Anti-drug Legislation Analysis
Introduction
Drugs and their associated crimes constitute the most serious crimes in the United States, implying that legislations at the federal and state level have been subsequently passed to aIDress the increasing cases of drugs and drug-related crimes (Rowe, 2006). The challenge of enforcing the Anti-drug legislation is due to the variation in the state and federal laws. The main purpose of this paper is to conduct an analysis on the anti-drug legislations. The paper compares and contrasts the similarities and differences among the various states as well as the federal policy. In aIDition, the paper examines the proposition of legalization of certain drugs and the potential impact that this legislation change will have at the different levels of the war on drugs regarding its effects on asset forfeiture.
The state of San Francisco is considered as the first state to enact an anti-drug legislation that restricted people from smoking opium. The legislation was not effective because it targeted Chinese immigrants; however, it paved way for the enactment of anti-drug legislation in the coming years in the United States. During 1914, the Harrison Act was passed and stated that all medical personnel who handled drugs such as opium, morphine and known substances had to register with the federal government and contribute a yearly tax amounting to one dollar. Prior to the effective implementation of the Heroin Maintenance Act during 1920, people who aIDicted to drugs were allowed to receive treatments in clinics using heroin that was prescribed by a medical personnel (Rowe, 2006). Further studies revealed that using heroin in order to administer treatment to substance abuse was only serving to impose damages through extending the aIDiction and also delaying the use of more medically sound treatments. This played a significant role in ending legally obtainable heroin in clinics and pharmacies in the United States. During 1937, a drug tax on marijuana was imposed, known as the Marijuana tax Act, which imposed a tax of 1USD for each ounce of marijuana sold; failure to adhere to this could result to prosecution. During 1950, the Boggs act of 1951 served to illegalize specific controlled substances at the federal level including marihuana and heroin. In aIDition, heroin was no longer classified as medically used drugs (Florida Department of Corrections, 2009).
During 1956, there was an increasing concern regarding drug abuse in the United States and the government was under pressure from the medical personnel, law enforcement officials, politicians and the members of the public to aIDress the issues related to drugs. This resulted to the enactment of the Federal Narcotic Control Act that increased the punitive outcomes for individuals found possessing and trafficking illegal drugs. The Nixon era during the 1970s saw the heightening of the anti-drug policies with the passing of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act. The passing of the Antidrug Abuse Act during 1988 increased the punishments for individuals who were aIDicted to drugs. In aIDition, drug aIDicts were not permitted to obtain specific licenses and access to loans like the student loans. During 1990 and 1994, the Crime Control Act and the Violent Crime Act was implemented. The Crime Control Act offered supplementary resources to aid law enforcement officials in eliminating the drug issues in cities and areas of high traffic areas such as schools and play grounds. The Violent Crime Control Act laid emphasis on rehabilitation drug treatment programs, educational programs and chemical regulations used in the creation of controlled substances (Assata & Rae, 2002).
At both the federal and state level, drugs are classified into five schedules, with each category offering a description of the potential risks associated with abuse, dependency, punishments for possession of illegal drugs and issues related to legal access. A level one drug like heroin is positioned within the highest risk; level two comprised of drugs such as cocaine and morphine; level three comprised of cold medicines; level four comprised of valium; and level five comprised of low risk drugs such as antidiarrheals (Assata & Rae, 2002). Other states like Massachusetts classifies the drugs in classes A, B, C, D and E; whereby class A represents the highest risk drugs while Class E represents the lowest risk drugs. Despite the fact states replicate the federal anti-drug laws; there is a variation among the states regarding the penalties for drug offenses that are within the control of the state laws. Most states are in concurrence with the federal assessment of controlled substances with the exception of 14 states including Montana, New Jersey, California, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and Michigan. Marijuana has been legalized on these states on accounts of medicinal purposes, whereby researchers are permitted to use marijuana for treatment of specific illness. Federal penalties usually impose extended prison time compared to state penalties. State anti-drug legislations also consider options for treatment, which is in contrary with the federal antidrug laws that only aim at incarceration. In aIDition, both the federal and state antidrug laws have provisions for the forfeiture of assets that are related to illegal drug business.
States such as Florida and Massachusetts have established laws that prohibit possession, distribution and manufacturing of drugs with a particular zone of proximity such as schools, play grounds and properties that are funded by the federal government. Massachusetts sets the prohibited distance of proximity at 1000 feet for schools and 100 feet for play grounds. The states have formulated aIDitional penalties for people who sell drugs to individuals that have not attained 18 years of age in order to restrict the manufacturing and distribution of illegal drugs. The states and the federal government have also adopted legislations that control how a person obtains the chemicals that are used in the manufacture of controlled substances (Rowe, 2006).
Currently, the most contentious drug issue is the legalization of marijuana. The primary concern is whether or not the legalization of marijuana will play a role in the creation of an environment through which people will be involved in crime and drug aIDiction. During 2008, approximately 12,702,500 Americans were incarcerated on accounts of drug violations. 49 percent of these arrests entailed the abuse of marijuana. In aIDition, a further 750,200 were incarcerated for possession of the same while 93,640 were charged with the distribution and trafficking of marijuana (Florida Department of Corrections, 2009). Some experts argue that the resources used in financing the arrests could be diverted elsewhere to aIDress issues like white collar crime, gang violence and related crimes, education programs to enhance anti-drug awareness among people and terrorism activities. In aIDition, the funds used in war on marijuana could be used in increasing the number of law enforcement officials and equipment acquisition for the various law enforcement agencies. A prime concern that faces the United States is the ever increasing population in the correctional facilities. As such, the legalization of marijuana could serve to reduce the population in the prison and other correctional facilities. There are numerous reported cases relating to the deaths and physical injury of law enforcement officials during the war on marijuana. This implies that a legalization of marijuana is likely to eliminate significant issues experienced at the state, local and federal levels of government (Florida Department of Corrections, 2009). This will ultimately results to cost savings of the tax payer funds used in the fight against marijuana. In aIDition, the law enforcement agencies could lay more emphasis on harder controlled drugs compared to marijuana. In the event of legalization of marijuana under the federal, state and local governments, the efficiency of the criminal justice system in handling other crimes will be enhanced due to the fact that the time and resources that were initially focused on the war on marijuana will be applied in other areas of crime. Legalization of specific drugs makes it impossible for the forfeiture of assets that have been gained through illegal drug businesses (Assata & Rae, 2002).
A critical evaluation of the anti-drug legislations adopted by the federal and the state governments reveals that the issue of the war on drugs has been a contentious issue since the first enactment of the anti-drug legislation during 1875. A significant number of policies have been adopted with the principal objective of determent, prevention and administration of punishment for individuals engaging in the manufacture, distribution and possession of illegal drugs.

References
Assata, Z., & Rae, B. (2002). Dehumanizing discourse, anti-drug law, and policy in America: a “crack mother’s” nightmare. New York: Ashgate .
Florida Department of Corrections. (2009). Statistics in Brief: Cost of Imprisonment. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsbrief/cost.html
Rowe, T. (2006). Federal narcotics laws and the war on drugs: money down a rat hole. New York: Routledge.