What is the name of your state? ca
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO INGEST ANY DRUG,
ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE AN ADDICT
In the early 1920s, Dr. Linder was convicted of selling one morphine
tablet and three cocaine tablets to a patient who was addicted to
narcotics. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, declaring that
providing an addicted patient with a fairly small amount of drugs is
an acceptable medical practice "when designed temporarily to alleviate
an addict's pains." (Linder v. United States.)
In 1962, the Court heard the case of a man who had been sent to the
clink under a California state law that made being an addict a
criminal offense. Once again, the verdict was tossed out, with the
Supremes saying that punishing an addict for being an addict is cruel
and unusual and, thus, unconstitutional. (Robinson v California.)
Six years later, the Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles in
Powell v Texas. A man who was arrested for being drunk in public said
that, because he was an alcoholic, he couldn't help it. He invoked the
Robinson decision as precedent. The Court upheld his conviction
because it had been based on an action (being wasted in public), not
on the general condition of his addiction to booze. Justice White
supported this decision, yet for different reasons than the others. In
his concurring opinion, he expanded Robinson:
If it cannot be a crime to have an irresistible compulsion to use
narcotics,... I do not see how it can constitutionally be a crime to
yield to such a compulsion. Punishing an addict for using drugs
convicts for addiction under a different name. Distinguishing between
the two crimes is like forbidding criminal conviction for being sick
with flu or epilepsy, but permitting punishment for running a fever or
having a convulsion. Unless Robinson is to be abandoned, the use of
narcotics by an addict must be beyond the reach of the criminal law.
Similarly, the chronic alcoholic with an irresistible urge to consume
alcohol should not be punishable for drinking or for being drunk.
Commenting on these cases, Superior Court Judge James P Gray, an
outspoken critic of drug prohibition, has recently written:
What difference is there between alcohol and any other dangerous and
sometimes addictive drug? The primary difference is that one is legal
while the others are not. And the US Supreme Court has said as much on
at least two occasions, finding both in 1925 and 1962 that to punish a
person for the disease of drug addiction violated the Constitution's
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. If that is true, why do
we continue to prosecute addicted people for taking these drugs, when
it would be unconstitutional to prosecute them for their addiction?
Judge Gray gets right to the heart of the matter: "In effect, this
'forgotten precedent' says that one can only be constitutionally
punishable for one's conduct, such as assaults, burglary, and driving
under the influence, and not simply for what one puts into one's own
body."
If only the Supreme Court and the rest of the justice/law-enforcement
complex would apply these decisions, we'd be living in a saner
society.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO INGEST ANY DRUG,
ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE AN ADDICT
In the early 1920s, Dr. Linder was convicted of selling one morphine
tablet and three cocaine tablets to a patient who was addicted to
narcotics. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, declaring that
providing an addicted patient with a fairly small amount of drugs is
an acceptable medical practice "when designed temporarily to alleviate
an addict's pains." (Linder v. United States.)
In 1962, the Court heard the case of a man who had been sent to the
clink under a California state law that made being an addict a
criminal offense. Once again, the verdict was tossed out, with the
Supremes saying that punishing an addict for being an addict is cruel
and unusual and, thus, unconstitutional. (Robinson v California.)
Six years later, the Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles in
Powell v Texas. A man who was arrested for being drunk in public said
that, because he was an alcoholic, he couldn't help it. He invoked the
Robinson decision as precedent. The Court upheld his conviction
because it had been based on an action (being wasted in public), not
on the general condition of his addiction to booze. Justice White
supported this decision, yet for different reasons than the others. In
his concurring opinion, he expanded Robinson:
If it cannot be a crime to have an irresistible compulsion to use
narcotics,... I do not see how it can constitutionally be a crime to
yield to such a compulsion. Punishing an addict for using drugs
convicts for addiction under a different name. Distinguishing between
the two crimes is like forbidding criminal conviction for being sick
with flu or epilepsy, but permitting punishment for running a fever or
having a convulsion. Unless Robinson is to be abandoned, the use of
narcotics by an addict must be beyond the reach of the criminal law.
Similarly, the chronic alcoholic with an irresistible urge to consume
alcohol should not be punishable for drinking or for being drunk.
Commenting on these cases, Superior Court Judge James P Gray, an
outspoken critic of drug prohibition, has recently written:
What difference is there between alcohol and any other dangerous and
sometimes addictive drug? The primary difference is that one is legal
while the others are not. And the US Supreme Court has said as much on
at least two occasions, finding both in 1925 and 1962 that to punish a
person for the disease of drug addiction violated the Constitution's
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. If that is true, why do
we continue to prosecute addicted people for taking these drugs, when
it would be unconstitutional to prosecute them for their addiction?
Judge Gray gets right to the heart of the matter: "In effect, this
'forgotten precedent' says that one can only be constitutionally
punishable for one's conduct, such as assaults, burglary, and driving
under the influence, and not simply for what one puts into one's own
body."
If only the Supreme Court and the rest of the justice/law-enforcement
complex would apply these decisions, we'd be living in a saner
society.
