Drug Policy Opinion: Page 24

Home
Court Opinions
Topics & Themes
  Asset Forfeitures
  Conspiracy
  ›› Drug Policy Opinion
  Drugs: Types, Dosages, Effects
  First Amendment
  Justiciability
  Medicinal Marijuana
  Policy Considerations
  Proportionality
  Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
  Searches and Seizures
     Airports
     Borders
     Consent
     Drug Testing
     Dwellings
     Exclusionary Rule
     Grounds for a Search
     Informants
     Mail
     Nuances of Detention
     Personal Items
     Private Action
     Roads and Vehicles
     Tools and Augmentation
     Warrants
  Sentencing and Penalties
Authors
Trivia

Drug Policy Opinion

Statements found in Court opinions regarding illicit substances. Public policy considerations, individual predilections of the Justice writing the opinion, the objective and subjective views on the the drugs, the drug use and the drug war... All of these can be found in this section.

Pages: ‹1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› ‹5› ‹6› ‹7› ‹8› ‹9› ‹10› ‹11› ‹12› ‹13› ‹14› ‹15› ‹16› ‹17› ‹18› ‹19› ‹20› ‹21› ‹22› ‹23› ‹24› ‹25› ‹26› ‹27› ‹28› ‹29› ‹30› ‹31› ‹32› ‹33› ‹34›

Dep't of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch (1994)
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, dissenting:

...[T]he Court holds that imposition of the drug tax is always punitive, regardless of the nature of the offense or the offender. The consequences of this decision are astounding. The State of Montana -- along with about half of the other States -- is now precluded from ever imposing the drug tax on a person who has been punished for a possessory drug offense. A defendant who is arrested, tried, and convicted for possession of one ounce of marijuana cannot be taxed $100 therefore, even though the State's law enforcement costs in such a case average more than $4,000. See Montana Criminal Justice Expenditures 24. Moreover, presumably the State cannot tax anyone for possession of illegal drugs without providing the full panoply of criminal procedure protections found in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, given the Court's holding that "the proceeding Montana initiated to collect a tax on the possession of drugs was the functional equivalent of a successive criminal prosecution."

[...]

Dep't of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch (1994)
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, dissenting:

Today's decision is entirely unnecessary to preserve individual liberty, because the Excessive Fines Clause is available to protect criminals from governmental overreaching. [...] On the other hand, today's decision will be felt acutely by law-abiding taxpayers, because it will seriously undermine the ability of the State and Federal Governments to collect recompense for the immense costs criminals impose on our society.

[...]

Chandler v. Miller (1997)
Opinion by: GINSBURG

Respondents' defense of the statute rests primarily on the incompatibility of unlawful drug use with holding high state office. The statute is justified, respondents contend, because the use of illegal drugs draws into question an official's judgment and integrity; jeopardizes the discharge of public functions, including antidrug law enforcement efforts; and undermines public confidence and trust in elected officials. Brief for Respondents 11-18. The statute, according to respondents, serves to deter unlawful drug users from becoming candidates and thus stops them from attaining high state office. [...] Notably lacking in respondents' presentation is any indication of a concrete danger demanding departure from the Fourth Amendment's main rule.

Nothing in the record hints that the hazards respondents broadly describe are real and not simply hypothetical for Georgia's polity.

[...]

Chandler v. Miller (1997)
Opinion by: GINSBURG

A demonstrated problem of drug abuse, while not in all cases necessary to the validity of a testing regime, [...] would shore up an assertion of special need for a suspicionless general search program. Proof of unlawful drug use may help to clarify -- and to substantiate -- the precise hazards posed by such use.

[...]

Chandler v. Miller (1997)
Opinion by: GINSBURG

What is left, after close review of Georgia's scheme, is the image the State seeks to project. By requiring candidates for public office to submit to drug testing, Georgia displays its commitment to the struggle against drug abuse. [...] The need revealed, in short, is symbolic, not "special," as that term draws meaning from our case law.

[...]