M" N3 IZB- 77!! ‘ “ 421%» «:33 ‘z. *- g_‘§ 3 ]SU\ 5-1 4 washtngm“ ”“‘VerSW —- rm: ¢*"“v'. ‘ ‘A 1 A aw .« ,1 Q 6, ,2: V‘ .<35;.' _,_ :1 J» .1 R .. ,, W .. .- 1» :-.1“? V V; *7 .. .- ~, .V ; .4; 1+“-*=~‘s3 4'1‘-.-. “ ~ ‘ -.-..:1 6! ‘v ‘ v’ . 2' ‘I3-' '3'" ' Issue Brief Nov 17 1989 CONGRESSIONAL " RESEARCH /Immum1ugj@1[qu7g:zg“j@@@jyy[ifl@Jiimunnu 1 I CONGRESS MARIHUANA CONTROL ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB77ll9 AUTHOR: Harry Hogan Government Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED ll/30/77 DATE UPDATED 06/15/82 _FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0616 CRS+ 1 n 1377119 UPDATE-O6/l5/82 ISSUE DEFINITION In the broad sense, what to do about the use of marihuana, or the various drug products of the Cannabis plant, is only one ‘part of a larger. issue: "What is the appropriate response of democratic government to the non-therapeutic consumption of potentially dangerous~ substances?" If a society finds that such behavior should be discouraged, is this to be done through legal controlsl and ssanctionsh or through social “constraints .and educational efforts?» If le9al?controls7 are ‘used.s there ‘is’ the» task~“offl evaluating each individual substancej proposed to be covered. Is the substance truly dangerous in terms of human health? ~Or, does it produce behavior threatening to society? If it is sufficiently dangerous to control, how stringent should the controls be? In the case of the drug marihuana, the current debate is for the most part geared to the question: should simple ~possession (and possibly distribution of small .amounts for .no profit) be "decriminalized," i.e., made subject at most to civil rather than criminal penalties? However, the alternative Of outright legalization also has adherents. ‘ 1 BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS EXTENT or PROBLEM From 1962 to 1980 the proportion of young American adults, who. have «ever used marihuana increased from 4% to 68%, the National Institute on Drug Abuse recently reported. A 1979 survey indicates that while regular use of the drug has stabilized among youth, experimentation continues to increase in all age QIOHPS. After alcohol and tObaCCO, marihuana iS America's most widely’ used drug for non-medical purposes. The volume and dollar value of the ,illegal commerce Tin marihuana are subjects of controversy, with estimates. varying widely. The, National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee reports that from 10,000 to 13,600 tons were imported during 1979, bearing a retail value of from $15 billion to $22 billion-. I HISTORY,OF,CONTROLS,TOl97O The substance commonly known in North America as "marihuana" :is one of numerous derivatives of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa L.) used throughout the world for the sake of their intoxicating or therapeutic qualities. Known by a variety of names -- e.g., "hashish," "charas," "bhang," kif,". and "ganja" —— these drugs differ significantly in form and potency and in some cases are eaten or drunk rather than smoked. The term "marihuana"\ (or marijuana) is Mexican in origin and as genera;ly_used refers to preparations made from the flowering tops and leaves of hemp, typically dried and smoked in cigarettes. However, in Federal law and in most State laws it is ,defined so as to include all drug products of Cannabis, including« the concentrated forms hashish and "hash oil." a Hemp was planted in the United States as early as the, 17th century, the’ mature stalk being an important source of fiber for rope and similar CRS- 2 1377119 UPDATE-O6/15/82 derivatives were migrant Mexica While first However, there is no indication that its drug 19005, when cigarettes. products. used to any noteworthy degree until the early workers are believed to have introduced marihuana observed in l9lO, in New Orleans, it was not until after spreading use made the question of control a public issue. During the Twenties and Thirties, restrictive marihuana statutes were enacted by every State legislature; and in 1937 the Federal Government followed suit with passage of the Marihuana Tax Act, completing what amounted to a scheme of virtual prohibition of the substance in the United States. Enforcement responsibility was assigned to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, in the Treasury Department; and although it was not true, as that Federal law defined marihuana as a narcotic drug, legislation enacted during the 1950s made the general penalties for violating the Marihuana Act identical with those applying to the Harrison Narcotics Act. Opposition to harsh marihuana penalties, both on the Federal and State levels, grew steadily in the years after 1956, when the Boggs-Daniel Act was passed. On the other hand, during the Sixties the widely publicized drug "invasion" of suburbs, college campuses, and finally the Nation's secondary schools, brought strong public pressure from legislators and other leaders for vigorous deterrent measures. As the principal substance of abuse, among this new drug user group, marihuana was the focus of concern for especially those with children of college age or younger. Consequently, law enforcement agencies were under pressure to "crack down." Perhaps the ultimate expression of a "get tough" policy on the national level was so-called "Operation Intercept," designed to curb illicit traffic from Mexico. Initiated by the Nixon administration in line with commitments mad during the l968 Presidential campaign, the effort was aimed at all drugs imported illegally from Mexico but‘ was perceived by the public to be primarily an anti-marihuana crusade. This view was encouraged by much of the rhetoric of White House officials at the time. As a result of widespread use, along with energetic efforts to enforce anti-marihuana laws, large numbers of otherwise law-abiding young people were arrested and prosecuted. Whether in consequence of this, or because of a growing tendency to reexamine policies designed to prevent drug abuse, proposals for moderation of marihuana penalties attracted new adherents. Although many forms of modification have been espoused —- ranging from mere reduction of criminal penalties to outright legalization -- the thrust of the basic argument is generally the same; existing marihuana laws and their sanctions are too extreme in relation to the demonstrated dangers (both to society and to the individual himself) of the substance in question. More recently, the economic impact of illicit marihuana traffic, both in the United States and in producing countries, has been recognized as a factor of growing significance; legalization proponents argue that only .by permitting the drug to be marketed legally can the monetary imbalances and potential for corruption be eliminated. I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT On the Federal level, a changing view of the drug problem in general wad reflected in the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (Title II and III of P.L. 91-513). Initially intended simply to consolidate and restructure existing narcotic and dangerous drug statutes, the legislation ended by making a.number of important modifications in the substance of those statutes. World War I that‘ commonlyvaheldg-. many,“ CRS- 3 1377119 «UPDATE-O6/15/82 The changes made by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) included several relating to marihuana control. First, except for the offense of simple possession (i.e., with no intent to distribute), a distinction was drawn between marihuana and narcotic violations. Second, first-time , simple possession was made a misdemeanor rather than a felony, as were all such offenses, regardless of the drug involved. ,Third, in a special provision, the act stipulated that a distribution offense involving a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration was to be treated the same as simple possession -- the penalty for a first offense being a fine, of up to, $5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 1 year, and for a second offense a fine of up to $10,000 and/or~imPrisonmeh%”of up to 2vyears.t " ~V’“* '0 “ ‘ ‘ ” '“”i“‘ In addition to making the above changes,% the CSA called for a comprehensive review of both the general drug abuse problem and, separately, marihuana use and regulation. To this end the act established a "National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse," to be composed of members -selected by the President and the Congress. REPORT OFJA SPECIAL COMMISSION‘ The National Commissionls marihuana report was released in March of 1972.‘ Essentially, the Commission concluded that the dangers of marihuana usefl were I101’. SO" great 3.5 t0 warrant the then current degree Of restriction, but that" available evidence did not justify the drug's legalization. The Commission is of the unanimous opinion that marihuana use is not such a grave problem that individuals who smoke marihuana, and possess it for that purpose, should be subject to criminal procedures. on the other hand, we have also rejected the regulatory or legalization scheme because it would institutionalize availability of a drug which has uncertain long-term effects and wp which may be of transient social interest. ” Instead of legalization, the Commission recommended "decriminalization" of simple possession (or possession for personal use). The principal features of the proposed scheme -- both for Federal and State law -—j§ere as follows: (1) Possession of marihuana for personal use should no longer be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public should remain contraband subject to seizure and forfeiture. ‘ (2) Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration (or insignificant remuneration, not involving profit) should no longer be a Federal offense and under state law should be subject only to a fine of $100. (3) dProduction and distribution for profit should remain criminal activities along with possession with intent to distribute for profit. (4) .A plea of marihuana intoxication should not be permitted as defense for any criminal act committed CRS- 4 7 1377119 UPDATE-O6/15/82 \ under its influence HOP should proof Of such intoxication constitute a negation Of SPeCifiC intent. 9 Additional recommendations for State law were: (1) Disorderly conduct associated with public use of or intoxication by marihuana should be made a misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail. (2) Operating a vehicle or dangerous instrument while under the influence of marihuana should be made a ‘emisdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, and suspension of a permit to operate such a vehicle or instrument for up to 180 days. (3) A person should be liable in civil court for any damages done by him to person or property while under the influence of the drug. RECENT TRENDS IN STATE LAW Along with its 1969-1970 campaign for a revision of Federal dangerous drugwe laws, the Justice Department also promoted -- through the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws -- a new model State statute to replace the old Uniform Narcotic Drug Act of 1932 and the Model State Drug Abuse Control Act. some form of both of the latter had\ been enacted in almost all of the 50 States.7 Designed to makes State controls reasonabl compatible with the new Federal law, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act sets out prohibited acts in detail but does not prescribe specific penalties, a matter left to the discretion of State legislatures. The great majority of States have enacted the new uniform statute, and in all but two (Arizona and Nevada) the act Of simple possession Of specified small amounts Of marihuana is now either a misdemeanor or a civil offense, at least for a first-time offender. The trend in downgrading the offense was accelerated by the report of the National Commission in l972, and ll States may be described as having followed the spirit of the Commission's recommendation to "decriminalize" (in three of these -- California, Colorado, and Ohio -- the offense remains a misdemeanor but incurs no permanent criminal record). These laws vary, with respect to the quantity of the drug involved in an offense designated as exempt from a criminal penalty. CURRENT DEBATE ON FEDERAL LAW On the Federal level, decriminalization bills have. been introduced in every Congress since the Marihuana and Drug Abuse Commission made its report. Added to these have been several proposals for outright legalization of possession of specified limited amounts. During the past several Congresses, the two Judiciary Committees have considered such measures in connectionywith work on revision of the Federal criminal code. On Aug. 2, 1977, a Presidential message to Congress (H.Doc. 95-200), y" the general subject of drug abuse, announced Carter Administration suppokj‘ for the decriminalization approach. In both 1977 and 1980, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a criminal code reform bill with at provision that would have maintained the criminal status of all possession offenses but‘ reduced the maximum penalty to a $l00 fine where less than 30 grams is CRS- 5 IB77ll9 UPDATE-O6/15/82 the floor the 96th maintained involved. The earlier bill passed the Senate but failed to reach in the House. Although a bill was also reported in the dHouse in Congress, no floor action took place. The House bill would have existing law on marihuana possession. The problem of the appropriate legal treatment of marihuana raises the same basic questions as that of the control of abusable drugs in general. Should Government concern itself with people's willingness to take risks by using dangerous substances, or should a person be allowed to "name his own poison?" Is it simply a question of (personal risk, or does drug abuse threaten society in general as well as the abuser himself? How must a substance be to warrant special *controls?‘ controls take? At what point do the controls themselves create a greater threat than the behavior they are designed to prevent? Assuming that some Government regulation of access to dangerous drugs is desirable, the specific questions raised in the case Of marihuana are: (1) Does marihuana use (in any_of its forms) entail undesirable consequences -— i -- to the user himself? : ; - ~ r -— to society (e.g., is the drug criminogenic? Does it cause behavior dangerous to others?) (2) Are these consequences of a magnitude to warrant special regulation? If so, how restrictive? (3) Are existing penalties disproportionate to the offense? Is it fair or desirable to inflict a criminal record on a marihuana user, especially a young one? (4) would a milder form of regulation encourage more widespread use? I (5) Is there validity to the "steppingstone" theory, i.e., that marihuana use tends to lead to use of more dangerous drugs? “ Are there other derivatives of Cannabis sativa more harmful to humans than marihuana? Is it possible to legislation that distinguishes between these various products and maintains strict controls on some while relaxing those on the form known as "marihuana?" (A of State statutes attempt to do this.) (6) write number (7) would a relaxation of marihuana controls have adverse effects on U.S. efforts to promote international drug traffic control? What would be the reaction of nations that view Cannabis as a serious threat? (8) would the proposed changes be in violation of any of our international treaty obligations? (9) Do current efforts to control marihuana use detract from the forceful regulation of more dangerous drugs? (10) By "decriminalizing" possession, yet retaining dangerous 'WhatK form ‘should: those- CRS- 6 e IB77ll9 UPDATE-O6/15/82 criminal penalties for trafficking offenses (as well A as possession offenses involving an amount greater \ than that specified in the civil penalty provision), would an anomalous legal situation be created? Couldn't it be asked: "Why should it be a criminal matter to sell or grow something when it is not criminal to possess or use the same item?" (ll) Has the use of marihuana now become accepted as normal by such a large group in the United States that controls meet with a degree of non-compliance comparable to ‘ the national experience under Prohibition? i ~.t.. »x«t.*w* (12) Because of spreading use, and widespread acceptance of the notion that marihuana is a relatively harmless drug, have existing controls already lost their deterrent value? For those who accept the premise that access to dangerous drugs should be restricted through Government action, the debate on marihuana regulation has in recent years focused on the question of the dangers of the drug to its users. The literature presents a broad spectrum of .contradictory findings. Despite 3. substantial amount Of research on the subject, many authorities‘ take the position that no final judgments can be made. The iproponents of decriminalization or legalization who accept this evaluation respond that lacking any valid evidence of high risk in marihuana use, there is no "proper_ basis for harsher penalties. Opponents ask that any further relaxation of controls be predicated on a positive demonstration of the drug's relatifl harmlessness. A During 1978, the debate over marihuana control was sharpened by a revelation that the Mexican Government was using the herbicide paraguat in its marihuana eradication program. Alleged by some authorities to cause "irreversible lung damage" to smokers, paraquat-tainted marihuana has been the subject of several congressional hearings. The United States provides financial and technical assistance to various foreigni countries for drug control purposes, and in 1978, Congress moved to force a halt to the use oft paraquat in marihuana eradication through this program. This prohibition, specified under the "Percy Amendment" and the subject of considerable controversy, was lifted by a provision of a foreign assistance bill recently passed (S. 1196; see below). Opponents of the prohibition maintained that it not only eliminated one of the most effective tools of drug control but that it also caused other countries to doubt the seriousness of U.S. drug policy. Moreover, they point to recent analyses indicating a lack of evidence for the Government's finding, in 1979, that the use of paraquat-tainted marihuana can cause serious lung damage. LEGISLATION P.L. 97-86, S. 815 Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Yefn, l982. Senate bill contains a provision to "clarify and affirm" the authoritgi of the Secretary of Defense to provide indirect assistance to civilian law enforcement officials, "consistent with the principles established in they Posse Comitatus Act": specifically, to provide relevant intelligence, to lend equipment or facilities, and to assign Armed Forces personnel to train CRS- 7 IB77119 UPDATE-O6/15/82 civilian law enforcement officials in the operation of loaned equipment and provide relevant expert advice. A H 1 House bill as reported by the Armed Services Committee contains a similar provision but further specifies that Armed Forces personnel may be used in making seizures and arrests in relation to civilian drug law enforcement. However, the provision as reviewed and reported by the Judiciary Committee does not contain the seizure and arrest authority. As passed, seizure and arrest authority is included but only for exercise in areas outside the continental United States. S. 815 introduced Apr. 6, 1981; referred to Committee on Armed Services. Reported May 6, 1981 (S.Rept. 97-58). Passed Senate May 14- vThe.House-bi11,»H-R. .2970, introduced Apr.:1r;198l;.referredf to Committee on Armed Services. "H.R. 3519, a clean bill in lieu of H.R. 2970, reported May 19 (H.Rept. 97-7l, Pt. 1). Referred_ to Committees on Judiciary and Government Operations.) Reported June 12 (H.Rept. 97-71, Pts. 2 and 3). Passed House July 16. Approved Dec. 1, 1981. P.L. 97-113, S. 1196 International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1981. For the International Narcotics Control assistance programs, authorizes appropriations of $37.7 million for FY82. Repeals the provision of, existing-. law that prohibits the use of assistance funds for drug crop ieradication efforts using herbicides shown to be ‘harmful to human health;) however, requires the Secretary of State to inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the use or intended use by any «country or ~international organization ‘of any herbicide to eradicate marihuana Sunder a program receiving assistance. Further, requires the Secretary of HHS to monitor“ the rhealth impact of the use of marihuana that has been sprayed by av herbicide and to report to Congress any evidence of harmful effects. Allows funds earmarked for Colombia under the FY80 appropriation to be used for marihuana eradication (with paraquat). S. 976 introduced Apr. 9, 1981; referred. to Committee on Foreign Relations. S. 1196, a clean bill in lieu of S. 0976,‘ reported May 15 (S.Rept. 97-83). Passed senate Oct. 22, 1981. Passed House Dec. 9, with contents of H.R. 3566 as passed. Conference report i(H.Rept. 97-413) agreed to by Senate Dec. 15 and by House :Dec. 16, 11981. Approved Dec. 29, 1981 (P.L. 97-113). A 1; H.R. 2646 (Sawyer) Amends the provisions of . the, Racketeer Influenced. and Corrupt Organizations Act to provide that all of a drug trafficker's personal assets are subject to seizure and forfeiture unless it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that mthe ‘assets were acquired from legal sources of income. )Authorizes the use of forfeited assets to pay for additional Federal, State and local drug enforcement programs. Introduced Mar. 19, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. H-R. 4413 (Zeferetti) [Related bills: s. 1522, s. 1943, and s. 1951] Amends the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to increase maximum penalties for import or export violations involving marihuana, to 115 years sand/or $125,000 for a first offense, double for a second. Introduced Aug. 4, 1981; referred to Committees on Energy and Commerce and on the Judiciary. H.R. 5703 (conyers) [Related bills: H.R. 1647, H.R. 5679, s. 1530] Revises titlé 18 Of the U.S. COGS. Transfers criminal penalty PI'OViSi.OI'1S‘ CRS- 8 1377119 UPDATE-O6/l5/82 of the Controlled Substances Act to the revised title and makes some substantive changes. with respect to marihuana control, reduces maxim( penalties for trafficking violations and creates a 4-tier schedule 85‘ possession violations based on quantity involved with possession of 30 gramsi or less classified as an "infraction," subject to a fine only (up to $1,000). Introduced Mar. 3, 1982; referred to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 5371 (Hughes) [Related bills: H.R. 2646 (above), S. 1126/H.R. 4118 (below)] ' Comprehensive Drug Penalty ‘Act of) l98l. Amends the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, the Controlled*Substances.Act, and (other statutes* tow make a number of substantive changes in criminal forfeiture provisions. Increases the maximum fine penalties for drug offenses. Introduced Jan. 27, 1982; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. H.Res. l3 (Zeferetti et al.) Provides for the continuance of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Introduced Jan. .5, 1981; referred to Committee on Rules. Passed House Feb. 25, 1981. S. 814 (Nunn et al.)/H.R. 3268 (Bennett) Organized Grime Act of 1981. (1) Grants limited Federal jurisdiction over cases involving contract killings or murder for hire; (2) amends the Federal‘ assault statute to cover all Government personnel who investigate and prosecute Federal criminal offenses and whol gather "nationall securif” intelligence; (3) makes it a Federal crime to harm or threaten the families of Federal law enforcement officials; (4) amends the obstruction of justice statute to cover informants and potential witnesses as well as witnesses who actually are under subpoena to testify; (5) amends the Freedom of Information AC1‘; t0 increase protection %Of information; WhiCh would tend t0 identify’ confidential informants as well as information which would positively identify such individuals; (6) allows the Government to apply for a reduction) in the sentence of a defendant who cooperates with the Government; (7) gincreases the penalties a Federal judge may impose when a Federal crime is committed through the use of violence; (8) permits Federal judges to seal. those portions of wiretap documents which could reveal ongoing criminal investigations or wire intercepts; (9) allows State and local law enforcement officials limited access to Federal grand jury information when they are assisting in the investigation or prosecution of a Federal offense; and (10) permits Federal judges to consider the danger a defendant poses to the community when setting the terms of release on bail. S. 814 introduced Mar. 26, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 3268 introduced Apr. 28, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. S. 951 (Thurmond and Biden)/H.R. 3201 (McClorY). H.R. 3462 (Rodino) Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, FY82. For the\Drug Enforcement Administration, Administration bill (S. 951/ H.R. 3201) authorizes FY82 appropriations of $228.5 million; Senate bill, as reported, authorizes $234.4 million; House bill, as reported and passed (H.R. 3462) authorizes $231.8 million. S. 951 introduced Apr. 8, 1981; referred fix Committee on Judiciary. Passed Senate Mar. 2, 1982. In House, referred to Judiciary Mar. 22, 1982. H.R. 3201 introduced Apr. 9, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 3111 (Rodino) introduced Apr. 7, 1981; referred) to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 3462 (clean bill in lieu of H.R. 3111) cRs- 9 IB77ll9 UPDATE-O6/15/82 introduced May 6, 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. Reported May 19 (H.Rept. 97-105)." Passed House June 9i‘ ” ’ in 1 0 s. 1126 (Biden)/H.R. 4110 (Zeferetti5 Criminal Forfeiture Amendments Act of 1981. (Amends both‘ 181 U.S.C. 1963 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) and Section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (providing_ penalties (for persons convicted (of having engaged in a "continuing criminal enterprise” involving illicit drug traffic) to broaden the category of assets subject to seizure and _forfeiture under the twof statutes. .”S.e 1125. introduced tMay 5, pl981;dareferredf to Committee on Judiciary.» H.R.»4lIOCintrodnced July“9: referrewito¥”committees~- on 0udiciary_and on Energy and Commerce.y s. 1554 (Tnurmond et a1.) [Related 51115: js. 44o,(s. t4e2, s. 08l4 y(see above), s.f1;5e, S. 1755,;H;a. 3883, and H.R. 4705] " I Amends the Bail Reform Act of 1966 to permit consideration of danger "to (the community in setting pretrial release sconditions, to eliminate surety bond, to permit pretrial detention ,of; certain _offenders, and (for other purposes.f Introduced July 31. 1981; referred to Committee on Judiciary. 1H.Ryt5679.,H{R. 5703] s. 1530 (Thurmend. Biaen et a1.) [Related 5111:: ¥H,R. 1547. H.R;y14711}n Revises title 18 of the Ufisr Code.‘ Transfere criminal penalty” previsions“ of the Controlled Substances Act to the revised title. *Makes*“subetantive( “changes in penalties for drug law violations, notably: (1) specification of a mandatory penalty for traffiching in _ane opiate, Hand (2) an increase in maximum penalties generally. is. 1630 introduced Sept. 17, 1981; referred to ‘Committee on Judiciary.. Reported Jan. 25, 1982 (S.Rept. 97f307). S. 1891 (Roth et al.) Amends the Tax Reform Act of 1976 in several ways, for the general purpose of removing impediments to cooperation by the Internal Revenue Service with (other Federal law enforcement agencies. Specifically: (1) requires the IRS to notify. the appropriate law (enforcement agency twhene§er ”iti uncovers evidence, other than from a tax’return,“of*aenon-tax crime; %2) expands” the category of information that can be released by IRS to the Jnstice Department in response to a written request from the Departmente (in efineu ofJ a court iorder);,and (3) specified that Government attorneye can obtain _tax returns and suPPorting documentation on1y by showin9"a”Federa1 district‘ judge “that there is reasonable cause to believe that the returns are material *and prelevant,to a lawful criminal investigation. 8. 1891 introducedw Nov. 24, 81981;treferred_tgVcommitteeonIFinan¢e,t is. 1907 (Roth et al.) [Related bills: ‘n.R.m5044-5048} Amends the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act (1) to *prohibit the attempted transport out of the United States (of monetary instruments exceeding $10,000 (raised from the current $5.000)”absent the prior filing of (pa report with the Treasury Department. (2) to authorize rewards to informants providing original information on a major violation of the act,> and“ (3) to‘ increase the penalties and fines for failure to filer the Lreqnired currency reports. Amends the Racketeer Influenced and‘ Corrupt 'Organizations* Act (RICO) t0 include criminal violations Of the Currency and Foreign Transaction a Reporting Act within the categories of criminal acts defined as "racketeering cRs-10 A IB77ll9‘ UPDATE-06/l5/82 ' actiVitiéS_u Introduged Dec. §;”i9e:} referred to committee on Finance, as. 2543 (Chiles, Nunn, Randolph et al.) lcrime Control Act of I982. rTitle I - Organized Crime Enforcement I ;_IAmongwother things; :(l). grants elimited ‘Federal. jurisdiction overt cases . involving contract killings or murder for hire: (2) amends the obstruction of justice statute to’cover' informantsf*and; potential ‘witnesses ’as ~weri'-as v witnesses who actually are under subpoena to testify} (3) amends‘ the“ Feedom _of Information Act to increase protection of information that wouldg identify confidential informants; (4) permits Federal judges to seal those portions of wiretap documents that could reveal ongoing criminal investigationsg or‘ wire intercepts, ‘ Title ;1 9 sail herein [see s. 2572/H;R.;s497 (Title I3] rspecifies that in setting the conditions of release of persons charged- with’ trafficking in certain narcotics ‘andl other dangerous, drugs; the fjudicial officer shall consider the danger’the defendant might pose to the ‘community’ if released. Sets forth circumstances in which a drug law offender should be. denied.re1ease,prior to trial.'p ~ p,g _ 4 _p ‘ . I . "’ -.—- - - V l — — .; — -—~ 7» —~ —— — _ ( e \ ' ._ . i , ,1.‘ \ eritie III~+ Sentencing ffi p I “ ' I ‘~e Increase penalties for persons who committ violent crimes and for” persons convicted of smuggling large amounts of marihuana. ;1itle IV -9 Maheas Corpus Reform Bevises federal habeas corpus istatutes by ieliminating purely technical Wchallenges to conVictions fairly arrived at in a State court.p Introduced May l9, l982; placed.on the senate calendar, is. 2565 (Nunn,I Grassley, lp¢1é;‘ Roth}. Chiles, land Rudman)/H§R;p 6475 {Ragga}, Conable, Gibbons, Pickleetiai.) [Related bills: s. 732, s. 1010, s. l89l@tH;R. 1502] ‘Amends’ Internal Revenue Code form they general purpose ‘of removing impediments to cooperation by the Internal Revenue Service with other Federal law enforcement agencies. S. 2565 _introduced May 25, 1982; referred to Committee on Finance. H.R. A6475 introduced May e25;A 1982: referred to_ Committee on ways and Means. S. 2572g(Ihurmond,qBiden et al.)/HuR.de97%(McClory et al.)f Violent Crime and Drug_Enforcement Improvement Act of 19823 ‘The folloyinp A titles or provisions have significance in terms of the‘ enforcement fof lawgp controlling5dangerous drugsi, Title If Bail Referm (See s. 1354) .criminal forfeiture Of the proceeds Of racketeering activity, t0 provide cns-11 1377119 UPDATE-06/15/82 A Amends the Bail Reform Act Of 1966 to -- among other things -- (l).ipermit danger to the community to be considered in determining whether to release a defendant pending trial, or,p if release is appropriate, in rdetermining conditions for release (specifies a presumption that an. individual‘ is a danger to the community if he ihas committed‘ a serious drugi trafficking offense), (2) iestablish7 a procedure for Arevocation of release, sand contempt-of-court prosecution, for committing a crime while on release; (3) tighten the criteria. for post-conviction release rpending lsentencing' and appeal; (4) provide for consecutive sentencing of persons convicted of crimes committed on pretrial release; and (5) increase penalties for jumping_bail. -.- 1-»: Title II. Witness-Victim Protection (See s. 2420) in prison or $25,000 or both» -- is involved in the criminal Makes it a crime -- punishable by 6 years to hinder or harm any victim or witness who justice process or to retaliate against such process. Also makes itia crime to retaliate against a after completion of the criminal justice process.r W victim or witness Title Ill. Controlled Substances Penalties Amends both the Controlled Substances Act and "the Controlledd Substancesr Import and Export Act to: "(1) increase~ the maximum prison penalties -for trafficking in large (specified) amounts of an opiate, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or LSD; (2) increase the fine level for trafficking in any controlled substance; (3) increase prison penalties and fines ~for ntraffickingi in any amount of most non-narcotic substances in Schedules I or II (includes LSD and PCP); (4) increase penalties for trafficking in marihuana in amounts from 50 to 454 kilograms; and (5) permit State and foreign convictions to be considered under the repeat drug offenders. felony drug Title V.A Sentencing Reform (See S. 1630) Changes sentencing system to a determinate system, with no parole and limited good time credits. Establishes a sentencing commission, to? be iresponsible for promulgating guidelines for the courts to use in determining appropriate sentences. r 0 ~ . ‘ ~ 0 - .W 1 i 1 Title VI. Criminal Forfeiture (See 8. 2320) Amends both 18 U.s.c. 1953 (a lprovision. of the Racketeer: Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) and the Controlled Substances Act to ‘provide for for to other the sanction "oft criminal iforfeiture for all‘ felony drugr offenses, facilitate forfeitures in drug-related and racketeering cases, and for purposes. 0 1 - ’ — Title IX., Miscellaneous Criminal Justice Improvements Among other things, (1) raises to §l00,000 the ceiling on the value of personal property that may be seized by the Government under administrative a person after completion of the. ranging enhanced sentencing provisionsr for’ cas-12 IB77119 UPDATE-06/15/82 9,forfeiture-procedures,when customs or narcotic and dangerous_drug_ lays have, beenaviblated;,(g)»amends.th¢ Currency and Foreign transaction 3eporting_ A( \ .;to_nake it more difricult1.to rtranpfer or transport gout, of 'the_jgpuntry currency generated by drug traffiching (seeps- 150g)? (3) makes itWaL“?efieral‘ ©ifense to gomnit robbery against a pharmacy for the purpose of securing. a ¢gnarcotLc,drug, an amphetamine or a barbiturate listed in Spheduies I lthrough . Iv.unnar the Controlled Substances Act 2- subject ib penalties of, up ftop 1o( ;,,years imprisonment and/or $5.000; and (4) amends ‘the- Controlled. Substahces . ken to provide for additional penalties_for:a?drug trafficking offense if the offense taxes piace on or niihin 1.000-feet of[a school or its premises.p S. 2572 introduced May 26, 1982; placed on the Senate calendar. H.R. 6497 .introduced May 26, 1982; referred to Committee on the Judiciary; ‘”«~~*-in »U.s. Congress. Housenh committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare. Drug abuse control amendments —— ;97Q. Hearings, 91st Congress, 2d session on H.R. 11701 and H.R. 13743. ’Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970. 2 parts. 7857 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on ways and Means. Controlled dangerous substances, narcotics and drug control laws. afiearings, 91st Congress, 2d session. Wasnington, U.s. Govt. Print. of:-,p197o. 535 p.p “ 7" ‘ 1 jU.S.. Congress. House. Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse .»and control. Bail reform and narcotics cases. Hearing, 97th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt Print. 0ff.,.l98l. .117 p. 1 A A ___-- Decriminalization of marinuana. Hearings,'95tn , 1 . Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 634 p. ' ----- Federal drug strategy; prospects for the 1980's. ..Hearing,g96th Congress, zd session. nWash$n9ton,¢U.S. Govt. Print. off.. 1980. 154 p. ' ----- Impact of Federal budget cuts on local narcotics lawt enforcement. Hearing, 97th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 99 p. -—--- Health conseguences of marihuana abuse: recent findings. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Washington U.s. Govt.pp Print-'Qif..-l979s, l56 P? --——-‘HeaAth-impiications of paraquat}contaminated_marinuana.e Hearing, 96th Congress, lst session. June 28, 1979iw.- Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 104 p. ----- Sentencing practices and alternatives in narcotics Cafififim; Hearing, 97th Gongress,_1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 108 p. fee-eninerapeuticuses.p£_narihuana and Schedule 1 drugs. ug§aring.i 96th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 0ff., CRS-13 IB77ll9 UPDATE-06/15/82 1980. 351 p. U.s. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice. %Health consequences of marihuana use. Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d session. «Washington, U.s. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 477 p. ’ U.s.‘ Congress- Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency- iMarihuana decriminalization- Hearing, 94th Congress, lst session...on S. 1450. Washington. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 3 parts. 2941 p. Congress., Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. ‘Subcommittee ’ to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. Narcotics legislation. .Hearings...9lst Congress, lst session...on S. 1895, REPORIS Govt. Print. Off., 1959. ll82 p. « AND CONGRESSIONAL Docunsnmsi .oHouse. committee on Interstate and Foreign» congress. h V pp ‘ icomprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Commerce. V. Act of 1970; report.-.to accompany H.R. l8583. Jwashington, .S. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970. :(9lst Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 91-1444) 2‘parts.o V -‘ Congress. House. icommittee on the Judiciary. gcriminal Code Revision Act of 1980. .Report...to accompany H.R. 6915. Washington, U.s- Govt._Print. Off., 1980.7 758 p.r (96th Congress, 2d session.. House. Report no..96-1396) ’ " congress. House. Selectlcommittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control- Considerations for and against the reduction of Federal penalties for possession of small amounts of marihuana and personal use. Report... Washington. U.s. Govt. Print. off., 1977. 40 p, - . fgH‘. V ‘ At head of title: (95th congress, lst session. ifiouse. Committee print) A 1 7 9 Health consequences of marihuana use: recent findings and the therapeutic uses of marinuana and the use of heroin to reduce 1 pain. .A report... Washington, U.s. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. ‘ 132 p. . > A ‘V _ p R. ‘, m At head of title:p (96th Congress, 2d session. House. Committee print) A A " A .The use of paraquat to eradicate illicit marihuana crops and the health implications of paraquat-contaminated marihuana.on the U.s. market. %A report... ‘Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 99 p. At head of titlezf (96th Congress, 2d session., House. Committee print) 1 A A Congress. Senate. Committee on the Juéiciary. Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969; report...to accompany M3245. .Washington, U.s. Govt. Print. 0ff., l969.g 165 p. (9lst Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 91-613). '3 01/28/82‘ 01/21/82 12/16/81 12/o1/s1 -- -V- 58/19/81 -- h “"i ‘on Violeht Crime was released.“ 06/19/81%-6 *’ of_tné Drug Enforcement Hdministratiofi._*’ G5/15/SI f-' -—--v Criminal Code Reform Act of 1979; * s;f17§§:3 Off.}iI980; "l507"§§ij(9§th*Congress, lstlsession;~ Senate. a‘ i"‘ 9 ‘ ~ p Criminal Code Reform Act of 1980; _ _ is, 1530; eWashington,’U;S; Govt; Print. Off.;'l982.“ 1569 p. e(97th Congress, lst session. ‘Senate; Reportno.l97—307)i CRS4l4 IB77ll9 UPDATE-O6/l5/82 . W e E T i _ report ‘:0 accompany ” gov. 15, 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print;*f Report*no§’95=55sY“‘* report to accompany lPre$ioent_Reagan anhounced the establishmentof a special task force to combat iiiitit drug trarrioii in South fiorida. *Composéd of official fromi n’ ~ a number of Federal agencies, who will work with State and local authorities, the task force is headed by Vice President Bush, The Attorney_General announced that the FBI had been given egconcurient jurisdiction fiith the=Drug*Enforctment%Agency 7(DEn)*over the investigation of violations of“Federal dangerous drug laws;7 The DEA Adninistrator will report to the Attorney General through the FBI Director;_5 The House agreed toga conference report on the International security Assistance and nevéiopment ‘Act of I99lIn The senate agreed to the report‘ Dec. I5} l98§;‘ Among thefbillis provisions was one that had the effect of“eliminating the~ham~ on the use of foreign assistance funds for the i sé§%x§Es’otfmarihuana crops with the herbicide“ gjpara§uat.= Approvedflneo; 29, l98l (P.L. 97—1i3). The Presidentsigned P.L. 97*86,which contains a provision authorizing certain kinds_of cooperation by tne”Ermed services with civilian law ' 39 enforcement authorities for specific purposes, including drug law enforcement. T 5 The final report of the Attorney Generél‘s Task Force “ n The report emphasizes the seriousness of illicit drug traffic and the importance of a clear and consistent enforcement p policy. Recommendations included support for the use gof herbicides for drug crop eradication, support for the use of militaryVresources for drug intérdictiongt and calls for changes in law and practice with respect to bail, sentencing, andfeficlusion of evidence.~ Tne‘Jus€icé Department announced that_thé‘FBI‘s _ chief investigator of organized crime, Francis M. (Bud) Mullen, Jr., would be named acting administrator > _DEA Administrator Peter B. sensinger oonfirnee that he would leave office July 10 at the request of the 09/26/80 09/00/80 08/04/79 006/05/79 08/01/78. 07/25/78 08/02/77 07/29/77 03/00/72 ;«use by cancer patients.a tbe regarded.as an experimental drug, sintended to make it more accessible to the doctors of CRS-15 1377119 UPDATE-O6/15/82 Administration. eInfant,Formula Act of 1980 was enacted, containing a provision to increase the penalty for trafficking in large quantities of marihuana. pTne,Eo0d and Drug Administration approved wider distribution of an active ingredient in marihuana for Although THC would continue to the FDA move was “Hsucnvpatients,¢undergthewsupervision.oftthefNationals-~”W Cancer Institute.p HEW Secretary Joseph Califano announced a Government finding that smoking marihuana contaminated with the herbicide paraquat can cause serious, sometimes irreversible, lung damage. The finding emerged from a study mandated by legislation enacted in 1978, which forbids foreign assistance for marihuana eradication involving use of paraquat unless an §identifying agent is also used. “ The Departmentsof HEW recommended against transferring i0marihuana,from Schedule I_to Schedule II under thea auto $100 Cfirstxtime), W _ u"decriminalization"‘law enacted by States since ControllednsubstancesaAct. House adOPteQ a floor amendment to H.R. l25l4, FY79 international security assistance authorizations, to bar the use of funds to_eradicate marihuana V through»the_use of paraquat unless the herbicide~ is.usedpwithaanother;substancenthatawillfiwarnp potential users of the paraquat's_presence.a The bill was;later.enacted as_P.L-i95+3B4.if ysenate adopted a floor amendment to S9 3075, a bill authorizing the international security assisténceprograms ifor FY79. to bar,the use of funds for spraying of marihuanai lwith herbicides “likely to cause serious harm?to the health" of users. A Presidential message to congress (H.Doc.795-200); on the general issue of drug abuse, announced White House,support for Federal "decriminalization" of possession of small amounts of marihuana. Governor Hugh Carey of New York signed into law a bill to make possession of up to 25 grams oft a marihuana a civil offense subject toia fine of upd the tenth soécalled * Nebraska made a similar move in 1978, The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse released its report on marihuanar tecommending "decriminalization" of possession of smalli amounts for private use. CRS-16 IB77l19 UPDATE—06/15/82 02/07/72 -- President signed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-226), which contained a provision L establishing a program of assistance designed to encourage international narcotics control. 10/27/70 —- President Nixon signed into law the Controlled Substances Act, a complete revision of Federal laws regulating narcotics and other dangerous drugs, the provisions including elimination of mandatory penalties and reduction of all simple possession offenses to the misdemeanor level. Nonprofit ll4transfers of small amounts of marihuana for personal use were treated the same as possession offenses. The act also provided for the establishment of a national commission to study the problems of marihuana use and of drug abuse in general, requiring the report on marihuana to be submitted within one year. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES Bonnie, Richard J., and Charles H. Whitebread II. The marihuana conviction: a history of marihuana prohibition in the United States- Charlottesville, University press‘ of Virginia, 1974. 368 p. (HV5822.M3B65) A [Final report 291 p. The facts about drug abuse. 1980. Drug Abuse Council. of the Council] New York, Free Press, Nahas, Gahriel G., and sir William D.M. Paton, eds. Satellite Symposium on Marihuana, 2d, Reims, 1978. Marihuana » biological effects. Analyses, metabolism, cellular responses, reproduction and brain. Proceedings of the satellite Symposium of the 7th International Congress of Pharmacology, Paris, 22-23 July, 1978. oxford, Pergamon Press, 1979. National Governors‘ Conference. Marijuana: a study of State policies and penalties. Washington, NGC Center for Policy Research and Analysis, March 1977. 3 vols. (HV5822.M3P35 1977) Marijuana and health. 188 p. National Institute of Medicine. Washington, National Academy Press, 1982. Marihuana and Washington, U.S. (Hv5822.M3U53) U.S. Dept. Of Health, Education, and Welfare. health;...annual report t0 Congress.... Govt. Print. 0ff., annually since 1971. Congress. House. Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Considerations for and against the reduction of Federal penalties for possession of small amounts of marihuana for personal use. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 40 p. (LRS77-6431) At head of title: 95th Congress, 1st session. Committee print. House. U.S. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. CRS-17 IB77ll9 UPDATE-O6/15/82 Marinuana: a signal of misunderstanding. First report of the Commission; Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., March 1972. ‘l84 p. (Appendices in 2 v.; 1252 p.) (HV5822.M3U49) . See also CRS report 72-129 ED, containing excerpts and a summary of the Commission's findings and recommendations. LIBRARY 0:: WASHUNGTON UNIVERSSTY ST. LOUSS — MO. MU Libraries University of Missouri——Columbia Digitization Information for Congressional Research Service Digitization Project Local identifier CRSIB Source information Format Content type Notes Capture information Date captured Scanner manufacturer Scanner model Scanning system software Optical resolution Color settings File types Derivatives — Access copy Compression Editing software Resolution Color File types Notes Book Text Cover has cut—out to show title on title Page Stamped with property stamp for Washington University including deaccession stamp Some have labels on front page Some have black out markings on front page SuDoc numbers handwritten on front page Some items have very light print Some front pages have colored backgrounds Items not added to University of Missouri collection 20l7 April Ricoh MP C4503 600 dpi grayscale tiff Group 4 600 dpi bitonal tiff