Opinion ID: 1893409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Preventing Illegal Drug Traffic

Text: Of course a criminal law can also be justified on the ground that it protects the public from some harm. Thus, the existence of criminal laws prohibiting possession or sale of illegal drugs can be said to protect the general public against drug trafficking. In fact, the sponsor of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (1970), stated that the principal purpose of the bill was to stop drug traffic by concentrating law enforcement efforts on importers, manufacturers, and distributors, rather than on users. [58] The majority ignores two exhibits attached to Appellants' Supplemental Reply Brief on Rehearing which pertain to the effect of the recognition of a drug dependence defense on law enforcement efforts. Exhibit A is a letter from the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Narcotics Addiction, whose members include the Chief of Police, which states that the Committee supports the recognition of a drug dependence defense for nontrafficking addicts and adds: The Committee believes further, that the recognition of the defense, coupled with effective, intelligent and meaningful use of the civil commitment statute for drug dependents could substantially improve the city's response to the problems of addiction by offering a meaningful treatment alternative to bare incarceration. [Emphasis added.] Exhibit B is a letter from the Deputy General Counsel of the Metropolitan Police Department stating that the police department has no objection to the . . . recognition of a limited defense of addiction in small-amount heroin possession cases if the defense is coupled with virtually mandatory in-patient civil commitment treatment programs, to be followed subsequently by out-patient treatment, thus assuring continuing supervisory treatment for those who successfully assert the defense. [Emphasis in original.] Appellants' Supplemental Reply Brief on Rehearing refers to this letter and notes: The Police Department acceptance of the defense is conditioned on a virtually mandatory civil commitment program. Appellants have urged throughout this case that such a virtually mandatory program can and should be used upon acquittal, by implementing the 1953 Act. Even assuming that criminal penalties imposed for possession of illegal drugs assist the effort to stop the flow of illegal drugs by giving the police a bargaining lever to use against drug users in an attempt to learn their source of supply, [59] this benefit to society does not justify penal incarceration rather than treatment of the drug dependent person, and the benefit in no way affects the free will or lack thereof of the drug dependent person. Moreover, the threat of civil commitment for treatment may well be as effective a lever as the threat of penal incarceration. In sum, there is no plausible explanation for the majority opinion's unsupported assertion that approval of the affirmative defense of drug dependence would hinder law enforcement efforts.