Assignment Question
Identify and describe three major drug legislations that were enacted between 1970 and 2000. Examine key issues related to the development of these legislations including the contributing factors and intended goals. The essay needs to be based on the following textbook: (S) Drugs, Society, and Criminal Justice Levinthal, Brusman-Lovins, 2020 Pearson
Assignment Answer
Evolution of Drug Legislation in the United States (1970-2000): Goals, Factors, and Impact
Introduction
The United States has a long and complex history with drug legislation, reflecting societal attitudes, scientific advancements, and the ever-changing landscape of illicit substances. Between 1970 and 2000, a crucial period in the nation’s response to drug-related issues, several significant pieces of legislation were enacted, each addressing different aspects of the drug problem. This essay will identify and describe three major drug legislations enacted during this period, namely the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It will examine the key issues surrounding the development of these legislations, the contributing factors, and their intended goals, all while referencing the textbook “Drugs, Society, and Criminal Justice” by Levinthal and Brusman-Lovins (2020).
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 is one of the cornerstone pieces of legislation in the United States’ approach to drug regulation. It aimed to streamline and unify the country’s drug laws, bringing them under federal jurisdiction. The CSA classified drugs into five schedules based on their potential for abuse, medical utility, and safety, providing a framework for the legal control of various substances (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). This legislation replaced and expanded upon the earlier Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914, aiming to address the shortcomings of its predecessor.
One of the major issues leading to the development of the CSA was the lack of consistency and comprehensiveness in drug regulation. Prior to its enactment, drug laws in the United States were a patchwork of state regulations, local ordinances, and federal statutes, resulting in significant confusion and inconsistencies (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). This made it challenging for law enforcement agencies to effectively combat the drug trade, as illicit substances often crossed state lines. Additionally, the lack of a clear classification system for drugs meant that the legal status of various substances varied widely from one jurisdiction to another.
The development of the CSA was influenced by several factors, including the emergence of new recreational drugs in the 1960s and the public’s growing concern over drug abuse. In particular, the rise of marijuana and hallucinogens like LSD raised alarm bells among policymakers and the public (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). These substances were seen as symbols of the counterculture movement and were associated with a perceived breakdown in societal norms. The CSA aimed to address these concerns by categorizing substances based on their potential for abuse and medical utility.
The intended goals of the CSA were multifaceted. It sought to provide a comprehensive framework for the regulation of controlled substances and establish a system that could adapt to new drugs as they emerged (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). By classifying drugs into schedules, the CSA aimed to enable law enforcement agencies to more effectively combat the illicit drug trade. It also aimed to strike a balance between ensuring that controlled substances were available for legitimate medical purposes while preventing their diversion into the illicit market (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). The CSA’s structure allowed for the strict regulation of Schedule I substances like heroin and LSD, while providing greater access to Schedule II drugs like prescription pain medications.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988
The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 represent a significant shift in the United States’ approach to drug policy. These legislations were passed during a time of heightened concern about the impact of drug abuse on society, particularly the crack cocaine epidemic in the 1980s (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). These acts introduced a range of measures aimed at increasing penalties for drug offenses and expanding law enforcement powers.
Several key issues drove the development of the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts. First and foremost was the crack cocaine epidemic, which had devastating effects on inner-city communities and led to a surge in drug-related violence (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). The crack cocaine trade was seen as particularly destructive due to its association with high levels of addiction and crime. The public and policymakers were eager to address the issue and combat the spread of crack cocaine.
Another contributing factor was the fear of drugs’ impact on youth. The “Just Say No” campaign led by First Lady Nancy Reagan was a prominent element of the anti-drug efforts of the era. It aimed to discourage drug use among young people, reflecting concerns about the long-term societal consequences of drug abuse (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). In response to these concerns, the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts introduced mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, particularly those involving crack cocaine.
The intended goals of the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts were to deter drug abuse through harsher penalties and increased law enforcement efforts (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). By imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses, the acts aimed to send a clear message that drug-related crimes would be met with severe consequences. This was seen as a way to disrupt the drug trade and prevent individuals from becoming involved in the illicit drug market.
However, the Acts were not without controversy. They disproportionately impacted minority communities, as crack cocaine offenses carried much harsher penalties than offenses involving powder cocaine, despite the substances being pharmacologically similar (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). This led to accusations of racial bias in the criminal justice system and the adoption of what some critics referred to as “the New Jim Crow.”
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 represented a comprehensive approach to addressing various issues, including drug-related crime. The Act was the largest crime control bill in U.S. history and covered a wide range of criminal justice and law enforcement issues (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). Within this legislation, Title VI, the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act’s drug control provisions, aimed to target drug-related crime and drug abuse through a combination of law enforcement, prevention, and treatment measures.
The development of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was influenced by several issues. The late 1980s and early 1990s saw a spike in violent crime rates in the United States, which fueled public fear and concern (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). Additionally, the crack cocaine epidemic, which had prompted the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts, continued to have a profound impact on urban communities. This environment created a sense of urgency for policymakers to address the issue comprehensively.
Contributing factors to the Act included the need to provide resources for law enforcement and the expansion of community policing programs (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). The Act also established the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to coordinate federal anti-drug efforts. Furthermore, it included provisions aimed at reducing drug abuse, including funding for drug treatment programs.
The intended goals of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act were multi-faceted. It aimed to address the rise in violent crime and drug-related offenses by providing funding and support for law enforcement efforts, community policing, and drug treatment programs (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). By expanding community policing, the Act sought to improve police-community relations and increase the visibility of law enforcement in neighborhoods affected by drug-related crime.
The Act also incorporated prevention and treatment elements, reflecting a growing recognition of the need to address the demand side of drug abuse (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). By providing funding for drug treatment programs, the Act aimed to reduce drug abuse rates and help individuals struggling with addiction.
However, the Act was not without controversy. Some critics argued that it emphasized punitive measures and contributed to the expansion of the prison-industrial complex (Levinthal & Brusman-Lovins, 2020). Additionally, concerns were raised about the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on minority communities, echoing criticisms of the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts.
Discussion
The three major drug legislations enacted between 1970 and 2000—namely the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994—each addressed different aspects of the nation’s drug problem and were influenced by unique sets of issues and factors.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 aimed to unify and streamline the country’s drug laws, providing a framework for the legal control of controlled substances. It was developed in response to the lack of consistency and comprehensiveness in drug regulation, as well as the emergence of new recreational drugs in the 1960s. The intended goals of the CSA were to provide a comprehensive framework for the regulation of controlled substances, establish a system that could adapt to new drugs, and strike a balance between ensuring access for legitimate medical purposes while preventing diversion into the illicit market.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 represented a shift towards harsher penalties for drug offenses, driven by concerns about the crack cocaine epidemic and its impact on inner-city communities. These acts introduced mandatory minimum sentences and aimed to deter drug abuse through the threat of severe consequences. However, they were criticized for their disproportionate impact on minority communities and were seen as contributing to racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 took a comprehensive approach to addressing drug-related crime and drug abuse. It was developed in response to rising violent crime rates and the ongoing impact of the crack cocaine epidemic. The Act provided funding and support for law enforcement efforts, community policing, and drug treatment programs. It also established the ONDCP to coordinate federal anti-drug efforts. The Act aimed to reduce drug abuse through prevention and treatment measures, in addition to addressing drug-related crime.
Conclusion
The period between 1970 and 2000 witnessed significant developments in drug legislation in the United States. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 established a framework for the legal control of controlled substances, aiming to address the lack of consistency in drug regulation and the emergence of new recreational drugs. The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 introduced harsher penalties for drug offenses in response to the crack cocaine epidemic, but they also faced criticism for their disproportionate impact on minority communities. Finally, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 provided a comprehensive approach to addressing drug-related crime and drug abuse by supporting law enforcement efforts, community policing, and drug treatment programs.
These legislations reflect the complex and evolving nature of drug policy in the United States, shaped by societal attitudes, scientific knowledge, and the prevailing issues of the time. As the nation continues to grapple with drug-related challenges, it is essential to consider the lessons learned from these past legislations and to strive for a balanced and evidence-based approach to drug policy that addresses both the supply and demand sides of the issue.
References
- Levinthal, C. F., & Brusman-Lovins, L. (2020). Drugs, Society, and Criminal Justice. Pearson.
- Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904 (1970).
- Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 (1986).
- Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181 (1988).
- Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994).
