war on drugs continues in the U.S. Congress. The proposed Drug Dealer Liability Act of 1999 passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and was received in the Senate at the end of 2000. It would impose civil liability on drug dealers for the harm caused – either directly or indirectly – by the use of controlled substances. Even the drug users themselves would be permitted to sue for damages, although the statute requires that they first disclose to narcotics enforcement officers everything they know about the source of the illegal drugs. While it is not clear whether this bill will be made law, a model Drug Dealer Liability Act has so far been adopted by 13 states.^([13])

Legislation entitled the Protecting Our Children from Drugs Act of 2000 was passed by the House of Representatives on 17 October 2000. It would amend the Controlled Substances Act to further increase penalties for drug dealers who involve children in the drug trade. Mandatory minimum sentences would increase for dealers who use children under 18 to distribute drugs in or near schools or other “protected locations” such as playgrounds and video arcades. Other proposed initiatives include the Drug Free America Act of 2001, the Domestic Narcotic Demand Reduction Act of 2001 and the Drug Treatment and Research Enhancement Act of 2001.

d. Federal Penalties

The following charts provide a summary of the fines and the terms of imprisonment for selected violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act and related federal laws.^([14]) Note that for a third felony drug offence involving amounts constituting a top level offence, there is a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of release. Also note that the indicated weights refer to any mixture containing a detectable amount of the illegal drug regardless of the substance in the mixture. “Conspiracy” and “attempt” offences carry the same penalties as the underlying offence.

Chart 1([15]⁾

Unlawful distribution, possession with intent to distribute, manufacture, importation and exportation
Substance	Offence Number	Amount of Drug	Fine (in dollars)	Imprisonment
Heroin	First Offence	1 kg or more	4-10 million	10 years to life
		100 g – 1 kg	2-5 million	5-40 years
		Less than 100 g	1-5 million	Up to 20 years
	Second Offence^([16])	1 kg or more	8-20 million	20 years - life
		100 g – 1 kg	4-10 million	10 years - life
		Less than 100 g	2-10 million	Up to 30 years
Coca leaves, Cocaine or “Crack”	First Offence	50 g or more	4-10 million	10 years to life
		5-50 g	2-5 million	5-40 years
		Less than 5 g	1-5 million	Up to 20 years
	Second Offence	50 g or more	8-20 million	20 years to life
		5-50 g	4-10 million	10 years to life
		Less than 5 g	2-10 million	Up to 30 years
LSD	First Offence	10 g or more	4-10 million	10 years to life
		1-10 g	2-5 million	5-40 years
		Less than 10 g	1-5 million	Up to 20 years
	Second Offence	10 g or more	8-20 million	20 years to life
		1-10 g	4-10 million	10 years to life
		Less than 10 g	2-10 million	Up to 30 years
Marijuana	First Offence	1000 kg or more or 1000 or more plants	4-10 million	10 years to life
		100-1000 kg or 100-1000 plants	2-5 million	5-40 years
		50-100 kg or 100 plants	1-5 million	Up to 20 years
		Under 50 kg^([17])	250,000-1 million	Up to 5 years
	Second Offence	1000 kg or more or 1000 or more plants	8-20 million	20 years to life
		100-1000 kg or 100-1000 plants	4-10 million	10 years to life
		50-100 kg or 100 plants	2-10 million	Up to 30 years
		Under 50 kg	500,000-2 million	Up to 10 years

Chart 2

Simple Possession
Drug	Offence Number	Amount of Drug	Fine (in dollars)	Imprisonment
Cocaine based	First	Over 5 g	Up to 250,000	5-20 years
Cocaine based	First	5 g or less	Minimum 1,000	Up to 1 year
All other	First	All amounts	Minimum 1,000	Up to 1 year
Cocaine based	Second^([18])	Over 3 g	Up to 250,000	5-20 years
All other	Second	All amounts	Minimum 2,500	15 days to 2 years
Cocaine based	Third	Over 1 g	Up to 250,000	5-20 years
All other	Third	All amounts	Minimum 5,000	90 days to 3 years

2. State Laws

a. General

In the U.S. a group called the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law has the task of drafting legislation that is to be recommended for adoption by all states in an effort to promote legislative consistency throughout the nation. The most recent Uniform Controlled Substances Act was drafted in 1994. The Act sets out the prohibited activities in detail but specific fines and sentencing are left to the discretion of the individual States. Most states have substantially adopted the major provisions of the Uniform Act^([19]) with the exception of New Hampshire and Vermont where the State laws are not a substantial adoption of the Uniform CSA, although they contain some similar provisions and have the same general purpose. Also of note are the medical marijuana exemptions discussed below.

In terms of sentencing, there are significant discrepancies between states. Appendix 2 of this review provides an overview of sentence ranges in various states for marijuana offences. With respect to sentencing for other drug offences, some states have experimented with extremely harsh penalties. New York’s “Rockefeller Laws,” for example, are referred to herein in the section entitled “Key Reports and Studies.” Other states that adopted similar “get-tough” penalties are now re-examining mandatory minimums, often as a result of fiscal considerations. For example, the state legislature in Louisiana overhauled its drug laws in June 2001. New legislation has cut drug sentences and repealed mandatory minimums for many non-violent crimes. As one republican legislator was quoted as saying, “It’s costing us too much to lock these people up and throw away the key.”

b. Medical Marijuana

Since 1978, medical marijuana laws have been enacted in 35 states. Five have since expired or been repealed but the balance remain on the books. Of those remaining:

· 12 states have “Therapeutic Research Program” laws that purport to permit scientific research (although this is complicated by the federal prohibition).

· 10 states (and the District of Columbia) have symbolic laws that recognize the potential medicinal value of marijuana, but do not provide any protection from arrest.

· 8 states have laws that effectively allow patients to use medical marijuana despite federal law.

The following chart provides details of the eight states with effective medical marijuana laws. While marijuana possession is still a federal crime, most drug arrests are made by state and local officials. Since the federal government cannot force state and local police to enforce federal statutes, medical marijuana users are usually able to avoid prosecution in these states. However, since pharmacies do not sell marijuana, some distribution centres called “buyers’ clubs” have emerged and these operations have been hampered by federal law enforcement. Recently, the Supreme Court examined the issue of buyers’ clubs in Conant v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative.^([20]) The court unanimously ruled that there is no medical necessity defence to the Controlled Substances Act’s prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. Because the CSA classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, marijuana has been deemed to have no medical benefits. While the decision in Conant does not render state laws regarding medical marijuana inoperative, it does enhance the federal government’s ability to prosecute under the CSA in all states. That said, federal enforcement efforts have not, thus far, targeted individuals who possess or cultivate small amounts for medical use. Only the buyers’ clubs (also known as “compassion clubs”) have been targeted.

In respect of the following chart, it should be noted that the quantity of marijuana a patient may possess varies from state to state. The provisions exempting caregivers from criminal liability may also vary.

State and Date Enacted	Protection provided to Patients	Documentation Required
Alaska – 3 Nov. 1998	Affirmative defence^([21]) provided to those registered with the state	Signed physician statement confirming that patient was examined, has a debilitating medical condition and other medications were considered
California – 5 Nov. 1996	Exemption from prosecution if marijuana possession or cultivation is solely for the medical purposes of the patient	Written or oral approval by physician who has determined that the patient’s health would benefit from marijuana in the treatment of a qualifying condition
Colorado – 7 Nov. 2000	Exemption from prosecution if in possession of a registry card; affirmative defence if no card, but in compliance with requirements of law	Diagnosed prior to arrest as having a debilitating condition and advised by the physician that marijuana might benefit the patient
Hawaii – 14 June 2000	Exemption from prosecution if in possession of a registry card; “choice of evils” defence also available^([22])	Card obtained with medical records or a statement from a physician that there is a debilitating condition and the potential benefits of marijuana would “likely outweigh the health risks”
Maine – 2 Nov. 1999	Burden on state to prove that patient’s medical use was not authorized by statute	Medical records or physician’s letter showing that the patient has a qualifying condition, that the risks have been discussed and that the patient “might benefit” from medical marijuana
Nevada – 7 Nov. 2000	Exemption from prosecution	“Advice required”; specifics yet to be determined by legislature
Oregon – 3 Nov. 1998	Exemption from prosecution if in possession of registry card; affirmative defence if no card, but in compliance with the law; choice of evils defence	Diagnosed within 12 months of arrest with a qualifying condition and advised by attending physician that marijuana “may mitigate the symptoms or effects”
Washington – 3 Nov. 1998	Exemption from prosecution if patient qualifies, has no more marijuana than necessary for personal medical use and presents valid documentation to law enforcement; affirmative defence if in compliance with statute	Signed physician statement or medical records that indicate that physician is of the opinion that the “potential benefits” of marijuana “would likely outweigh the health risks”

D. Federal Drug Policy Goals and Objectives

National drug-control policy in the United States purports to be based upon prevention, education, treatment and research, complemented by “supply reduction” activities.^([23]) To quote from the 2001 Annual Report of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (“ONDCP”):

“Through a balanced array of demand-reduction and supply-reduction actions, we strive to reduce drug abuse and availability by half and the consequences of drug abuse by at least 25% by 2007.”^([24])

Using the metaphor of cancer for the nation’s drug problem, the ONDCP lists the following strategic goals and objectives as being the heart of American federal action in this area.^([25])

Goal 1: Educate and enable America’s youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco.
Objective 1:	Educate parents and other care givers, teachers, coaches, clergy, health professionals, and business and community leaders to help youth reject illegal drugs and underage alcohol and tobacco use.
Objective 2:	Pursue a vigorous advertising and public communications program dealing with the dangers of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco use by youth.
Objective 3:	Promote zero tolerance policies for youth regarding the use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco within the family, school, workplace, and community.
Objective 4:	Provide students in grades K-12 with alcohol, tobacco, and drug prevention programs and policies that are research based.
Objective 5:	Support parents and adult mentors in encouraging youth to engage in positive, healthy lifestyles and modeling behavior to be emulated by young people.
Objective 6:	Encourage and assist the development of community coalitions and programs in preventing drug abuse and underage alcohol and tobacco use.
Objective 7:	Create partnerships with the media, entertainment industry, and professional sports organizations to avoid the glamorization, condoning, or normalization of illegal drugs and the use of alcohol and tobacco by youth.
Objective 8:	Develop and implement a set of research-based principles upon which prevention programming can be based.
Objective 9:	Support and highlight research, including the development of scientific information, to inform drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs targeting young Americans.
Goal 2: Increase the safety of America’s citizens by substantially reducing drug-related crime and violence.
Objective 1:	Strengthen law enforcement – including federal, state, and local drug task forces – to combat drug-related violence, disrupt criminal organizations, and arrest and prosecute the leaders of illegal drug syndicates.
Objective 2:	Improve the ability of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs) to counter drug trafficking.
Objective 3:	Help law enforcement to disrupt money laundering and seize and forfeit criminal assets.
Objective 4:	Break the cycle of drug abuse and crime.
Objective 5:	Support and highlight research, including the development of scientific information and data, to inform law enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, and treatment of offenders involved with illegal drugs.
Goal 3: Reduce health and social costs to the public of illegal drug use.
Objective 1:	Support and promote effective, efficient, and accessible drug treatment, ensuring the development of a system that is responsive to emerging trends in drug abuse.
Objective 2:	Reduce drug-related health problems, with an emphasis on infectious diseases.
Objective 3:	Promote national adoption of drug-free workplace programs that emphasize a comprehensive program that includes: drug testing, education, prevention, and intervention.
Objective 4:	Support and promote the education, training, and credentialing of professionals who work with substance abusers.
Objective 5:	Support research into the development of medications and related protocols to prevent or reduce drug dependence and abuse.
Objective 6:	Support and highlight research and technology, including the acquisition and analysis of scientific data, to reduce the health and social costs of illegal drug use.
Objective 7:	Support and disseminate scientific research and data on the consequences of legalizing drugs.
Goal 4: Shield America’s air, land, and sea frontiers from the drug threat.
Objective 1:	Conduct flexible operations to detect, disrupt, deter, and seize illegal drugs in transit to the United States and at U.S. borders.
Objective 2:	Improve the coordination and effectiveness of U.S. drug law enforcement programs with particular emphasis on the Southwest Border, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Objective 3:	Improve bilateral and regional cooperation with Mexico as well as other cocaine and heroin transit zone countries in order to reduce the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.
Objective 4:	Support and highlight research and technology – including the development of scientific information and data – to detect, disrupt, deter, and seize illegal drugs in transit to the United States and at U.S. borders.
Goal 5: Break foreign and domestic drug sources of supply.
Objective 1:	Produce a net reduction in the worldwide cultivation of coca, opium, and marijuana and in the production of other illegal drugs, especially methamphetamine.
Objective 2:	Disrupt and dismantle major international drug trafficking organizations and arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate their leaders.
Objective 3:	Support and complement source country drug control efforts and strengthen source country political will and drug control capabilities.
Objective 4:	Develop and support bilateral, regional, and multilateral initiatives and mobilize international organizational efforts against all aspects of illegal drug production, trafficking, and abuse.
Objective 5:	Promote international policies and laws that deter money laundering and facilitate anti-money laundering investigations as well as seizure and forfeiture of associated assets.
Objective 6:	Support and highlight research and technology, including the development of scientific data, to reduce the worldwide supply of illegal drugs.

E. Administration of the Policy

As the data in Appendix 1 indicates, the national drug control budget is enormous. Over 18 billion dollars has been budgeted for the year 2001 for the purpose of supporting the goals and objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy. Numerous federal departments, including Defense, Education, Justice, State and the Treasury, are involved and often must coordinate with state and local government agencies and a wide assortment of community and professional groups. This is all overseen by the ONDCP. The agencies involved within the various government departments are listed in the Drug Control Funding Budget Tables in Appendix 3.

A key government department is the Department of Justice which is responsible for many of the agencies involved in this area and receives a significant portion of the drug control budget; over 8 billion dollars in 2001.^([26]) Various agencies receive funding through Justice, including the Bureau of Prisons, the F.B.I., INTERPOL, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”). The DEA^([27]) merits special mention in the Justice Department’s administration of drug control policy. Its mission is to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations and to recommend and support non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on the domestic and international markets. Established in 1973, it is the successor of Anslinger’s FBN and other enforcement arms of the federal government as illustrated in the following graphic.^([28])

Apart from its law enforcement duties, the DEA manages national drug intelligence and is responsible, under the policy guidance of the Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassadors, for all programs associated with drug law enforcement counterparts in foreign countries. In this capacity, the organization liases with the United Nations, Interpol, and other organizations on matters relating to international drug control programs. American actions outside of U.S. territory include “Plan Columbia,” a program targeted at reducing cocaine productivity in that country to which over a billion dollars has been committed, as well as well joint enforcement activities undertaken with other governments such as Mexico. As well, under the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. is required to impose substantial restrictions on bilateral assistance to those countries listed by the White House as being major drug producing or transit countries. Similarly, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act permits the President to designate foreign individuals as “drug kingpins,” thereby denying them access to the U.S. financial system and making illegal any transactions between the “kingpin” and U.S. companies or individuals.

F. Current Issues and Debates

The costs of incarceration, the unequal impact of drug laws on racial minorities and police corruption resulting from the war on drugs are issues that have garnered increased attention in this ongoing debate. For example, the Republican governor of New Mexico has called for the decriminalization of all drugs – “Control it, regulate it, tax it,” he has been quoted as saying^([29]) - citing the mounting cost of addressing drug abuse problems with prison rather than treatment. Others criticize current policy on the basis that black Americans are disproportionately targeted in drug law enforcement. The group Human Rights Watch notes in a 2000 study that blacks comprise 62.7% and whites 36.7% of all drug offenders admitted to state prisons, even though data confirms that this racial disparity “bears scant relation to racial differences in drug offending.”^([30]) The adverse affect on law enforcement is also being exposed by experts such as the retired police chief of San Jose, California, Joseph McNamara, who argues that official corruption will be a major problem “as long as we cling to the present drug policies.”^([31])

KEY REPORTS AND STUDIES

What stands out most from the following studies is that although some have suggested maintaining current laws while doing more research and others have outright suggested decriminalization of some drugs, most have come to remarkably consistent conclusions regarding the war on drugs.

A. The LaGuardia Committee Report – 1944

In response to public concern regarding the use of marijuana, the New York Academy of Medicine was commissioned by Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia to make a thorough sociological and scientific investigation of the drug. A sociological study dealing with the extent of marijuana smoking and its relation to criminality was undertaken in conjunction with a clinical study that examined the physiological and psychological effects of the drug. In its report of 1944, the following conclusions were reached, inter alia:

· The practice of smoking marijuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word.

· The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine, heroin, or cocaine addiction.

· Marijuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes.

· The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded.

In his introduction to the report, Mayor Laguardia noted a previous study by an Army Board of Inquiry in which he had been involved and which “emphasized the relative harmlessness of the drug.” He further stated that the report showed that “the sociological, psychological, and medical ills commonly attributed to marihuana have been found to be exaggerated insofar the City of New York is concerned.” However, he indicated that as the report was simply a step in the scientific investigation of marijuana, the enforcement of laws prohibiting marijuana use would continue until further scientific study justified amending them.

B. ABA-AMA Joint Committee on Narcotic Drugs – 1961

Beginning in the late 1950s, representatives from the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association jointly examined the issue of whether drug addiction was best viewed as a medical or a criminal issue. In concluding that drug addiction is indeed a disease, the committee stated that:

· The weight of the evidence is heavily in favour of the proposition that the addict’s dependence on narcotic drugs combined with the high price in the illicit market is predominantly responsible for the crimes committed. The drug itself is not responsible for criminal behaviour.

· In terms of its ill effects, drug addiction is a problem of far less magnitude than alcoholism.

The committee recommended further study of treatment options for addicts and noted that the enforcement policies of the U.S. Narcotics Bureau did not provide the full answer to the problem of drug addiction. Favourable reference was made to the British practice of permitting physicians to treat addicts by maintaining their habit by prescription.

The head of the Narcotics Bureau, Harry Anslinger, set up his own “Advisory Committee” which harshly criticized the ABA-AMA report. Anslinger questioned the impartiality of the medical and legal professionals who had reached conclusions that were at odds with government policy. Specifically, his review suggested that the medical treatment of drug addicts at clinics, as was taking place to some extent in Great Britain, would create more addicts. Members of his counter-committee argued that the medical and psychiatric treatment of addicts had been a failure and that the “prohibitory approach” had a greater impact on addiction rates. One member, the Los Angeles Deputy Chief of Police and former head of the L.A.P.D.’s Narcotics Division, Lynn White, suggested that the main reason that enforcement had not yet succeeded in the battle against the narcotics peddler was the lenient sentences being handed down by judges. He argued that the best known cure for narcotic addition is to deprive the addict of drugs and that, in his experience, more addicts beat their addiction through “jail treatment” rather than “hospital treatment.” He dismissed the British system, claiming that it created more addicts, particularly among health care professionals, and criticized the ABA-AMA committee’s comparison of the U.S. with England on the basis that the U.S. had significantly more non-caucasians.

C. The Shafer Commission – 1972

In 1972 President Nixon appointed a bipartisan commission to study marijuana. The commission, sometimes referred to as the “Schafer Commission” after its chairman, the Republican Governor of Pennsylvania Raymond P. Schafer, was composed of sitting politicians and leading addiction scholars. As stated in its first report:

“Congress created the Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse to separate fact from fiction, reality from myth, and to achieve a balanced judgment on the marihuana issue.”^([32])

The Commission produced two reports. One report, “Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding,” analyzed the biological and social aspects of marijuana and reviewed the spectrum of possible legislative responses to marijuana use in America. While the commission rejected legalization “at the present time,” it recommended the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and further suggested that distributing small amounts for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit, should no longer be an offence. Marijuana possessed in public, it was argued, should remain contraband subject to seizure as the suggested policy was meant only to relate to private use.

Other findings of note in the first report include:

· None of the present theoretical constructs adequately proves a causal connection that using marijuana makes one escalate to other and more dangerous drugs.

· There is no “systematic empirical evidence” to support the thesis that marijuana use causes or precipitates criminal, violent, aggressive or delinquent behaviour.

· Further scientific research is needed in the area.

The Committee’s second report, “Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective,” examined not only marijuana use and its impact, but other drugs as well, both licit and illicit, including tobacco, alcohol, LSD, glue and inhalants, cocaine and heroin. The recommendations included:

· Congress should create a single Federal drug agency.

· The U.S. should take steps to remove marijuana from the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs since this drug does not pose the same social and public heath problems associated with the opiates and coca leaf products.

· Both the 1961 Single Convention and the Psychotropic Substances Convention (which at the time of the commission’s report was still being negotiated) should be redrafted to make it clear that each nation is free to determine for itself which domestic uses for controlled substances it will allow, provided that each nation prevents diversion and prohibits export for illegal use in other countries.

· Current drug trafficking offences and the penalty structure should be retained and the unauthorized possession of any controlled substance for personal use except marijuana should remain a prohibited act. However, the primary purpose of possession laws should be the detection of people who would benefit from treatment or prevention services, rather than criminal punishment.

· Heroin maintenance should remain prohibited.

D. Consumer Reports – 1972

“The Consumers Union Report on Narcotics, Stimulants, Depressants, Inhalants, Hallucinogens, and Marijuana – including Caffeine, Nicotine and Alcohol” was drafted by Edward Brecher, a journalist and editor who visited leading drug research and treatment centres in the U.S., Canada, England, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. He interviewed experts and drug addicts and participated in the “Ad Hoc Committee on the Treatment and Prevention of Drug Abuse and Drug Addiction.” The Brecher Report examined both licit drugs (i.e. caffeine, nicotine and alcohol) and illicit drugs, providing a detailed historical review of drug laws, policies and attitudes, as well as a series of recommendations.

The report recommended that policy makers cease pursuing current strategies; specifically:

· Stop emphasizing measures designed to keep drugs away from people. As the U.S. learned with alcohol in the 1920s, prohibition does not work. In fact, laws and law enforcement exacerbate the problems that arise from drug use and addiction. For example, laws cannot keep heroin from heroin addicts but may result in raising the price of a nickel’s worth of heroin to five dollars – with the further result that addicts must steal vast amounts to feed their habit.

· Stop publicizing the horrors of the “drug menace.” Sensationalist publicity is counterproductive in that it, on the one hand, may serve to popularize the drug attacked, while on the other hand, may inflame non-drug users’ hostile emotions to such an extent that rational and effective drug policies cannot be discussed.

· Stop misclassifying drugs. Treating nicotine and alcohol as “non-drugs” and grouping marijuana with heroin brings ridicule and disrepute upon the whole concept of drug education.

· Stop viewing the drug problem as a national problem. The predominant drugs vary from place to place and from time to time and effective solutions need to be tailor-made for specific communities.

· Stop pursuing the goal of stamping out illicit drug use. Reduction of drug use is an attainable goal. Attempts to eradicate all illicit drugs may serve to increase drug damage and efforts to stamp out one drug tend to shift users to another.

Recommendations for positive action included:

· Review U.S. policies to ensure that no addict needs to get his drug on the black market.

· Make methadone and other narcotics maintenance programs available to all addicts.

· Repeal all laws governing marijuana and enact appropriate regulations with the assistance of a national marijuana commission.

E. New York City Bar Association review of the Rockefeller Drug Laws – 1977

At the time the toughest in the nation, the Rockefeller drug laws had been passed by the New York State legislature in May, 1973 with the intent of deterring drug use and sales. Those not deterred were to be isolated from society and subjected to inflexible and exceptionally severe punishment. Mandatory prison sentences for the unlawful possession and sale of controlled substances were keyed to the weight of the drug involved. Generally, possessing 4 ounces or more or trafficking two ounces or more of a narcotic (typically heroin or cocaine) resulted in a mandatory 15 years to life sentence. Although marijuana was originally included in the list of substances covered by the Rockefeller laws, it was removed from the list in 1977.

The New York City Bar Association reported that these tougher penalties had done nothing to reduce drug abuse and that the mandatory minimum sentences were of little, if any, benefit.

F. National Research Council, National Academy of Science – 1982

The Committee on Substance Abuse and Habitual Behaviour of the NAS reviewed in great detail all aspects of the issue of marijuana use in the United States. The group of experts from the fields of medicine, law, addiction treatment, business and public policy made the following recommendations:

· Excessive marijuana use can cause harm, but such use is rare.

· On balance, the prohibition on marijuana is socially and personally destructive.

· Widespread uncontrolled use would likely not occur with decriminalization.

· Greater emphasis should be placed on public education and informal social controls, both of which have a greater impact on use than the criminal law.

· States should be permitted to set up their own regulatory systems for marijuana, similar to the systems in place for alcohol. Federal criminal penalties relating to marijuana should be removed and each state could impose regulations concerning hours of sale, age limits and taxation.

G. Research Advisory Panel for the State of California – 1989

This panel was appointed by the state legislature to regulate all research on controlled substances. In its 1989 report, it commented negatively on the prohibitionist approach concluding that it had been “manifestly unsuccessful.” The panel recommended the legislature consider legislation aimed at the regulation and decriminalization of drug use. Suggestions for initial action included:

· Permit the possession of syringes and needles.

· Permit the cultivation of marijuana for personal use.

· In order to project a disapproval of drug use, the sale or consumption of alcohol in all state-supported institutions should be prohibited.

H. New York County Lawyers Association – 1996

The Drug Policy Task Force, sponsored by the New York County Lawyers’ Association, commenced its operations in 1993. The Task Force was established as a “blue‑ribbon” panel of prominent and respected individuals, including lawyers, judges and drug policy experts. In October 1996 it published a detailed report that examined the economic and social costs of the war on drugs, its impact on women and people of colour, its effect on the integrity of government and the public health consequences.

Its recommendations included:

· Replace the “penal” approach to drug policy with medical policy models that view substance abuse as primarily a public health issue.

· Adopt a more rational and compassionate approach to drug policy, founded upon the humane treatment of substance abusers and their families.

· Apply cost-benefit analyses to all policies to ensure that the policy is unlikely to cause more harm than the use of the drug.

· Repeal mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders.

· Establish and improve diversionary and treatment programs and other alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders.

· Move from the “zero tolerance” policy to one that follows “harm reduction” principles.

· Reject the notion that law enforcement efforts can eliminate drug use and instead redirect policing towards violent crime.

· Implement public education campaigns that counteract inaccurate and misleading drug war propaganda. Provide access to information about the safe use of controlled substances and how to reduce the harms associated with such use.

· Decriminalize marijuana or, at the very least, permit its medical use. The economic and social costs of enforcing penal sanctions for possession of this relatively harmless drug can no longer be justified.

· Severely curtail the current forfeiture laws.

I. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine – 1999

In a response to a request from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the NAS conducted a review of the scientific evidence relating to the potential health benefits of marijuana. In its report entitled “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Scientific Base,” the NAS was unable to determine based on current scientific knowledge whether marijuana relieves health problems or is safe for medical use. The NAS was able to state the following:

· Cannabinoids likely have a natural role in pain modulation.

· The brain develops tolerance to cannabinoids.

· Animal research demonstrates a narrower potential for dependence than with the opiates, cocaine or nicotine.

· Withdrawal symptoms were observed in animals, but appear to be minor compared to opiates or benzodiazepines. A distinctive marijuana withdrawal syndrome has been identified but it is mild and short-lived.

· Scientific data indicates potential therapeutic value of marijuana for pain relief, control of nausea and appetite stimulation. Smoked marijuana, however, is a crude delivery system that also delivers harmful substances.

· Marijuana is not a completely benign substance, but with the exception of the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications.

· There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent use of other drugs. While marijuana use typically precedes the initiation of other illicit drugs, it is usually not the first “gateway.” Typically, alcohol and cigarette use precedes experimentation with marijuana.

· Further research, particularly clinical trials, should be conducted on the potential benefits of marijuana

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 – Selected Data

A. Trends and Patterns of Illegal Drug Use

Estimated Domestic U.S. Drug Consumption (in Metric Tons)^([33])

Year	Cocaine	Heroin	Marijuana	Methamphetamine
1996	288	12.4	874	14.3
1997	312	13.1	960	11.9
1998	291	12.5	952	15.9
1999	276	12.9	982	15.5
2000	269	12.9	1,009	15.5

1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Past Illicit Drug Use^([34])

Respondent Age	Ever Used	Past Year	Past Month
12-17	23.7%	18.8%	11.4%
18-25	45.4	25.3	14.7
26-34	50.8	14.3	7.4
35 and over	31.5	6.1	3.6

1998 Drug Use Amount High School Seniors([35]⁾

Drug	Ever Used	Past Year	Past Month
Marijuana	49.1%	37.5%	22.8%
Cocaine	9.3	5.7	2.4
Crack	4.4	2.5	1.0
Stimulants	16.4	10.1	4.6
LSD	12.6	7.6	3.2
PCP	3.9	2.1	1.0
Heroin	2.0	1.0	0.5

Drug Prices and Purity Levels: Selected Years 1981-1998([36]⁾

Purchase Amount	1981 Price/Purity (per pure gram)	1988 Price/Purity (per pure gram)	1996 Price/Purity (per pure gram)	1997 Price/Purity (per pure gram)	1998 Price/Purity (per pure gram)
Cocaine
1 g or less	$378.70/40.02%	$218.33/75.99%	$159.05/72.5%	$178.97/64.72%	$169.25/71.23%
10-100 g	191.35/59.59	78.84/83.53	49.45/68.44	45.58/67.05	44.30/65.92
Heroin
0.1 g or less	3,114.80/4.69	2,874.19/19.22	2,175.88/23.95	2,114.97/25.24	1,798.80/24.29
1-10 g	1,194.05/19.1	947.32/39.48	373.30/45.21	327.88/45.38	317.97/51.33
Marijuana
10 g or less	$6.41	$12.50	$10.42	$10.00	$10.41
100-999 g	2.75	3.41	2.95	2.63	2.59

B. Law Enforcement Statistics

National Drug Control Budget([37]⁾

Year	Amount (in $US billions)
1999	17.1
2000	17.9
2001	18.1
2002	19.2

Total Estimated Arrests and Drug Arrests, 1989-99([38]⁾

Year	Total Arrests	Arrests for all drug violations		Distribution of arrests for drug violations
		Arrests for all drug violations		Heroin/Cocaine		Marijuana		Other Drugs
		Number	Percent	Sale	Possession	Sale	Possession	Sale	Possession
1989	14,340,900	1,351,700	9.4	19.1	34.7	6.2	23.1	7.0	9.8
1990	14,195,100	1,089,500	7.6	21.0	33.3	6.1	23.9	4.5	11.2
1991	14,211,900	1,010,000	7.1	22.5	32.8	6.1	22.4	4.8	11.5
1992	14,075,100	1,066,400	7.5	20.6	32.4	6.6	25.5	4.6	10.4
1993	14,036,300	1,126,300	8.0	19.2	31.1	6.2	27.6	4.3	11.6
1994	14,648,700	1,351,400	9.2	16.8	30.3	5.8	29.8	4.1	13.2
1995	15,119,800	1,476,100	9.7	14.7	27.8	5.8	34.1	4.4	13.3
1996	15,168,100	1,506,200	9.9	14.2	25.6	6.3	36.6	4.3	13.3
1997	15,284,300	1,583,600	10.3	10.3	25.4	5.6	38.3	4.7	15.8
1998	14,528,300	1,559,100	10.7	11.0	25.6	5.4	38.4	4.8	14.8
1999	14,031,070	1,532,200	10.9	10.0	24.5	5.5	40.5	4.1	15.4

Adults in Custody of State or Federal Prisons or Local Jails, 1989-99([39]⁾

Year	State Prisons	Federal Prisons	Total State & Federal Prisons	Percent of prisoners who are drug offenders		Local Jails
Year	State Prisons	Federal Prisons	Total State & Federal Prisons	Federal	State	Local Jails
1989	629,995	53,387	683,382	49.9	19.1	395,553
1990	684,544	58,838	743,382	53.5	21.7	405,320
1991	728,605	63,930	792,545	55.9	21.3	426,479
1992	778,495	72,071	850,566	58.9	22.1	444,584
1993	828,566	80,815	909,381	59.2	22.1	459,804
1994	904,647	85,500	990,147	60.5	22.4	486,474
1995	989,004	89,538	1,078,542	59.9	22.7	507,044
1996	1,032,440	95,088	1,127,528	60.0	22.7	518,492
1997	1,059,588	99,175	1,176,922	62.6	20.7	567,079
1998	1,178,978	123,041	1,232,900	58.7	20.7	592,462
1999	1,209,123	135,246	1,366,369	57.8	Unavailable	605,943

C. Correctional Populations in the United States: Selected Statistics for 1997^([40])

In 1997, an estimated 5.7 million adult residents of the U.S. (or approximately 2.8% of all U.S. adult residents) were under some form of correctional supervision. Approximately 70% were supervised in the community, through probation or parole. About 9.0% of black adults were under correctional supervision; for white adults, the figure was 2.0% and for other races it totalled 1.3%.

D. Federal Drug Prosecutions: Selected Statistics for 1999([41]⁾

During 1999 U.S. attorneys initiated investigations involving 117,994 suspects. 32% of these suspects were investigated for drug offences. Suspects in criminal matters involving drug offences were more likely to be prosecuted in a U.S. district court (77%) as opposed to suspects involved in violent offences (59%), public order offences (53%) or property offences (50%). Of those convicted of felony drug offences in federal court in 1999, 93% received prison sentences. The average sentence of all offenders sentenced in federal court in 1999 was 57.8 months; for drug offenders, the average was 75.4 months.

E. DEA Seizures of Non-Drug Property – 1997^([42])

In fiscal year 1997, the Drug Enforcement Agency made 15,860 seizures of non‑drug property pursuant to drug forfeiture laws. The total value of this property is estimated at $552 million.

Type of Asset	Number of Seizures	Value ($)
Currency	8,123	284,680,029
Other financial instruments	507	73,602,092
Real Property	748	108,833,498
Vehicles	3,695	47,379,874
Vessels	111	5,884,754
Aircraft	24	8,945,000
Other Conveyance	172	1,734,731
Other	2,480	1,734,731

Appendix 2 State by State List of Marijuana Penalties^([43])

The following guide lists penalties for some, but not all, state marijuana offences. “Possession” in this appendix refers to possession for personal use. Penalties for possession with intent to traffic, distribute or sell will result in more significant sentences. Medical marijuana exemptions are discussed in the main body of this paper. Note as well the following abbreviations:

“C” – Conditional Release. The state allows conditional sentencing or diversion for people facing a first prosecution. Usually, this serves to prevent a criminal record.

“D” – Decriminalization. The state has decriminalized marijuana to a limited degree. Typically, this means that no prison time or criminal record will result from a first offence of possessing a small amount for personal use. Often the conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation.

“MMS” – Mandatory minimum sentence. The judge must sentence the defendant to at least the MMS.

ALABAMA

Possession:

</= 1 kg. for personal consumption: 0 - 1 year; $2,000
</= 1 kg. under another charge: 1 - 10 years; $2,000

Cultivation or delivery or sale:

> 2.2 lbs.: 3 years MMS, possible 10 - 99 years; $25,000
> 100 lbs.: 5 years MMS; $50,000
> 500 lbs.: 15 years MMS, $200,000
> 1000 lbs.: life MMS

Sale:

To minors: 2 - 20 years; $10,000
Within 3 miles of a school: 5 years*
Within 3 miles of a public housing project: 5 years*
*These sentences run consecutive to other sentences and cannot be probated.

Drug trafficking enterprise:

1st offense: 25 years - life; $50,000 - $1,000,000
2nd offense: life MMS

Paraphernalia possession: 0 - 1 year; $2,000

Driver’s license suspended 6 months.

ALASKA

Possession:

< 8 oz.: 0 - 90 days; $1,000
>/= 8 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $5,000
>/= 1 lb.: 0 - 5 years; $50,000
>/= 25 plants: 0 - 5 years, $50,000
On a school bus: 0 - 5 years; $50,000
Within 500 feet of school or recreation center: 0 - 5 years; $50,000

Manufacture or delivery or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver:

< 0.5 oz. for remuneration: 0 - 1 year; $5,000
>/= 0.5 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $5,000
>/= 1 oz.: 0 - 5 years; $50,000

Maintaining a structure or dwelling for manufacturing or delivery: 0 - 5 years; $50,000

Suspended imposition of sentence with 2 - 3 years of probation available for 1st offense if offense is a misdemeanor.

If the referendum of 1990 is overturned and the Ravin decision reinstated, </= 4 oz. will be decriminalized for personal possession.

ARIZONA

Possession or use:

<2 lbs.: probation*; $750 - $150,000.
Possible: drug “rehabilitation,” community service, urine tests.

Possession for sale:

<2 lbs.: 1.5 - 3 years; $750 - $150,000
>/= 2 lbs.: 2.5 - 7 years; $750 - $150,000
>4 lbs.: 4 - 10 years; $750 - $150,000

Sale or delivery for sale or transport for sale:

<2 lbs.: 2.5 - 7 years; $750 - $150,000
>/= 2 lbs.: 4 - 10 years; $750 - $150,000

Possession or sale in a “drug free zone,” i.e., within 300 feet of a school, any public property within 1000 feet of a school, or at a school bus stop or on any bus which transports pupils to school: 1 additional year of prison plus $2000 - $150,000.

Production or cultivation:

<2 lbs.: probation or 9 months - 2 years; $750 - $150,000
>/= 2 lbs.: 1.5 - 3 years; $750 - $150,000
>4 lbs.: 2.5 - 7 years; $750 - $150,000

The Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996 (Proposition 200) became effective on July 21, 1997. The Act provides that a 1st or 2nd time marijuana offender may not be imprisoned for simple possession or use, regardless of amount of marijuana. However, a court may sentence the person to probation* with court supervised drug “rehabilitation,” a fine of $750 - $150,000, and/or community service. A person can be incarcerated if charged outside of the “possession or use” category.

Necessity defense: Section 13 - 417 of the Arizona Criminal and Traffic Law Manual, 1997 - 1998 edition, arguably allows a patient to tell a jury that s/he uses marijuana for medical purposes.

*Probation: People placed on probation or early release generally must perform 24 - 360 hours of community service.

ARKANSAS (C)

Possession: </= 1 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $1,000

Cultivation or delivery or sale:

> 1 oz.: 4 - 10 years; $25,000
>/= 10 lbs.: 5 - 20 years; $15,000 - $50,000
>/= 100 lbs.: 6 - 30 years; $15,000 - $100,000

Sale to minor: 5 - 20 years; $15,000

Sale within 1000 feet of a school, public park, community or recreation center, skating rink, or video arcade: 5 - 20 years; $15,000

Driver’s license suspended 6 months.

CALIFORNIA (D)

Possession:

</= 28.5 grams: $100; no booking if you can show officer I.D. and promise to appear in court.
</= 28.5 grams on school grounds when school is open: $250; 2nd offense: 10 days; $500
> 28.5 grams: 0 - 6 months; $500
Possession for sale: no specified amount: 16 months; 2 - 3 years probation.

Cultivation:

For personal use only: stay of imposition of the conviction, drug education, charges dropped.
Not for personal use: 0 - 16 months; 2 - 3 years probation possible. No plant number or weight breakdown.

Selling, giving away, importing, or transporting into California: 2 - 4 years.

Possession or cultivation or transportation is legal upon a doctor’s recommendation or approval.

COLORADO (D)

Possession:

< 1 oz.: $100 plus surcharge
>/= 1 oz.: 0 - 2 years in county jail; $500 - $5,000 fine plus surcharge
>/= 8 oz.: 1 - 4 years; $1,000 - $100,000 plus surcharge
Generally, one prior conviction over 1 oz. doubles the penalties.

Cultivation or manufacture or delivery or sale:

</= 100 lbs.: 2 - 8 years in Department of Corrections; $2,000 - $500,000 plus surcharge >100 lbs.: 24 years MMS; $5,000 - $1,000,000
Two prior violations involving manufacture: 2 years MMS

Proof of sale: 1 - 16 years

Sale or giving marijuana to person aged 15 years or younger:

2 - 8 years; $2,000 - $500,000 plus up to another $5,000

Paraphernalia:

Sale or possession of paraphernalia: $100 plus surcharge

Extraordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances allow the court to sentence outside proscribed sentencing ranges.

CONNECTICUT

Possession:

</= 4 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $1,000. 2nd offense: 0 - 5 years; $3,000
>/= 4 oz.: 0 - 5 years; $2,000. 2nd offense: 0 - 10 years; $5,000
Possession of any amount within 1500 feet of a school: add 2 years MMS consecutive to other incarceration

Cultivation or delivery or sale:

< 1 kg.: 0 - 7 years; $25,000
>/= 1 kg.: 5 - 20 years MMS; $2,000
>/= 4 oz., 2nd offense: 0 - 10 years; $5,000

Paraphernalia possession: 90 days; $500

Within 1500 feet of a school: additional 1 year MMS consecutive to other incarceration.

Professional licenses suspended.

Medical necessity, § 21a - 253, C.G.S. states a person may possess a quantity of marijuana less than or equal to that quantity prescribed by a physician who is licensed to supply marijuana for treating glaucoma or side effects of chemotherapy.

DELAWARE (C)

Possession of any amount: 0 - 6 months; $1,150

Cultivation: 0 - 5 years; $10,000

Trafficking:

>/= 5 lbs.: 3 years MMS; $25,000
>/= 100 lbs.: 5 years MMS; $50,000
>/= 500 lbs.: 15 years MMS; $100,000

Delivery:

Of any amount: 5 years; $10,000
Delivery to a minor: 0 - 5 years

If minor is under 16, 1 year MMS
If minor is under 14, 2 years MMS

Delivery or distribution within 1000 feet of school: 0 - 30 years; $250,000

Delivery or distribution or possession within 300 feet of park land, a park, or recreation area: 0 ‑ 15 years; $250,000

Paraphernalia:

Possession: 0 - 1 year; $2,300
Manufacture or delivery: 0 - 2 years
Delivery to a minor: 0 - 5 years

Maintaining a dwelling or vehicle in which marijuana smoking or other marijuana related conduct occurs: 0 - 3 years; court’s discretion on fine.

Suspended sentences possible except for trafficking.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (C)

Possession of any amount:

0 - 180 days; $1,000. 1st time possession offenders are eligible for probation followed by dismissal.

Cultivation or delivery or sale of any amount: 0 - 1 year; $10,000

Sale to minor: penalty doubles

Paraphernalia:

Possession: 0 - 1 year; $500
Delivery to a minor: 0 - 8 years; $15,000

Driver’s license suspended 6 months.

FLORIDA

Possession:

</= 20 g.: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
> 20 g.: 0 - 5 years; $5,000

Sale of any amount: 0 - 5 years; $5000

Delivery:

</= 20 g. without remuneration: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
Paraphernalia to minor: 15 years; $10,000
Within 200 feet of school, public housing, or public park: 15 years; $10,000

Trafficking:

>/= 50 - </= 2000 lbs.: 0 - 30 years; $25,000
> 2,000 lbs.: 0 - 30 years; larger fine
> 10,000 lbs.: >/= 15 years MMS; $200,000

Paraphernalia possession: 0 - 1 year; $1,000

Driver’s license suspended 6 months.

Professional licenses suspended.

A vehicle can be confiscated for any felony amount.

GEORGIA

Possession or sale:

< 1 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $1,000. If arrested in a municipality you can choose to appear in city court instead of state court: maximum 60 days; $500 >/= 1 oz.: 1 - 10 years; $1,000
>5 lb.: 3 years MMS; $25,000
>100 lb.: 5 years MMS; $50,000
>500 lb.: 15 years MMS; $100,000

Paraphernalia possession:

0 - 1 year; $1,000
Third offense: 1 - 5 years; $5,000

Cultivation: 0 - 10 years; $100,000

Trafficking: Includes the sale, manufacture, growth, delivery, import of marijuana into Georgia or any quantity of marijuana > 50 lbs:

> 50 lbs. - < 2,000 lbs.: 5 years MMS plus $100,000
>/= 2,000 lbs. - < 10,000 lbs.: 7 years MMS plus $250,000
>/= 10,000 lbs.: 15 years MMS plus $1,000,000

Use of a communications facility (i.e., telephone, radio, etc.) during drug felony may add 1 - 4 years; $30,000

Manufacture or distribute or dispense or possess with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of an elementary or secondary school, a school board used for elementary or secondary education, property owned or leased by an elementary or secondary school, or any park, playground, recreational center, drug free commercial zone: 0 - 20 years; $20,000

Manufacture or distribution involving a minor: 5 - 20 years; $20,000

Driver’s license suspended at least 6 months; license reinstated only with “treatment.”

Professional licenses suspended.

2nd drug felony is punishable by life in prison.

HAWAII (C)

Possession:

< 1 oz.: 0 - 30 days; $1,000
> 1 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $2,000
> 2.2. lbs.: 0 - 5 years; $10,000
> 40 lbs.: 0 - 10 years; $25,000

Cultivation:

</= 25 plants: 0 - 5 years, $10,000
100 or more plants: 0 - 10 years; $25,000

Sale:

< 2 oz.: 1 year; $2,000
>/= 2 oz.: 5 years; $10,000
> 2.2 lbs.: 10 years; $25,000
Sale within 750 feet of a school or within 10 feet of a parked school vehicle: 0 - 5 years; 2nd offense: 2 - 10 years

Any marijuana in a vehicle causes all passengers to be charged with possession unless the marijuana is found on the person of an occupant.

Distribution to minors: 10 years; $25,000

“Drug Demand Reduction Assessments” are additional fines.

IDAHO (C)

Using marijuana or being under the influence of marijuana in a public place: 0 - 6 months or $1,000

Possession:

< 3 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
> 3 oz.: 0 - 5 years; $10,000
by a prisoner: 1 - 5 years; $1,000
by a minor (misdemeanor amounts): 30 days detention; $300

Paraphernalia possession: 0 - 1 year; $1,000

Cultivation or delivery or sale:

< 1 lbs. or 0 - 24 plants: 0 - 5 years; $15,000
>/= 1 lbs. or 25 - 49 plants: 1 year MMS; $5,000
>/= 5 lbs. or 50 - 99 plants: 3 years MMS; $10,000
>/= 25 lbs. or >/= 100 plants: 5 years MMS; $15,000
Possible maximum: 15 years; $50,000

Manufacture or sale of paraphernalia: 9 years; $30,000

Sale to minor: prison time doubles.

Sale on school grounds: penalty doubles.

A person’s presence in a place where he or she knows that illegal drug activity is taking place is punishable by 0 - 3 months; $300

Required evaluation with all drug convictions; court can order treatment.

ILLINOIS (C)

Possession:

< 2.5 grams: 0 - 30 days; $500
>/= 2.5 grams: 0 - 6 months; $500
>/= 10 grams: 0 - 1 year in county jail; $1,000
>/= 30 grams: 1 - 3 years in penitentiary or probation; $10,000
>/= 500 grams: 2 - 5 years or probation; $50,000
>/= 2,000 grams: 3 - 7 years or probation; $100,000
>/= 5,000 grams: 4 - 15 years or probation; $150,000

Cultivation:

1 - 5 plants: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
5 - 20 plants: 1 - 3 years; $10,000
20 - 50 plants: 2 - 5 years; $10,000
> 50 plants: 3 - 7 years; $100,000

Manufacture or delivery:

< 2.5 grams: 0 - 6 months; $500
> 2.5 grams: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
> 10 grams: 1 - 3 years; $10,000
> 30 grams: 2 - 5 years; $50,000
> 500 grams - < 2,500 grams: 3 - 7 years; $100,000

Trafficking = bringing > 2,500 grams to manufacture or deliver: double penalty and fine.

Sale to minor: double penalty and fine.

Sale within 1,000 feet of school, public park, or public housing or sale in a vehicle used for school purposes: 6 - 30 years no probation; $500,000

Calculated criminal conspiracy: 6 - 30 years no probation; $500,000; mandatory forfeiture.

INDIANA (C)

Possession:

</= 30 grams: 0 - 1 year; $5,000; conditional discharge possible
> 30 g or 2nd possession of any amount: 6 months - 3 years; $10,000

Paraphernalia:

Possession: $500

“Reckless possession of paraphernalia”: 0 - 1 years plus </= 1.5 years for aggravating circumstances or minus </= 1 year for mitigating circumstances; $5,000

Manufacture or sale of paraphernalia: .5 years; $10,000

Cultivation or delivery or sale:

</= 30 grams: 0 - 1 year; $5,000
> 30 grams: 6 months - 3 years; $10,000
>/= 10 lbs.: 2 - 8 years; $10,000
Sale to minor: .5 - 3 years; $10,000
Sale within 1,000 feet of school, on a school bus, in a public park or a family housing complex: 2 - 8 years; $10,000

Driver’s license suspended 6 months - 2 years (hardship license available)

Knowingly visiting a place where drugs are used: 0 - 180 days; $1,000

IOWA (C)

Possession or Sale:

< 50 kg.: 0 - 5 years; $1,000 - $5,000
>/= 50 kg.: 0 - 10 years; $1,000 - $50,000
>/= 100 kg.: 0 - 25 years; $5,000 - $100,000
> 1,000 kg.: 0 - 50 years; $1,000,000

Sale to minor within 1000 feet of school or public park: 10 - 25 years MMS

Driver’s license suspended 6 months.

KANSAS (C)

Possession:

Any amount of marijuana for personal use: 0 - 1 year; $2,500
2nd conviction: 10 - 42 months which can double with aggravating factors; $100,000

Possession with intent to sell, or cultivation, or sale:

14 - 51 months which can double with aggravating factors; $300,000

Possession or attempt to buy or sell >/= 100 plants or 100 lbs.:

21 - 27 months which can double with aggravating factors; $300,000

Possession with intent to sell or sale within 1,000 feet of a school:

46 - 83 months which can double with aggravating factors; $300,000

Any marijuana related conduct which involves a minor or occurs in the presence of a minor may count as aggravating factor and increase the sentence.

Paraphernalia:

For personal use: 0 - 1 year; $2,500
For planting or growing more than 5 plants: 10 - 42 months which can double with aggravating factors; $100,000

KENTUCKY (C)

Possession:

< 8 oz.: 90 days - 1 year; $500; 2nd offense: 1 - 5 years

Possession with intent to sell (possession of >/= 8 oz. is considered prima facie evidence of intent to sell)

>/= 8 oz.: 1 - 5 years; $10,000; 2nd offense: 5 - 10 years
>/= 5 lbs.: 5 - 10 years; $10,000; 2nd offense: 10 - 20 years

Sale:

To a minor: 5 - 10 years; 2nd offense: 10 - 20 years
Within 1,000 feet of a school: 1 - 5 years; $3,000 - $5,000

Trafficking:

</= 8 oz.: 1 year
< 5 lbs.: 1 - 5 years
>/= 5 lbs.: 5 - 10 years

Paraphernalia: 90 days - 1 year; 2nd offense: 1 - 5 years

Cultivation:

< 5 plants: 90 days - 1 year; $500; 2nd offense: 1 - 5 years; $5,000
>/= 5 plants: 1 - 5 years; $3,000 - $5,000
>/= 5 plants, 2nd offense: 5 - 10 years; $3,000 - $5,000; 2nd offense: 5 - 10 years

Defendants who are minors: driver’s license suspended 1 - 2 years.

Tax: Kentucky taxes marijuana plants and substance.

LOUISIANA (C)

Possession (no quantity specified; usually under 2 oz. in one container):

1st offense: 0 - 6 months; $500
2nd offense: 0 - 5 years hard labor; $2,000
3rd offense: 0 - 20 years hard labor

Possession with intent to distribute, cultivation or sale:

< 60 lbs.: 5 - 30 years hard labor; $50,000
>/= 60 lbs.: 10 - 60 years MMS hard labor; and $50,000 - $100,000
>/= 2,000 lbs.: 20 - 80 years MMS hard labor; $100,000 - $400,000
>/= 10,000 lbs.: 50 - 80 years MMS hard labor; $400,000 - $1,000,000

Sale to minor: Doubled penalties

Felony possession or sale within 1,000 feet of school:

Driver’s license suspended 90 days - 1 year
1st offense: maximum fine and a minimum of half of the maximum allowable term for offense served before pardon or parole.
Subsequent convictions: Maximum fine and maximum sentence without parole, probation, or suspended sentence.

MAINE (D)

Possession:

< 1.25 oz.: $400
> 1.25 oz. = evidence of intent to furnish marijuana. See penalties for sale.

Paraphernalia possession: 0 - 6 months; $200

Cultivation:

100 - 500 plants: 1 - 5 years MMS; $5,000
>/= 500 plants: 2 - 10 years MMS; $20,000

Delivery or Sale:

< 1.25 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
>/= 1.25 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $2,000
>/= 2 lb.: 1 - 5 years MMS; $5,000
>/= 20 lb.: 2 - 10 years MMS; $20,000

Sale to minor: 5 years; $5,000

Possible suspension of professional license.

Court can override minimums when sentencing first time defendants who present no danger to the public and who would suffer substantial injustice if sentenced to a MMS.

MARYLAND

Possession or use of any amount: 0 - 1 year; $1,000

Paraphernalia possession: $500

Cultivation or Delivery or Sale:

< 50 lbs.: 0 - 5 years; $15,000
>/= 50 lbs.: 5 years MMS

Smuggling into state:

>/= 100 lbs.: 0 - 25 years; $50,000

Using a minor: 0 - 20 years; $20,000

MASSACHUSETTS (C)

Possession of any amount:

1st offense: probation.
Subsequent offense: 0 - 6 months; $500. Probation possible.

Cultivation or delivery or sale:

< 50 lbs.: 0 - 2 years; $5,000
>/= 50 lbs.: 2.5 - 15 years; $10,000; 1 year MMS
>/= 100 lbs.: 3 - 15 years MMS; $25,000
>/= 10,000 lbs.: 10 - 15 years; $200,000
Sale to minor: 2.5 - 15 years; $1,000 - $25,000
Sale within 1,000 feet of school: 2.5 - 15 years; $1,000 - $10,000

Paraphernalia:

Manufacture or sale: 1 - 2 years; $500 - $5,000
Sale to minor: 3 - 5 years; $1,000 - $5,000

License suspensions:

Any offense: at least 6 months.
Delivery or sale of any amount: driver’s license suspended 2 years.
Delivery or sale over 50 lbs.: driver’s license suspended 5 years.

MICHIGAN (C)

Use: 0 - 90 days; $100

Possession of any amount: 0 - 1 year; $1,000 (probation available)

Cultivation or delivery or sale:

Any amount: 0 - 4 years; $2,000
Sale to minor: penalty doubles
Sale within 500 feet of school: penalty doubles

Manufacture or sale of paraphernalia: 3 months; $5,000

License suspensions:

Any offense: 6 months.

*City of Ann Arbor is a decriminalized city. ($50 civil fine)

MINNESOTA (C, D)

Possession:

</= 42.5 grams: $200 and “drug education”
< 10 kg.: 0 - 5 years; $10,000
>/= 10 kg.: 0 - 20 years; $250,000
>/= 50 kg.: 0 - 25 years; $500,000
> 100 kg.: 0 - 30 years; $1,000,000
Possession of more than 1.4 grams in a motor vehicle is punishable by 0 - 1 year in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Sale or delivery:

>/= 2 kg.: 0 - 5 years; $10,000
>/= 5 kg.: 0 - 20 years; $250,000
>/= 25 kg.: 0 - 25 years; $500,000
> 50 kg.: 0 - 30 years; $1,000,000
Sale to minor: 0 - 20 years; $250,000
Sale within 300 feet or one city block of school, public park, or public housing: 15 ‑ 30 years; $100,000 - $1,000,000

Driver’s license suspended 30 days.

MISSISSIPPI (D)

Possession:

</= 1 oz.: $100 - $250
> 1 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
>/= 1 kg.: 0 - 20 years; $1,000 - $1,000,000
Additional penalties for possession in any part of a motor vehicle except the trunk.

Paraphernalia possession: 0 - 6 months; $500

Sale or delivery:

< 1 oz.: 0 - 3 years; $3,000
>/= 1 oz.: 0 - 20 years; $30,000
>/= 1 kg.: 0 - 30 years; $100,000 - $1,000,000
> 10 lbs.: life without parole
Sale to person under 21: penalty doubles
Sale within 1,500 feet of school: penalty doubles

Driver’s license suspended 6 months.

MISSOURI (C)

Possession:

</= 35 grams: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
> 35 grams: 0 - 7 years; $5,000
> 30 kg.: 5 - 15 years
> 100 kg.: 10 years - life

Sale:

< 5 grams: 0 - 7 years; $5,000
> 5 grams: 5 - 15 years
> 30 kg.: 10 years - life
> 100 kg.: life without parole
Sale to minor: 5 - 15 years
Sale within 1,000 feet of school or public housing project: 10 - 30 years
Additional penalties for sale near government-assisted or public housing.

Cultivation of any amount: 5 - 15 years

Paraphernalia:

Possession: 0 - 1 year; $1,000

Sale of paraphernalia: 0 - 5 years; $5,000

MONTANA

Possession:

</= 60 grams marijuana or < 1 gram hashish: 0 - 6 months; $100 - $500
Subsequent convictions: 0 - 3 years; $1,000
>60 grams: 0 - 20 years; $50,000

Paraphernalia possession: 0 - 6 months; $500

Manufacture, cultivation and sale (intent to sell triggered at >/= 1 kg.):

</= 1 lb.: 0 - 10 years and $50,000
> 1 lb. or > 30 plants: 2 years MMS - life and $50,000
Subsequent violations: up to two times the prison term plus $100,000 for the crime.
Sale to minor: 4 years - life; $50,000
Sale within 1,000 feet of school: 3 years - life; $50,000

Continuing criminal enterprise: additional penalty equaling 2 - 3 times the length of punishment for the underlying offense.

NEBRASKA (D)

Personal use: 0 - 7 days; $500

Possession or sale:

</= 1 oz.: 1st offense: citation for $100; “drug education” possible
2nd offense: $100 - $500
Third or subsequent offense: 0 - 7 days and $300
> 1 oz.: 0 - 7 days; $500
> 1 lb.: 0 - 5 years; $10,000

Sale:

Sale to minor increases penalty for offense to next highest classification.
Enhanced penalty for sale to minor within 1,000 feet of a school, college or playground, or within 100 feet of a youth center, public swimming pool or video arcade.

Paraphernalia:

0 - 6 months; $1,000
Paraphernalia to minor who is at least three years younger: 0 - 1 year; $1,000

Maintaining premises on which marijuana is stored or sold: 0 - 3 months; $500.

NEVADA (C*)

* Effective July 1, 1999, probation will be no longer be guaranteed.

Possession or use of any amount:

1st offense: 1 - 4 years; $5,000
2nd offense: 1 - 10 years
3rd offense: 1 - 20 years

Cultivation or delivery or sale:

< 100 lbs.: 1st offense: 1 - 20 years
2nd offense: 5 - 20 years; no parole or probation
3rd offense: 15 years - life; no parole or probation
>/= 100 lbs.: 1 - 5 years; $10,000; no parole or probation
>/= 2,000 lbs.: 1 - 20 years; no parole or probation
>/= 10,000 lbs.: (a) life with parole eligibility after a minimum of 5 years, or (b) 15 years with parole eligibility after a minimum of 5 years; $200,000 under either scheme.

Sale: to minor: 1st offense: 1 - 20 years; 2nd offense: life

Sale within 1,000 feet of school, video arcade, public pool, youth center: penalty doubles.

Paraphernalia possession: 0 - 6 months; $1,000

NEW HAMPSHIRE (C)

Possession:

Any amount of marijuana or </= 5 grams hashish: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
> 5 grams hashish: $5,000

Cultivation, delivery or sale:

< 1 oz. marijuana or < 5 grams hashish: 0 - 3 years; $25,000
Subsequent offenses: 0 - 6 years; $50,000
>/= 1 oz. marijuana or >/= 5 grams hashish: 0 - 7 years; $100,000
Subsequent offenses: 0 - 15 years; $200,000
>/= 5 lbs. marijuana or >/= 1 lbs. hashish: 0 - 20 years; $300,000
Subsequent offenses: 0 - 40 years; $500,000
Sale within 1,000 feet of school: up to double the penalty.

Paraphernalia sale: 0 - 1 year; $1,000

Drug Enterprise Leader: 25 years MMS - life and $500,000 or five times the street value, whichever is greater.

License suspension:

Possession with intent to sell: driver’s license may be revoked for any time period including life, at court’s discretion.
Minors aged 15 - 17 convicted of possession with intent to sell will have their license revoked for 1 - 5 years.
Minors aged 15 - 17 convicted of possession, sale, or use may have their driver’s license revoked or license application denied 60 days - 2 years.

NEW JERSEY

Possession, use, or under the influence:

< 50 grams: 0 - 6 months; $1,000
> 50 grams: 0 - 18 months; $15,000

Possession or use within 1,000 feet of a school: if no jail time, then not less than 100 hours of community service.

Manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distribute:

< 1 oz.: 0 - 18 months; $7,500
> 1 oz.: 0 - 5 years; $15,000
> 5 lbs.: 5 - 10 years MMS; $100,000

Sale:

To minor or pregnant female: penalty may double.
Within 1,000 feet of school:

< 1 oz.: 1 - 5 years MMS
> 1 oz.: 3 years MMS

Driver’s license suspended 6 months - 2 years.

NEW MEXICO (C)

Possession:

</= 1 oz.: 0 - 15 days and $50 - $100
Subsequent offenses: 0 - 1 year; $100 - $1,000
> 1 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $100 - $1,000
>/= 8 oz.: 0 - 18 months; $5,000

Distribution or cultivation:

Small amounts, no remuneration: same as possession
</= 100 lbs.: 18 months; $5,000. Subsequent offenses: 3 years; $5,000
> 100 lbs.: 3 years; $5,000. Subsequent offenses: 9 years; $10,000
Distribution to a minor: 3 years; $5,000
Subsequent offenses: 9 years; $10,000

Sale within 1,000 feet of a drug free school zone: 18 years and $15,000

Paraphernalia:

Possession: 0 - 1 year; $50 - $100
Delivery: 0 - 1; $1,000
Any person over 18 who delivers paraphernalia to a minor who is at least three years younger: 18 months; $5,000

All first-time offenders eligible for probation, no fine, and expunged conviction.

NEW YORK (C, D)

Possession:

</= 25 grams: non-criminal violation; $100. 2nd offense: $200
Subsequent offenses: $250; 0 - 15 days
> 25 grams or any amount possessed in public and the marijuana is burning or open to public view: 0 - 3 months; $500
> 2 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
> 8 oz.: 0 - 4 years; $5,000
> 1 lb.: 0 - 7 years; $5,000
> 10 lbs.: 0 - 15 years; $5,000

Delivery or cultivation:

</= 2 grams for no consideration: 0 - 3 months; $500
< 25 grams: 0 - 1 year; $1,000
>/= 25 grams: 0 - 4 years; $5,000
> 4 oz.: 0 - 7 years; $5,000
> 1 lb.: 0 - 15 years; $5,000

Sale to minor: 0 - 7 years; $5,000

Driver’s license suspended 6 months.

NORTH CAROLINA (C,D)

Possession:

< 0.5 oz.: 0 - 30 days, suspended sentence possible
> 0.5 oz. or 1/20 oz. of hashish: 1 - 120 days or community service or probation
> 1.5 oz. or 3/20 oz. hashish: 8 - 13 months
> 10 lbs. = trafficking

Trafficking:

< 5 grams for no remuneration: suspended sentence possible
> 10 lbs.: 25 - 30 months MMS and at least $5,000
>/= 50 lbs.: 35 - 42 months MMS and at least $25,000
>/= 2,000 lbs.: 70 - 84 months MMS and at least $50,000
>/= 10,000 lbs.: 175 - 219 months MMS and least $200,000

Manufacture, cultivation or sale: 4 - 10 months, may be suspended

Enhanced sentences for:

School zone: Anyone over 21 who sells or possesses with intent to sell within 300 feet of school property receives an enhanced sentence.
Pregnant women and minors: Sale or delivery by someone over 18 to a minor under 16 or to a pregnant female receives an enhanced sentence.

Paraphernalia possession or sale: 1 - 120 days

**NORTH DAKOTA (C)

Possession or sale or delivery or cultivation:

< 0.5 oz.: 0 - 30 days; $1,000
0.5 oz.: 0 - 8 months; $2,000
1.5 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $5,000
>/= 100 lb.:

1st offense: 8 months MMS
2nd offense: 3 years MMS
Subsequent offenses: 10 years MMS

Possession of < 0.5 oz. while operating a motor vehicle: 1 year; $1,000

Anyone over 21 who uses a minor under 18 to produce or distribute any amount:

1st offense: 4 years MMS
Subsequent offenses: 5 years MMS

Paraphernalia:

Possession: 0 - 1 year; $2,000
Sale of paraphernalia to minor by someone over 18 who is at least three years older : 0 - 5 years; $5,000
Sale within 1,000 feet of school: 4 years; $1,000

First offenders only:

Possession of </= 1 oz.: Record of a guilty plea or verdict may be expunged after two years if no further drug or criminal offenses.
Atypically, North Dakota allows its judges to defer or suspend part or all of a penalty for a 1st offense, even if the penalty is listed as a MMS.

OHIO (C, D)

Possession:

< 100 grams: $100
>/= 100 grams: $250
>/= 200 grams: 6 months - 1 year
> 1,000 grams: 1 - 5 years
> 5,000 grams: Presumption of prison
> 20,000 grams: 8 years MMS

“Corrupting another with drugs”: 6 - 18 months

Sale or cultivation:

< 200 grams: 6 - 12 months, subsequent offenses: 6 - 18 months
</= 1,000 grams: 6 - 18 months, 2nd offense: 1 - 5 years
>/= 5,000 grams - </= 20,000 grams: Presumption of prison
> 20,000 grams: 8 years MMS, 2nd offense: 10 years MMS

Sale to minor: 1 year; $1,000

Sale within 1,000 feet of school: 10 years MMS

Paraphernalia:

Possession: 0 - 30 days; $250
Sale of paraphernalia to minor: 6 months; $1,000

Driver’s license suspended 6 months - 5 years.

Professional licenses suspended.

OKLAHOMA (C)

Possession of any amount:

0 - 1 year; $500
2nd offense: 2 - 10 years; $5,000

Cultivation of any amount: 2 years - life; $20,000

Paraphernalia possession: 1 year; $1,000

Sale or delivery:

< 25 lb.: 4 years - life; $20,000
>/= 25 lbs.: 5 years - life; $25,000 - $100,000
>/= 1,000 lbs.: 5 years - life; $100,000 - $500,000
Sale to minor: penalty doubles
Sale within 1,000 feet of school: penalty doubles

Driver’s license suspended.

OREGON (C, D)

Possession:

< 1 oz.: $500 - $1,000
> 1 oz.: 0 - 10 years; $200,000

Manufacture: 0 - 20 years

Paraphernalia possession: 0 - 1 year; $5,000 criminal fine plus civil fine of $2,000 - $5,000

Delivery:

< 5 grams: $500 - $1,000
> 5 grams: 0 - 1 year; $5,000
> 1 oz.: 0 - 10 years; $200,000

Sale:

Sale of any amount: 0 - 10 years; $200,000
Sale to minor: 0 - 20 years; $300,000
Sale within 1,000 feet of school: 0 - 20 years; $300,000

PENNSYLVANIA (C)

Possession:

</= 30 grams: 0 - 30 days; $500
> 30 grams: 0 - 1 year; $5,000

Cultivation, delivery or sale:
Fines will exceed amount listed to as sufficient to exhaust the proceeds of prohibited drug activity.

Any amount: 0 - 15 years; $250,000
>/= 2 lbs. or >/= 10 live plants: 1 year MMS; $5,000
>/= 10 lbs. or >/= 21 live plants: 3 years MMS; $15,000
>/= 50 lbs. or >/= 51 live plants: 5 years MMS; $50,000

Sale:

Sale to minor: penalty doubles
Sale within 1,000 feet of school or college: 1 - 2 years MMS

Paraphernalia:

Paraphernalia possession: 0 - 1 year; $5,000
Sale of paraphernalia to minor: 2 years; $5,000

Driver’s license may be suspended 6 months.

RHODE ISLAND

Possession:

< 1 kg.: 0 - 1 year; $200 - $500
>/= 1 kg. - </= 5 kg.: 10 - 50 years MMS and up to $500,000
> 5 kg.: 20 years - life MMS and </= $1,000,000

Manufacture or possession with intent to deliver: 0 - 30 years; $3,000 - $100,000

Sale to minor: 1 - 5 years; </= $10,000

Sale or possession within 1,000 feet of school: up to twice the listed penalty, but not to exceed life.

Driving while in possession of controlled substance:

1st offense: Driver’s license suspended six months .
Subsequent offenses: 1 year suspension

SOUTH CAROLINA

Possession:

</= 1 oz. marijuana or </= 10 grams hashish:

1st offense: 0 - 30 days and $100 - $200
Subsequent offense: 0 - 1; $200 - $1,000

Possession or sale of paraphernalia: $500 civil fine

Cultivation:

>/= 100 plants: 25 years MMS - life; $25,000
> 1,000 plants: 25 years MMS - life; $50,000
> 10,000 plants: 25 - 30 years MMS; $200,000

Sale or delivery:

>/= 10 lbs brings presumption of trafficking
> 10 lbs. but < 100 lbs.: 1 - 10 years MMS; $10,000

2nd offense: 5 - 20 years MMS; $15,000
Subsequent offenses: 25 years MMS; $25,000

>/= 100 lbs.: 25 years MMS; $25,000
>/= 2,000 lbs.: 25 years MMS; $50,000
>/= 10,000 lbs.: 25 - 30 years MMS; $200,000
Sale to a minor: 0 - 10 years; $10,000
Sale within 1/2 mile radius of a school: 0 - 10 years; $10,000

Driver’s license suspended 6 months for marijuana and hashish convictions.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Possession:

</= 1 oz.: 0 - 30 days; $100 (misdemeanor)
< 8 oz.: 0 – 1 year; $1,000 (misdemeanor)
< 1 lb.: 0 – 2 years; $2,000 (felony)
</= 10 lbs.: 0 - 5 years; $5,000 (felony)
> 10 lbs.: 0 - 10 years; $10,000 (felony)

1st felony: minimum 30 days imprisonment.
2nd felony: 1 year MMS

Additional civil penalty of $10,000 for any possession offense. This is in addition to any criminal penalty imposed.

Cultivation or delivery or sale:

Transferring < 8 oz. without remuneration: 0 - 30 days (misdemeanor)
</= 1 oz.: 15 days - 1 year; $1,000 (misdemeanor)
< 8 oz.: 30 days - 2 years; $2,000 (felony)
< 1 lb.: 30 days - 5 years; $5,000 (felony)
>/= 1 lb.: 30 days - 10 years; $10,000 (felony)
Sale to minor: 5 years MMS; $5,000
Sale within 500 feet of a school, youth center, public pool, video arcade: 5 years MMS.

Paraphernalia: use or possession: 30 days; $100

Driver’s license suspended 90 days

TENNESSEE

Possession:

</= 0.5 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $250 minimum
2nd offense: $500 minimum
Subsequent offense: $750 minimum

Cultivation deliver or Sale:

</= 0.5 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $250 minimum
> 0.5 oz. or < 2 lbs. hashish: 1 - 5 years; $5,000
>/= 10 lbs. or </= 15 lbs. hashish: 4 - 10 years; $10,000
>/= 70 lbs. or > 15 lbs. hashish: 8 - 12 years and $200,000
>/= 700 lbs. or > 150 lbs. hashish: $500,000

Sale to minor under age 18: penalty classification moves one level higher.

Paraphernalia

Possession: 0 - 1 year; $2,500
Sale: 1 - 6 years; $3,000

Three prior felony drug convictions may place classify defendant as a “habitual drug offender.” A habitual drug offender may be sentenced to the next higher punishment range and may be fined up to an additional $200,000.

TEXAS

Possession:

</= 2 oz.: 0 - 180 days; $2,000
> 2 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $4,000
> 4 oz.: 180 days - 2 years; $10,000
> 5 lbs.: 2 - 10 years; $10,000
> 50 lbs.: 2 - 20 years; $10,000
> 2,000 lbs.: 5 - 99 years; $50,000

Sale or delivery:

< 0.25 oz. for no remuneration: 0 - 180 days; $1,500
< 0.25 oz. for remuneration: 0 - 1 year; $3,000
>/= 0.25 oz.: 180 days - 2 years; $10,000
>/= 5 lbs.: 2 - 20 years; $10,000
>/= 50 lbs.: 5 - 99 years; $10,000
>/= 2,000 lbs.: 10 - 99 years; $100,000
Sale to minor: 2 - 20 years; $10,000
Sale within 1,000 feet of school or 300 feet of youth center, public pool, video arcade: penalty doubles

Money Laundering:

Spending funds derived from the sale of more than 50 lbs. is in itself an offense punishable by 5 years - life or 99 years and a fine of $50,000 - $1,000,000.

Paraphernalia:

Possession: $500
Sale: 0 - 1 year; $3,000

Driver’s license suspended 6 months.

UTAH

Possession:

< 1 oz.: 0 - 6 months; $1,000
>/= 1 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $2,500
>/= 16 oz.: 0 - 5 years; $5,000
> 100 lbs.: 1 - 15 years; $10,000

Sale:

0 - 5 years; $10,000
Sale within 1,000 feet of school, public park, amusement park, recreation center, church, synagogue, shopping mall, sports facility, theater, or public parking lot increases level of offense by one degree.

Possession or sale with minor present: 5 years MMS

Paraphernalia:

Possession: 6 months; $1,000
Sale: 1 year; $2,500
Sale to minor: 0 - 5 years; $5,000

VERMONT

Possession:

< 2 oz.: 0 - 6 months; $500
>/= 2 oz.: 0 - 3 months; $10,000
>/= 1 lb.: 0 - 5 years; $100,000
>/= 10 lbs.: 0 - 15 years; $500,000

Cultivation:

> 3 plants: 0 - 3 years; $10,000
> 10 plants: 0 - 5 years; $100,000
> 25 plants: 0 - 15 years; $500,000

Delivery or sale:

>/= 0.5 oz.: 0 - 5 years; $100,000
>/= 1 lb.: 0 - 15 years; $500,000
Delivery or sale to minors: Anyone over 18 who sells to a minor who is at least three years younger: 0 - 5 years; $25,000
Potential additional penalty of up to 10 years for anyone (regardless of age) selling to a minor. Sale on a school bus also holds an additional penalty of 0-10 years.

Second conviction: doubled penalties are possible.

VIRGINIA (C)

Possession:

</= 5 lb.: 0 - 30 days; $500. 2nd offense: 0 - 1 year; $2,500
>/= 5 lbs.: 1 - 10 years; $1,000

Cultivation of any amount: 5 - 30 years; $10,000

Delivery or sale:

</= 0.5 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $2,500
> 0.5 oz.: 1 - 10 years; $2,500
>/= 5 lbs.: 5 - 40 years; $500,000
Sale to minor: 10 - 50 years (1 year MMS); $100,000
Sale within 1,000 feet of school: 1 - 5 years MMS; $2,500 - $100,000

Paraphernalia:

Sale: 1 year; $2,500
Sale to minor: 1 - 5 years; $2,500

Driver’s license suspended 6 months.

WASHINGTON

Possession:

< 40 grams: 1 - 90 days; $1,000
>/= 40 grams: 0 - 5 years; $10,000

Cultivation or delivery or sale:

Any amount: 0 - 5 years; $10,000
Sale to minor: penalty doubles
Within 1,000 feet of a school adds 0 - 2 years
If armed with a deadly weapon: additional 0 - 2 years

Conspiracy to cultivate, deliver, or sell: 0 - 12 months

Paraphernalia possession: 0 - 90 days; $1,000

Driver’s license suspended 90 days for people under 21 years old.

WEST VIRGINIA (C)

Possession:

< 15 grams: automatic conditional discharge; $1,000
> 15 grams: 1 - 5 years; $15,000
First-time possession offenders may receive probation without further penalties.

Cultivation or delivery or sale of any amount:

1 - 15 years; $25,000
Sale to minor: 2 years MMS
Sale within 1,000 feet of school: 2 years MMS

WISCONSIN (C)

Possession:

Any amount: 0 - 6 months; $1,000. 2nd offense doubles penalty.
Possession near a school, public park, public pool, youth center, community center, or school bus: >/= 100 hours of community service is mandatory.

Cultivation:

</= 10 plants: 0 - 3 years; $500 - $2,500
>/= 11 plants: 3 months - 5 years; $1,000 - $5000
> 50 plants: 1 - 10 years; $1,000 - $100,000

Delivery or sale:

</= 500 grams: 0 - 3 years; $500 - $25,000
> 500 grams: 3 months - 5 years; $1000 - $50,000
>/= 2,500 grams: 1 - 10 years; $1000 - $100,000
Delivery to prisoner: penalty doubles
Sale to minor if seller is >/= 3 years older: penalty doubles
Sale within 1,000 feet of school, public park, public pool, youth center, community center, school bus: 1 year MMS

Paraphernalia:

Possession: 0 - 30 days; $500
Delivery or possession with intent to distribute: 0 - 9 months; $10,000
Sale to minor if seller is >/= 3 years older: 0 - 90 days; $1,000

Courts have discretion to reduce a sentence if reduction is in the community’s best interest and the public won’t be harmed.

Mandatory doubling of sentences for 2nd and subsequent offenses.

Driver’s license suspended 6 months - 5 years.

WYOMING (C)

Personal use: </= 3 oz.: 0 - 12 months; $100

Possession of any amount: 0 - 6 months; $750

Cultivation of any amount: 0 - 6 months; $1,000

Sale or delivery:

Of any amount: 0 - 10 years; $10,000
Sale to minor: penalty doubles
Sale within 500 feet of school: 2 years MMS; $1,000

APPENDIX 3^([44])

Drug Control Funding by Agency FY 2000 - FY 2002

([1]) As quoted in Currie, David P., “The Constitution of the United States: A Primer for the People,” Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000, at page 26.

([2]) 17 U.S. 316.

([3]) See: Belenko, Steven R., ed., Drugs and Drug Policy in America: A Documentary History, Westport, Greenwood Press, 2000; McNamara, Joseph D., “Commentary: Criminalization of Drug Use,” Vol. XVII(9) Psychiatric Times; Luna, Erik Grant, “Our Vietnam: The Prohibition Apocalypse” (1997) 46 Depaul L. Rev. 483. Duke, Stephen B., “Commentary: Drug Prohibition: An Unnatural Disaster,” (1995) 27 Conn. L. Rev. 571.)

([4]) United States v. Doremus (1919), 249 U.S. Reports 86. The Harrison Act was again upheld as a revenue measure in United States v. Nigro (1928), 276 U.S. Reports 332.

([5]) Webb et al. v. United States (1919), 249 U.S. Reports 96.

([6]) United States v. Behrmann (1922), 258 U.S. Reports 280.

([7]) See Luna, supra, note 3, at 490-495.

([8]) Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, 21 U.S.C. sec. 800-966.

([9]) Congress need merely find that a class of activity affects interstate commerce to enact criminal penalties; no proof is required that the conduct involved in a single prosecution has an effect on commerce: see Ehrlich, Susan, “The Increasing Federalization of Crime” (2000) 32 Ariz. St.L.J.825.

([10]) The Office’s home page can be found at www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov.

([11]) See, for example, Reinarman, Craig and Harry G. Levine (eds.), Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice. University of California Press: September 1997. The organization Human Rights Watch in a May 2000 report on the United States referred to the phenomenon as a “moral panic” (available on-line at www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa).

([12]) Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, “Notice: Denial of Petition,” April 18, 2001 in Vol. 66, No. 75 of the Federal Register, pp. 20037-20076.

([13]) Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

([14]) Congress has passed various anti-crime bills that include drug-related provisions, including the Crime Control Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473), the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-570), the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690), the Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647) and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). Collectively, these Acts enhanced drug-related penalties and provided new funding for drug control activities.

([15]) Source: Doyle, Charles, “Drug Offences: Maximum Fines and Terms of Imprisonment for Violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act and Related Laws,” Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, November 1, 2000.

([16]) A second offence is one committed after a prior conviction for any felony drug offence under any federal, state or foreign drug law.

([17]) Distribution of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration is treated as simple possession, the penalties for which are contained in the second chart.

([18]) A prior conviction includes conviction of any offence under the Controlled Substances Act or any State drug law.

([19]) The Uniform Laws Annotated, Master Edition, Volume 9, Parts II, III and IV provides annotation materials for the adopting states. Under the heading “General Statutory Note,” those jurisdictions that have based their drug legislation on the Uniform Act are stated to have substantially adopted the major provisions of the Uniform Act but the official text of the State Act “departs from the official text in a such manner that the various instances of substitution, omission, and additional material cannot be clearly indicated by statutory notes.” As such, it is recommended that recourse be had to the individual State legislation for specific details of the individual CSAs. Another useful reference is Leiter, Richard A. (ed.), National Survey of State Laws, 3rd Ed., Detroit: Gale Group, 1999, which at pages 152-188 provides charts that set out specific offences and penalties for cocaine, heroin and marijuana in all States.

([20]) No. 00-151. Argued March 28, 2001 – Decided May 14, 2001. Cited as: 532 U.S. __ (2001).

([21]) An “affirmative defence” requires the defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities that he/she is in compliance with the statute.

([22]) The “choice of evils” defence refers to the defence of medical necessity. Long recognized in common law, a defendant is provided the opportunity to prove in court that his/her violation of the law was necessary to avert a greater evil; the pain of a debilitating disease or condition in the case of medical marijuana. Certain states, as noted in the chart, have codified the defence.

([23]) “National Drug Control Strategy: 2001 Annual Report,” Office of National Drug Control Policy, at page 3.

([24]) “National Drug Control Strategy: 2001 Annual Report,” Office of National Drug Control Policy, at page 4.

([25]) Available online at: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/99ndcs/goals.html.

([26]) Source: Executive Office of the President of the United States, “Summary: FY 2002 National Drug Control Budget,” April 2001, at page 11.

([27]) The DEA’s web page is at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/.

([28]) Source: DEA web site, at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/genealogy.htm.

([29]) “New Mexico Governor Calls for Legalizing Drugs,” CNN.com, 6 October 1999, available on-line at www5.cnn.com/US/9910/06/legalizing.drugs.01/.

([30]) Fellner, Jamie, Human Rights Watch Associate Counsel, “United States: Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs,” Human Rights Watch, May 2000, at paragraph 2 of “Summary and Recommendations,” available on-line at www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/.

([31]) McNamara, Joseph D., “When Cops Become the Gangsters,” Los Angeles Times, 21 September 1999, available on-line at www.nakedgov.com/mcnamara.htm.

([32]) National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, “Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March, 1972, at page vii.

([33]) Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2000. “What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1988-1998.”

([34]) Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse, “Drug Data Summary,” April 1999.

([35]) Ibid.

([36]) Ibid.

([37]) These figures represent funds specified for the purpose of supporting the goals and objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy and include funds budgeted for various departments, including Defense, Education, Justice, State, and Treasury. Source: “National Drug Control Budget Executive Summary, Fiscal Year 2002,” Office of National Drug Control Policy, April 9, 2001.

([38]) Source: “Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (1990-2000).

([39]) Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, “Prisoners in 1999” (Aug, 2000), “Prisoners in 1998” (Aug, 1999), “Prisoners in 1997” (Aug, 1998), “Correctional Populations in the United States,” 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989. “Jails and Jail Inmates,” 1993-94. “Jail Inmates,” 1992; 1990. Data for 1997 percentages of drug offenders are estimated from Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997” (January, 1999) and unpublished Bureau of Prisons Data.

([40]) Source: “Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, (November 2000)

([41]) Source: “U.S. Compendium of Federal Judicial Statistics, 1999,” (April, 2001).

([42]) Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse, “Drug Data Summary,” April 1999.

([43]) Source: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Online at:

http://www.norml.org/home.shtml

([44]) Source: Executive Office of the President of the United State, “Summary: FY 2002 National Drug Control Budget,” April 2001, at pages 10-12.

Illegal Drugs (Special)

B. Historical([3])

C. Current Legislation and Enforcement

E. Administration of the Policy

KEY REPORTS AND STUDIES

E. New York City Bar Association review of the Rockefeller Drug Laws – 1977

APPENDIX 1 – Selected Data

Adults in Custody of State or Federal Prisons or Local Jails, 1989-99([39])

C. Correctional Populations in the United States: Selected Statistics for 1997([40])

D. Federal Drug Prosecutions: Selected Statistics for 1999([41])

Appendix 2

State by State List of Marijuana Penalties([43])

B. Historical^([3])

Adults in Custody of State or Federal Prisons or Local Jails, 1989-99([39]⁾

C. Correctional Populations in the United States: Selected Statistics for 1997^([40])

D. Federal Drug Prosecutions: Selected Statistics for 1999([41]⁾

State by State List of Marijuana Penalties^([43])