Opinion ID: 1893409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Federal Statutory Scheme

Text: NARA [24] and the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act, [25] recent federal legislation, persuade us that Congress has expressed a preference for a flexible approach for dealing with narcotic addiction both in and out of the federal criminal system. Under NARA certain addicts charged with crime are eligible for commitment for treatment in lieu of prosecution, [26] although the criminal charge is held in abeyance pending the result of treatment. Other addicts are eligible for treatment in lieu of imprisonment if they have been convicted of a federal crime, [27] and addicts not charged with a crime are eligible for civil commitment. [28] The Drug Control Act of 1970 provides, inter alia, for criminal penalties for simple possession of narcotics, [29] enlightened disposition for first offenders, [30] and imposes heavy penalties for more serious offenses such as unauthorized manufacture or distribution of controlled substances. [31] Although the Act distinguishes between traffickers and nontraffickers, [32] the distinction relates only to the gravity of the proscribed conduct, not to whether a particular class of offenders can be convicted for their acts. The recent Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 [33] establishes an office for coordinating the various federal narcotic programs, provides funding for a national commitment for controlling drug abuse, and demonstrates Congress' concern over the marginal success of existing civil and criminal narcotic rehabilitation efforts. These enactments rely on judicial or prosecutorial discretion, or, in the case of the 1972 Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act, executive discretion, for invoking their provisions. Although emphasizing rehabilitation where possible, they also show beyond dispute that Congress intended drug users, like anyone else, to come under the statute prohibiting narcotics possession. United States v. Moore, supra .