Opinion ID: 1893409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the legislative scheme

Text: Unlike the judges who were questioned by the House of Lords in M'Naghten's case, [15] we are not confronted with a legislative vacuum in the area of drug abuse as they were in determining whether the insane should be held responsible for their acts. [16] Congress, as well as most moderately informed persons in this country, has long been aware that heroin is highly addictive and that most heroin users are, or are likely to become, drug addicts. Every recent congressional enactment relating to narcotic drug abuse recognizes the large addict population in this country. [17] Moreover, by providing for treatment instead of, or in addition to, incarceration in a penal facility, Congress recognized that addicts are subject to criminal penalties. [18] Congress has been concerned with the problem of narcotic drug abuse since 1909 when it enacted the Jones-Miller Act. [19] This was followed by the Harrison Narcotics Act [20] which was enactee in 1914. This legislation had a long and variegated history of enforcement. [21] After examining various studies dealing with drug abuse, Congress in 1970 responded with the Drug Control Act which reduced, but nonetheless retained, criminal penalties for simple possession of narcotic drugs. This demonstrates to us that Congress knew of, and intended, the prosecution and conviction of all persons, whether or not drug dependent, for the violation of federal narcotic laws. What we see in the current federal legislative scheme is an effort by Congress to provide federal law enforcement agencies with a comprehensive and flexible vehicle for diminution of the drug abuse problem confronting this country. It is most unlikely that Congress intended anything less for the District of Columbia, i. e., one standard for the District of Columbia and another to be applied through federal prosecutions here and in the states. Congress recognized, as we all do, that there is no simple solution to drug abuse. It must be attacked by educating the young to its perils; by curtailing the illegal importation of drugs into the country; and by prosecuting those who trade upon misery by trafficking in drugs. Perhaps the last, but nonetheless important, line of offense is enforcement control by the prosecution, but not necessarily the imprisonment, of the nontrafficking addict. [22] It is a part of the overall drug enforcement scheme to pursue narcotics into the hands of the users. This is an investigative method and fits into the entire law enforcement effort in relation to narcotics. Courts are not empowered to supersede the legislative will. As we will show, what we have been asked to do here is to engage in legislative activity, purely and simply. [23] This is not the court's function.