Drugs and Society- Exam #1

costs associated with drug use

We pay a heavy price, amounting to expenditures of hundreds of billions of dollars, for the treatment of drug abusers and individuals with drug-related diseases, as well as a criminal justice system that is expected to implement drug-control policies at federal, state, and local levels. Beyond these expenditures, however, we are aware all too well of the —- of drug abuse that cannot be calculated in monetary terms: the consequences of drug-related crime, the deterioration of communities where drug-related crimes occur, and, in a larger sense, the decline in our collective sense of social order, the diminishment of personal dignity and self-worth, and finally the devastation in personal relationships among our families and individuals around us.

the difference between drug misuse and drug abuse

drug misuse and drug abuse

-typically applies to cases in which a drug is used with an instrumental goal in mind but in an inappropriate manner. For example, drug doses may be increased beyond the level recommended for its use in the mistaken idea that if a little is good, more is even better. Or doses may be decreased from the level recommended for its use with the intention of saving money by making the drug supply last longer. Prescription drugs may be continued longer than they were intended to be used or combined with some other drug. In the case of alcoholic misuse, the social or celebratory occasions of alcohol drinking may develop into a state of intoxication that can lead to inappropriate behaviors that are harmful to the drinker or to others.

— of prescription or nonprescription drugs can be dangerous and potentially lethal, particularly when alcohol is combined with medications that depress the nervous system. Drugs that have this particular feature include antihistamines, antianxiety medications, and sleeping medications. Even if alcohol is not involved, however, drugcombinations still represent serious health risks, particularly for the elderly, who often take a large number of separate medications. This population is especially vulnerable to the hazards of drug —-.

drug misuse and drug abuse

In contrast, —- is typically applied to cases in which a licit or illicit drug is used in ways that produce some form of physical, mental, or social impairment. The primary motivation for individuals involved in drug abuse is recreational. Drugs with abuse potential include not only the common street drugs but also legally available psychoactive substances, such as caffeine and nicotine (stimulants), alcohol, sedatives, and inhaled solvents (depressants), and a number of prescription or OTC medications designated for medical purposes but used by some individuals exclusively on a recreational basis. In Chapter 9, we will examine significant concerns about the abuse of prescription pain medications, such as Vicodin, Percocet, and OxyContin.

drug misuse and drug abuse- powerpoint

• drug taking behavior that results in some physical, mental impairment

physical and psychological dependence

Drug —— refers to cases in which the individual has intense experiences in connection with drug use, such as feelings of drug craving, drug tolerance, and/or feelings of withdrawal when drug use has stopped.

physical and psychological dependence

The term — is typically applied to conditions that extend beyond the consequences of drug abuse. There are more intense experiences on the part of the individual, such as feelings of intense craving for the drug and preoccupation in obtaining it as well as tendencies to increase the amount of the drug (referred to as drug tolerance) and display withdrawal symptoms when the drug use has stopped.

While it is important in many instances to make distinctions among misuse, abuse, and dependence as problematic aspects of drug-taking behavior, there are occasions when no value judgment is made or implied as to the motivation of the individual involved or the consequences that may result. In those occasions, we will simply refer to drug-taking behavior as drug use.

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this -Powerpoint

• Beginnings of regulation were due to abuse of patent medicines and association of drug use and minority groups

• Patent meds (drugs sold through peddlers on the street) are not registered with the federal government and their formulas were kept secret

• Manufacturers did not have to list ingredients and a popular way of marketing these drugs was through traveling medicine shows

• President Teddy Roosevelt proposed a federal law that would regulate these patent medicines, as well as food and drinks

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this -Powerpoint

• 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act

• 1914 Harrison Act

• 1919 Prohibition

• 1937 Marijuana Tax Act

• 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

• 1956 Narcotics Control Act

• 1970 Controlled Substances Abuse Act

• 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act

• 1986 Anti-Abuse Drug Act 

• 2001 Patriot Act

• 2006 Patriot Act

• 2015 USA Freedom Act

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this -1906 Pure Food and Drug Act

Responding to public outcry for regulatory reform, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed a federal law that would regulate misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks, and drugs. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 became the first drug regulatory law in American history, establishing the requirement that all packaged foods and drugs list the ingredients on the label of the produc

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

Between the late 1800s and early 1900s, hundreds of patent medicines were sold that included such ingredients as alcohol, opium, morphine, cocaine, and marijuana. The term “patent medicine” for products of this kind can be misleading. Generally, one thinks of a patented product as being officially registered with the federal government, providing the producers with the exclusive right to sell that product. However, around the turn of the twentieth century, patent medicines were not registered with the federal government or any regulatory agency, and their formulas were usually kept secret. Manufacturers were not required to list the ingredients on the bottle label or the package in which they were sold. Patent medicines were advertised for mail-order purchase in newspapers and magazines or available through traveling medicine shows.

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this -1914 Harrison Act

The origins of the landmark Harrison Act of 1914 can be traced back to an issue of foreign trade and international diplomacy. While many Americans detested the Chinese and their habit of smoking opium, at the same time, the U.S. government wanted to open up commercial trade with China. China refused to purchase American goods, however, as a protest against the poor treatment of Chinese people in the United States. To establish some degree of goodwill with China and to improve its foreign trade position, the United States initiated a number of international conferences to address the issue of control measures over the worldwide production and distribution of narcotics, especially opium. Recognizing the enormous population of opium abusers within their own country, Chinese leaders were eager to participate in such conferences.

At an international conference held in The Hague in 1912, the United States was accused of maintaining a double standard in the negotiations. According to the Chinese delegation, the U.S. government was attempting to establish international agreements to regulate the drug trade while at the same time having no domestic policy over drug production and distribution within its own borders. Having recognized China’s criticism in this regard, Congress set out to establish its own regulatory drug-control policy. The Harrison Act, named after its sponsor, Representative Francis Burton Harrison of New York, was enacted in 1914. The full name of the legislation was the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act

The Harrison Act was designed to regulate drug abuse through government taxation and became the basis for narcotics regulation in the United States for more than a half century. The act required anyone importing, manufacturing, selling, or dispensing cocaine or opiate drugs to register with the Treasury Department, pay a special tax, and keep records of all transactions. Because the act was a revenue measure, enforcement was made the responsibility of the Department of the Treasury and the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.

Because it was specifically stated in the language of the Harrison Act, cocaine became included alongside opiates as target drugs for law-enforcement control, resulting in its being referred to as a narcotic as well. Although application of the term “narcotic” to cocaine was clearly incorrect (“narcotic” literally means “stupor-inducing,” and cocaine is anything but that), the association unfortunately stuck for many years. Later, several restricted drugs, including marijuana and the hallucinogen peyote, also were officially classified as narcotics without regard to their pharmacological characteristics. Today, many people still think of any illegal drug as a narcotic, and for many years, the bureau at the Treasury Department charged with drug enforcement responsibilities was the Bureau of Narcotics, and its agents were known on the street as “narks.”

Technically, the Harrison Act did not make opiates or cocaine illegal. Physicians, dentists, and veterinarians could prescribe these drugs “in the course of their professional practice only.” What this phrase meant was left to a good deal of interpretation. The Treasury Department viewed the maintenance of patients on these drugs, particularly opiates, as beyond medical intentions, and the Supreme Court upheld this interpretation in 1919. As a result, thousands of physicians in the United States found themselves in violation of federal law.

Eventually, physicians stopped issuing prescriptions for drugs now covered under the Harrison Act. A new class of criminal was created as a consequence, driving individuals to seek drugs through the black market. In what would become a continuing and unfortunate theme in the history of drug enforcement legislation, the Harrison Act failed to reduce drug-taking behavior. Instead, it created a new lucrative market for organized crime that continues to the present day.

1919 Prohibition -The Volstead Act of 1919,

The era in American history commonly known as —- began in December 1917, when Congress passed a resolution “prohibiting the manufacture, sale, transportation, or importation of intoxicating liquors,” the simple wording that would form the basis for the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It should be noted that it did not forbid purchase or use of alcohol, only in its production and distribution. The —-, authored by Representative Andrew Volstead of Minnesota, provided for the mechanism for federal enforcement by creating a Prohibition Bureau under control of the Treasury Department. By the end of the year, the necessary 36 states had ratified the amendment, and Prohibition officially took effect in January 1920.

Prohibition failed to produce an alcohol-free society and spurred numerous social problems. Many citizens, especially in the large cities, had little regard for the new law and continued to consume alcohol in nightclubs and bars known as speakeasies or “blind pigs.” Alcohol itself became dangerous to consume because dangerous adulterants such as kerosene could be found in the cheaper “brands” of liquor, producing paralysis, blindness, and even death.

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this 1937 Marijuana Tax Act

As with opium and cocaine, significant public concerns about marijuana did not surface until the drug became linked to a minority group—namely, migrant Mexican workers. During the 1920s, Mexican laborers immigrated to the United States to perform jobs that white workers refused to do, such as picking cotton, fruit, and vegetables on large farms in the Southwest. Some of the Mexican workers smoked marijuana as a drug of entertainment and relaxation. When the Depression struck the United States, many white workers would take just about any job they could get, and public opinion supported sending the Mexican workers home. Many white laborers in the Southwest began to band together and form organizations such as the “Key Men of America” and the “American Coalition,” whose goal was to “Keep America American.” Leaders of these organizations believed that marijuana and the problems with Mexican immigration were closely connected, and many southwestern police chiefs agreed. Newspaper stories began to circulate telling of how marijuana made users become sexually excited and violently insane

The first commissioner of the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), Harry J. Anslinger, saw the marijuana issue as a way to gain national attention and extend the power of FBN. Congressional committees heard testimony from Anslinger, relying on unsubstantiated tales of murder, insanity, and sexual promiscuity that were brought on by marijuana use. According to the FBN, marijuana was a “killer weed.” Movies produced and released in the 1930s, such as Reefer Madness (now a cult classic) and Marihuana: Weed with Roots in Hell, supported Anslinger’s propaganda campaign by depicting innocent young people committing terrible acts under the influence of marijuana. The result was the ——, which did not outlaw marijuana but required that a tax be collected on its manufacture and sale. Each time marijuana was sold, the seller had to pay a tax of as much as $100 per ounce for a transfer tax stamp. Failure to possess such a stamp was a federal offense, and not surprisingly, tax stamps were rarely issued. The — effectively made marijuana illegal, but the drug was not officially prohibited until the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

• 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

The new law did not prevent potentially harmful drugs from being sold, but it did require manufacturers to identify specific drugs that were contained in these patent medicines. Thus, cocaine, alcohol, heroin, and morphine could still be in patent preparations as long as they were listed as ingredients. It was not until President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 that drugs and cosmetic products not only were required to be accurately identified but manufacturers were required to demonstrate through research studies that their products were safe (when used as directed) prior to being marketed. The law also established the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the federal enforcement agency in charge of insuring the safety of commercial drugs. The Kefauver-Harris Amendment of 1962 extended the power of the FDA further by requiring evidence that commercial drugs were clinically effective as well as safe.

• 1956 Narcotics Control Act

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

During this period, a whole class of drugs and drug-taking behavior was outside the mainstream of American life. Furthermore, an atmosphere of fear and suspicion surrounded people who took such drugs. Commissioner Anslinger, who took on the evils of marijuana, accused the People’s Republic of China in the 1950s of selling opium and heroin to finance the expansion of communism. Drug abuse now became un-American, and Congress became convinced that penalties for illicit drug use were too lenient. Federal legislation in 1951 and 1956 increased the penalties of previously enacted marijuana and narcotics laws, lumping together marijuana and opiates under uniform penalties. A minimum sentence of two-year imprisonment was mandated for first-time offenders and up to 10-year imprisonment for repeat offenders; the sale of heroin to individuals under the age of 18 was made a capital offense. The basis of these laws was the belief that strict drug laws and an increase in drug-law enforcement would curb future drug demand.

1970 Controlled Substances Abuse Act

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

For President Richard Nixon, elected in 1968 on a platform of law and order, illicit drug use became a major political issue. He declared a “total war on drugs,” ordering his senior staff to make the reduction of drug abuse one of its top priorities. In 1970, the Nixon administration persuaded Congress to pass the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, popularly known as the “Controlled Substances Act” and abbreviated as the CSA. The act was passed to consolidate the large number of diverse and overlapping drug laws as well as the duplication of efforts by several different federal agencies. The act also established five schedules for the classification of drugs, based upon their approved medical uses, potential for abuse, and potential for producing dependence. Because of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the control of drugs was placed under federal jurisdiction regardless of state regulations, which made it one of the most important drug-control legislative acts in the nation’s history.

The 1970 act also shifted the administration of federal drug enforcement from the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice, creating the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA was given the control of all drug enforcement responsibilities, except those related to ports of entry and borders, which were given to the U.S. Customs Service (now renamed as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection). DEA agents were to conduct drug investigation, collect intelligence about general trends in drug trafficking and drug production, and coordinate efforts among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The DEA’s mission today remains both domestic and foreign. Agents are stationed in foreign countries, and although they do not possess arrest powers, they act as liaisons with foreign law enforcement agencies. Both the DEA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) share responsibility for enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and the director of the DEA reports to the director of the FBI, who in 1982 was given responsibility for supervising all drug-law enforcement efforts and policies

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act

With popular sentiment once again turned against drugs, Congress rewrote virtually all of the nation’s drug laws in record time. In 1984, Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which increased the penalties for violations of the Controlled Substances Act and expanded asset-forfeiture law, allowing both local and federal drug enforcement agencies to keep most of the money made from the sale of seized assets

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1986 Anti-Abuse Drug Act

1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act

During the 1980s, a wave of federal drug legislation, including the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 increased the penalties for the possession and trafficking of illicit drugs. As a result, the number of drug violators rose to record levels, and courts became backlogged with drug cases. The number of inmates in U.S. prisons and jails rose nearly 100 percent from 1985 to 1996.

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1986 Anti-Abuse Drug Act

which placed mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug convictions, eliminating a judge’s discretion in pronouncing a sentence. Different mandatory minimum sentences were to be given for possession of powder and crack cocaine, again demonstrating the linkage between racism and U.S. drug control policy. The new law imposed a prison sentence of 5 to 40 years for possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine or 5 grams of crack cocaine. This mandatory sentence could not be suspended, nor could the offender be paroled or placed on probation. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 also created a “kingpin” statute under which the heads of drug-trafficking organizations could receive mandatory life imprisonment if convicted of operating a continuing criminal enterprise.

• 2001 Patriot Act

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

• The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was enacted as a response to the September 11 attacks, increasing the ability for federal authorities to monitor communications related to possible terrorist activities, tighten money-laundering enforcement, and increase the protection of U.S. borders. These powers were directed toward other criminal acts, including drug trafficking.

• The reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act legislation, known as PATRIOT II, included a program to restrict access to over-the-counter cold medications that could be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

• Other regulations put into place include legislation targeting “raves,” distribution of controlled substances by pharmacies and doctors online, measures aimed at safe prescription medication disposal (particularly opioids), and regulation of the compounds used to make synthetic marijuana.

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

2006 Patriot Act

The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (often referred to as “PATRIOT II”) extended the original legislation, relaxing certain provisions that had been criticized as being restrictive of individual civil liberties, tightening other provisions regarding law enforcement powers, and closing some loopholes in the 2001 act with regard to terrorist financing.

how are crimes and drug use related

Powerpoint

• The International Association of Police Chiefs claim that if we can reduce the number of people who abuse drugs, there will likely be a reduction in the number of crimes in a community

Drugs and Crime linkage 

Powerpoint

1. Medical enslavement model - individuals become forced into a life of crime and drug abuse from social situations (physical disorders, poverty)

2. Predisposition model - drug abusers have already been involved in criminal activity prior to drug use; drug use is accepted and encouraged

3. Intensification model - drug use perpetuates a life of crime 

how are crimes and drug use related

1. Medical enslavement model

Powerpoint

1. individuals become forced into a life of crime and drug abuse from social situations (physical disorders, poverty)

how are crimes and drug use related

Predisposition model

Powerpoint

drug abusers have already been involved in criminal activity prior to drug use; drug use is accepted and encouraged

how are crimes and drug use related

Intensification model

Powerpoint

drug use perpetuates a life of crime

Causal Relationship between drugs and crime

Powerpoint

1. Drug use causes crime - the effects of a drug influences a person’s violent behaviors

   1. Psychoactive stimulants such as cocaine, meth, PCP can produce paranoia and violent behaviors

   2. Crack cocaine withdrawal has violence and erratic mood swings

   3. Alcohol is linked to many violent and criminal behaviors

   4. Economically compulsive crime is committed to get $$ for drugs

2. Crime causes drug use - persons predisposed to commit crimes also use drugs

   1. Drugs used as a self confidence booster to commit a crime or to celebrate afterwards

   2. Drugs are used as a coping mechanism to deal with deviant lifestyle

   3. Gangsters would use drugs to show off wealth and success

3. Drug use and crime share commonalities

   1. Overall deviant lifestyles

   2. Individuals with greater chance of abusing drugs usually has a number of socioeconomic disadvantages (low education, lower social class, broken family)

   3. Systemic violence present from activities of drug dealing

how are crimes and drug use related

Drug use causes crime

Powerpoint

1. the effects of a drug influences a person’s violent behaviors

   1. Psychoactive stimulants such as cocaine, meth, PCP can produce paranoia and violent behaviors

   2. Crack cocaine withdrawal has violence and erratic mood swings

   3. Alcohol is linked to many violent and criminal behaviors

   4. Economically compulsive crime is committed to get $$ for drugs

how are crimes and drug use related

Crime causes drug use

Powerpoint

1. - persons predisposed to commit crimes also use drugs

   1. Drugs used as a self confidence booster to commit a crime or to celebrate afterwards

   2. Drugs are used as a coping mechanism to deal with deviant lifestyle

   3. Gangsters would use drugs to show off wealth and success

how are crimes and drug use related

1. Drug use and crime share commonalities

Powerpoint

1. Overall deviant lifestyles

2. Individuals with greater chance of abusing drugs usually has a number of socioeconomic disadvantages (low education, lower social class, broken family)

3. Systemic violence present from activities of drug dealing

difference in federal and state drug laws

Federal laws group offenses by drug type, weight, and repeat offenses under guidelines like the U.S. Code on Prohibited Acts.

Simple Possession (First Offense): Up to 1 year in federal prison and a minimum fine of $1,000. 

Second offenses carry mandatory minimum terms of 15 days up to 2 years.

Trafficking (Large Quantities): Major amounts (e.g., 5+ kg of cocaine or 1+ kg of heroin) carry mandatory minimums of 10 years to life for a first offense. 

Death or serious bodily injury resulting from use raises the minimum to 20 years or life.

Trafficking (Smaller Quantities / Lesser Schedules): First-time offenses for smaller amounts carry lower statutory minimums, such as 5 years, with escalating fines up to millions of dollars.

difference in federal and state drug laws

Simple Possession: Most controlled substances carry up to 1 year in a house of correction or a $1,000 fine. 

First-time possession of certain classes or marijuana amounts may qualify for probation and conditional dismissal. Heroin possession carries up to 2 years for a first offense.

Distribution/Intent to Distribute: Class A (heroin, fentanyl) and Class B (cocaine, methamphetamine) distribution carry up to 10 years in state prison. 

Repeat offenses or aggravating factors (like school zones or involving minors) carry mandatory minimum prison sentences.

Trafficking: Specific weight thresholds (such as 18 grams or more for fentanyl/cocaine, or higher tiers for opioids) trigger strict mandatory minimum prison sentences ranging from 3.5 years to 20 years depending on the exact weight and substance.

difference in federal and state drug laws

offenses by drug type

offenses by drug type, weight, and repeat offenses under guidelines like the U.S. Code on Prohibited Acts.

difference in federal and state drug laws Simple Possession (First Offense)

Up to 1 year in federal prison and a minimum fine of $1,000

difference in federal and state drug laws

Second offenses

carry mandatory minimum terms of 15 days up to 2 years.

difference in federal and state drug laws

Trafficking (Large Quantities)

Death or serious bodily injury resulting from use raises the minimum to 20 years or life.

Major amounts (e.g., 5+ kg of cocaine or 1+ kg of heroin) carry mandatory minimums of 10 years to life for a first offense. 

difference in federal and state drug laws

Trafficking (Smaller Quantities / Lesser Schedules)

First-time offenses for smaller amounts carry lower statutory minimums, such as 5 years, with escalating fines up to millions of dollars.

difference in federal and state drug laws

Simple Possession

Most controlled substances carry up to 1 year in a house of correction or a $1,000 fine. 

First-time possession of certain classes or marijuana amounts may qualify for probation and conditional dismissal. Heroin possession carries up to 2 years for a first offense.

difference in federal and state drug laws

Distribution/Intent to Distribute:

Class A (heroin, fentanyl) and Class B (cocaine, methamphetamine) distribution carry up to 10 years in state prison. 

Repeat offenses or aggravating factors (like school zones or involving minors) carry mandatory minimum prison sentences.

difference in federal and state drug laws

Trafficking

Specific weight thresholds (such as 18 grams or more for fentanyl/cocaine, or higher tiers for opioids) trigger strict mandatory minimum prison sentences ranging from 3.5 years to 20 years depending on the exact weight and substance.

difference in federal and state drug laws

Federal penalties for drug trafficking

1970 Controlled Substances Abuse Act

Federal penalties for simple 

possession of a controlled substance

in any of the five schedules: first time

offenders, maximum of 1 year in prison

and $1,000-5,000 fine; second time

offenders face maximum of two years in 

prison and fines up to $10,000

difference in federal and state drug laws

Federal penalties for drug trafficking cont…

From Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, penalties increased in relation to drug charges:

• Penalties doubled for first time offense trafficking a Schedule I or II controlled substance if death or bodily injury results from the use of a substance

• Penalties for the sale of drugs by a person over the age of 21 to someone under the age of 18 are increased up to double than if it were a sale to an adult

• Penalties for the sale of drugs within 1,000 feet of a school are increased up to double

• Fines for companies or businesses involved in drug dealing are 2.5 times greater than for an individual and can include asset forfeiture

difference in federal and state drug laws

Pearson

Federal guidelines for drug-law violation penalties make the distinction between drug trafficking and simple possession of controlled substances. In addition, separate guidelines are made for drug trafficking of marijuana and controlled substances other than marijuana.

Federal drug trafficking penalties are most severe for controlled substances in Schedule I and Schedule II categories

For all schedules, the federal penalty for a first-time simple possession offense is a maximum of one-year imprisonment and a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000.

State penalties for drug trafficking and simple possession can vary greatly from federal penalties

U.S. states and local municipalities have regulatory authority for the sale and distribution of drug paraphernalia that is associated with illicit drug use.

difference in federal and state drug laws

Pearson

The current federal law with regard to drug trafficking is a result of statutes originating in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and subsequently revised in 1986, 1988, and 2010. As mentioned in Chapter 3, penalties for drug trafficking are most severe for Schedule I and II controlled substances (Table 5.1). Federal penalties for drug trafficking in marijuana, while officially a Schedule I controlled substance, are treated separately (Table 5.2). As a result of the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, a number of special circumstances are considered in decisions to increase the penalty that is imposed:

difference in federal and state drug laws

• Penalties are doubled for first-offense trafficking of Schedule I or II controlled substances if death or bodily injury results from the use of such substances.

• Penalties for the sale of drugs by a person over 21 years of age to someone under the age of 18 are increased to up to double those imposed for sale to an adult.

• Penalties for the sale of drugs within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school are increased to up to double those imposed when the sale is made elsewhere.

• Fines for companies or business associations are generally 2.5 times greater than for individuals. In either case, penalties include the forfeiture of cars, boats, or planes that have been used in the illegal conveyance of controlled substances

difference in federal and state drug laws

Federal Penalties for Simple Possession of Controlled Substances

Federal penalties for simple possession of a controlled substance in any of the five schedules are much simpler. First-time offenders for simple possession face a maximum of one-year imprisonment and a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000. Second-time offenders face a maximum of two years and a fine of up to $10,000

difference in federal and state drug laws

Felonies, Misdemeanors, and State Drug Laws

Since all federal penalties for drug trafficking, whatever the circumstances or the category of controlled substance, carry a minimum of one-year incarceration and fine (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2), the offenses are, by definition, considered felonies. Offenses that carry a penalty of up to one-year incarceration and fine or a fine alone are considered, by definition, misdemeanors.

Federal penalties set the standard for the punishment of drug-law offenses in the United States, but most drug-related offenses are prosecuted at the state level rather than the federal level, and state regulations for drug trafficking and simple possession can vary greatly. In the case of simple possession of a controlled substance, penalties depend on the drug involved and the statutes of the particular U.S. state where the violation has occurred. An offense might be a misdemeanor in one state and a felony in another. Detailed information regarding penalties for simple possession is available through state-specific Web sites. Obviously, from the standpoint of a drug-law offender, the degree of variation in drug-law statutes from state to state can have an enormous impact on his or her life.

difference in federal and state drug laws

Criminal Penalties for Drug-Law Offenses

Federal guidelines for drug-law violation penalties make the distinction between drug trafficking and simple possession of controlled substances. In addition, separate guidelines are made for drug trafficking of marijuana and controlled substances other than marijuana.

• Federal drug trafficking penalties are most severe for controlled substances in Schedule I and Schedule II categories.

• For all schedules, the federal penalty for a first-time simple possession offense is a maximum of one-year imprisonment and a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000.

• State penalties for drug trafficking and simple possession can vary greatly from federal penalties.

• U.S. states and local municipalities have regulatory authority for the sale and distribution of drug paraphernalia that is associated with illicit drug use.

law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Source control, Interdiction, Street level enforcement

1. Source control 

2. Interdiction 

3. Street level enforcement

law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Source control

Stopping drugs at their sources by limiting cultivation and production in foreign countries. The US offers aid to to other countries to stop production and help farmers develop new cash crops.

Three methods of source control:

• Crop eradication

• Monitoring precursor chemicals

• Certification

law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Interdiction

• Efforts to prevent illicit drugs from being transported across US borders - ships, planes, cars, drones, people, animals 

• Prevention of drugs into US via land, air, sea routes 

  • Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) 

  • US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

  • US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)

  • US Coast Guard

  • US Military

law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Street Level Law Enforcement

• Reverse sting - undercover agent poses as drug dealer

• Controlled buy - undercover informant buys an illicit drug

• Buy-bust - undercover agent buys and then immediate arrest

• Buy-walk - undercover agent buys and then arrest later

• Knock and talk - element of surprise 

• Consent search - results of being let into a dwelling

• Search warrant - evidence is found so probable cause for a search

• Raid - warrant and then intense search and seizure operation

• Stop and frisk - reasonable suspicion of a crime so a brief detention 

• Asset forfeiture - RICO Statute

law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Street Level Law Enforcement- Reverse sting

• undercover agent poses as drug dealer

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Street Level Law Enforcement -Controlled buy

undercover informant buys an illicit drug

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Street Level Law Enforcement -Buy-bust

•  undercover agent buys and then immediate arrest

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

-Buy-walk

undercover agent buys and then arrest later

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Knock and talk

element of surprise

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Consent search

results of being let into a dwelling

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Search warrant

• evidence is found so probable cause for a search

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Raid

•  warrant and then intense search and seizure operation

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Stop and frisk

• reasonable suspicion of a crime so a brief detention 

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Asset forfeiture

• RICO Statute

Drug Law Enforcement Activities

Interdiction 

Denying drug traffickers the use of air, land, and maritime routes into the United States in order to prevent illicit drugs from being smuggled across our borders is a strategy known as drug interdiction. It is a reasonable goal in law enforcement, but consider the following difficulties: The entirety of our international border with Mexico and Canada extends nearly 7,000 miles. Each day, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, more than 1 million passengers and pedestrians are processed via air, sea, or land travel. More than 282,000 individuals enter the United States in privately owned vehicles, and over 80,000 truck, rail, or sea containers must be processed. In 2017, nearly 8,000 pounds of drugs were seized by CBP.¹⁰

An additional challenge comes from drug traffickers themselves, who come up with increasingly bizarre ways to circumvent standard interdiction controls; customs officials must leave (literally) no stone unturned. A shipment of boa constrictors from Colombia, for example, was once confiscated with their intestines stuffed with condoms full of cocaine.¹¹ In 1994, federal agents at JFK International Airport in New York noticed an emaciated and ailing sheepdog on a flight from Bogota, Colombia. X-rays and surgery revealed that 5 pounds of cocaine in 10 rubber balloons had been surgically implanted in the dog’s abdomen. New York Police Department detectives later arrested a 22-year-old man from New Jersey when he came to claim the animal. The dog fortunately survived the surgery to remove the condoms and was taken to the Canine Enforcement Training Center in Virginia, where its handlers named it, appropriately enough, “Cokie.

With tightened security after September 11, 2001, the use of air cargo as a method of smuggling drugs into the United States led to an extreme alternative. Drug traffickers resorted to using women from Colombia and other Andean nations as well as other regions of the Caribbean as drug “mules.” The women would swallow as many as 50 condoms filled with cocaine or heroin and then board a flight on a commercial airline. They were given a topical anesthetic to deaden the throat before ingesting the condoms and then told to use laxatives to help them “retrieve” the condoms after reaching their destination. Unfortunately, these condoms would sometimes break and leak into the stomach, causing a drug overdose and death. Most of these “mules” were women who were desperate for money and entered the business willingly, but there were an increasing number of women who were forced into the drug trade. The traffickers were known to kidnap a woman’s children or other family members and threaten to kill the hostages unless the woman successfully smuggled drugs into the United States.

In recent years, changes in airport security have caused traffickers to scale back their smuggling of drugs through airports entirely and instead direct their drug shipments over land routes. Most of this smuggling occurs at the U.S.–Mexico border, where drug traffickers use various strategies ranging from concealed compartments in cars, minivans, and commercial trucks to clandestine underground tunnels

Drug Law Enforcement Activities

Source control

—- programs are aimed at limiting the cultivation and production of illicit drugs. There are four approaches in source control: (1) crop eradication, (2) control of refining agents for the processing of plant-based illicit drugs and precursor chemicals for the manufacture of illicit drugs, and (3) the U.S. certification process. In most cases, source control involves operations in foreign countries (such as the eradication of opium poppy fields in Afghanistan), but there are instances in which source control involves domestic locations as well. The dismantling of methamphetamine laboratories in a rural county of Missouri would be an example of source control within our own country

Drug Law Enforcement Activities

Street level enforcement

Drug Law Enforcement Activities

Source control

programs are aimed at limiting the cultivation and production of illicit drugs. There are four approaches in source control: (1) crop eradication, (2) control of refining agents for the processing of plant-based illicit drugs and precursor chemicals for the manufacture of illicit drugs, and (3) the U.S. certification process. In most cases, source control involves operations in foreign countries (such as the eradication of opium poppy fields in Afghanistan), but there are instances in which source control involves domestic locations as well. The dismantling of methamphetamine laboratories in a rural county of Missouri would be an example of source control within our own country

Drug Law Enforcement Activities

Source control

Crop eradication

s the strategy of reducing the availability of illicit drugs through the destruction of opium poppies, coca plants, and marijuana plants in their countries of origin, or the elimination of the means by which they are cultivated. Crops are eradicated by manual or mechanical removal of the plants themselves or by fumigation with herbicides (chemicals that kill plants) that are either sprayed or dropped from the air as pellets that melt into the soil when it rains. Eradication programs are driven by the premise that decreasing marijuana cultivation and opium and coca cultivation for the production of heroin and cocaine, respectively, makes these drugs more expensive and less available to drug users. Chapter 4 dealt with the question of whether a reduced availability of illicit drugs results in a significant decrease in drug use or drug-related crime.

There is a continuing controversy over the benefits of crop eradication as a component of U.S. drug policy. On the one hand, proponents have argued that crop control is cost-effective in reducing the supply of illicit drugs because the drugs (specifically heroin and cocaine) cannot enter the illicit drug market if the plants by which they are derived (opium poppies and coca) have not been cultivated and harvested. Ideally, there would be no further need for drug interdiction or domestic law enforcement. Another argument in favor of crop eradication is that it is easier to locate and destroy opium poppies and coca than it is to confront the supplies of illicit drugs later on, either in transit through drug-trafficking routes or at the street level where they are sold.

On the other hand, opponents have argued that it is highly questionable whether crop eradication can ever be successful in reducing the supply of illicit drugs. The available evidence has shown that, on a global level, there has rarely been more than a 10 percent decrease in the worldwide cultivation of any one type of illicit crop in any given year, despite massive crop eradication efforts. Even when there is a reduction in the cultivation of a particular crop, such as opium poppies or coca, in one part of the world, there is typically an increase in the cultivation in a neighboring country or another part of the world. This phenomenon is often likened to a continuing game of “whack-a-mole.”

In addition, opponents argue that crop eradication is not cost-effective in terms of work-hours that are required to do the job. Manual removal of coca plants, for example, involves more than 20 work-hours of effort in order to get rid of one hectare (about 2.5 acres) of coca. Aerial fumigation is obviously more cost-effective, but it is not permitted in some countries, and where it is permitted, there are adverse environmental effects. Herbicides have produced irreversible contamination of local water supplies, and the relocation of planting fields to previously uncultivated land has resulted in extensive deforestation and a reduction in valuable rain forest resources.³

While the debate continues, there has been no argument that in many impoverished regions of the world, crop eradication

Drug Law Enforcement Activities

Source control

Chemical Control

There are two opportunities to exert chemical control over the availability of illicit drugs. The first is the monitoring and control over refining agents and solvents that are required for the processing of plant-based materials such as coca and opium poppies into cocaine and heroin. For example, acetic anhydride is an essential chemical for converting opium into heroin (see Chapter 9), and control over this chemical has been central to efforts to reduce heroin production in Afghanistan. Similarly, potassium permanganate is an essential oxidizing agent for converting coca into cocaine (see Chapter 10).

The DEA maintains programs to regularly monitor and track large shipments of acetic anhydride and potassium permanganate entering the United States and provides assistance to other countries in their internal monitoring and control. But many nations lack the capacity to determine whether the import or export of chemicals is related to illicit drug production or else they fail to meet goals for reducing the availability of these chemicals because of internal political pressures. The problem has been complicated by the fact that acetic anhydride and potassium permanganate are often transshipped through third-party countries to disguise their purpose or destination. A further complication is the fact that there are legitimate environmental benefits in the use of acetic anhydride and potassium permanganate, such as in the disinfecting

Drug Law Enforcement Activities

Source control

U.S. Certification

The United States attempts to control the production of illicit drugs in foreign countries through a diplomatic program, referred to as certification. Enacted by Congress in 1986, certification is a process in which the U.S. government evaluates the cooperation of foreign countries in counterdrug efforts. Each year, the president is required to compile a list of countries that have been determined to be major illicit producing and/or drug transit countries (referred to as “drug majors”). Countries on this list are then divided into two categories: (1) those that are fully compliant with U.S. counterdrug efforts (“certified”) and (2) those not compliant with U.S. efforts (“decertified”). If a country is decertified, U.S. law requires that all foreign aid be withheld until the president determines whether the country should be certified. In addition, U.S. representatives to multinational banks such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are required to vote against any loans or grants to a decertified country.

Obviously, decertification can have significant adverse consequences for the economy as well as the political stability of a nation, but it is rare that decertification is fully implemented. Under the law, the president has the option of waiving the removal of foreign aid from a decertified nation if it is determined that continued assistance is vital to U.S. national interests. In 2017, the following 22 nations were identified as “drug majors”: Afghanistan,

law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Street level enforcement

law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Chemical Control, U.S. Certification, Street level enforcement

In general, “supply reduction” attempts to strike at the sources, availability and access to illicit drugs—going after the cultivation of plants that produce drugs, illegal producers and smugglers of drugs, and subsequent trafficking of these drugs. Drug-law enforcement programs are divided into three major areas: (1) source control, (2) drug interdiction, and (3) street-level enforcement.

here are three general areas of present-day drug-law enforcement: (1) source control, (2) drug interdiction, and (3) street-level enforcement.

law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Source Control

• Source control involves actions focusing on reducing the cultivation and production of illicit drugs. The four approaches to source control are crop eradication, control of agents used in the processing of illicit drugs, control of precursor chemicals for illicit drug manufacture, and the U.S. certification program.

• Crop eradication programs involve the destruction of opium poppies, coca plants, and marijuana plants in their countries of origin. Crops are eradicated both manually and with herbicides. Critics point out that these programs have been responsible for causing environmental damage and disrupting the local economy of many rural regions of the world.

• Agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regularly monitor and track large shipments of precursor chemicals to prevent them from reaching the producers of illicit drugs, as well as specific refining agents used to convert coca to cocaine and opium to heroin.

• “Certification” is a procedure by which the U.S. government evaluates the cooperation of foreign countries in counterdrug efforts.

law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Interdiction

• Interdiction programs are designed to prevent illicit drugs from being smuggled across the U.S. border by denying drug traffickers the use of air, land, and maritime routes. In recent years, a prime avenue for drug trafficking has occurred in the Southwest United States, along the border with Mexico. The primary agencies involved in drug interdiction include the DEA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. military. The DEA is the only federal agency that has drug-law enforcement as its only responsibility.

• Over the years, drug-law enforcement agents have developed “drug-courier profiles” to help in the identification of potential drug smugglers. Law enforcement authorities have been criticized for developing profiles based solely on race, a practice known as racial profiling.

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Street-Level Drug-Law Enforcement

• There are four basic types of undercover drug-law enforcement operations: (1) the reverse sting, (2) the controlled buy, (3) the buy-bust, and (4) the buy-walk. An important legal issue with respect to undercover operations is the possibility of entrapment. Law enforcement officers design their undercover operations in order to avoid this possibility.

• Examples of non-undercover strategies to address street-level drug crime include (1) the knock and talk, (2) the raid, (3) the crackdown, and (4) the drug diversion program. The first three interventions show just short-term effects on crime reduction; drug diversion programs, particularly those that involve a multiagency response, have demonstrated a longer term positive impact for participants.

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Street-Level Drug-Law Enforcement

As the third area of drug-law enforcement, street-level operations are the responsibility of federal agencies, state agencies, or local sheriffs’ and police departments. Increasingly, these different agencies are joining forces and working together to form multijurisdictional drug task forces. Most of these task forces are coalitions of five or more local and state agencies that work closely with federal law enforcement agencies. Multijurisdictional task forces allow agencies at different levels of government to share funds, personnel, and intelligence and allow drug agents to track drug traffickers across many different jurisdictions. At the local level, a majority of local police departments and more than 70 percent of sheriffs’ offices serving 25,000 or more residents have officers assigned to a multiagency drug task force.

Three major strategies for disrupting street-level drug markets can be employed.

• The first strategy involves the police policy only. One specific police-only approach is “hot-spots policing,” where operations such as crackdowns and raids, as well as undercover operations and intensive patrolling are conducted within a geographically small, drug-ridden area.

• The second strategy goes beyond the police to the community-at-large. The advantage of community-wide approaches is that they can be focused less on a particular geographic area, and more on all levels of the community through the use of community-improvement partnerships. Examples include knock-and-talks (discussed later), foot and bike patrols, and arrest diversion.

• The third strategy involves geographically focused approaches that include multiple communities and constituencies such as nonpolice entities. Studies on street-level drug law enforcement strategies have underscored the importance of community involvement in accomplishing a reduction in street-level drug trafficking.²⁵

In the next sections, specific law enforcement operations conducted to disrupt street-level drug markets (undercover and non-undercover) will be examined.

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

(1) the reverse sting, (2) the controlled buy, (3) the buy-bust, and (4) the buy-walk.

The reverse sting

a drug-law enforcement operation in which undercover agents pose as drug dealers and sell a controlled substance or imitation version of a controlled substance to buyers. Community policing programs have made reverse stings popular because such operations can be used as a method of “cleaning up” a neighborhood. The reverse sting operation also makes money for law enforcement because asset forfeiture laws allow agencies to keep at least part of the proceeds made in these operations. The logistical planning of a reverse sting operation is described in Drug Enforcement ... in Focus.

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

(1) the reverse sting, (2) the controlled buy, (3) the buy-bust, and (4) the buy-walk.

operation, an undercover informant buys the drug under the supervision of the police. The informant may be a paid informant or a person who has been convinced by agents to “roll over” on other traffickers because they themselves have been charged with the possession or trafficking of an illicit drug. In the latter case, criminal charges against the informant may be either reduced or dropped for their participation in the operation. After agents have gained confidence in the informant, the informant is allowed to set up a controlled buy. Before the informant enters the dwelling in which the buy is to take place, he or she is usually searched to insure that there are no drugs on his or her person before conducting the buy. After the buy has been made, the informant is again searched and asked to turn over the drugs bought in the transaction. To protect the identity of the informant, arrests are usually not made at the time of the buy. Warrants are obtained and later executed within 10 days.

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

(1) the reverse sting, (2) the controlled buy, (3) the buy-bust, and (4) the buy-walk.

operation, an undercover agent makes a buy, and immediately thereafter, the seller is arrested for the drug sale. During a buy-bust, an undercover agent sets up a drug deal for a specified time and location. A cover team monitors the transaction via surveillance equipment, which is either hidden on the agent or in the room. After a “bust signal” is given by the undercover agent, a cover team rapidly moves in to make the arrest. Generally, the undercover agent is also “arrested” to protect his or her identity.

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

(1) the reverse sting, (2) the controlled buy, (3) the buy-bust, and (4) the buy-walk.

operation, an undercover agent buys drugs but does not arrest the dealer at the time of the deal. The drug deal is used to obtain a warrant for the dealer that is served at a later time. The advantage of this operation is that it protects the identity of the undercover agent while at the same time ensuring his or her immediate safety during the time of the operation. Buy-walk operations are often used when a drug deal takes place at the residence of a drug dealer and officer safety is a concern.

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Non-Undercover Police Operations

Undercover operations are not the only way to combat drug crimes, just a few examples of non-undercover operations include (1) the knock and talk, (2) the raid, and (3) the crackdown. Also important are some of the more recent diversion strategies being used by law enforcement, including drug diversion programs.

is an operation that is used when officials receive information that an individual is dealing drugs but do not have probable cause to seek a search warrant. In this case, agents arrive at a suspect’s residence, knock on the door, identify themselves as police officers, and ask permission to enter the residence. Once inside, agents ask the suspect if anyone in the residence is producing or dealing drugs. After the suspect responds to the allegations, agents ask for permission to search the residence for illicit drugs.

The element of surprise obviously is an important factor in the success of the knock and talk. If there has been no prior warning, suspects do not expect law enforcement officers to knock on their door and confront them with an allegation. To “confuse” suspects, agents often make misleading allegations. To find evidence against a marijuana dealer, agents may state that they believe the suspect is producing methamphetamine at his residence. Knowing that such charges are ridiculous, even though they are dealing in marijuana, suspects usually allow a consent search. Agents state that approximately 75–85 percent of drug dealers waive their constitutional right to privacy and consent to a search. When later asked why they consent to such a search, dealers often state, “I thought I would have been in worse trouble if I didn’t let you search” or “I didn’t know I had the right to refuse.” Once evidence of illicit drug trafficking is found, agents typically make an arrest

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Non-Undercover Police Operations

Undercover operations are not the only way to combat drug crimes, just a few examples of non-undercover operations include (1) the knock and talk, (2) the raid, and (3) the crackdown. Also important are some of the more recent diversion strategies being used by law enforcement, including drug diversion programs.

• is an unexpected visit by police that uses the element of surprise to arrest drug offenders. This operation tends to target drug use and low-level drug dealing at both private residences and commercial establishments (like clubs). Targets for raids are often identified via multiple citizen complaints or calls for service related to criminal or disruptive behavior around a specific dwelling. Multiple officers or agents participate in the raid in order to make multiple arrests, and the outcome is often publicized so as to deter other drug offenders.Unlike the knock and talk, a raid is a search and seizure operation requiring a search warrant.

• The limited evaluations that have been conducted on the effectiveness of raids on suspected drug-using establishments show short-term effects on drug crimes and related criminal behavior, but these effects dissipate, particularly in high crime areas

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Non-Undercover Police Operations

Undercover operations are not the only way to combat drug crimes, just a few examples of non-undercover operations include (1) the knock and talk, (2) the raid, and (3) the crackdown. Also important are some of the more recent diversion strategies being used by law enforcement, including drug diversion programs.

• is an operation where law enforcement abruptly escalates activity and presence in drug hot-spot areas. Police operations during a crackdown often involve a number of uniformed officers and undercover agents. They are highly visible to increase the actual and/or perceived threat of arrest. Crackdowns tend to target both drug use and dealing of harder drugs like crack cocaine and heroin, as well as drug-related offenses such as property or violent crimes. This operation uses a deterrent approach with the goal of disrupting the street-level drug market activities.

  
  

• Studies conducted on the effectiveness of crackdowns at decreasing criminal activity show, like raids, that there is a short-term impact on drug and related criminal behavior. However, displacement of the criminal behavior, where the crime simply moves to another location or stops temporarily, and then resumes once the crackdown is over, is often an issue. Despite this possibility, positive long-term results can still be realized if a specific crackdown is followed up with “seeding programs” to help prevent the drug market from resuming.³² The term “seeding programs” comes from a community-based U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) “Weed and Seed” initiative, which was a multiagency approach whereby law enforcement would “weed” out drug, violent and gang activity in high crime areas, and community organizations would infuse the community with prevention, treatment and human service programs

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Asset forfeiture

refers to the seizure by the government of cash, cars, homes, and other property that the government claims are the result of criminal activity, based on a concept of law that can be traced to biblical and pre-Judeo-Christian times. Early English law, for example, recognized a kind of forfeiture, known as “deodand,” which required forfeiture of the instrument of a person’s death. The instrument causing death was considered “guilty property,” either by being capable of doing further harm in general or used specifically on the perpetrator in retribution by the deceased’s family. During the Civil War, the Confiscation Act of 1862 authorized forfeiture procedures against southern rebels and their sympathizers who possessed property in the North. The seized property could then be used for supporting the Union cause in waging the war.Modern-day authorization for this strategy in law enforcement was created as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. A section of this legislation, known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute (or simply, RICO), pertained to the prevention of criminal infiltration of legitimate businesses. It was a response to the practice of criminal organizations to funnel profits gained from criminal activity, whether drug related or not, into financial dealings of an unrelated commercial enterprise. For decades, the RICO statute has formed the basis for the prosecution of cases in which criminal organizations have made efforts to circumvent detection by law enforcement.

The 1970 Controlled Substances Act provided, in part, for the forfeiture of property used in connection with controlled substances. In 1978, the law was expanded to allow federal authorities to include all profits from drug trafficking and all assets purchased with drug profits as items subject to forfeiture. The scope of the statute was further amended in 1984 with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act to include all property that was used, or intended to be used, in a drug offense, from simple possession to mass distribution. Many states have passed legislation authorizing their own asset forfeiture procedures when dealing with the violation of state drug laws. Forfeiture is particularly useful in drug-law enforcement because it reduces the financial incentive to reap the often-enormous

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Street-Level Drug-Law Enforcement

• There are four basic types of undercover drug-law enforcement operations: (1) the reverse sting, (2) the controlled buy, (3) the buy-bust, and (4) the buy-walk. An important legal issue with respect to undercover operations is the possibility of entrapment. Law enforcement officers design their undercover operations in order to avoid this possibility.

• Examples of non-undercover strategies to address street-level drug crime include (1) the knock and talk, (2) the raid, (3) the crackdown, and (4) the drug diversion program. The first three interventions show just short-term effects on crime reduction; drug diversion programs, particularly those that involve a multiagency response, have demonstrated a longer term positive impact for participants.

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

Asset Forfeiture and the RICO Statute

• Asset forfeiture is the process by which the government seizes cash, cars, homes, and other property that it claims has been involved in or associated with criminal activity.

• Criminal forfeitures result after a conviction for a crime to which the forfeited property is related. Civil forfeitures are based upon the unlawful use of property, irrespective of its owner’s culpability. With civil forfeiture, the offender does not need to be convicted or even charged with a crime, since the contention is that the property “itself” is guilty. This make civil forfeiture a more controversial practice.

• Authority for asset forfeiture in law enforcement was created as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. A section of this legislation, known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute, pertained to the prevention of criminal infiltration of legitimate businesses.

• Equitable Sharing is a federal program that allows state and local law enforcement to adopt seized property, so that civil asset forfeitures fall under federal rather than state laws and regulations. This is a controversial program as law enforcement agencies often use Equitable Sharing to circumvent state laws in order to maximize proceeds from the seizures.

• A number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s confirmed the legitimacy of asset forfeiture as a tool in drug-

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

costs associated with drug use

-Costs -Mental Health -Can cause violence. -Trust. -Safety. -Integrity. -Finical -Lot pf money-Physical Harm. -Stigma. -Time. -Life expense. -Children -Drug misuse with prescription drugs. -Limits opportunities.

-Families-Enabling. -Neglect. -Incarceration. -Normalized. -Generational. -Biology. -Betrayal.

-Addiction happens in every community but might have the funds for it, more in own home etc.

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

the difference between drug misuse and drug abuse

-Drug abuse vs. misuse. -Drug Misuse- Not taking something as instructed. -Overdose. -Over the counter. -Other substances or drugs. -Too much for the body to handle. -So overwhelmed or confused. -Taking more than you need.

Law enforcement activities to stop drug trafficking

the difference between drug misuse and drug abuse

-Drug abuse- Physical or mental harm. -Patterns of behavior of drug abuse.

-Drug abuse-want to feel better. Coping mechanism

the difference between drug misuse and drug abuse

-Drug abuse vs. misuse. -Drug Misuse- Not taking something as instructed. -Overdose. -Over the counter. -Other substances or drugs. -Too much for the body to handle. -So overwhelmed or confused. -Taking more than you need

physical and psychological dependence

-Drug Dependence -Feel we need this in our lives. Physical and psychological. -Craving for alcohol. -Different triggers. -Body reacts in an adverse way. -Body gets used to it. -Start to feel sick. -Angry -Aggressive. -Sick. -Nicotine addicting. -Triggers cigarette odor. -Senses are powerful.

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

End of 19^th century more modern drugs. -Doctors, surgens, Created from the natural components, Morphine. Opeium durative. -Pain relief. -Depressient type of drug. -Did not have other drugs to go off on. -Civil War- Emergency surgery. -Morphine would drink it. -Invention of a sirieng was huge. -Trauma of being at war. -Coping mechanism. -Soliders disease. -Was not addressing addition. -Morphine- can lead to addiction quickly.

-Cocaine- Stiumlate- Coco leave- Numbing. -Rub cocaine past. -Numbing creams. -Chest on their lungs.

-Didn’t have license professionals. -Traveling shows. -Cocaine, heroine, morphine. -Could buy them but not any regulation.

-See the first regulations happening in the early 1900s. -Unsafe food practices. -Federal government. -No FDA-What’s a safe level of morphine.

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1906 Pure Food and Drug Act

Unsafe food practices. -Meat packing industry. -Shined light on why people were getting sick and food born illnesses. -What people were putting in their bodies including drugs. -Had to label our food. -What was in the drug? -Labeling food and drug. -Pure Food and Drug act. -Nothing wsa illegal

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1914 Harrison Act

People behaviors might change with drugs or alcohol-Crimes, immorally. -Tended to blame immigrant groups. -Chinese workers from china to help build the railroad. -Brought over opium. -Blamed the Chinese for Opium. -Blamed people of color Hispanics, even though we were using it here. -Taxation. -Taxing it although legal.

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1919 Prohibition

Lasted 12 years. -Regulation of alcohol, banning and sale.  -Relation to domestic violence. -Women drank more in the privacy of their own homes. -Relationship between alcohol and abuse

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1937 Marijuana Tax Act

Marijunia- Still a scheulde 1 drug. -Anti immigration attitude toward Marijunia. -Such a high tax almost became impossible. -Really high tax. -Beginning and end of Marijunia. -Made it hard for people to get

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. -Testing drugs. -Everything was still legal. -Side effects, etc. -Treatments diseases. -Cosmetics. -World war 2-PTSD-Coping mechanisms. -Trauma stress.

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1956 Narcotics Control Act

Narcotics control act- Nactoics- Opiet based, can put you to sleep. -Labeling everything a narcotic. -Different laws in place. -Control the amounts of certain drugs.

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1970 Controlled Substances Abuse Act

Response to society. -Hampid drug use in society and addiction. -Everything became illegal. -Scheulde 1 through 5. -Highly addictive dangerous. -Marijunia- No No.  -Put to an end. -How the laws reflected it. -Started Drug trafficking and dealing.  

-Before 1970 everything was legal

-Opiate based drugs- Cocaine- now but big the 80s, drugs have downs and ups. -60s- Hippie movement, LSD. -See a uptick in halsigenic drugs now

beginning of drug regulation in the US and some of the acts that accomplished this

1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act

1986 Anti-Abuse Drug Act

Comprehensive Crime Control Act- Ronald Reagen presidency- Very much the war on drugs. -Wanted to put a stop on drugs. – Crimes- Cracking down on crime. -Simple possesion- Was being put in high sceitneces. -Drug deals- Distrubuting. -Lot of people putting in prison for like 20 years. -Anti drug sentiment. -Criminal justice system, -True addict to prison- Not the best place for addicts. -Ran out of prision space because of so many people put into drugs.

-80s-Cocaine- Very wealthy. -Crack cocaine- No snorting, like rock candy, and smoke it. Cheaper. -Related to black people, skewed.