Criminology

Anti drugs legislation has existed in the United States both at the federal level and the states level for a very long time. The drug policies in the United States started as general policies which have changed with time to become more specific. The major roles of these policies are to reduce and control the supply of drugs that are considered illegal due to their addictive and harmful effects, enforce laws related to drugs and give guidance to sentencing and incarceration of criminals involved in drug possession and trafficking. Some of the policies are also aimed at reducing the demand of narcotics and other harmful drugs by discouraging the use of these drugs through educations, awareness campaigns, preventions and treating those affected by the drugs.

The federal anti drug legislators have existed since the early 20th century when the pure food and drugs act of 1906 was passed by the congress. The law restricted the transportation of certain drugs and foodstuffs from one state to another. Although the use of opium and cocaine had been restricted in some countries such as China and Philippines in the early twentieth century, these drugs were not prohibited by the federal legislature. However, the control of drugs was not limited to the federal laws. In some states and municipalities such as San Francisco, there were laws that outlawed the use of drugs such as opium. Towards the end of the 19th century, several states had enacted laws that controlled the amount of drugs supplied in the state. Some of the laws restricted who should be allowed to access the drugs where a medical prescription was required. These laws limited the use of morphine and cocaine in some states to medical uses only. The laws controlling the distribution of these drugs were not affected because of lack of uniformity in the laws where in some state drug use was not restricted while others tried to restrict them. The distribution of the drugs was therefore easy until the enactment of the federal legislation that restricted the transportation of drugs from one state to another (Harrison et al 1995).

Throughout the twentieth century, several federal and states legislation aimed at restricting the use and distribution of drugs have been enacted. This includes the Harrison Act of 1914 which set the platform for the control of narcotics in the United States for over half a century. The enacted of this law made all non medical use of narcotic drugs illegal where many people who were already addicted to the drugs found themselves in the wrong side of the law. Following this law, the illicit drug trade increased in the United States which led to the enactment of the Jones Miller Act of 1922 which set the minimum penalty of individuals found guilty of supplying the drugs illegally. In the 1920s and 1930s, the federal officials used the media to educate the public on the harmful effect of the use of marijuana since the use of the herb for recreation had increased significantly due to ineffective laws. Following this campaign, all the states apart from two had enacted anti marijuana laws by 1937.  The same year, the congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act.

Other federal laws have been passed to regulate drug use. This includes the Opium Poppy Act passed in 1942 to control poppy production, Narcotic Act of 1946 which controlled the use of synthetic narcotics, the Narcotic Drugs Act of 1956 and the Boggs Bill which made penalties on drug crimes more severe. The united states also become a member of the Single Convection on Narcotic Drugs in the 1960s which enhanced the regulation of drugs at the international level.  All the federal drugs laws were consolidated in the Controlled Substance Act signed by President Nixon in 1970. In 1980s, several laws touching on drugs uses were enacted which included the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, the Anti Drug Abuse Act, the Anti Drug Abuse Amendment Act and the Crime Control Act. These laws aimed at strengthening the criminal sanctions in the federal system on drug related crimes such as production, possession or illegal trafficking of prohibited drugs. The laws also aimed at strengthening the fight against drug abuse by increasing federal grants to states authorities to reduce the supply and demand of prohibited substances (Morawetz, 2008).

Although the anti drugs laws may vary from state to state, all the states are subject to all the federal anti drugs law. The application of the laws in the states level varies from the federal levels. Moreover, different jurisdictions and countries may have different applications of the laws. In many states, the possession of small amounts of bang is not considered as a crime provided it is for personal use. Despite this, most of the states have maintained the anti drug use as stipulated in the drugs acts of 1980 or increased the severity of the penalty. For example, if a person is accused of possessing an ounce of marijuana in Nevada, it is considered to be a felony while the same will attract a fine of one hundred dollars in New York. In Montana, a person accused of trading one pound of marijuana may be sentenced to life imprisonment even if it was the first offense while selling ten thousand pounds of marijuana may attract a three years in prison sentence in New Mexico. Drugs laws applications differ from one state to another. However, there is no substantial evidence that less severe laws in some states have increased drug abuse or stiff penalties have reduced the use of illegal drugs (Harrison et al 1995).

The prohibition of drug use has been a very controversial subject in the United States and at the international level resulting into heated debate. One of the basic arguments against anti drugs law is based on the adverse effects of the illicit drugs as compared to legal drugs. It is argued that legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol are more harmful as compared to some illicit drugs. Some people argue that some natural illicit drugs have been used for thousands of years and the dangers associated with their use are as a result of regulation. Drugs users who are not criminals have been stigmatized due to laws that relate drugs to crime. Despite these arguments, both public opinion and statistics on effects of drugs indicates that anti drug are justified. Although some people argue that all adults have cognitive liberty, there is no evidence that lack of anti drugs laws will reduce the harmful effects of drugs which is evident in the society. The presence of anti drugs laws has gone a long way in deterring the illegal distribution and use of illicit drugs (Maginnis, n d).