Drug Policy Opinion: Page 6

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›

Ferguson Et Al. v. City of Charleston Et Al. (2001)
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS join as to Part II, dissenting:

As I indicated at the outset, it is not the function of this Court -- at least not in Fourth Amendment cases -- to weigh petitioners' privacy interest against the State's interest in meeting the crisis of "crack babies" that developed in the late 1980's.

[...]

Ferguson Et Al. v. City of Charleston Et Al. (2001)
Trivia

Infants whose mothers abuse cocaine during pregnancy are born with a wide variety of physical and neurological abnormalities. See Chiriboga, Brust, Bateman, & Hauser, Dose-Response Effect of Fetal Cocaine Exposure on Newborn Neurologic Function, 103 Pediatrics 79 (1999) (finding that, compared with unexposed infants, cocaine-exposed infants experienced higher rates of intrauterine growth retardation, smaller head circumference, global hypertonia, coarse tremor, and extensor leg posture). Prenatal exposure to cocaine can also result in developmental problems which persist long after birth. See Arendt, Angelopoulos, Salvator, & Singer, Motor Development of Cocaine-exposed Children at Age Two Years, 103 Pediatrics 86 (1999) (concluding that, at two years of age, children who were exposed to cocaine in utero exhibited significantly less fine and gross motor development than those not so exposed); Chasnoff et al., Prenatal Exposure to Cocaine and Other Drugs: Outcome at Four to Six Years, 846 Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 314, 319-320 (J. Harvey and B. Kosofsky eds. 1998) (finding that four to six year olds who were exposed to cocaine in utero exhibit higher instances of depression, anxiety, social, thought, and attention problems, and delinquent and aggressive behaviors than their unexposed counterparts).

[...]

Illinois v. McArthur (2001)
JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting:

The Illinois General Assembly has decided that the possession of less than 2.5 grams of marijuana is a class C misdemeanor. See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, § 550/4(a) (1998). In so classifying the offense, the legislature made a concerted policy judgment that the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use does not constitute a particularly significant public policy concern. While it is true that this offense -- like feeding livestock on a public highway or offering a movie for rent without clearly displaying its rating -- may warrant a jail sentence of up to 30 days, the detection and prosecution of possessors of small quantities of this substance is by no means a law enforcement priority in the State of Illinois.

[...]

Illinois v. McArthur (2001)
Trivia

Under the laws of many other States, the maximum penalty McArthur would have faced for possession of 2.3 grams of marijuana would have been less than what he faced in Illinois. See, e. g., Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 11357(b) (West 1991) ($ 100 fine); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-406(1) (1999) ($ 100 fine); Minn. Stat. § 152.027(4) (2000) ($ 200 fine and drug education); Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(c)(2)(A) (Supp. 1999) ($ 100-$ 250 fine); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416(13) (1995) ($ 100 fine and drug education); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 30-31-23(B) (1997) ($ 50-$ 100 fine and 15 days in jail); N. Y. Penal Law § 221.05 (McKinney 2000) ($ 100 fine); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 475.992(4)(f) (Supp. 1998) ($ 100 fine).

[...]

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Coop. (2001)
Opinion by: THOMAS

Because the decision raises significant questions as to the ability of the United States to enforce the Nation's drug laws, we granted certiorari.

[...]