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.

    141/172 (page 131)
    the same problems as does a direct prohibition on simple possession. So viewell, an acquisition offense reaches conduct which is even farther back in time than does a possession offense. Should the Commission be of the opinion that prohibi- tions against either use or simple possession of marihuana are desirable, it is recommended that it endorse the con- cept of the precharging conference and that it recommend that use, simple possession, and acquisition should be treated either as civil violations carrying no possibility of deprivation of liberty, or, at most, as misdemeanors. At the very least, mandatory minimum sentences and re- strictions on probation and young adult treatment for use, simple possession, and acquisition offenses should be abolished. The verified dangers of marihuana use do not warrant the harshness with which we presently treat the user—or even the seller. Mandatory Minimum Penalties and Prohibitions on Pro- bation and Parole The undesirability of mandatory minimum sentences for narcotics offenses and of measures making probation, suspended sentences, parole, and young adult treatment unavailable for narcotic offenders have been discussed in Professor Aronowitz’s report to the Commission.*** The propriety of these measures for “‘depressant or stimulant drug” offenses was discussed earlier herein.** Little need be added to these discussions. What is of special signifi- cance is that the dangers of marihuana do not warrant any of these measures either for the seller or the user. If mandatory penalties and the other measures under discus- sion are ever appropriate, they should be limited to serious offenses. They are patently inappropriate to violations of the marihuana laws. Both the President’s Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse and Senator Kennedy of New York criticized mandatory minimum sentences and prohibitions on probation and parole for marihuana offenders. In its final report the Commission stated: 4° This Commission makes a flat distinction between the two drugs [opiates and marihuana] and believes that the unlawful sale or possession of marihuana is a less serious offense than the unlawful sale or pos- session of an opiate. The Commission believes that the sentencing of the petty marihuana offender should be left entirely to the discretion of the Federal courts. There should be no mandatory minimum sentences for marihuana offenders and no prohibition of proba- tion and parole. The courts should have the dis- cretion to impose a fixed maximum sentence (with eligibility for parole), to suspend sentence, or to im- pose an indeterminate sentence. The Commission is opposed to mandatory minimum sentences, even in the case of multiple offenders. 131 Senator Kennedy, of New York, testifying in support of a bill that would have eliminated mandatory minimum sentences and permit probation, parole and (where they are otherwise eligible) young adult treatment for mari- huana offenders, said: 497 I certainly do not mean to suggest that there is anything good about the use of marihuana or the trafficking in it. But while it is true that the ma- jority of heroin addicts begin on marihuana, it is also true that the vast majority of marihuana users do not go on to use heroin. So many of those who use marihuana, while unwise, are not people who are appropriately dealt with by being thrown into jail and having the key tossed away. After careful consideration, the President’s Advisory Commission concluded “that the unlawful sale or possession of marihuana is a less serious offense than the unlawful sale or possession of an opiate.” I therefore hope that this committee will sympathetically consider eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing for vio- lation of the laws relating to marihuana. The recent legislation making marihuana violators eli- gible for parole is desirable. However, mandatory mini- mum sentences and the other restrictions under discussion are also inappropriate for marihuana violations and should be removed. PART III: TREATMENT OF USERS OF “DE- PRESSANT AND STIMULANT DRUGS” AND MARIHUANA RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Neither the Federal Government nor the States should enact legislation authorizing the involuntary civil commitment of users of any dangerous drug or drugs (including marihuana) who are neither charged with crime nor under sentence for conviction of a crime. 2. Both the Federal Government and the States, re- spectively, should permit barbiturate addicts and barbitu- rate-like CNS depressant drug addicts who are charged with crime but who have not pleaded guilty or been convicted of the charge, to volunteer for civil commit- ment to a treatment program in lieu of prosecution under the circumstances and procedures proposed with reference to narcotic addicts in Professor Aronowitz’ report to the Commission. Civil commitment in lieu of prosecution should not extend to amphetamine, marihuana, or LSD users who are not addicts of barbiturates or barbiturate- like CNS depressants.*°* 3. Both the Federal Government and the States, re- spectively, should enact legislation authorizing Federal and State correctional authorities, respectively, to place prisoners who are barbiturate addicts and barbiturate-like CNS depressant drug addicts in a treatment program for a period not to exceed the sentence imposed by the court under the circumstances and procedures proposed by 494 Aronowitz Report at 24-27. 495 Pp. 180-82 supra. 496 The President’s Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse, Final Report 42 (1963). Testimony of Senator Kennedy of New York before the Senate Judiciary Committee 6 (Jan. 26, 1966). The Senator testified in support of S. 2114, 89th Cong., Ist sess. (introduced on June 9, 1965) of which he was a cosponsor. 497a It is anticipated that any user of a drug considered in this report who is also addicted to an opiate will for purposes of treatment be considered as an opiate addict.