page_title: Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act
section_title: Supreme Court
hierarchical_section_title: Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act / Background / Supreme Court
caption_attribution_description: English: Bayer heroin bottle, originally containing 5 grams of Heroin substance. The label on the back references the 1924 US ban, and has a batch number stamp starting with 27, so it probably dates from the 1920's.
context_page_description: The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws developed the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act in 1934 due to the lack of restrictions in the Harrison Act of 1914. The act was a revenue-producing act and, while it provided penalties for violations, it did not give authority to the states to exercise police power regarding either seizure of drugs used in illicit trade or punishment of those responsible.
  Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, campaigned and lobbied for passage of the Uniform State Narcotic Act, and the Hearst newspaper media chain was an effective ally in his campaign for passage. The draft of the act was submitted to the American Bar Association at its meeting in Washington in 1932, and it was officially approved by that body and sent to various states the following year. The purpose of the act was to make the law uniform in various states with respect to controlling the sale and use of narcotic drugs. The Commissioners on Uniform State Laws intended to effectively safeguard and regulate narcotic drugs throughout all of the states.
  Initially, only nine states adopted the uniform state statute.
context_section_description: The United States Supreme Court ratified the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act in Webb et al., v. United States and United States v. Doremus, then again in Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, in 1920, holding that doctors may not prescribe maintenance supplies of narcotics to people addicted to narcotics. However, it does not prohibit doctors from prescribing narcotics to wean a patient off of the drug.
  It was also the opinion of the court that prescribing narcotics to habitual users was not considered "professional practice" - hence it was considered illegal for doctors to prescribe opioids for the purposes of maintaining an addiction. It can be argued that today's addiction medications are not intended to maintain an addiction but to facilitate addiction remission. In which case, this opinion of the court should not preclude practitioners from prescribing buprenorphine or methadone to patients suffering from an addictive disorder.
caption: Heroin, a powerful opioid and narcotic.
exif: {}