Slaves of Drugs are Desperate. State and Federal Restrictions and Prohibition Have Forced Prices Out of Sight and a Saturnalia of Violent Crime is the Result, Police Say.
The online edition of the LA Times has a blog that reprints articles from years past. One that was posted yesterday dealt with the link between drugs and crime in 1919. The rhetoric is a bit florid but has the same tone of deprecation and moralistic outrage that we see today.
The year 1919 was a significant time in the evolution of substance abuse policy in the United States. This was the year in which the Volstead Act enacted the national prohibition of alcohol. It was also 5 years after the passage of the Harrison Act and in that year, ". . . two important Supreme Court decisions were made that had a large impact on addicts and the ways they were being treated by doctors. In March of that year, on the very same day, the Supreme Court decided: (1) that the Harrison Act was constitutional and (2) that doctors who maintained addicts were in violation of the Harrison Act. In the first case, the Supreme Court reversed an earlier District Court decision that dismissed an indictment against Dr. Charles Doremus. Doremus, of San Antonio, Texas, had been arrested in 1915 for providing a large supply (500 one-sixth gram tablets) of morphine to a known addict, a violation of the Harrison Act. When he appealed the arrest, the District Court decided that the Harrison Act as a revenue measure could not restrict the medical practice of Dr. Doremus. in other words, the way the law was used to prosecute Dr. Doremus was unconstitutional. The Federal government pursued the case to the Supreme Court, and in a five to four vote won a reversal of the decision of the District Court. They found Dr. Doremus in violation of the Harrison Act and thus affirmed the constitutionality of the act." [1]
Thus, the national response to addiction took one of its final steps in passing from the hands of physicians to law enforcement. It took 14 years for the country to determine that the prohibition of alcohol was not producing the intended results and the Volstead Act was repealed. One has to wonder why, 90 years out, we as a nation find it so difficult to have an organized, sustained and rational discussion about the purpose and outcomes of our drug control policies.
First Page -
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/files/1919_1130_drugs.jpg
Second Page -
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/files/1919_1130_drugs_ro.jpg
The pages may at first appear a bit small, but if you hit Control and the Plus key on the keypad, you can enlarge the text in your browser.
__________________________________________________________________
[1] Waldorf, Dan, et al. (1974). Preface and Introduction. Morphine Maintenance: The Shreveport Clinic 1919-1923. Washington, DC. Drug Abuse Council.
01 December 2009
14 November 2008
AOD Issues in the Legislative Special Session
The Special Session of the legislature is considering proposals to stave off financial disaster for California. Governor Schwarzenegger seems to have gotten some ideas from the Wilson administration playbook and put forward a couple of proposals with an impact on AOD services.
Alcohol Tax – Does anyone remember Prop 134, the “Nickel a Drink” initiative from 1990? Back in name only is an alcohol tax proposal that would fund substance abuse services. As with Prop 134, the alcohol industry will oppose any link between alcohol and substance abuse. The tax may pass but you won’t see any revenue labeled ‘Alcohol Excise Tax’ in the Department of Alcohol and Drug Program’s (ADP) budget.
Realignment – Described in a couple of paragraphs it seems to be sort of hybrid. In a typical realignment scenario, program responsibility and a dedicated revenue source are handed down to counties. Program revenues are separate from the state’s general fund and are thus disengaged from the annual budget process. Theoretically state control functions are much reduced as counties are given responsibility for program decisions. The current proposal refers only to revenue realignment, not program realignment. Evidently only the revenue stream from the alcohol tax will be ‘realigned’, and transferred directly to ADP. None of the program and administrative redesign and cost efficiencies that are typically part of realignment plans are in the mix.
In addition to the administration's proposal, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) also weighed in with a couple of proposals.
Minor Consent – Youth between the ages of 12 and 20 can access AOD treatment without parental consent. In such cases, treatment costs can be reimbursed through Minor Consent Medi-Cal. This is a 100% state-funded program. The LAO suggests that if the state were to comply with new federal eligibility requirements, it could draw down federal matching funds. Revenue increases are projected to be $1.5 million in FY 08-09 and $18.9 million in FY 09-10. We are looking into the specifics of the new federal eligibility requirements. Hopefully these do not constitute a barrier to access.
Asset Forfeiture Funds – Cash and other assets obtained through illegal means are subject to forfeiture. In California the proceeds of asset forfeiture related to drug crimes are allocated for law enforcement. The LAO recommends the redirection of asset forfeiture revenue to substance abuse programs. Starting in FY 09-10, $10 million would be available.
It's nice to see that AOD services are getting some positive treatment in the budget. However, the question is not so much about the fate of these specific proposals, but whether the legislature will do anything at all in the Special Session to address the budget problem.
Alcohol Tax – Does anyone remember Prop 134, the “Nickel a Drink” initiative from 1990? Back in name only is an alcohol tax proposal that would fund substance abuse services. As with Prop 134, the alcohol industry will oppose any link between alcohol and substance abuse. The tax may pass but you won’t see any revenue labeled ‘Alcohol Excise Tax’ in the Department of Alcohol and Drug Program’s (ADP) budget.
Realignment – Described in a couple of paragraphs it seems to be sort of hybrid. In a typical realignment scenario, program responsibility and a dedicated revenue source are handed down to counties. Program revenues are separate from the state’s general fund and are thus disengaged from the annual budget process. Theoretically state control functions are much reduced as counties are given responsibility for program decisions. The current proposal refers only to revenue realignment, not program realignment. Evidently only the revenue stream from the alcohol tax will be ‘realigned’, and transferred directly to ADP. None of the program and administrative redesign and cost efficiencies that are typically part of realignment plans are in the mix.
In addition to the administration's proposal, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) also weighed in with a couple of proposals.
Minor Consent – Youth between the ages of 12 and 20 can access AOD treatment without parental consent. In such cases, treatment costs can be reimbursed through Minor Consent Medi-Cal. This is a 100% state-funded program. The LAO suggests that if the state were to comply with new federal eligibility requirements, it could draw down federal matching funds. Revenue increases are projected to be $1.5 million in FY 08-09 and $18.9 million in FY 09-10. We are looking into the specifics of the new federal eligibility requirements. Hopefully these do not constitute a barrier to access.
Asset Forfeiture Funds – Cash and other assets obtained through illegal means are subject to forfeiture. In California the proceeds of asset forfeiture related to drug crimes are allocated for law enforcement. The LAO recommends the redirection of asset forfeiture revenue to substance abuse programs. Starting in FY 09-10, $10 million would be available.
It's nice to see that AOD services are getting some positive treatment in the budget. However, the question is not so much about the fate of these specific proposals, but whether the legislature will do anything at all in the Special Session to address the budget problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)