Joseph R. Corso

English

St. John's University School of Law

The Catholic Lawyer Volume 12 Number 2 Volume 12, Spring 1966, Number 2 Article 5 November 2016 Legislative Solutions to Narcotic and Drug Addiction Joseph R. Corso Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl  Part of the Legislation Commons, and the Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Joseph R. Corso (1966) "Legislative Solutions to Narcotic and Drug Addiction," The Catholic Lawyer: Vol. 12 : No. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl/vol12/iss2/5 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact selbyc@stjohns.edu. LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONSTO NARCOTIC ANDDRUG ADDICTIONJOSEPH R. CORSO*p ERHAPS IN NO RECENT SESSION of the New York State Legislaturehas there been so much interest in the problem of narcotic anddrug addiction.This interest was heightened by a fresh realization of the growingmenace of drug addiction, particularly among youths and adolescents.Newspapers throughout the state have reported on the growing incidenceof narcotic experimentation-if not outright addiction-on the collegecampus, and authorities in suburban counties outside New York Cityhave expressed increasing concern over the use of amphetamines andbarbiturates-pep pills and goofballs-by high school students.An awareness of this increasingly grave social question was firstexpressed in the closing moments of the 1965 session of the legislature,when by concurrent resolutions, the two houses created the JointLegislative Committee on Narcotic and Drug Addiction.Also the executive branch of the state government was not unmindfulof the gravity of the situation. In the fall of 1965, Governor Nelson A.Rockefeller announced that he intended to press for remedial legis-lation in the 1966 session. Additionally, several senators and assembly-men disclosed their intention to deal with the problem through themedium of legislation. With all this legislative activity in the field ofnarcotic and drug addiction, it would appear helpful in a legal journalof this kind to discuss, evaluate and compare the various bills andmeasures submitted in Albany in 1966.First, I would like to refer to the program proposed by GovernorRockefeller. In a special message to the legislature on Feb. 23,1966, he declared that "the problem of addiction to narcotics is at* LL.B. (1932), Fordham University; Chairman of the Joint Legislative Com-mittee on Narcotic and Drug Addiction.the heart of the crime problem in NewYork State. Narcotic addicts are respon-sible for one-half the crimes committedin New York City alone-and their evilcontagion is spreading into the suburbs."The Governor cited statistics of the NewYork City Police Department whichshowed:a. a 75 per cent increase in the num-ber of children under sixteen years of agetaken into custody for criminal offenseswho were admitted narcotic users;b. a 95 per cent increase in arrests forviolation of the narcotics law by youngpeople from sixteen to twenty years old;andc. a 49 per cent increase in arrestsfor murders by addicts.In addition:a. 80 per cent of all women arrestedfor prostitution were narcotic addicts;b. 20 per cent of those arrested forfelonies against property were narcoticaddicts; andc. almost 50 per cent of all those ar-rested for serious misdemeanors and of-fenses were admitted narcotic users.The Governor's program containedfour essential elements:(1) stiffer sentences for pushers;(2) compulsory treatment, rehabili-tation and aftercare for addicts;(3) centralization of operating re-sponsibility; and(4) full mobilization of resources.The Joint Legislative Committee onNarcotic and Drug Addiction submittedits own proposals to the legislature onFeb. 3, 1966. The main features of theCommittee bill were:(1) The establishment of a State Nar-cotic Control Commission within the Ex-12 CATHOLIC LAWYER, SPRING 19;".ecutive Department, consisting of a chair-man and two other members who are notholders of any other state public office,with not more than two members belong-ing to the same political party. Eachmember of the Commission, including thechairman, would be appointed by thegovernor, by and with the advice andconsent of the senate and would hold officeuntil his successor is appointed.(2) The transfer of all powers andduties of the Bureau of Narcotics of theState Department of Health to the pro-posed Commission. The bill would alsorepeal Section 3324 of the Public HealthLaw, which provides that certain me-dicinal preparations such as cough syrupsmay be dispensed without a prescription.(3) A provision that the Commissionformulate a comprehensive program oftreatment, cure and rehabilitation leadingto the resumption by the addict of hisnormal role in society.(4) The granting to the Commissionthe power to request Congress to channelany federal aid to the state through theCommission, which would thereupon co-ordinate and supervise all such grants.(5) The Commission would be em-powered to initiate negotiations with thefederal government for the use of dis-continued facilities, such as VeteransAdministration hospitals, for the treatment,cure and rehabilitation of the drug addict.The Commission would also be empow-ered to construct special hospital facilitiesfor addicts and narcotic users.(6) The Commission would be grantedthe power to select and acquire by pur-chase, condemnation, or other suitablemeans, sites for health camps for thestudy, care, cure, treatment and rehabili-31SLATIVE SOLUTIONStation of those addicted to narcotic, de-pressant or stimulant drugs. Such healthcamps would provide comprehensive vo-cational training as well as an academicprogram, each leading to a high schoolequivalency diploma.(7) Psychiatric guidance and care pro-grams would be established.(8) The Commission would be chargedwith the responsibility for the aftercareand supervision of drug addicts, such pow-ers being transferred from the Departmentof Mental Hygiene.(9) Each public and private non-profitorganization in any way connected withnarcotic and drug addiction could be ac-credited by the Commission upon proofthat it had complied with minimum stand-ards established by the Commission'srules and regulations.(10) The Commission would furtherbe empowered to prescribe care for bar-biturate and other types of drug addicts.The bill defines a "drug addict" as a per-son who, at the time of examination, orat the time of arrest, is dependent uponany narcotic, depressant or stimulant drug.The term "drug addict" would not applyto any person who uses or receives any ofthese drugs pursuant to a physician's law-ful prescription.(11) The Commission would be giventhe power to establish a firmer controlover the legal distribution of drugs. Allprescriptions containing a narcotic or aderivative thereof as well as certain typesof drugs and barbiturates, would be madeout by a physician in triplicate on formssupplied by the Commission. However,pharmacists could, in good faith, sell ordispense narcotics not otherwise restrictedto written prescriptions, on the oral orwritten order of a physician.At this point, it would seem in orderto present a comparative analysis of thelegislation proposed by the Joint Legisla-tive Committee on Narcotic and DrugAddiction and the Governor's legislation.The Committee bill created a Commis-sion of three members within the Execu-tive Department whereas the Governor'slegislation established a five-man Com-mission within the structure of the De-partment of Mental Hygiene.It remains to be determined whetherthe Governor's creation of a Commissionwithin a state department complies withpending federal legislation of a "singlestate agency" for the administration of aplan for the cure, care and rehabilitationof the addict.The Committee bill specified that anaddict was one who "is dependent uponany narcotic, depressant or stimulantdrug." The Governor's bill merely de-fines an addict as one who "is dependentupon a narcotic."It has been estimated by law enforce-ment officials that fifty per cent of addictstoday are dependent upon depressant orstimulant drugs. Probably most of the re-maining fifty per cent graduated from de-pressant and stimulant drugs to a nar-cotic.It appears to this writer that to excludethis type of person from a program ofnarcotic control is to possibly ignore amajor portion of the problem. It is sub-mitted that the criterion should be "aperson addicted to use of drugs who haslost power of self-control with referenceto his addiction."Section 712 of the Committee bill moreeffectively controls distribution of federalgrants, since it authorizes the proposedCommission to act as the agency to funnelfederal grants-in-aid to the respectiveoperating agencies. This control is vitallyneeded since there is little knowledge asto how much or for what purpose federalaid will be extended. The Governor'slegislation simply provides that the Com-mission, with the approval of the Directorof the Budget, accept on behalf of thestate any grants or gifts.In like manner, it would seem that theCommittee bill furnishes more adequateguidelines for a program of rehabilitation.The Committee bill specified that a hos-pital be devoted solely to research in thefield. It also called for the establishmentof health camps providing comprehensivevocational and academic training, leadingto a high school equivalency diploma, andaccompanied by psychiatric guidance.The Governor's legislation refers only torehabilitation centers or other facilities ofthe Commission, and the continued use ofstate mental hospitals.The Committee bill also took into ac-count an effective and realistic programfor control of the legal traffic in drugs.This was done by strengthening Articles33 and 33(a) of the Public Health Lawby (1) creating a triplicate system ofprescription, and (2) in general, requiringthat all medicinal preparations containingany narcotic must be dispensed only byprescription. Effective enforcement oflegal distribution is a necessary companionto effective control of drug addiction. TheGovernor's legislation does not containany similar provisions.The Committee bill was also morespecific regarding the procedure for thecommitment of an adolescent user of12 CATHOLIC LAWYER, SPRING 1966drugs with adequate safeguards, e.g., theCommittee bill provided that such com-mitment would be made upon petition toa court of record by a peace officer, rela-tive, or physician. The bill also orderedthat adolescent drug users be segregatedfrom other addicts. The Governor's legis-lation does not distinguish between adoles-cent addicts and others, and it permitsany person to petition a court for a com-mitment.The Committee bill extended the pro-visions of the Metcalf-Volker bill, in thata friend, relative or other interested person,may petition a court for commitment of anaddict.The Governor's legislation provides fora civil commitment of up to thirty-sixmonths. The procedure is initiated by anex parte order, and a hearing is thereafterheld for certification of a person. TheGovernor's legislation goes further thanthe Committee bill only in the area of theconvicted addict. In such a case, if theconviction is for a misdemeanor or forprostitution, the court shall certify the per-son to the care of the Commission forthirty-six months. If convicted of a felony,the court may send the addict to the careof the Commission for a period of up tofive years.Four other bills dealing with the prob-lem of drug addiction were submitted inthe 1966 session of the legislature. Theywere sponsored by Senator ManfredOhrenstein and Assemblyman JeromeKretchmer.The first would have amended theMental Hygiene and the Public HealthLaws, so as to authorize physicians to ad-minister narcotics under the supervisionof the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene.LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONSThis bill would have also amended Sec-tion 203 of the Mental Hygiene Law toprovide that the Commissioner could, inconjunction with the various medical so-cieties, certify "physicians competent totreat narcotic addicts."The second Ohrenstein-Kretchmer billwould have amended the Mental HygieneLaw so as to finance community rehabili-tation facilities "to the extent of the actualapproved cost per patient as certified bythe Department of Mental Hygiene."The third proposal would also haveamended the Mental Hygiene Law. Thisbill would have defined a narcotic addictas a person who was "in a state of periodicand chronic intoxication from the use ofnarcotic drugs" and who is "physiolog-ically and physically dependent upon suchdrugs and has an overpowering compul-sion to continue taking them."The fourth bill would have establisheda state university center devoted entirelyto a comprehensive attack on narcoticaddiction. The proposed center wouldserve as an interdisciplinary trainingschool offering degrees in psychiatry, psy-chology, nursing, social work and educa-tion. It would train personnel in the latesttreatment, theories of treatment, researchtechniques and use of research findings;and concern itself with medical care, thepsychology and sociology of addiction andrelated areas such as poverty, economics,biology and education. The center wouldalso train specialists in community organ-ization who would be made available tocommunity groups for the purpose ofimplementing programs dealing with nar-cotic addiction. It would include as partof its equipment, facilities for a dataprocessing and statistical center. The ex-penses of the center would be paid fromappropriations and available federalgrants.The Ohrenstein-Kretchmer bills, whichwere defeated when put to a floor vote inboth houses, in effect represented anadaption of the British system of treatingdrug addiction. This method has not beensuccessful in Great Britain and there arereports that the system will undergo ex-amination and change.Governor Rockefeller's own experts,after a survey of this system in GreatBritain last fall, reported that there wasno possibility of successfully adapting itto the needs of New York State. In addi-tion, in a comprehensive report in 1956,the Committee of the Judiciary of theUnited States Senate had this to say aboutthe British system:The so-called clinic plan for legal dis-tribution of narcotics is totally unwork-able, completely contrary to acceptedmedical practice and theory, and wouldaggravate rather than solve the problemof drug addiction.Under the provisions of the clinic plan,the drug addict would be given drugs free,or sold drugs at a minimum cost, for thecontinued support of his addiction. Thiswould be without hospitalization or otherconfinement. Thus, not only would thedrug addict have available his regularsupply of drugs at the clinic, but he wouldhave access to additional drugs on theillicit market.Without absolute control of the patientand his complete isolation from clandes-tine sources of supply, there is no hope ofcure. Ambulatory treatment is foreor-dained to failure as long as there aresecret and illegal methods of obtainingthe drug. Under the present conditions,it is believed it will be a very rare instanceindeed when a patient is cured outside ahospital, or in the absence of equally well-controlled conditions.It is apparent that inherent in the planfor 'free drugs' is the idea that the federalgovernment would be maintaining in so-ciety the agent of contagion-the drugaddict himself.Addicts who testified [before the com-mittee] or who were interviewed, repeat-edly emphasized that the only way to becured of narcotic addiction is absolutelyto forego the continued use of drugs.They even scoffed at the idea that theaddict could be 'weaned away,' sayingthat 'it is a matter of the addict makingip his mind, once and for all.'In conclusion, the Committee reportsaid:We are opposed to all types of so-calledambulatory treatment. We believe thatinitial treatment must take place within aspecial institution, and that rehabilitationof a drug addict should not begin until heis off narcotic drugs and has undergoneextensive physical and psychiatric treat-ment within an institution.Despite all this official and medical evi-dence to the contrary, the New York CivilLiberties Union, at a hearing by the Leg-islative Committee on Narcotic and DrugAddiction in Albany on March 16, 1966,supported the Ohrenstein-Kretchmer bills.They endorsed:(I) Promulgation of medical stand-ards for administering narcotics in thetreatment of addicts by the medical pro-fession.(2) Authorization to specially certi-fied physicians to administer narcotics andthus medically treat addicts.(3) Establishment of clinical facilitiesto implement and further these two pro-posals.Another significant piece of legislationintroduced at the current session of thelegislature was a bill sponsored by Sena-12 CATHOLIC LAWYER, SPRING 1966tor Norman Lent. This measure basicallyamends Sections 510 and 1192 of theVehicle and Traffic Law to make it a mis-demeanor for a person to operate a motor-cycle or motor vehicle while the operator'sability is impaired by the use of narcoticor other addictive drugs.In testimony before the Joint Legisla-tive Committee on Narcotic and DrugAddiction, District Attorney William Cahnof Nassau County, a constituent of Sena-tor Lent, announced his strong backingof the Senator's bill.Subsequently, Senator Lent's bill waspassed by both houses of the legislatureand at this writing was awaiting actionby the Governor.Only recently, another noteworthy pieceof legislation was introduced by AssemblySpeaker Anthony J. Travia. This billwould outlaw the illegal traffic in the hal-lucinogenic drug LSD.This bill was an outgrowth of a confer-ence called by the District Attorney ofKings County, Aaron E. Koota. The con-ference was convened in response to wide-spread public shock and outrage over themurder of a woman by a man under theinfluence of LSD, and the hospitalizationof a young child who had accidentallytaken this terrifying drug. Speaker Tra-via's bill would seem assured of promptand favorable action by both houses ofthe legislature.Significantly, when Speaker Travia an-nounced that he was submitting his "LSDbill," he indicated that the Joint Legisla-tive Committee on Narcotic and DrugAddiction, which had been scheduled bylegislative resolution to terminate its exist-ence on March 31, 1966, would be given(Continued on page 173)  

Legislative Solutions to Narcotic and Drug Addiction

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1591&amp;context=tcl

Legislative Solutions to Narcotic and Drug Addiction

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

St. John's University School of Law

bepress Legal Repository