Skip navigation.
Home

United States

  1. (Alternatives to Prohibition-Focused Models in the United States) "Most Americans believe that their country’s forty-year 'war on drugs' has failed. Yet, instead of a serious national discussion of how to reform US drug control strategies, there remains a silent tolerance of ineffective, socially harmful laws, institutions, and policies. What is most needed now is a far-reaching debate on alternative approaches that could reduce the risks and damage from the trafficking and abuse of illegal drugs. That was also the conclusion of a highly-regarded report prepared by a distinguished group of Latin American presidents and other leaders. This Inter-American Dialogue report proposes six US government initiatives that would set the stage for a thorough rethinking of US drug policy."

    Source: 
    Hakim, Peter, "Rethinking US Drug Policy," Inter-American Dialogue (Washington, DC: The Beckley Foundation, February, 2010), back cover.
    http://www.thedialogue.org/uploads/Documents_and_PDFs/Documents_and_PDFs...

  2. United States - History

    (history - drug prohibition and legislation) "Fueled by Progressive Era faith in government supervised moral reform and growing prohibitionist sentiment, the movement reached critical mass in 1906, when the U.S., British, and Chinese governments came to a consensus on the need to control the opium traffic. This would culminate in international conferences in Shanghai (1909) and the Hague (1912), where the groundwork for international drug prohibition would be laid.

    The year 1906 also saw the passage of the first federal drug legislation, the Pure Food and Drugs Act. Essentially a truth-in-labeling law, the Pure Food and Drugs Act was the first federal law to mention cannabis indica, including it with alcohol, opiates, cocaine, and chloral hydrate on a list of intoxicating ingredients whose presence was required to be noted on the label."

    Source: 
    Geiringer, Dale, "Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California" originally published as "The Forgotten Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California," Contemporary Drug Problems, (Summer 1999 - substantially revised June 2006) Vol 26, #2, p. 15.
    http://www.canorml.org/background/caloriginsmjproh.pdf

  3. (history - declaration of "war on drugs") "In 1971, President Nixon officially declared a “war on drugs,” identifying illegal drug use as “public enemy number one.”18 Over the past forty years, the War on Drugs has caused momentous transformations in crime policy, magnifying racial disparities in incarceration19 and amplifying the prison population.20 With the Obama administration comes hope for scaling down the War on Drugs, though the collateral consequences remain for those who are presently incarcerated. The current director of the White House Office of Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske, has chastised the phrase “War on Drugs” as eliciting an inaccurate representation of the War on Drugs as a war on individuals.21 But for millions, this characterization is in fact an accurate depiction of the War on Drugs."

    Source: 
    Lenox, Marne L., "Neutralizing the Gendered Collateral Consequences of the War on Drugs," New York University School of Law (New York, NY: April 2011), pp. 283-284.
    http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals...
    ===
    PBS, "Thirty Years of America’s Drug War: A Chronology," (last visited June 17, 2011).
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron
    ===
    Gary Fields, "White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs,’" Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2009, at A3.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html

  4. (history - declaration of "war on drugs") “America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.” President Richard Nixon, June 17, 1971.

    "President Richard Nixon officially declared a war on drugs in a message to Congress on June 17, 1971."

    Source: 
    "Ending the Drug War: a Dream Deferred," Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (Medford, MA: June 2011), pp. 4 & 6.
    http://www.leap.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ending-the-Drug-War-A-Drea...

  5. (history - declaration of "war on drugs") "A myriad of high-profile but ultimately unsuccessful campaigns against drug abuse defined President Reagan’s strategy to combat the drug epidemic. Reagan officially launched the “War on Drugs” on June 24, 1982, with the creation of the White House Office of Drug Abuse Policy.110 First Lady Nancy Reagan joined the movement, announcing the “Just Say No” campaign in 1982.111 Another campaign entitled “Cocaine: The Big Lie” targeted individuals eighteen to thirty-five years old and sought to explain the dangers of cocaine abuse.112 By the end of Reagan’s first term, however, drug abuse had not declined in any appreciable sense.113"

    Source: 
    Beaver, Alyssa L., "Getting a Fix on Cocaine Sentencing Policy: Reforming the Sentencing Scheme of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986," Fordham Law Review (New York, NY: Fordham University School of Law, April 2010) Vol. 78, No. 5, p. 2544.
    http://fordhamlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/Vol_78/Beaver_April_2010.pdf

  6. (history - declaration of "war on drugs" by President George H.W. Bush) "There was a “War on Drugs” before this date [September 22, 1989]; however, it was not until a dramatic prime time speech by President George H.W. Bush (“President Bush”) that illegal drugs returned squarely to the forefront of political policy in the U.S.13 For dramatic effect, President Bush arranged a purchase of crack cocaine across the street from the White House in Lafayette Park.14 In seeking to dramatize the nation’s struggle with illegal drugs, President Bush wanted to show the proceeds of the purchase to a prime time audience in order to justify declaring war on drugs.15 His victim that night was Keith Timothy Jackson, an eighteen-year-old high school student and small time drug peddler, who famously did not even know where the White House was located when the undercover agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration sought to lure him downtown; Jackson thought Ronald Reagan was still President.16

    The modern version of the “War on Drugs” was declared that night by President Bush using the crack that was purchased from Jackson as a prop for his prime time address. President Bush described the illegal drug problem in the United States as “so important, so threatening, that it warranted talking to you, the American people.”17"

    Source: 
    Gilmore, Brian, "Again and Again We Suffer: the Poor and the Endurance of the 'War on Drugs,'" University of the District of Columbia Law Review (Washington, DC: The University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, 2011) Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 61-62.
    http://www.udclawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/UDC-DACSL-L.-Rev-...

  7. (history - history of drug war 'emergency') "The United States has sought to control the use and trade of drugs since the adoption of the Harrison Act in 1914,259 which confined the distribution of heroin and cocaine to physicians.263 Drug policy focused on public health issues until the 1920s when the Temperance movement, in conjunction with "attitudes of nationalism, nativism, fear of anarchy and of communism" shifted public perception to view drug abuse as a national security threat.261 This era saw the enactment of the Volstead Act, enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment's prohibition on alcohol,262 and the establishment of the Federal Narcotics Bureau.263 For the most part, however, the perception of drug abuse as a national security threat subsided until a brief revival in the McCarthy Era, culminating in the passage of the Narcotics Control Act of 1956.264 During the 1960s, drug use became more commonplace among affluent white Americans.265 The government's approach to the drug problem during this decade was one of "benign neglect."266 Congress responded to the increased drug use of white Americans with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970,267 which mitigated the criminality associated with drug use while simultaneously stiffening penalties for drug trafficking.268

    "... policy shifted in the 1970s from benign neglect to the zealous "War on Drugs."269 The first "drug war" was inaugurated by President Richard Nixon in 1973. Nixon's drug war, however, was a mere skirmish in comparison to the colossal efforts launched by the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Formally announced by President Ronald Reagan in 1982,271 the War on Drugs was marked by deep public concern, bordering on hysteria, toward the nation's drug problem. Under the leadership of President Reagan, the nation focused unprecedented energy and resources towards eliminating illicit drug use and trafficking.273"

    Editor's Note: The year 1973 is cited above because it is the year in which President Nixon established the Drug Enforcement Administration as a, ""super agency" to handle all aspects of the drug problem. The DEA consolidates agents from the BNDD, Customs, the CIA and ODALE."

    BNDD is the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs established in 1968 by President Lyndon Johnson.
    CIA is the Central Intelligence Agency
    ODALE is the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) created by President Nixon in 1971 to "establish joint federal/local task forces to fight the drug trade at the street level."

    Source: 
    Blanchard, Michael D., and Chin, Gabriel J., "Identifying the Enemy in the War on Drugs: A Critique of the Developing Rule Permitting Visual Identification of Indescript White Powder in Narcotics Prosecutions," The American University Law Review (Washington, DC: American University Washington College of Law, February 1998) Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 601-602.
    http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/47/blanchard.pdf?rd=1
    ===
    PBS, "Thirty Years of America’s Drug War: A Chronology," (last visited June 17, 2011).
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/

  8. (history - Rockefeller drug laws) "The Rockefeller drug laws are the first of the more notable laws passed to address the growing problem of drug abuse in the U.S. in the modern era.59 The laws, named for New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, were fairly simple: a conviction for a crime of possessing illegal drugs would result in a mandatory minimum sentence, with no flexibility.60 Felonies classified as A-1 felonies would result in a sentence of 15 years to life in prison.61 Other lesser felonies would result in lighter sentences, but the mandatory minimum sentencing was harsh in most cases.62"

    Source: 
    Gilmore, Brian, "Again and Again We Suffer: the Poor and the Endurance of the 'War on Drugs,'" University of the District of Columbia Law Review (Washington, DC: The University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, 2011) Volume 15, Number 1, p. 66.
    http://www.udclawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/UDC-DACSL-L.-Rev-...

  9. (history - domestic surveillance) "In 1968, the FBI instituted COINTELPRO–New Left in response to the growth of radical groups on college campuses and student opposition to the Vietnam War. The FBI tried to disrupt these types of groups and prevent them from disseminating their messages."

    "... the CIA’s Operation CHAOS amassed information on antiwar protesters during the 1960s."

    Source: 
    Jackson, Brian A., "The Challenge of Domestic Intelligence in a Free Society: A Multidisciplinary Look at the Creation of a U.S. Domestic Counterterrorism Intelligence Agency," RAND Corporation (Santa Moncia, CA: 2009), p. 36 and pp. 46-47.
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG804.pdf

  10. (history - use of paraquat to eradicate marijuana) "In the 1970s, Mexican cannabis plantations were sprayed with the herbicide paraquat. Inhalation of toxic amounts of this material could lead to severe lung damage, and some instances of acute toxicity have occurred.[69] Up to 2mg paraquat per gram was detected on seized marijuana samples in the USA.[70] Ironically, the ensuing panic among recreational cannabis users in the US, popularly dubbed "paraquat fever", was a stimulus to the US to look into alternative eradication strategies, including fungi.[71]"

    Source: 
    "Risks of Using Biological Agents in Drug Eradication: A briefing paper with emphasis on human health," The Sunshine Project (Austin, TX: February 2001), p. 8.
    http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/bk/pdf/bk4en.pdf

  11. (history - coca) "When the Spanish first conquered the Incas in the sixteenth century, there was strong pressure from the Catholic Church to eradicate coca because of its important non-Christian meanings and symbolism for the indigenous Andean religions. Coca has long been used to divine the future, and as a sacred offering to the mother earth and ancestral deities recognized by native Andeans. In 1551 the Bishop of Cuzco imposed capital punishment for consuming the leaf, as it represented in his eyes an "agent of the Devil". 1560 saw the first attempt to completely eradicate the leaf by the Spanish Viceroy of Peru - Francisco de Toledo. Then in a complete reversal thirteen years later, the Spanish Crown ordered that coca cultivation continue and promptly began to tax it. "The Spaniards stepped up the cultivation of this shrub once they discovered that its use increased the output of Indians working in the mines.""

    Source: 
    Forsberg, Alan, "The Wonders of the Coca Leaf," Accion Andina (Cochabamba, Bolivia: January 2011), p. 2.
    http://www.accionandina.org/documentos/Wonders-of-the-Coca-Leaf.pdf

  12. (history - chocolate) "The Codex Mendoza – an Aztec record of administration and description of daily life, written approximately twenty years after the Spanish conquest of Mexico – documents that by the time Cortes arrived, chocolate was being cultivated by farmers in the Yucatan and was traded in large quantities throughout the Empire (Prescott, 1843, p. 11, West, 1992, p. 108). Historical records indicate that Columbus first brought back specimens of cacao pods to King Ferdinand I after his second voyage to the New World. Outside of the Americas, cacao was first cultivated in 1590 by the Spanish off the coast of Africa on the island of Fernando Po."

    "While chocolate is most popularly consumed as a condiment, candy or dessert, cacao is also a high energy food known for lifting psychological effects."

    Source: 
    Nunn, Nathan and Qian, Nancy , "The Columbian Exchange: A History of Disease, Food, and Ideas," Yale University Department of Economics (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University, 2010), pp. 12-13.
    http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nq3/NANCYS_Yale_Website/Research_files/JEP_rev...

  13. (history - opium) "There is evidence for the existence of opium poppy in Europe as long ago as 4,200 B.C. and even earlier.a There are also references towards opium use in ancient Greece, starting around 1,500 B.C. during the Minoan culture, with various references in the 7th century B.C. (Iliad and Odyssey) and during the reign of Alexander the Great (4th century B.C.) whose troops and medical doctors apparently introduced opium to Central Asia and India.b In Asia, opium was already produced and used by the Sumerians earlier than 3000 B.C, in Mesopotania (today’s Iraq)c from where the know-how was passed on to the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians (1,300 B.C.) and other peoples in the region.6 China got acquainted to opium via Arab merchants, with dates given in the literature ranging from around 4th7 to the 8th century A.D.8"

    Source: 
    "A Century of International Drug Control," United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Vienna, Austria: 2009), p. 15.
    http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/100_Years_of_Dr...

  14. (history - opium) "International drug control, including the control of opium, was one of the earliest fields of international cooperation. Crude opium has been available for thousands of years, but with the expansion of British opium trade in Asia in the 18th and 19th centuries and the development of the hypodermic syringe in the late 1860s, the abuse of opioids rose dramatically. By the late 19th century, global concern with opium consumption and trade reached a critical juncture, which led to public and professional pressure to restrict medical access to opioids for pain relief. These circumstances provided the backdrop for the first international cooperative arrangements for drug control that began to emerge in the early part of the 20th century.37 In 1909, the first International Opium Commission was convened in Shanghai, China, and it served as the platform for the first international legal instrument regulating psychoactive substances, the Hague Opium Convention of 1912."

    Source: 
    Taylor, Allyn L. "Addressing the Global Tragedy of Needless Pain: Rethinking the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs," Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Law Center, January 2008 ) Vol. 35, No. 556, p. 560.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1088150_code238438.pdf?a...

  15. (history - tobacco) "It is believed that Native Americans began to use tobacco around the first century BC. There is no evidence that Native Americans ever consumed tobacco recreationally. It was instead used as a hallucinogen during religious ceremonies and as a painkiller. Ramon Pane, a monk who accompanied Columbus on his second voyage, gave lengthy descriptions about the custom of smoking tobacco. He described how Natives inhaled smoke through a Y-shaped tube. The two ends were placed in the nostrils and the third end over a pastille of burning leaves. Although the exact manner of smoking differed between regions within the Americas, the practice of smoking tobacco appears to have been universal.

    "Tobacco was quickly adopted by Europeans. At first tobacco was regarded and consumed only as a medicine. In 1560, the French ambassador to Portugal, Jean Nicot de Villemain (from whom the term ‘nicotine’ originates), proclaimed that tobacco had a panacea of medicinal properties. In 1561, Nicot sent tobacco leaves to Catherine de Medici, the Queen of France. She was so impressed with the plant that she decreed that tobacco be called Herba Regina (the Queen’s Herb). In England, tobacco was first introduced by Sir John Hawkins and his crew in the 1580s. It was chiefly used by sailors, including those employed by Sir Francis Drake. By the beginning of the seventeenth century, tobacco had spread to all parts of Europe.

    "Beginning in the 1950s, medical researchers began to discover negative health effects from smoking. In 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General published a report on the health consequences of smoking titled Smoking and Health ... This was an important stimulus for the extensive anti-smoking campaigns that developed over the next four decades."

    Source: 
    Nunn, Nathan and Qian, Nancy , "The Columbian Exchange: A History of Disease, Food, and Ideas," Yale University Department of Economics (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University, 2010), pp. 14-15.
    http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nq3/NANCYS_Yale_Website/Research_files/JEP_rev...

  16. United States - Data

    (United States - drug data inconsistencies) "... the importance of having ‘hard’ numbers is greatly exaggerated because most uses are political and biased in nature and because most users do not have a formal model in which to apply the data. Furthermore, given the role of illicit drugs as a catalyst that accelerate social processes already in progress, the influence of illegal drugs on society do depend on the size of the illegal industry but also on the structure, institutions and values of the society and on the history of past drug income, anti-drug policies and the changes in institutions and values that had occurred. Thus, in a country like Colombia, the illegal drugs’ industry is today smaller than twenty years ago but its role in Colombian society today is a lot more negative than in previous decades.

    Finally, the moral of the story is just that it would be nice to have accurate data on the illegal drugs industry, but it would be a lot nicer if the data are used with scientific rigor, acknowledging their limitations and avoiding political biases."

    Source: 
    Francisco E. Thoumi, "Let’s All Guess the Size of the Illegal Drugs Industry!" Transnational Institute (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: December 2003), p. 14.
    http://www.tni.org//archives/crime-docs/numbers.pdf

  17. (United States - new measurements for drug policy) "A new set of indicators is needed to truly show the outcomes of drug policies, according to their harms or benefits for individuals and communities – for example, the number of victims of drug market-related violence and intimidation; the level of corruption generated by drug markets; the level of petty crime committed by dependent users; levels of social and economic development in communities where drug production, selling or consumption are concentrated; the level of drug dependence in communities; the level of overdose deaths; and the level of HIV or hepatitis C infection among drug users. Policymakers can and should articulate and measure the outcome of these objectives."

    Source: 
    "War on Drugs: Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy," Global Commission on Drug Policy (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: June 2011), p. 13.
    http://idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/Global_Commission_Report_Eng...

  18. (2009 - United States - Afghanistan opium industry and U.S. counter-narcotics strategy) "As part of the military expansion, the administration has assigned U.S. troops a lead role in trying to stop the flow of illicit drug profits that are bankrolling the Taliban and fueling the corruption that undermines the Afghan Government. Tens of millions of drug dollars are helping the Taliban and other insurgent groups buy arms, build deadlier roadside bombs and pay fighters. The emerging consensus among senior military and civilian officials from the United States, Britain, Canada and other countries operating in Afghanistan is that the broad new counter-insurgency mission is tied inextricably with the new counter-narcotics strategy. Simply put, they believe the Taliban cannot be defeated and good government cannot be established without cutting off the money generated by Afghanistan’s opium industry, which supplies more than 90 percent of the world’s heroin and generates an estimated $3 billion a year in profits."

    Source: 
    Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, "Afhganistan's Narco War: Breaking the Link Between Drug Traffickers and Insurgents," (Washington, DC: 111th Congress, 1st Session, August 10, 2009), p.
    http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2009_rpt/afghan.pdf

  19. (Inherent Limitations of Drug Production and Consumption Estimates) "Existing estimates about drug production and consumption are cryptic, inconsistent, and often impossible to verify. Apart from the series of studies titled What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs that was produced in the 1990s under ONDCP’s auspices (see Rhodes, 1995, and Abt Associates, 2001) and the 1990s work of the Drug Availability Steering Committee (2002), many of the most-quoted estimates are not documented in a manner that allows others to assess their credibility, let alone replicate them. The large year-to-year changes in official estimates of consumption and particularly of production reduce their credibility, given the stable data on marijuana use in the U.S. population over the past decade.
    "While a number of estimates are described as being 'intelligence based' or are released by intelligence agencies, this does not mean we should automatically give them high credibility. This paper identifies a number of these estimates from national and international sources that are simply implausible. Drug-market estimation is a field plagued by a lack of data and heavily dependent on assumptions; thus, estimates from both intelligence and nonintelligence agencies need to be scrutinized. Policymakers would be well served by preventing the publication of figures without peer review. If the truth is that these figures are estimated imprecisely, that fact should be noted."

    Source: 
    Kilmer, Beau; Caulkins, Jonathan P.; Bond, Brittany M.; and Reuter, Peter H., "Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico: Would Legalizing Marijuana in California Help?" International Programs and Drug Policy Research Center (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, October 2010), p. 44.
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP325.pdf

  20. (History of MDMA) "MDMA is not a new drug. It was first synthesized by the German pharmaceutical firm Merck in 1912. Human experimentation, however, has been traced back to the early 1970s (Eisner, 1989; Shulgin, 1990)."

    Source: 
    Beck, Jerome and Rosenbaum, Marsha, "Pursuit of Ecstasy: The MDMA Experience." Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994. p. 14.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=SwdedK36bVMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA14#v=onepage&...

  21. (2004 - inaccuracy of arrest statistics) "Arrest statistics also have limitations for measuring the volume of arrests for a particular offense. Under the UCR Program, the FBI requires law enforcement agencies to classify an arrest by the most serious offense charged in that arrest. For example, the arrest of a youth charged with aggravated assault and possession of a controlled substance would be reported to the FBI as an arrest for aggravated assault. Therefore, when arrest statistics show that law enforcement agencies made an estimated 193,900 arrests of young people for drug abuse violations in 2004, it means that a drug abuse violation was the most serious charge in these 193,900 arrests. An unknown number of additional arrests in 2004 included a drug charge as a lesser offense."

    Source: 
    Snyder, Howard N., "Juvenile Arrests 2004" (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 2006), p. 2.
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/214563.pdf

  22. (History of Coca) "Modern archaeology suggests that descendants of nomadic Siberian people may have established communities in the Andes Mountains as early as 10,000 B.C.E.37 Aymara-speaking tribes migrated to the Bolivian altiplano38 around 700 B.C.E, and sometime after 700 B.C.E, Andean people began growing coca in the altiplano.39 Before the Spanish conquest, Indians of eastern Bolivia grew coca for tea, chewing, and ritual use."

    Source: 
    Freisinger, Will, "The Unintended Revolution: U.S. Anti-drug Policy and the Socialist Movement in Bolivia," California Western International Law Journal (San Diego, CA: California Western School of Law, Spring 2009) Volume 39, Number 2,
    http://www.accionandina.org/documentos/Wonders-of-the-Coca-Leaf.pdf

  23. (History of Crack) "Most Americans first learned about crack cocaine through media stories, which usually disclosed tragic details of public figures’ addictions. Coverage of the dangers associated with the use of all forms of cocaine intensified in 1979 with the emergence of the practice of smoking cocaine, colloquially referred to as 'freebasing.'63 Rolling Stone magazine focused on smokeable forms of cocaine, calling it the 'top-of-the-line model of the Cadillac of drugs,' yet cautioned that 'freebasing seemed to be much more dangerous than snorting.'64 In 1980, when comedian Richard Pryor sustained third-degree burns after reportedly using a butane torch to light cocaine freebase, newspapers capitalized on the incident.65 Outlets including The Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Tribune, and The Boston Globe ran stories about the new trend of freebasing cocaine.66
    "In 1985, The New York Times became the first major media outlet to use the term 'crack cocaine,'67 and a follow-up article appeared on the front page less than two weeks later, detailing crack cocaine and its intensely addictive quality.68 By 1986, major news outlets had declared crack cocaine usage to be in 'epidemic proportions.'69"

    Source: 
    Beaver, Alyssa L., "Getting a Fix on Cocaine Sentencing Policy: Reforming the Sentencing Scheme of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986," Fordham Law Review (New York, NY: Fordham University School of Law, April 2010) Vol. 78, No. 5, p. 2539.
    http://fordhamlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/Vol_78/Beaver_April_2010.pdf

  24. United States - Regulation of Prescription Drugs

    (prescription drugs - FDA regulation) "The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] regulates both the safety and effectiveness of prescription pharmaceuticals and certain medical devices.84 In addition to ensuring that prescription drugs are safe and effective before they are sold in interstate commerce, the FDA approves all information a manufacturer plans to provide physicians on a drug’s recommended use, contraindications, risks, and side-effects. Underlying the regulatory scheme are two assumptions reflecting the special types of dangers that inhere in drugs classified as prescription pharmaceuticals. First is the belief that the risks in many drugs are so complex and dangerous that the FDA must determine their safety and effectiveness before they can be marketed at all. The second premise is that the potential risks of improperly using many drugs are so substantial as to require professional medical judgment and supervision by doctors and nurse practitioners, rendering such products available to consumers only through prescriptions written by such health professionals."

    Source: 
    Owen, David G., "Dangers in Prescription Drugs: Filling a Private Law Gap in the Healthcare Debate," Connecticut Law Review (Hartford, CT: University of Connecticut School of Law, February 2010) Volume 42, Number 3, p. 753.
    http://uconn.lawreviewnetwork.com/files/documents/DavidG.Owen-DangersinP...

  25. (prescription drugs - FDA clinical trial process) "The clinical trial process begins when a firm files an Investigational New Drug [IND] application, which requests permission from the FDA to conduct clinical trials on humans. Typically, this application contains the available preclinical information, as well as protocols for the drug’s clinical trials, and any data on trials conducted overseas.

    "Once the FDA gives its approval, the firm may begin conducting clinical trials for the drug, which proceed in three phases. The goal of Phase I is to evaluate the drug’s safety and to obtain data on its pharmacologic properties. Typically, phase I trials enroll small numbers (20-80) healthy volunteers. Phase II trials then enroll slightly larger (100-130) numbers of sick volunteers. The goal of these trials is to begin investigating a drug’s efficacy and optimal dosage, and to monitor the drug’s safety in diseased patents. Finally, Phase III testing typically involves larger numbers (more than 1,000) of sick patients and is the most costly stage of the approval process. Phase III testing seeks to establish more definitively the efficacy of a drug, as well as to discover any rare side effects. Upon the completion of Phase III testing, the firm submits a New Drug Application to the FDA, which is accompanied by the results of the clinical trials. The FDA may then reject the application, require further clinical testing, or approve the drug outright."

    Source: 
    Philipson, Tomas J.; Sun, Eric C.; and Goldman, Dana, "The Effects of Product Liability Exemption in the Presence of the FDA, "National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA: December 2009), p. 6.
    http://www.aei.org/files/2009/12/15/Effects%20of%20Product%20Liability%2...

  26. (pharmaceutical drugs - randomized clinical trials) "RCTs [randomized clinical trials] have long been regarded as the gold standard for understanding the safety and efficacy of health care interventions, especially drugs. RCTs have a number of strengths, and they continue to play an important role in the development, evaluation, and regulatory approval of new treatments and interventions. Compared with alternative research methods, they carefully control for potentially confounding factors (internal validity)—hence their ability to provide specific answers to questions related to the efficacy of new treatments, compared with alternatives and with placebo, as well as questions about appropriate dosages of the treatment being tested."

    Source: 
    Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education Board on Health Sciences Policy, "Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research," Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2011), p. 5-11.
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13172&page=198

  27. (prescription drugs - FDA approval of pharmaceutical product labels) "In addition to issuing approval of the drug, the FDA must approve the label that accompanies it. This label provides data on the drug’s pharmacologic properties and side effects, as well as brief summaries of the clinical trials reported to the FDA. Perhaps most importantly, the label also lists the indications (or diseases) that the drug is approved to treat. Thus, approval by the FDA is not merely approval of the drug, it is approval of the drug for specific uses. If a firm wishes to obtain approval for additional indications, it typically must begin a new set of clinical trials for those indications. Use of a drug for an indication not listed on the label (“offlabel use”) is not illegal, and indeed occurs regularly in many areas, such as oncology. However, it is illegal for a manufacturer to advertise a drug for a non-approved indication."

    Source: 
    Philipson, Tomas J.; Sun, Eric C.; and Goldman, Dana, "The Effects of Product Liability Exemption in the Presence of the FDA, "National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA: December 2009), p. 7.
    http://www.aei.org/files/2009/12/15/Effects%20of%20Product%20Liability%2...

  28. (prescription drugs - federal law regulating drug quality) "The principal federal statute regulating the quality of drugs is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, originally enacted by Congress in 1938.85 The Act’s key provisions prohibit the sale of “any food, drug, device, . . . or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded”86 and require FDA approval of all new drugs prior to marketing.87 The Act addresses warnings and instructions through its requirement that drug labels not be “misbranded.”88 The Act requires manufacturers to provide adequate information on the purpose, proper dosage, and possible dangers to consumers for over-the-counter (“OTC”) drugs,89 and to medical professionals for prescription drugs. A prescription drug is one that, “because of its toxicity or other potentiality for harmful effect, or the method of its use, or the collateral measures necessary to its use,” is safe only when prescribed and used under the supervision of a licensed medical practitioner,90 and such drugs must be labeled accordingly.91 Labels for OTC drugs must state the drug’s active ingredients and “established name”;92 must contain information on dosages, duration of use, directions for use, and warnings against dangerous uses;93 and must describe the drug’s effectiveness, side-effects, and contraindications.94"

    Source: 
    Owen, David G., "Dangers in Prescription Drugs: Filling a Private Law Gap in the Healthcare Debate," Connecticut Law Review (Hartford, CT: University of Connecticut School of Law, February 2010) Volume 42, Number 3, pp. 753-754.
    http://uconn.lawreviewnetwork.com/files/documents/DavidG.Owen-DangersinP...

  29. (prescription drugs - illegal off label use) "One reason why off-label promotion has become so widespread may involve the fact that a decreasing number of important new drugs have come onto the market over the past few years.23 Thus, companies are likely under pressure to maximize sales of their existing products by any means, including by illegally promoting off-label use. This has been evident in the systematic and widespread company practices24 designed to increase market share. Studies have shown that perhaps one of every five prescriptions dispensed are for off-label uses, with even higher rates for certain medication classes, such as seizure and heart medications.25"

    Editor's Note: "Off label use" means "promotion of drugs for indications not approved by the FDA, a practice that can be dangerous to patients."

    Source: 
    Almashat, Sammy; Preston, Charles; Waterman, Timothy; and Wolfe, Sidney, "Rapidly Increasing Criminal and Civil Monetary Penalties Against the Pharmaceutical Industry: 1991 to 2010," Public Citizen's Health Research Group (Washington, DC: Public Citizen, December 16, 2010), p. 19.
    http://www.citizen.org/documents/rapidlyincreasingcriminalandcivilpenalt...

  30. (prescription drugs - indictment of pharmaceutical industry business model) "In the late 1950s, the late Democratic Senator Estes Kefauver, Chairman of the United States Senate’s Anti-Trust and Monopoly Subcommittee, put together the first extensive indictment against the business workings of the pharmaceutical industry. He laid three charges at the door of the industry: (1) Patents sustained predatory prices and excessive margins; (2) Costs and prices were extravagantly increased by large expenditures in marketing; and (3) Most of the industry’s new products were no more effective than established drugs on the market [1]. Kefauver’s indictment against a marketing-driven industry created a representation of the pharmaceutical industry far different than the one offered by the industry itself."

    Source: 
    Gagnon, Marc-André and Lexchin, Joel, "The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States," PLoS Medicine (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Publich Library of Science, January 2008) Volume 5, Issue 1, p. 0029.
    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=inf...

  31. (1991-2010 - prescription drugs - civil/criminal drug company settlements) "In total, 165 civil and/or criminal settlements of $1 million or more were made between the government and pharmaceutical companies from 1991 to 2010*, with settlement amounts totaling $19.81 billion."

    Source: 
    Almashat, Sammy; Preston, Charles; Waterman, Timothy; and Wolfe, Sidney, "Rapidly Increasing Criminal and Civil Monetary Penalties Against the Pharmaceutical Industry: 1991 to 2010," Public Citizen's Health Research Group (Washington, DC: Public Citizen, December 16, 2010), p. 9.
    http://www.citizen.org/documents/rapidlyincreasingcriminalandcivilpenalt...

  32. (1990-2008 - prescription drugs - spending) "U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased from $40 billion in 1990 to $234 billion in 2008."

    Source: 
    Almashat, Sammy; Preston, Charles; Waterman, Timothy; and Wolfe, Sidney, "Rapidly Increasing Criminal and Civil Monetary Penalties Against the Pharmaceutical Industry: 1991 to 2010," Public Citizen's Health Research Group (Washington, DC: Public Citizen, December 16, 2010), p. 2.
    http://www.citizen.org/documents/rapidlyincreasingcriminalandcivilpenalt...

  33. (1996-2007 - prescription approvals, recalls and adverse events)

    The following table shows prescription drug product approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1996 through 2007, a twelve year period of time. Trends emerge when the first six years (1996-2001) are compared with the second six years (2002-2007). Although there is a calculated -9.1% decline between the two time frames for combined priority New Drug Applications (NDAs) and Biologic License Applications (BLAs), the change is in reality only two approvals for these “new” (some new molecular entities) drugs or never-before-marketed biologics. However, “Standard” NDAs and BLAs dropped by -10% for the first six years compared to the second six years. Prescription drug recalls leaped from the first time frame to the second one, up by almost half. Similarly, Over-the-Counter recalls grew by about a quarter. Adverse Event Reports - that “signal” potentially serious drug-associated events – soared by almost 75% between the two time frames.

    Prescription Drug Product Approvals, Recalls and Adverse Event Reports
    Year Priority NDAs

    & BLAs

    Standard NDAs

    & BLAs

    Drug Rx

    Recalls

    Drug OTC

    Recalls

    Adverse Event

    Reports

    1996 29 102 226 53 191,865
    1997 20 101 248 34 212,978
    1998 25 65 176 88 247,607
    1999 28 55 352 72 278,266
    2000 20 78 316 156 266,978
    2001 10 56 248 72 285,107
    2002 11 67 354 83 322,691
    2003 14 58 254 88 370,898
    2004 29 90 215 71 423,031
    2005 22 58 401 101 464,068
    2006 21 80 240 121 471,679
    2007 23 55 851 136 482,155
    Total 1996-2001 22 76 261 79 247,134
    Total 2002-2007 20 68 386 100 422,420
    % chg -9.1% -10.7% +47.8% +26.3% +70.9%


    FDA Definitions:

    • Priority reviews. These products represent significant improvements compared with marketed products.
    • New drug applications. NDAs are the formal submissions of data that sponsors send us when they are seeking approval to market a “new drug” in the United States. Some NDAs are NMEs [new molecular entities]; however, “new drugs” can also include an active substance previously sold in a different form.
    • Biologic license applications. BLAs are the formal submissions of data that sponsors send us when they are seeking approval to market a biologic in the United States. A “new BLA” is a biologic that has never been approved for marketing in the United States.
    • New Molecular Entities (NMEs) contain an active substance that has never before been approved for marketing in any form in the United States.
    • Standard approvals. These products have therapeutic qualities similar to those of already marketed products.
    • Adverse Event Reports. A powerful drug safety tool is the Adverse Event Reporting System, known as AERS. This computerized system combines the voluntary adverse drug reaction reports from MedWatch and the required reports from manufacturers. These reports often form the basis of “signals” that there may be a potential for serious and unrecognized drug-associated events.
    • Recalls. A drug product must be recalled due to a problem occurring in the manufacture or distribution of the product that may present a significant risk to public health. These problems usually, but not always, occur in one or a small number of batches of the drug. Manufacturers or distributors usually implement voluntary recalls in order to carry out their responsibilities to protect the public health when they need to remove a marketed drug product that presents a risk of injury to consumers or to correct a defective drug product.
    • OTC = Over the counter. Rx = Prescription only.

    Source: 
    "CDER Facts and Figures," Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August 7, 2007)
    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/WhatWeDo/UCM12...
    ===
    "Center for Drug Evaluation 2007 Update," Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008).
    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/WhatWeDo/UCM12...

  34. (2000-2009 - prescription drugs - death and serious patient outcomes from FDA approved drugs)

    "These data describe the outcome of the patient as defined in U.S. reporting regulations (21 CFR 310.305, 314.80, 314.98, 600.80) and Forms FDA 3500 and 3500A (the MedWatch forms). Serious means that one or more of the following outcomes were documented in the report: death, hospitalization, life-threatening, disability, congenital anomaly and/or other serious outcome. Documenting one or more of these outcomes in a report does not necessarily mean that the suspect product(s) named in the report was the cause of these outcomes."

    Editor's Note: These data show "deaths" totaling 452,780 and "serious outcomes" equaling 2,816,297 occurred during the eleven years from 2000 to 2010 as tabulated from the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System for prescription drugs.

    Comparing the five years (2001-2005) with the five years (2006-2010) finds that the number of deaths grew by +66.7% for the second time frame as compared to first. For the same comparative spans, serious patient leaped by almost three quarters (+77.5%).

    AERS1 Patient Outcomes by Year
    Year Death Serious
    2000 19,445 153,818
    2001 23,988 166,384
    2002 28,181 159,000
    2003 35,173 177,008
    2004 34,928 199,510
    2005 40,238 257,604
    2006 37,465 265,130
    2007 36,834 273,276
    2008 49,958 319,741
    2009 63,846 373,535
    2010 82,724 471,291
    Total 2000-2010 452,780 2,816,297
    Total 2001-2005 162,508 959,506
    Total 2006-2010 270,827 1,702,973
    % Chg +66.7% +77.5%

    1 AERS = Adverse Events Reporting System. This system managed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) contains over four million reports of adverse events and reflects data from 1969 to the present. Data from AERS are presented as summary statistics. These summary statistics cover data received over the last ten years. These data are presented at the individual report level; some of the numbers may reflect duplicate reporting due to factors such as follow-up reports received on a case or different persons reporting on the same patient case.

     
    Source: 
    "AERS Patient Outcomes by Year," Food and Drug Administration (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, March 31, 2010).
    http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveil...

  35. (2004 - prescription drugs - pharmaceutical industry promotional expenditures) "With about 700,000 practicing physicians in the US in 2004 [20], we estimate that with a total expenditure of US$57.5 billion, the industry spent around US$61,000 in promotion per physician. As a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion [21], promotion consumes 24.4% of the sales dollar versus 13.4% for R&D."

    Conclusion: "... pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on R&D. These numbers clearly show how promotion predominates over R&D in the pharmaceutical industry, contrary to the industry’s claim."

    Source: 
    Gagnon, Marc-André and Lexchin, Joel, "The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States," PLoS Medicine (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Publich Library of Science, January 2008) Volume 5, Issue 1, p. 0032.
    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=inf...

  36. (History of Drunk Driving) "The first discussion of a relationship between alcohol consumption and motor vehicle collisions to be published in an American scientific journal appeared as an editorial in the Quarterly Journal of Inebriation (1904). The editor had received a communication about 25 fatal crashes of automobile wagons in which 23 occupants died and 14 suffered injuries. Nineteen of the drivers had used alcohol within an hour of the crash. The author of the communication commented that driving automobile wagons was a more dangerous activity for drinkers than driving locomotives. Drinking by on-duty railroad employees had been prohibited since 1843 (Borkenstein, 1985)."

    Source: 
    Blomberg, Richard D.; Peck, Raymond C.; Moskowitz, Herbert; Burns, Marcelline; and Fiorentino, Dary, "Crash Risk of Alcohol Involved Driving: A Case-Control Study," Dunlap and Associates, Inc. (Stamford, CT: September 2005), p. 3.
    http://www.dunlapandassociatesinc.com/crashriskofalcoholinvolveddriving....

  37. United States - Law & Policy

    (United States - law & policy - regulatory theory and illicit drugs) "Taking then the broader definition of regulation as ‘steering the flow of events’ regulatory theory as applied to illicit drugs explicates the state’s role in controlling illicit drugs, and the ways in which the state deploys its resources and/or mobilises external resources (through third parties and the affected communities)."

    "A central tenet of effective regulation is the use of multiple strategies constructed in the form of a pyramid (Ayres & Braithwaite, 1992). The pyramid represents escalating sanctions and escalating regulatory mechanisms. This notion of “responsive regulation” avoids the polarisation of regulation to be either voluntary and operate through persuasion or conversely merely through punishment regimes. The pyramid is founded on “soft before hard” and “carrots before sticks”. It escalates through:

    1. voluntarism (people doing the right thing without coercion);
    2. self-regulation (regulation though associations that govern the behaviour of members);
    3. economic instruments (supply-side incentives and sanctions);
    4. enforcement (command and control, criminal penalties).

    "The vertical axis to the pyramid is coerciveness and it is smallest at the top because of greater reliance on the less costly and intrusive base strategies (Braithwaite et al., 2005; Grabosky, 1997)."

    Source: 
    Ritter, Allison, "Illicit drugs policy through the lens of regulation," International Journal of Drug Policy (London, United Kingdom: International Harm Reduction Association, July 2010), Vol. 21, Issue 4, p. 266.
    http://84.16.87.126/info/IMG/pdf/Through_the_lens_of_regulation-2010.pdf

  38. (law & policy - agencies administering South American anti-drug programs) "Eradication efforts under Plan Dignidad [“zero coca,” meaning the complete eradication of illegal coca in Bolivia] were, and still are, aided and partially funded by several U.S. programs, the most significant of which is the Andean Regional Initiative (ARI).119 The ARI, initially proposed by the Bush Administration in 2001, is administered by the U.S. Department of State, and is designed to “promote and support democracy and democratic institutions, foster sustainable economic development and trade liberalization, and significantly reduce the supply of illegal drugs to the U.S. at the source.”120 However, the majority of the funding—just under $700 million when first approved by Congress for the 2002 fiscal year—goes to a subsidiary program, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI), that is administered by the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL).121 The ACI funds anti-drug programs in seven Central and South American countries, but the majority of ACI dollars go to Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru.122"

    Source: 
    Reisinger, Will, "The Unintended Revolution: U.S. Anti-drug Policy and the Socialist Movement in Bolivia," California Western International Law Journal (San Diego, CA: California Western School of Law, Spring 2009) Volume 39, Number 2, pp. 261-262.
    http://www.cwsl.edu/content/journals/Reisinger.pdf

  39. ("Fetal Protection" Movement) "The American 'fetal protection' movement is unique among developed and developing nations. While other nations also have populations of poor women whose lives are highly dysfunctional or who are addicted to alcohol and other drugs, only in the United States are these women treated as criminals or civilly committed based on their conduct while pregnant. Only in the United States do prosecutors take the position that embryos and fetuses should be protected as full human beings while in utero. At the same time, the United States stands alone among developed countries in failing to guarantee access to health care to women and children throughout their lives and in failing to provide other economic, legal, and social supports (including treatment for drug and alcohol addiction) in order to increase the chances that women can nurture and provide for their children, as well as reduce the incidence of women’s addiction."

    Source: 
    Fentiman, Linda C., "Pursuing the Perfect Mother: Why America's Criminalization of Maternal Substance Abuse is Not the Answer," Pace Law Faculty Publications (New York, NY: Pace University School of Law: April 24, 2008), p. 4.
    http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1487&context=...

  40. (law & policy - measuring drug law enforcement impact) "The Drug Enforcement Administration does not use arrest numbers in order to measure the impact of law enforcement activities on drug availability. They attempted to develop relevant performance measures; however, they have stated that there are no accurate measures of the quantity of drugs available on a national level, and it may be impossible to develop a model that measures the impact of law enforcement activities on drug availability.1

    "1) U.S. Department of Management and Budget, Drug Enforcement Administration, [dead link] p. 12"

    Source: 
    "Study and Inquiry into the Atlanta Police Department's Involvement in the Death of Ms. Kathryn Johnson," Atlanta Citizen Review Board (Atlanta, GA: May 13, 2010), p. 24.
    http://www.atlantaunfiltered.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/CRB-Kathryn-...

  41. (United States - law & policy - heroin treatment vs. incarceration) "In the United States, incarceration is the most widely available “treatment” response, universally “available” to drug users. While jail is widely touted as a step to coming to terms with ones demons, all too often criminalization converts a treatable drug problem into a social and personal nightmare - a disastrous beginning point for clinical intervention. While treatment compliance for other chronic diseases varies, no one suggests that refractory diabetics or cigarette smokers or alcoholics should be incarcerated “for their own good”. Yet those living with addictions often end up in the unwelcoming arms of the criminal justice system."

    Source: 
    Small, Dan, and Drucker, Ernest, "Policy Makers Ignoring Science Scientists Ignoring Policy: The Medical Ethical Challenges of Heroin Treatment," Harm Reduction Journal (London, United Kingdom: May 2006), Vol. 3, p. 16.
    http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-3-16.pdf
    http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/16

  42. (History of Alcohol Prohibition) "By all estimates, the Eighteenth Amendment was a costly blunder. Between 1920 and 1930, the federal government spent an average of twenty-one million dollars enforcing the Volstead Act.12 [the National Prohibition Act - enabling legislation for the 18th Amendment] During the same period, the United States lost an estimated $1.25 billion in potential tax revenues annually.13 In spite of the resources consumed by Alcohol Prohibition, it affected only one segment of the nation. National Prohibition cut in half the consumption of spirits by the poor and working classes, but the “consumption of alcoholic beverages by the business, professional and salaried class [was] fully as great . . . as it was prior to prohibition.”14 While National Prohibition kept the poor dry, it made local organized crime groups wealthy enough to extend their control over entire cities.15 This success further reflected mainstream America’s implicit rejection of temperance morality. As Al Capone himself so pointedly remarked:

    "I make my money by supplying a public demand. If I break the law, my customers, who number hundreds of the best people in Chicago, are as guilty as I am. The only difference between us is that I sell and they buy. Everybody calls me a racketeer. I call myself a business man. When I sell liquor, it’s bootlegging. When my patrons serve it on a silver tray on Lake Shore Drive, it’s hospitality."

    Source: 
    Whitebread, Charles H., "Us" and "Them" and the Nature of Moral Regulation," Southern California Law Review (Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Gould School of Law, 2000) Vol 74, No. 2, p. 364.
    http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/074121.pdf

  43. (Hemp History) "Probably indigenous to temperate Asia, C. sativa is the most widely cited example of a “camp follower.” It was pre-adapted to thrive in the manured soils around man’s early settlements, which quickly led to its domestication (Schultes 1970). Hemp was harvested by the Chinese 8500 years ago (Schultes and Hofmann 1980). For most of its history, C. sativa was most valued as a fiber source, considerably less so as an intoxicant, and only to a limited extent as an oilseed crop. Hemp is one of the oldest sources of textile fiber, with extant remains of hempen cloth trailing back 6 millennia. Hemp grown for fiber was introduced to western Asia and Egypt, and subsequently to Europe somewhere between 1000 and 2000 BCE. Cultivation in Europe became widespread after 500 CE. The crop was first brought to South America in 1545, in Chile, and to North America in Port Royal, Acadia in 1606. The hemp industry flourished in Kentucky, Missouri, and Illinois between 1840 and 1860 because of the strong demand for sailcloth and cordage (Ehrensing 1998). From the end of the Civil War until 1912, virtually all hemp in the US was produced in Kentucky."

    Source: 
    Small, Ernest and Marcus, David , "Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America," Trends in New Crops and New Uses (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Center for New Crops and Plant Products, 2002), p. 284.
    http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/pdf/small.pdf

  44. (History in American History) "Hemp was widely grown in the United States from the colonial period into the mid-1800s; fine and coarse fabrics, twine, and paper from hemp were in common use. By the 1890s, labor-saving machinery for harvesting cotton made the latter more competitive as a source of fabric for clothing, and the demand for coarse natural fibers was met increasingly by imports. Industrial hemp was handled in the same way as any other farm commodity, in that USDA compiled statistics and published crop reports,45 and provided assistance to farmers promoting production and distribution.46 In the early 1900s, hemp continued to be grown and researchers at USDA continued to publish information related to hemp production and also reported on hemp’s potential for use in textiles and in paper manufacturing.47 Several hemp advocacy groups, including the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) and Vote Hemp Inc., have compiled other historical information and have copies of original source documents.48
    "Between 1914 and 1933, in an effort to stem the use of Cannabis flowers and leaves for their psychotropic effects, 33 states passed laws restricting legal production to medicinal and industrial purposes only.49 The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act defined hemp as a narcotic drug, requiring that farmers growing hemp hold a federal registration and special tax stamp, effectively limiting further production expansion.
    "Hemp was briefly brought back into large-scale production during World War II, at the urging of USDA, to provide for 'products spun from American-grown hemp' including 'twine of various kinds for tying and upholsters work; rope for marine rigging and towing; for hay forks, derricks, and heavy duty tackle; light duty fire hose; thread for shoes for millions of American soldiers; and parachute webbing for our paratroopers,' as well as 'hemp for mooring ships; hemp for tow lines; hemp for tackle and gear; hemp for countless naval uses both on ship and shore.'50
    "In 1943, U.S. hemp production reached more than 150 million pounds (140.7 million pounds hemp fiber; 10.7 million pound hemp seed) on 146,200 harvested acres. This compared to pre-war production levels of about 1 million pounds. After reaching a peak in 1943, production started to decline. By 1948, production had dropped back to 3 million pounds on 2,800 harvested acres, with no recorded production after the late 1950s.51"

    Source: 
    Johnson, Renée, "Hemp As An Agricultural Commodity," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, July 24, 2013), p. 12.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf

  45. (law & policy - limited information on effectiveness of model public health laws) "Through a systematic search, we identified 107 model public health laws published from 1907 to 2004. As of our assessment in 2005, only 18 (44%) of the sponsors presented any information on the procedures and evidence used in developing their model public health laws; information on adoption was provided for only 7 (6.5%) model laws. No sponsors provided information on model effectiveness."

    Source: 
    Hartsfield, DeKeely; Moulton, Anthony D.; and McKie, Karen L., "A Review of Model Public Health Laws," American Journal of Public Health (Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, April 2007), Supplement 1, Vol. 97, No. S1, p. S56.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854995/pdf/0970056.pdf

  46. (law & policy - history of model laws) "Model and uniform laws have a long pedigree. The original impetus for US uniform laws was the provision of the 1878 constitution of the American Bar Association that it promote “uniformity of legislation throughout the Union,” leading to the creation of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) in 1915 to reduce heterogeneity in states’ commercial laws.3 The NCCUSL has issued more than 200 “uniform laws,” mainly in such areas as business, tax law, and workers compensation, but also in areas more related to public health concerns, such as health information privacy. The NCCUSL methodology involves systematic information gathering, public review and comment on iterative drafts of uniform laws, and ultimately, formal approval of uniform laws by its governing board. The NCCUSL also monitors states’ adoption of its uniform laws.

    "The NCCUSL defines a uniform law as “one in which uniformity of the provisions of the act among the various jurisdictions is a principal and compelling objective” and a model law as one whose “principal provisions . . . can be substantially achieved even though it is not adopted in its entirety by every state.”4 In this context, public health deals almost exclusively in model laws and seeks functional equivalence, more than uniformity, across jurisdictions."

    Source: 
    Hartsfield, DeKeely; Moulton, Anthony D.; and McKie, Karen L., "A Review of Model Public Health Laws," American Journal of Public Health (Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, April 2007), Supplement 1, Vol. 97, No. S1, p. S56.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854995/pdf/0970056.pdf

  47. (Hemp in US History) "During World War I, some hemp cultivation occurred in several states, including Kentucky, Wisconsin, California, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Kansas, and Iowa (Ehrensing 1998). The second world war led to a brief revival of hemp cultivation in the Midwest, as well as in Canada, because the war cut off supplies of fiber (substantial renewed cultivation also occurred in Germany for the same reason). Until the beginning of the 19th century, hemp was the leading cordage fiber. Until the middle of the 19th century, hemp rivaled flax as the chief textile fiber of vegetable origin, and indeed was described as 'the king of fiber-bearing plants,—the standard by which all other fibers are measured' (Boyce 1900). Nevertheless, the Marihuana Tax Act applied in 1938 essentially ended hemp production in the United States, although a small hemp fiber industry continued in Wisconsin until 1958. Similarly in 1938 the cultivation of Cannabis became illegal in Canada under the Opium and Narcotics Act."

    Source: 
    Small, Ernest and Marcus, David , "Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America," Trends in New Crops and New Uses (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Center for New Crops and Plant Products, 2002), p. 284.
    http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/pdf/small.pdf

  48. (United States - law & policy - ONDCP budget for model state drug laws) "The FY 2009 resources of $1.3 million will support the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws to prepare and conduct state model law summits and assist state officials in the promotion and adoption of summit-based laws. In addition, resources will support the development and distribution of updated model laws, as well as analyses of state laws and bills involving drug issues."

    Source: 
    Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy: FY2010 Budget Summary," (Washington, DC: 2009), p. 138.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/...

  49. (History of Heroin-Assisted Treatment) "The emerging consensus is that heroin is a treatment for a limited number of illicit-drug users who do not do well with other medicines. Historically, however, heroin was the main 'drug of choice' for treatment. In the 1920s and earlier in Britain, it was the treatment or maintenance drug for compliant middle-class addicts, those who accepted the authority of the doctor to prescribe to them. The prescription of heroin was the basis of the so-called British system, which operated until the 1960s.6 This was not the case in the United States. The inability to conduct the NAOMI trial in the United States reflects a historically different attitude toward the medical prescription of heroin to addicts; this prohibition dates back to the implementation of the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act before World War I. Doctors were prosecuted thereafter if they prescribed heroin for addicts."

    Source: 
    Berridge, Virginia, "Heroin Prescription and History," New England Journal of Medicine (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Medical Society, August 20, 2009) Volu. 361, Issue 8, p. 820.
    http://www.innerchangefoundation.org/pdf/NEJM2009.pdf

  50. (History) "Illicit drug use by women is also not new. By the end of the 19th century, almost two thirds of the nation's opium and morphine addicts were women [2]. The issue of drug use during pregnancy garnered the national spotlight starting in the 1960's when public attention began to focus on the possible harm to the unborn child. Less than 15 years after Chuck Yaeger shattered the sound barrier, several events combined to shatter the placental barrier – the notion that the fetus was protected and even invulnerable. The placental "barrier" suddenly became quite porous. The rubella (German measles) epidemic and, in particular, the tragedies caused by two drugs, thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol (DES), amplified public sentiment about the need for protecting the fetus from risks from drug use. Thalidomide was approved for marketing in 1958 and was used primarily as a sedative and antidote for nausea in early pregnancy. By 1962, evidence showed that a rare set of deformities, mostly limb malformations, were caused by the drug and 8,000 children had been affected [10]. DES was a synthetic hormone prescribed in the 1940s and 1950s to prevent miscarriage. By the late 1960s and 1970s, the side effects of the drug became known: the daughters of women who had taken DES during pregnancy developed a rare adrenocarcinoma of the vagina. Licit and illicit drugs became suspect as possible teratogens, and the activities, diet and behaviors of pregnant women have been under close scrutiny ever since [11]."

    Source: 
    Lester, Barry M.; Andreozzi, Lynne; Appiahm, Lindsey, "Substance use during pregnancy: time for policy to catch up with research," Harm Reduction Journal (London, United Kingdom: April 2004) Volume 1, Issue 5, p. 2.
    http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-1-5.pdf

  51. United States - Research

    (United States - research - drug attitudes and sex) "The principle result is that we find evidence that differences in sociosexuality are central to explaining differences in attitudes toward recreational drugs. The best predictors of drug attitudes were not responses to abstract political items, but rather items that asked about matters relating to promiscuity. This provides evidence that views on sex and views on drugs are very closely related."

    Source: 
    Kurzban, Robert; Dukes, Amber; and Weeden, Jason, "Sex, drugs and moral goals: reproductive strategies and views about recreational drugs," Proceedings of the Royal Society B (London, United Kingdom: June 16, 2010) Vol. 277, No. 1699, pp. 3505-3506.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20554547

  52. (United States - research - drug policy as a function of electoral politics) "There was no political or scientific-medical consensus for the policy designs that developed into national programs in the 1990s. Studies failed to address the political dimension of the drug control policy."

    Source: 
    Major Barrett K. Peavie, United States Army, "United States War on Drugs: Addicted to a Political Strategy of No End," School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Command and General Staff (College of Fort Leavenworth, KS: January 2001), p. 45.
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRD...

  53. (Drug Policy and Electoral Politics) "Electoral politics was the reason why the preponderance of federal fiscal dollars resourced supply programs higher rather than demand reduction programs. The United States drug policy has been driven by the need to appear tough on drugs, regardless of results. Cocaine and heroin cost are declining and product purity is rising. Presidential leadership has a value, however, pressures to compromise may mitigate effectiveness. Political activism by an informed electorate to help shape the direction of public policy is needed."

    Source: 
    Major Barrett K. Peavie, United States Army, "United States War on Drugs: Addicted to a Political Strategy of No End," School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Command and General Staff (College of Fort Leavenworth, KS: January 2001), p. 46.
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRD...

  54. (History) "For most of American history, growing and using marijuana was legal under both federal law and the laws of the individual states. By the 1840s, marijuana’s therapeutic potential began to be recognized by some U.S. physicians. From 1850 to 1941 cannabis was included in the United States Pharmacopoeia as a recognized medicinal.4 By the end of 1936, however, all 48 states had enacted laws to regulate marijuana.5 Its decline in medicine was hastened by the development of aspirin, morphine, and then other opium-derived drugs, all of which helped to replace marijuana in the treatment of pain and other medical conditions in Western medicine.6"

    Source: 
    Eddy, Mark, "Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: March 31, 2009), p. 1.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33211.pdf

  55. (History) "Cannabis indica became available in American pharmacies in the 1850’s following its introduction to western medicine by William O'Shaughnessy (1839).6 In its original pharmaceutical usage, it was regularly consumed orally, not smoked. The first popular American account of cannabis intoxication was published in 1854 by Bayard Taylor, writer, world traveler and diplomat."

    Source: 
    Geiringer, Dale, "Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California" Contemporary Drug Problems," originally published as "The Forgotten Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California," Contemporary Drug Problems, (Summer 1999 - substantially revised June 2006) Vol 26, #2, p. 4.
    http://www.canorml.org/background/caloriginsmjproh.pdf

  56. (History) "There are indications that cannabis was used as early as 4000 B.C. in Central Asia and north-western China, with written evidence going back to 2700 B.C. in the pharmacopeia of emperor Chen-Nong. It then gradually spread across the globe, to India (some 1500 B.C., also mentioned in Altharva Veda, one of four holy books about 1400 B.C.1), the Near and Middle East (some 900 B.C.), Europe (some 800 B.C.), various parts of South-East Asia (2nd century A.D.), Africa (as of the 11th century A.D.) to the Americas (19th century) and the rest of the world.2"

    Source: 
    "A Century of International Drug Control," United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Vienna, Austria: 2009), p. 15.
    http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/100_Years_of_Dr...

  57. (Political History) "The identification of cannabis as a potentially dangerous psychoactive substance did not, however, prevent a substantial number of these enquiries to explore the issue of whether current legislation reflected the real dangers posed by cannabis. Already in 1944, the La Guardia Committee Report on Marihuana concluded that ‘the practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word’ and that ‘the use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction’ (Zimmer and Morgan, 1997). In 1968 the Wootton Report stated that ‘the dangers of cannabis use as commonly accepted in the past and the risk of progression to opiates have been overstated’ and ‘cannabis is less harmful than other substances (amphetamines, barbiturates, codeine-like compounds)’. A similar conclusion was arrived at 34 years later in 2002 when the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence proposed the reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C (enforced by law in 2004 and confirmed in 2005). These views were reiterated by other enquiries, such as the Baan Committee in the Netherlands, which affirmed in 1971 that ‘cannabis use does not lead directly to other drug use’ (16) or by the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, which in 1973 stated that ‘the existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm engendered by the use of the drug [cannabis]’ (17). The Canadian Le Dain Commission saw ‘the UN Single Convention of 1961 as responsible’ for such a situation which ‘might have reinforced the erroneous impression that cannabis is to be assimilated to the opiate narcotics’. The same commission, however, suggested that the UN Convention did ‘not prevent domestic legislation from correcting this impression’ (18)."

    Source: 
    EMCDDA (2008), "A cannabis reader: global issues and local experiences," Monograph series 8, Volume 1, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, p. 108.
    http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_53355_EN_emcdda-cannabi...

  58. (Marijuana Tax Act) "Marijuana essentially became illegal in 1937 pursuant to the Marijuana Tax Act.39 The use of marijuana required the payment of a tax for usage; failure to pay the tax resulted in a large fine or stiff prison time for tax evasion.40 Drug prohibition was elevated to another level by targeting 'marijuana,' a plant that had never demonstrated any harm to anyone.41
    "Anslinger’s [Harry J. Anslinger, the first Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics] efforts to eradicate marijuana continued when Anslinger sought similar anti-narcotic laws against marijuana at the state level.42 Guided by Anslinger’s policy direction, states began passing their own laws or adopting more strident versions of federal laws.43 By 1952, nearly all states had anti-narcotic laws in place.44"

    Source: 
    Gilmore, Brian, "Again and Again We Suffer: the Poor and the Endurance of the 'War on Drugs,'" University of the District of Columbia Law Review (Washington, DC: The University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, 2011) Volume 15, Number 1, p. 64.
    http://www.udclawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/UDC-DACSL-L.-Rev-...

  59. United States - National Drug Control Strategies

    (United States - national drug control strategies) "Since 1999, the Administration has developed an annual National Drug Control Strategy, which describes the total budget for drug control programs and outlines U.S. strategic goals for stemming drug supply and demand.9 The Administration’s 2008 National Drug Control Strategy centers on five major goals: (1) reduce the flow of drugs into the United States; (2) disrupt and dismantle major drug trafficking organizations; (3) focus on the nexus between the drug trade and other potential transnational threats to the United States, including terrorism; (4) deny drug traffickers, narco-terrorists, and their criminal associates their illicit profits and money laundering activities; and (5) assist foreign countries threatened by illegal drugs in strengthening their governance and law enforcement institutions."

    Source: 
    Wyler, Liana Sun, "International Drug Control Policy," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, June 23, 2008), p. CRS-2.
    http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/107223.pdf

  60. (United States - ONDCP - description) "The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has the responsibility for creating policies, priorities, and objectives for the federal Drug Control Program. This national program is aimed at reducing the use, manufacturing, and trafficking of illicit drugs and the reduction of drug-related crime and violence and of drug-related health consequences.1 ONDCP is located in the Executive Office of the President. It was initially created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 19882 and most recently reauthorized in the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006.3 ONDCP was authorized to receive “such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.”4 Authorization for ONDCP expired at the end of FY2010, but it has continued to receive appropriations."

    Source: 
    Sacco, Lisa N., "Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, October 20, 2011), p. 1.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41535.pdf

  61. (United States - ONDCP - responsibilities) "The director of ONDCP [the Office of National Drug Control Policy] has primary responsibilities of developing a comprehensive National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy) to direct the nation’s anti-drug efforts; developing a National Drug Control Budget (Budget) to implement the National Drug Control Strategy, including determining the adequacy of the drug control budgets submitted by contributing federal Drug Control Program agencies; and evaluating the effectiveness of the National Drug Control Strategy implementation by the various agencies contributing to the Drug Control Program."

    Source: 
    Sacco, Lisa N., "Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, October 20, 2011), Executive Summary.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41535.pdf

  62. (United States - national drug control strategy - budget) "... the [National Drug Control] Budget can be thought of as funding two broad categories of demand-reduction and supply reduction activities. Further, the funding allocated for each contributing Drug Control Program agency is deemed as either supply-related or demand-related in its entirety. This approach cannot accurately measure the true breakdown of Drug Control Program funds dedicated to either supply or demand reduction because contributing agencies may have programs that target both supply and demand reduction. For instance, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) uses funds for intelligence, investigations, state and local assistance, international support, and prevention46—a mix of both supply- and demand-reduction activities—but for classification purposes, the funds that DEA receives are considered to be supply-reduction funds."

    Source: 
    Sacco, Lisa N., "Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, October 20, 2011), p. 10.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41535.pdf

  63. (United States - national drug control strategy - criticisms) "Critics of the current—and previous—Budget’s focus on supply reduction activities may argue that research on prevention and treatment programs has suggested that such demand-reduction programs may be effective at reducing drug use. Research on supply-reduction, enforcement programs have not yielded the same results.48 In addition to considering outcome effectiveness, policymakers have questioned the cost effectiveness of supply- and demand-reduction activities. ... Research has indicated, for instance, that drug treatment for high-risk populations, such as criminal offenders, can reduce societal costs.50 Expert analysis of drug enforcement programs, on the other hand, indicates that while enforcement may produce short-term drug market disruption, the effects are not lasting.51"

    Source: 
    Sacco, Lisa N., "Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, October 20, 2011), p. 10.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41535.pdf

  64. (United States - national drug control strategy - 2012 budget) "The President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 National Drug Control Budget requests $26.2 billion to reduce drug use and its consequences in the United States. This represents an increase of $322.6 million (1.2 percent) over the FY 2010 enacted level of $25.9 billion."

    Source: 
    "National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2012 Funding Highlights," Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, February, 2011), p. 2.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/...

  65. (United States - national drug control strategy - 2015 goals) "National Drug Control Strategy Goals to be Attained by 2015

    "Goal 1: Curtail illicit drug consumption in America

    "1a. Decrease the 30-day prevalence of drug use among 12– to 17- year- olds by 15%
    "1b. Decrease the lifetime prevalence of 8th graders who have used drugs, alcohol, or tobacco by 15%
    "1c. Decrease the 30-day prevalence of drug use among young adults aged 18–25 by 10%
    "1d. Reduce the number of chronic drug users by 15%

    "Goal 2: Improve the public health and public safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse

    "2a. Reduce drug-induced deaths by 15%
    "2b. Reduce drug-related morbidity by 15%
    "2c. Reduce the prevalence of drugged driving by 10%

    "Data Sources: SAMHSA’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health (1a, 1c); Monitoring the Future (1b); What Americans Spend on Illegal Drugs (1d); and Prevention (CDC) National Vital Statistics System (2a); SAMHSA’s Drug Abuse Warning Network drug-related emergency room visits, and CDC data on HIV infections attributable to drug use (2b); National Survey on Drug Use and Health and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) roadside survey (2c)"

    Editor's Note: The National Drug Control Strategy goals for 2015, named in separate reports, are the same for both 2011 and 2012.

    Source: 
    "National Drug Control Strategy: 2011," Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2011)
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/ndcs2011.pdf
    ===
    "National Drug Control Strategy: 2012," Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2012)
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/2012_ndcs.pdf

  66. (United States - national drug control strategy - 2005 goals)
    "Two-Year Goals: A 10 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders."

    "A 10 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by adults age 18 and older."

    "Five-Year Goals: A 25 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders."

    "A 25 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by adults age 18 and older."

    "Note: Progress toward youth goals is measured from the baseline established by the 2001 Monitoring the Future survey. Progress toward adult goals is measured from the baseline of the 2002 National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health. All Strategy goals seek to reduce current use of any illicit drug. Use of alcohol and tobacco products, although illegal for youths, is not captured by 'any illicit drug.'"

    Source: 
    Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy" (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Feb. 2005), p. 4.
    http://www.cicad.oas.org/Fortalecimiento_Institucional/eng/National%20Pl...

  67. (United States - national drug control strategy - goals for 2003)

    "NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY GOALS"

    "Two-Year Goals:
    "A 10 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders.
    "A 10 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by adults age 18 and older

    "Five-Year Goals"
    "A 25 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders.
    "A 25 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by adults age 18 and older

    "Progress toward youth goals will be measured from the baseline established by the Monitoring the Future survey for the 2000–2001 school year. Progress toward adult goals will be measured from the baseline of the 2002 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. All Strategy goals seek to reduce “current” use of “any illicit drug.” Use of alcohol and tobacco products, although illegal for youths, is not measured in these estimates."

    Source: 
    "National Drug Control Strategy: 2003," Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, February, 2003), p. 4.
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/17757.pdf

  68. (United States - national drug control strategy - 1999) "The National Drug Control Strategy proposes a ten-year conceptual framework to reduce illegal drug use and availability 50 percent by the year 2007."

    Source: 
    Office of National Drug Control Policy, "Reducing Drug Abuse in America: An Overview of Demand Reduction Initiatives", Chapter II (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, January 1999), p. 28.
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/drugabuse/drugabuse.pdf