Task Force report : narcotics and drug abuse annotations and consultants' papers.

United States. Task Force on Narcotics and Drug Abuse.

Date:: [1967]

Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Task Force report : narcotics and drug abuse annotations and consultants' papers. Source: Wellcome Collection.

140/172 (page 130)

Should the marihuana user engage in crime, be it distribu- tion of marihuana, heroin or any other dangerous drug, or any other crime, he should, of course, be subject to punishment for his conduct like any other offender. As stated previously, marihuana is in many respects the least dangerous of the drugs considered in this report. “There is no reliable evidence marihuana ‘causes’ crime.” 48° Apparently, most use is experimental. Use does not lead to physical dependence. The problems of greatest concern would be marihuana psychosis and the likelihood that exposure to marihuana will lead to heroin addiction. ‘The former has not been described in the United States, because it usually occurs among those who have used large amounts for long periods of time, and there are few such users in the United States. And, again, despite the number of heroin addicts who have had mari- huana experience, apparently relatively few persons with marihuana experience become heroin addicts. One can only speculate as to what the effects of abandoning restrictions on simple possession and use while retaining restrictions on trafficking might be. As in the case of other drugs discussed in this paper, presumably use and simple possession offenses deter some persons,*®° have no impact on others, and affirmatively attract an unknown number of persons to the use of marihuana.**? It is possible that if these restrictions were lifted use might increase at least temporarily; to what extent one cannot say. But if the persons society most desires to deter are those who are likely to engage in habitual use (because they are the persons most likely to suffer psychosis) and those most likely to become heroin addicts or to become dependent on other drugs, it should be asked whether repeal of simple possession and use provisions would lead to use by large numbers of persons who are likely to go on to habitual use or to become heroin addicts or de- pendent on other drugs, and who are not using mari- huana today? To put it another way, are current re- strictions on possession and use more likely to deter those persons most likely to become habitual users of mari- huana, heroin addicts, or dependent on other drugs than they are to deter persons who would not be likely to be- come habitual users or dependent on heroin or other drugs if they were to try marihuana? Is it possible that we are in general deterring persons who would be no more than experimental users? We can only speculate. But it is questionable whether these restrictions are a significant deterrent to use by the persons whom society most desires to deter. Persons likely to become habitual users or go on to use of another drug would seem to be the persons most likely to use marihuana despite them. If this is so, would it be reasonable to anticipate large numbers of new habitual users or a large increase in use by persons likely to become dependent on heroin or other drugs, if simple possession and use were no longer to be subjects of criminal treatment? In short, the dangers of marihuana do not support the criminal treatment of the user solely for his use. Criminal treatment would seem to be particularly inappropriate for the relatively young experimental user, and probably there are many American users in this group.*®? In this light, thé possibility that repeal of existing prohibitions on simple possession and use might increase use is not deemed sufficient reason for retaining them, especially when it is far from clear that lifting these restrictions would lead to a large increase in habitual use or in use by persons likely to become dependent on heroin or other drugs. Of course, a prohibition on simple possession of marihuana also presents, insofar as it is directed at ultimate distribution, the problem encountered earlier herein of a prohibition on conduct which is ambiguous in relation to ultimate distribution and which creates strict liability as to whether that conduct was directed to distribution. It is not believed the possibility that marihuana may impair driving skills warrants a contrary conclusion. Before any such conclusion might be justified at the very least information as to the size of the group which is likely to drive under the influence of the drug would be in order. However, even though there is currently no chemical test by which it is possible to determine whether a person is under the influence of marihuana, State statutes pro- hibiting driving under the influence of the drug or, prefer- ably, making such conduct a ground for suspension of an operator’s license might not be inappropriate. Patterns of distribution of marihuana may differ from patterns of distribution of “medically depressant or stimu- lant drugs” in the sense that there may be some reason to believe that suppliers of large amounts play a less signif- icant role in domestic distribution of marihuana than they do in illicit distribution of “medically depressant or stimulant drugs.” Consequently, it is possible that it may be more difficult to cut down the supply of mari- huana by law enforcement—whether it be enforcement of laws prohibiting trafficking or of laws prohibiting posses- sion or use—than to cut down the supply of illicit “medi- cally depressant and stimulant drugs” by these means. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that detection and conviction of individual traffickers for violation of laws against trafficking is more difficult where marihuana is involved than where other drugs are involved. In fact, because there are few large users of marihuana in the United States, it will probably be easier to use quantity to prove that possession was for sale or disposition, and not for personal use than it will be in the case of “medically depressant or stimulant drugs.” It follows from the recommendation in this section that even if marihuana is not to be included as a “depressant or stimulant drug” under the Drug Abuse Control Amend- ments, Federal law should prohibit possession of the drug with a purpose to sell or otherwise dispose of it, and 26 U.S.C. section 4744(a) should be repealed.*? Section 4744(a) prohibits obtaining or otherwise acquiring the drug without paying the transfer tax. Proof of possession coupled with failure after reasonable demand to produce a written order is presumptive evidence of guilt. Insofar as section 4744(a) prohibits unauthorized acquisition, it is believed that the interest in exempting the user from punishment for his use outweighs the interest in punishing him for acquisition. Insofar as a prohibition on acquisi- tion may be directed against later distribution, it presents 489 Blum Report at 13. 490 The President’s Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse questioned the deterrent effect of marihuana laws on the user. ‘‘* * * it is difficult to be- lieve * * * that a marihuana user obsessed by the ‘high’ sensation of marihuana will think of the penalty that awaits him if he is caught possessing it.” The Presi- dent’s Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse, Final Report 40 (1963). The deterrent effect of marihuana laws on use may well be questioned. (aes In his report to the Commission Professor Blum states: ‘Some users inter- viewed recently argue that they have chosen to smoke ‘pot’ because the laws are so patently inappropriate and they wish to signify their disapproval through direct disobedience.’’ Blum Report at 15 [emphasis in original]. 492 Blum Report at 12-13. 493 Problems relating to the presumption flowing from possession under 21 U.S.C., § 176a—which prohibits knowing importation of marihuana, as well as concealing, buying, selling, and facilitating the transportation, concealment or sale of mari- huana, knowing it to have been illegally imported—are beyond the scope of this study.