Order Code IB10113
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
War On Drugs: Legislation in the 108th Congress
and Related Developments
Updated February 6, 2003
Mark Eddy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Identifying the Problem
Framing the Issue
Actions of the 107th Congress
Policy Questions and Concerns of the 108th Congress
The Drug Control Budget
ONDCP Reauthorization
Media Campaign Reauthorization
DEA Administrator Nomination
Ballot Initiatives and Budgetary Shortfalls in the States
Impact of Homeland Security on Drug Control Agencies
Control of MDMA (Ecstasy)
Other Possible Issues
Executive Branch Actions
The National Drug Control Strategy and Budget
Monitoring the Future’s 2002 Study
New DEA Rules on Industrial Hemp
DEA’s Reaction to Medical Marijuana
Drugs in Federal Prisons
Other Developments of Relevance to Congress
State Budget Crisis
Gateway Effect of Marijuana
Proposition 36 in Los Angeles County
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10113
02-06-03
War on Drugs: Legislation in the 108th Congress
and Current National Developments
SUMMARY
Prohibiting the non-medical use of cer-
include: (1) the drug control budgets for both
tain mind-altering substances has been a
FY2003 and FY2004, which involve most of
public policy goal of the federal government
the appropriations bills; (2) reauthorization of
for more than a century.
ONDCP, the office of the “drug czar,” which
is set to expire on September 30, 2003; (3)
Drug abuse is a problem in the United
reauthorization of the National Youth Anti-
States due to its economic cost, estimated to
Drug Media Campaign, run by ONDCP; (4)
have been over $160 billion in 2000. This
nomination of a new administrator of the Drug
sum includes lost productivity, health care
Enforcement Administration (DEA) due to the
costs, and criminal justice expenditures. An
confirmation of the current administrator as
estimated 1.6 million people were arrested in
Under-Secretary in the new Department of
the United States in 2001 for drug abuse
Homeland Security; and (5) further measures
violations.
to control the use of MDMA (Ecstasy) and
other so-called “club drugs.”
The federal Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP), which coordinates
Other issues could also be the subject of
the war on drugs, frames the issue as one of
congressional studies, investigations, and
reducing drug-related crime and drug-caused
oversight hearings, if not legislation. These
health problems by reducing drug use. Other
include state ballot initiatives regarding medi-
organizations frame the issue differently.
cal marijuana and drug treatment in lieu of
Some groups, for example, frame their posi-
incarceration, the effects of state budget defi-
tion on the drug war in terms of civil rights,
cits on the states’ drug control efforts, and the
religious freedom, or freedom of thought.
impact of the anti-terrorism effort on the drug
war. Other current developments concerning
In recent years, Congress has taken an
the war on drugs, both in the Executive
increasingly punitive stance toward drug
Branch and elsewhere, are of likely interest to
addicts and casual users alike. A different
the 108th Congress. These include the Presi-
approach has been taken by certain countries
dent’s drug-control budget request for FY-
in Europe and elsewhere that are experiment-
2004, the success of the drug war as measured
ing with less restrictive policies such as de-
by national surveys of drug use, and actions
criminalization and harm reduction programs.
taken by DEA against industrial hemp prod-
The 108th Congress will receive strong
ucts and medical marijuana providers.
encouragement from the Executive Branch to
continue on its current path.
For the latest on international drug
control legislation and issues see CRS Issue
Drug control issues likely to be taken up
Brief IB88093, Drug Control: International
in the first session of the 108th Congress
Policy and Approaches.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10113
02-06-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act of 2002, or RAVE Act, which
was reported by a committee but saw no floor action in the 107th Congress, has been
reintroduced in the 108th Congress both as a stand-alone bill (S. 226/Biden) and as part of
S. 22 (Daschle), an omnibus domestic security bill. The proposal would intensify federal
efforts to control MDMA (Ecstasy) by amending a provision of the Controlled Substances
Act, known as the “crack house statute,” to more directly target persons who maintain drug-
involved premises such as “raves,” which are all-night dance parties where MDMA and other
drugs might be used by attendees. (S. 22 would also authorize grants for various drug
treatment, testing, and education programs.)
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The control of certain mind-altering drugs has been a public policy goal of the federal
government and the focus of congressional legislative efforts for more than a century. This
“war on drugs,” as it came to be known, can be said to have begun in November 1880 when
an “absolute prohibition” on the shipment of opium between the United States and China
was agreed to in treaty negotiations between the two countries. The 49th Congress enacted
implementing legislation on February 23, 1887, providing a misdemeanor fine of between
$50 and $500 for any U.S. or Chinese citizen found guilty of violating this ban.
The drug war escalated, in fits and starts, until 1971 when President Nixon declared the
modern war on drugs. He announced “a new, all-out offensive” against drug abuse,
“America’s public enemy number one,” and created a new office directly under him in the
White House to coordinate the major federal drug abuse programs. Drug control legislation
has been actively considered by every Congress since then, and the 108th Congress is not
expected to be an exception.
The term “drug,” in this context, means a substance that is illegally taken into the body
to affect mood or behavior. Examples include marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and
heroin. A legal pharmaceutical, when obtained by illegal means or used for nonmedical
purposes, becomes an illegal drug under this definition. The term “controlled substance”
means a drug or other substance that is included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of the
Controlled Substances Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 812).
This Issue Brief covers significant legislative and oversight activities of the current
Congress as they relate to domestic law enforcement aspects of federal anti-drug policy.
Also included will be significant executive branch actions and other current events of likely
interest to the congressional audience that follows this issue. The most-recent- developments
section, above, will be updated regularly as events occur, and the entire Issue Brief will be
revised monthly, early in every month, to include the previous month’s developments in its
factual and analytical content.
CRS-1

---

IB10113
02-06-03
Identifying the Problem
The term “war on drugs” encompasses a wide array of public policies and programs
designed to address the problem of illegal drug use, drug abuse, and drug dependency by
residents of the United States and its outlying areas. While drug addiction used to be
considered a personal failure, its redefinition as a public problem began to take hold in the
United States around the turn of the 20th century, coincident with the peak of a cocaine
epidemic that revealed the harmfulness to society of drug addiction.
Costs of drug abuse. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the
agency within the Executive Office of the President that coordinates the war on drugs,
estimates the economic cost of illegal drug use in the United States to have been over $160
billion in 2000. Losses in productivity accounted for 69% of this estimated amount.
Incarceration was the leading cause of lost productivity, followed by crime careers, drug
abuse related illness, and premature death. Health care costs of drug abuse were estimated
at 9% of the total cost of drug abuse. Other costs – including drug-related expenses of the
criminal justice system, the cost of attempts to reduce the supply of drugs, and drug-related
social welfare expenditures – made up the remaining 22% of the estimated cost of drug abuse
in 2000.
For purposes of comparison, the estimated $160.7 billion in drug abuse costs equaled
roughly one-eleventh of total FY2000 federal budget outlays of $1,789 billion, or 1.6% of
the estimated gross domestic product of $9,872.9 billion for 2000. This is the cost society
pays for the actions of the estimated 25 million Americans who illegally used any drug at
least once during 2000. Each drug user cost society nearly $6,500, on average, in 2000. In
reality, of course, the costs of drug use are not evenly distributed among all drug users.
Instead, most of the costs are incurred by a minority of drug users, the chronically addicted
and the criminally-minded. According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
there were an estimated 4.7 million Americans aged 12 or older, in 2000, who needed
treatment for an illicit drug abuse problem. They accounted for 2.1% of the national
population. If the estimated costs of drug abuse were shared equally by these problem drug
users, it would come to about $34,200 per person in 2000.
Deaths from drugs. In addition to these economic costs, the number of deaths due
to drug overdoses provides another, frequently cited measure of the cost of drug use. At
congressional hearings, witnesses often use the number of drug-induced deaths reported
annually by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the number of
overdoses from illegal drugs. Actually, the CDC’s category “drug-induced causes” includes
deaths from both illegal and legal drugs, such as poisonings from medically prescribed drugs.
The most recent CDC report reveals that 19,698 persons died of drug-induced causes in the
United States in 2000. CDC is unable to provide a further breakdown of this number by
substance involved, nor are reliable data available elsewhere. The only substance-related
death toll that CDC reports separately is alcohol: there were 19,358 alcohol-induced deaths
in 2000, slightly fewer than from all other drugs – legal and illegal – combined.
Drugs and crime. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that 1.6 million
people were arrested in the United States in 2001 for drug abuse violations. Nearly one in
four persons held in U.S. jails and prisons in 2000 was imprisoned for a drug offense. Of the
total federal prison population in 2000, 57% were serving time for drug offenses. The
CRS-2

---

IB10113
02-06-03
United States now has the highest incarceration rate by far of all industrialized countries, due
in no small measure to the legal penalties associated with the war on drugs.
Framing the Issue
Different federal drug control agencies frame the issue of drug abuse in different ways.
ONDCP, the office of the “drug czar,” frames the issue as one of reducing drug-related crime
and drug-caused health problems by reducing illicit drug use. The Drug Enforcement
Administration frames the issue in terms of enforcing the country’s drug laws. The U.S.
Customs Service frames the issue as one of keeping prohibited substances from entering the
country. The National Institute on Drug Abuse sees the issue as one of bringing the power
of science to bear on the problems of drug abuse and addiction. The Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration sees the issue as one of reducing the cost to society
of drug abuse by improving prevention, treatment, and rehabilitative services. Many other
federal agencies active in drug control efforts frame the issue in other ways.
Non-governmental organizations exhibit an even wider range of issue definitions. The
Partnership for a Drug-Free America frames the issue as one of helping children and teens
reject substance abuse by influencing attitudes through persuasive information. The National
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University defines the issue as one
of employing research and education to encourage individuals and institutions to take
responsibility to combat substance abuse and addiction in American society. The Federation
of American Scientists frames the issue as one of reducing the suffering caused by drug
abuse, drug trafficking, and drug control measures by using careful analysis, open dialogue,
and civil discourse to develop better policies. The Drug Policy Alliance frames the issue as
one of promoting new drug policies based on common sense, science, public health, and
human rights. The Center for Spiritual Practices, focusing on the experiences that can be
elicited by certain controlled substances such as the psychedelics and MDMA (Ecstasy),
frames the issue as one of making direct experience of the sacred more available to more
people. The Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, believing in the individual’s right to
think independently and autonomously, frames the issue as one of freedom of thought. The
Vaults of Erowid, a drug-information website, believes that accurate, responsible information
about drugs will promote their healthy integration into our culture’s political and social
structures.
Many European countries that have been our long-term allies in the drug war are today
beginning to frame the issue of drug abuse less as one of law enforcement and more as one
of public health. Portugal, in 2001, decriminalized all drug use and adopted a policy of harm
reduction. Spain no longer prosecutes illegal drug use done privately. Belgium permits the
use of medical marijuana. Closer to home, Canada is widely expected to decriminalize
marijuana possession sometime in 2003, as recommended last year by the Special Committee
on Illegal Drugs of the Canadian Senate. In 2001, the chief of the Mexican federal police
announced his support of drug legalization throughout the world as the only way to destroy
the global drug economy, and high-level officials in the government of President Vicente Fox
reportedly favor drug legalization as the solution to the violence and corruption caused by
narco-traffickers. These trends abroad and especially on our borders have encountered
vehement U.S. opposition.
CRS-3

---

IB10113
02-06-03
For its part, Congress has taken an increasingly strong enforcement stance against the
problem of drug use, abuse, and addiction. Federal lawmakers’ early attempts to control the
non-medical use of the opiates, cocaine, and marijuana resulted in the passage of such laws
as the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914 and the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which indirectly
sought to control drug usage through the taxation and regulatory powers of the federal
government. These early attempts at control gave way to stronger enforcement measures,
leading to the enactment of four major anti-drug laws: the Comprehensive Crime Control
Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473), the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-570), the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690), and the Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647).
The 1988 law stated: “It is the declared policy of the United States Government to
create a Drug-Free America by 1995.” Drug abuse is no longer framed as a problem to be
controlled but a problem to be eradicated. The war on drugs is now a national effort to
reduce to zero the demand for illegal drugs in the United States. Responsible drug use,
unlike responsible alcohol use, is considered an oxymoron. To use a prohibited substance
is defined as abuse, whether the user is addicted or not. Studies show that most drug users
are not addicts, yet all users of illegal drugs are subject to the same legal proscriptions and
possible penalties and are not infrequently forced into treatment, if not prison.
Although the wisdom of drug prohibition has come into question as certain other
countries liberalize their drug control policies and as voters in various U.S. states approve
state ballot initiatives to lessen drug penalties, the federal government remains skeptical
about the desirability of such changes. Federal officials argue that usage leads to addiction
and that liberalization, once initiated, could expand and accelerate out of control. The
established policy of prohibition is not expected to come under critical scrutiny at the federal
level anytime soon. Today’s policy questions in Congress concern the priority and level of
resources assigned to the drug war compared to other pressing federal priorities (e.g., drug
interdiction vs. counterterrorism), the relative emphasis given to each of the components of
the war on drugs (e.g., enforcement vs. treatment), and the effectiveness of various programs
(e.g., the youth anti-drug media campaign).
Actions of the 107th Congress
Fewer drug control bills were enacted by the 107th Congress than by other recent
Congresses. The 107th Congress did reauthorize the Drug-Free Communities Support
Program for another 5 years (H.R. 2291/P.L. 107-82). It also included some of the
provisions of S. 304, a large drug treatment and prevention bill, in the Department of Justice
Reauthorization act (H.R. 2215/P.L. 107-273). The 107th Congress approved FY 2002
funding for the war on drugs in the amount of $18.8 billion, according to the national drug
control budget summary compiled by ONDCP. It failed, however, to pass the domestic
appropriations bills for FY2003, leaving the drug control agencies (except for the
Department of Defense) operating under a continuing resolution.
CRS-4

---

IB10113
02-06-03
Policy Questions and Concerns of the 108th Congress
Several policy questions relating to the war on drugs are expected to receive active
legislative consideration in the first session of the 108th Congress. These include the
following subjects, which will undoubtedly change as the session unfolds.
The Drug Control Budget
As estimated by ONDCP, the federal drug control budget amounted to nearly $18.1
billion for FY2001 and more than $18.8 billion for FY2002. The President’s FY2003 budget
request contained almost $19.2 billion for the war on drugs, according to ONDCP’s drug
control budget summary. Nearly two-thirds of the total would go to just two federal
departments, Justice and Health and Human Services. The remaining funds are scattered
among the appropriations for many other departments and agencies. The current status of
the FY2003 appropriations bills is that only two of them have become law. Passing the
remaining appropriations bills will be among the first orders of business of the new
Congress. (At least 10 of the 13 appropriations bills normally contain drug control monies.)
Appropriations hearings provide an opportunity for congressional oversight of the
federal antidrug effort. One subject almost certain to come up is the proper balance between
demand reduction and supply reduction efforts. “Demand reduction” includes treatment,
education, testing and other prevention and related research programs. “Supply reduction”
involves investigation and prosecution of drug manufacturers and traffickers, drug
interdiction overseas, along U.S. borders, and at ports of entry, and the development of
international accords to restrict supply. The size of the drug war budget in the near future
could be limited by budgetary constraints imposed by the war against terror, the possible
conflict with Iraq, and the projected federal budget deficit.
ONDCP Reauthorization
Created in 1988 (P.L. 100-690), reauthorized in 1994 (P.L. 103-322) and again in 1998
(P.L. 105-277), authorization for the Office of National Drug Control Policy will expire on
September 30, 2003. The last reauthorization process gave Congress an opportunity, through
staff studies and several hearings, to assess the progress of the anti-drug effort and to develop
specific, measurable goals for reducing drug consumption and drug-related crime in the
United States. Annual reports to Congress containing specified measures of progress in
implementing the National Drug Control Strategy were required. The 108th Congress may
again choose to review the performance and results of ONDCP and revise its mandate, or
approve a simple reauthorizing measure as it did in 1994. The 108th Congress may also
choose not to reauthorize the agency but to continue funding it through the appropriations
process. It is unlikely that the 108th Congress will choose to terminate the office of the drug
czar.
Media Campaign Reauthorization
The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign uses all media – from television to the
Internet – to discourage drug use by youth, increase the perception of risk and disapproval
associated with drugs, and encourage parents and other adults to talk to children about drugs.
CRS-5

---

IB10113
02-06-03
Authorized through FY2002 by the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277),
the media campaign has been funded in amounts between $180 and $195 million per fiscal
year since 1998.
Conducted by the ONDCP, the media campaign has been criticized on grounds of its
implementation and effectiveness. In May 2002, the ONDCP itself released a report that
found little evidence that the youth campaign had had direct, favorable effects between 2000
and 2001 on drug use by young Americans. The General Accounting Office has also
criticized aspects of the campaign. Recent ads painting drug users as supporters of terrorism
have been criticized in media stories, some of which present the view that it is the drug
prohibition laws that create the underground drug markets, some of the profits of which
might find their way into the hands of terrorists. Hearings on reauthorizing the media
campaign will likely investigate these and other issues surrounding this effort to prevent drug
use before it starts among the country’s youth. With its reauthorization overdue, the media
campaign might be combined with ONDCP’s reauthorization in a single bill.
DEA Administrator Nomination
During his 3rd term in Congress, Representative Asa Hutchinson was appointed by
President Bush as Director of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on August 8,
2001. As DEA Director, according to DEA’s Website, he inaugurated the Integrated Drug
Enforcement Assistance (IDEA) Program to combine law enforcement action with
community efforts to keep neighborhoods safe and drug-free, served the first-ever
indictments of known terrorists for drug trafficking, and launched a nationwide campaign
against methamphetamine.
On November 26, 2002, the day after he signed into law the legislation to create the new
Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 5005, P.L. 107-296), President Bush announced his
intention to appoint Hutchinson to serve as Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security in the new homeland security agency. Hutchinson was confirmed as Under
Secretary on January 23, 2003. This means that President Bush will nominate a new DEA
Administrator, and the Senate will hold a confirmation hearing on the President’s choice.
The Senate might take oversight advantage of this opportunity and examine the role of the
DEA in relationship to the new Department of Homeland Security and to the overall war on
terror, as well as other concerns regarding DEA.
Ballot Initiatives and Budgetary Shortfalls in the States
Recent developments at the state level could attract the attention of the 108th Congress
and lead to hearings and possible legislation. Forced into a stance of fiscal restraint by
declining revenues, many states are seeking to cut costs by reducing the number of
nonviolent drug offenders in their prisons. Drug courts and drug treatment programs are seen
as money-saving alternatives to imprisonment. Mandatory minimum sentences for
nonviolent crimes such as drug possession and “three strikes” laws are being revisited by
some state legislatures. Also, voters in some states have approved initiatives that mandate
treatment instead of prison for certain drug offenders. Other state ballot referenda have
approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Since the states collectively spend more money and resources on the war on drugs than
CRS-6

---

IB10113
02-06-03
the federal government, these developments could detract from the country’s overall anti-
drug effort. Some may argue that it is necessary for the federal government to pick up more
of the tab through grant programs or other forms of aid to the states if it expects the states
to continue the “get-tough” policies of recent years. Indeed, some state officials view the war
on drugs as an enormous unfunded federal mandate and would welcome increased federal
assistance. Increased federal budget deficits may, however, constrain new federal spending.
Impact of Homeland Security on Drug Control Agencies
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, federal law enforcement agencies
have had to move resources from some of their usual activities to the new mission of
homeland security. The FBI reorganization, for example, has shifted 518 field agents from
such activities as drug investigations, white-collar crimes, and violent crimes to
counterterrorism. The FBI has revealed plans to reduce by about 29% the number of special
agents involved in drug investigations. The U.S. Customs Service, Coast Guard, and other
agencies are similarly affected. The Drug Enforcement Administration is being asked to take
up the resultant slack in drug law enforcement. Some contend that the efforts are
complementary to some extent. For example, counterterrorism efforts at the border are
targeted on keeping “bad people and bad things” out of the country and can result in higher
drug interdiction rates.
The creation of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is also likely to
influence the future conduct of the war on drugs. Customs, Coast Guard, and the U.S.
Border Patrol, among other agencies, are being incorporated into DHS. Section 101(b) of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), which created the new department,
establishes that the primary mission of DHS is, in part, to “monitor connections between
illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, coordinate efforts to sever such connections, and
otherwise contribute to efforts to interdict illegal drug trafficking.”
In light of this significant reallocation of equipment and personnel, the 108th Congress
might choose to consider – possibly through oversight hearings, investigations, and
legislative proposals – how the war on drugs will be affected by the new emphasis on
homeland security, how mission priorities of federal agencies will change, how the creation
of the Department of Homeland Security will affect the war on drugs, how to improve
information sharing between law enforcement agencies, and similar questions that have
arisen due to the heightened terrorist threat.
Control of MDMA (Ecstasy)
A provision of S. 22, a bill to enhance domestic security, would amend the “crack
house statute” to more directly target the producers of dance events at which drugs are used.
This is based on S. 2633/H.R. 5519, bills introduced in the 107th Congress with the title
Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, or RAVE Act. Although S. 2633 was
reported out of committee and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar, it failed to be
passed by either chamber in the 107th Congress. It was the target of demonstrations and
letter-writing campaigns by several drug reform and dance culture organizations. Two key
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee subsequently withdrew their sponsorship of the
measure.

CRS-7

---

IB10113
02-06-03
The Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2001 (S. 1208/H.R. 2582 in the 107th), to encourage
local communities to crack down on raves and authorize additional funds to be used in High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas for anti-MDMA activities, might also come up again. The
Senate added S. 1208 to its version of the DOJ reauthorization act, but it was deleted in
conference late in the 107th Congress. (See CRS Report RS21108, Ecstasy: Legislative
Proposals in the 107th Congress to Control MDMA.)
Other Possible Issues
Crack/powder sentencing disparity. Several bills were introduced in the 107th
Congress to reduce the penalty disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses, but
they saw no action. Similar proposals are expected to be introduced in the 108th, such as the
introduction of H.R. 345 (Bartlett) on January 27, 2003.
Mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimum sentences with regard to drug offenses
have become increasingly controversial in recent years, both at the grass-roots level and
among some senior federal judges. While the intent of mandatory sentencing was to punish
high-level drug offenders, critics contend that the laws have instead jailed low-level drug
offenders for unusually long periods of time. These critics point out that the average
sentence for first-time, nonviolent drug offenses is longer than the average sentences for rape,
child molestation, bank robbery, or manslaughter. Proponents of mandatory minimums
argue that they constitute an effective way to keep dangerous criminals off the streets. Bills
have been introduced in Congress since at least 1993 to modify or drop mandatory
minimums. Reform bills, while expected to be reintroduced in the 108th, are likely to face
rigorous review.
Law enforcement grant consolidation. The Bush Administration has proposed
the consolidation of many law enforcement grant programs that are administered by DOJ’s
Office of Justice Programs into a single “Justice Assistance” account. This proposal was
under active study by committees of jurisdiction in the 107th Congress, and could see further
action in the 108th Congress. Of special interest to some in Congress is how implementation
of this proposal would affect grant programs related to the war on drugs.
Souder Amendment to the Higher Education Act. In 1998, Congress included
in its reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) an amendment (20 U.S.C.
1091(r)(1)) that denies federal financial aid to any student convicted of a drug offense.
During the 2001-2002 academic year, some 43,000 students lost their student loans,
according to the Department of Education. Known as the Souder amendment, critics contend
that this provision of law has a greater impact on minorities due to an alleged racially
disproportionate enforcement of drug laws. A national organization, Students for Sensible
Drug Policy, has arisen in opposition to it, and a House bill was introduced in the 107th
Congress to repeal it. Another House bill in the last Congress, with Rep. Souder as an
original co-sponsor, would have changed the amendment to restrict its application to drug
offenses that occur only when the student is actually receiving student aid. Changes to this
provision may be considered as part of the potential reauthorization of the HEA during the
108th Congress.
CRS-8

---

IB10113
02-06-03
Executive Branch Actions
The National Drug Control Strategy and Budget
In February 2002, President Bush transmitted to Congress the 2002 National Drug
Control Strategy. The strategy sets forth the goals of reducing past-month drug use in
America by 10% in 2 years and 25% in 5 years from the baseline established by the 2000
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Outlining a federal drug control budget request
for FY2003 of nearly $19.2 billion, the strategy admits that the budget numbers contained
in the annual strategies may have overstated the drug-control efforts of federal agencies. The
strategy promises that ONDCP will develop, in consultation with OMB, an improved
methodology for identifying actual drug control spending in the federal budget. A table in
the 2002 strategy, based on the proposed new budget methodology, revises the FY2003
budget request downward from $19.2 billion to $11.4 billion. By focusing on programs
genuinely directed at reducing drug use and excluding agencies that play only a supporting
role in the drug war, ONDCP believes the new drug budget structure will better serve
Congress and the public and bring greater accountability to federal drug control efforts.
Monitoring the Future’s 2002 Study
The Administration has released drug use statistics to show it is moving toward
intended goals. At an upbeat Washington press conference in December 2002,
administration officials released the results of the 2002 Monitoring the Future survey of drug
use by 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students in U.S. schools. Based on a representative sample of
more than 43,000 students in 394 schools across the country, the results showed a general
downward trend in drug use by high school students from the previous year. For the first
time, teen use of Ecstasy decreased. Use of other illegal drugs also showed declines in most
student categories for most drugs. The proportions of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders reporting that
they used an illegal drug in the previous year now stand at 18%, 35%, and 41%, respectively.
The proportions saying they have used an illegal drug at least once in their lives stand at
25%, 45%, and 53%.
New DEA Rules on Industrial Hemp
The term “industrial hemp” refers to cannabis plants that are grown to produce fiber and
oil used in industrial products such as paper, rope, clothing, industrial solvents, and animal
feed. Other hemp products include foods such as nutrition bars, salad dressings, and beer,
and personal care products such as shampoo, creams, and lotions. In October 2001, DEA
published three rules in the Federal Register (66 FR 51530-51544) that make illegal any
hemp products that could cause THC, a psychoactive ingredient of marijuana, to enter the
human body. Manufacturers and distributors of THC-containing hemp products made for
human consumption were given 120 days, until February 6, 2002, to dispose of such
products. Constituents have written to their Members of Congress in opposition to these
rules, the Hemp Industries Association is contesting them in court, and the U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals has temporarily blocked their implementation. Regulations are now under
review at the Office of Management and Budget.
CRS-9

---

IB10113
02-06-03
DEA’s Reaction to Medical Marijuana
Nine states, beginning with California in 1996, have approved the medical use of
marijuana under a doctor’s supervision. According to a study to be published in the Journal
of Cannabis Therapeutics, 30,000 California patients and another 5,000 patients in the other
eight states are estimated to possess physician’s recommendations to use marijuana
medically. In response to this situation, DEA agents have raided and shut down medical
marijuana providers in several states, backed by a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming
that federal drug laws take precedence over state laws and barring doctors from prescribing
illegal drugs. Opposition in defiance of the DEA tactics has arisen in California cities such
as Santa Cruz and San Francisco. In November 2002, nearly 7 out of 10 San Francisco
voters approved Proposition S, which encourages the city’s Board of Supervisors to enact
a law authorizing the cultivation and distribution of medicinal marijuana by the city
government.
Drugs in Federal Prisons
According to a report released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in January 2003,
illegal drugs are present in almost all federal prisons, even at the highest-security facilities,
as evidenced by prisoner drug tests, prisoner overdoses, prison drug finds, and criminal and
administrative cases filed against prisoners, staff, and visitors. Visitors, staff, and the mail
are the three primary ways drugs enter the prisons. The report found that DOJ’s Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) employs several methods to intercept drug smuggling by visitors and through
the mail, but it has failed to take adequate measures to prevent drug smuggling by its staff.
The report, prepared by DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General, found that an insufficient
number of BOP inmates receive drug treatment, partly because their treatment needs are
underestimated and inadequately tracked. The report contains 15 recommendations to make
BOP’s drug interdiction and treatment efforts more effective, including greater use of pat
searches of visitors, better monitoring of inmate visiting sessions, restrictions on contact
visits for some prisoners, and better documentation of prisoners’ diagnoses and drug
treatment needs.
Other Developments of Relevance to Congress
State Budget Crisis. According to a December 19, 2002 article in the New York
Times, states are reducing their budget deficits by laying off prison guards, closing prisons,
giving inmates early releases from prison, repealing mandatory minimum sentences, sending
drug offenders to treatment rather than prison, not prosecuting misdemeanor violations, and
finding ways around truth-in-sentencing laws and no-parole policies in order to release
convicted felons early. “Last week the legislature in Michigan,” the article says, “voted to
repeal the state’s strict mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug crimes which have led
to even life sentences for possession of cocaine or heroin.”
Gateway Effect of Marijuana. RAND, a nonprofit policy research institution,
released a research brief in December 2002 that summarizes the results of a study, conducted
by its Drug Policy Research Center, of the theory that those who use marijuana are more
likely to advance to the use of hard drugs because of their marijuana usage. This widely-
CRS-10

---

IB10113
02-06-03
believed “gateway effect” of marijuana use, the researchers concluded, might not be valid
after all. Marijuana use, according to RAND’s model, could precede the use of harder drugs
simply because marijuana is available to those with a propensity to use drugs earlier in life
than are hard drugs. While not disproving the gateway theory, the researchers argue that it
should not be assumed to be true by policymakers who are weighing the harms and benefits
of alternative marijuana policies. The research brief states:
Some might argue that as long as the gateway theory remains a possible explanation,
policymakers should play it safe and retain current strictures against marijuana use and
possession. That attitude might be a sound one if current marijuana policies were free
of costs and harms. But prohibition policies are not cost-free, and their harms are
significant: The more than 700,000 marijuana arrests per year in the United States burden
individuals, families, neighborhoods, and society as a whole.
Proposition 36 in Los Angeles County. California’s Proposition 36, enacted in
July 2001, requires that first and second offenders convicted of simple drug possession be
offered treatment rather than jail. Los Angeles County released a report on November 26,
2002, assessing the county’s experience with implementing the measure during its first year
of existence. There were 8,329 people sentenced to treatment, nearly 7,000 fewer than
projected. Nearly 20% of those failed to report for treatment. Many more had dropped out
of their treatment programs. Nevertheless, the report judges the measure a success for
diverting thousands of people from prison, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.
LEGISLATION
S. 22 (Daschle)
A bill to enhance domestic security, and for other purposes. The part entitled “Crack
House Statute Amendments” would amend Sec. 416 of the Controlled Substances Act to
more directly target the promoters of “raves” at which drugs such as MDMA (Ecstasy) are
widely used. It would also: direct the Sentencing Commission to review and consider
stiffening the federal sentencing guidelines with respect to offenses involving the club drug
gamma hydroxybutyric (GHB), the so-called date rape drug; authorize $5.9 million to be
appropriated to DEA for the hiring of a special agent in each state to serve as a “Demand
Reduction Coordinator”; and authorize such sums as necessary to DEA for drug education
efforts directed at youth, their parents, and others about “club drugs.” Other parts of S. 22
would authorize grants for various drug treatment, testing, and education programs.
Introduced January 7, 2003; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Effectiveness of the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, special hearing, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., June 19, 2002
(Washington: GPO, 2002).
CRS-11

---

IB10113
02-06-03
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Belenko, Steven R. Drugs and Drug Policy in America: A Documentary History. Westport,
CT, Greenwood Press [2000] 380 pp.
Kleiman, Mark A.R. Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results. New York, Basic Books
[1992] 474 pp.
Musto, David F., M.D. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. New York,
Oxford University Press [1987] 384 pp.
United States. Office of National Drug Control Policy. National Drug Control Strategy.
Washington, D.C., Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the
President [February 2002] 118 pp. Available at
[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/ndcs.html ]
—— National Drug Control Strategy. FY 2003 Budget Summary. 204 pp. Available at
[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/budget.html ]
CRS-12

---