Abstract
Through judicial review, the United States Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in deciding and/or interpreting the constitutionality of legislation. Since the passage of the Pure, Food and Drug Act in 1906, the Supreme Court’s role has been integral in formulating drug policy. In some instances, the Court’s decisions have limited the authority of the federal government, while in others have greatly expanded this authority. As a direct result of the decision-making of the Supreme Court, limitations have periodically been placed on Congress to regulate controlled substances. Many people, who were perceived as medical patients, became criminal drug users. The Court has restricted and later approved of the use of drugs during the free exercise of religion. Lastly, the Court has continually reinforced the supremacy of the federal government over the states, in turn limiting the ability of the states to consider marijuana legislative reform.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The Eckman Manufacturing Company also made the unsuccessful claim that the Sherley Amendment and the Pure Food and Drug Act exceeded the authority Congress had under interstate commerce to regulate such matters. The Supreme Court previously ruled that Congress had the authority to enact the legislation in Hipolite Egg Company v. United States (1911).
Formerly prescribed in many countries to pregnant women to alleviate morning sickness, thalidomide was never commercially available in the United States. Due to thalidomide use, over 8,000 children were born with birth defects, primarily in Europe and Australia (Knightley, Evans, Potter, & Wallace, 1979).
Wiley was Chief Chemist within the Department of Agriculture.
If the FDA had ruled that Laetrile was a derivative of an existing drug, it would not need FDA approval.
Addiction maintenance was not allowed until the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 allowed methadone maintenance programs and the Drug Treatment Act of 2000 allowed qualified physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for the treatment of opiate abuse.
An example of this was the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Prohibition Act of 2000 that placed GHB into Schedule I and Ketamine into Schedule II of the CSA.
These three factors are: (1) the history and current abuse of a drug, (2) the scope, duration, and significance of abuse, and (3) the risk to the public health.
The law also listed numerous examples drug paraphernalia such as bongs, water pipes, roach clips, and cocaine freebase kits are just a few examples.
States passing medical marijuana laws are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington,
References
Acker, C. J. (2002). Creating the American junkie: Addiction research in the classic era of narcotic control. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ballentine, C. (1981, June). Taste of raspberries, taste of death: The 1937 Elixir of Sulfanilamide incident. FDA Consumer Magazine, 15, 18–21.
Beck, J., & Rosenbaum, M. (1994). Pursuit of ecstasy: The MDMA experience. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bonnie, R. J., Whitebread, I. I., & Charles, H. (1999). The marijuana conviction: A history of marijuana prohibition in the United States (2nd ed.). New York: The Lindesmith Center.
Booth, M. (1996). Opium: A history. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Bullis, R. K. (2008). The “vine of the soul” vs. The Controlled Substances Act: Implications of the Hoasca Case. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 40(2), 193–199.
Coulson, C., & Caulkins, J. P. (2011). Scheduling of newly emerging drugs: A critical review of decisions over 40 years. Addiction, 107, 766–773.
Courtwright, D. (1982). Dark paradise: A history of opiate addiction in America. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.
Courtwright, D. (2001). Forces of habit: Drugs and the making of the modern world. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.
Courtwright, D. (2004). The Controlled Substances Act: How a “big tent” reform became a punitive drug law. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 76, 9–15.
Eisner, B. (1994). Ecstasy: The MDMA story (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Ronin Publishing.
Fischelis, R. P. (1938). What is a patent or proprietary medicine? The Scientific Monthly, 46, 25–31.
Friedman, L. M. (1994). Crime and punishment in American history. New York: Basic Books.
Gahlinger, P. (2004). Illegal drugs: A complete guide to their history, chemistry, use, and abuse. New York: Plume.
Goode, E. (2011). Drugs in American society (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Hawthorne, F. (2005). Inside the FDA: The business and politics behind the drugs we take and the food we eat. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Himmelstein, J. L. (1983). The strange career of marihuana: Politics and ideology of drug control in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Jenkins, P. (1999). Synthetic panics: The symbolic politics of designer drugs. New York: New York University Press.
Knightley, P., Evans, H., Potter, E., & Wallace, M. (1979). Suffer the children: The story of thalidomide. New York: The Viking Press.
Lindesmith, A.R. (1965). The addict and the law. New York: Vintage.
Musto, D. F. (1999). The American disease: Origins of narcotic control (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosenzweig, S. A. (1996). Restoring religious freedom to the workplace: Title VII, RFRA and religious accommodation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 44(6), 2513–2536.
Sinclair, U. (2001). The jungle. Mineola, NY: Dover (Original work published in 1906).
Spillane, J. F. (2000). Cocaine: From medical marvel to modern day menace in the United States 1884–1920. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Spillane, J. F. (2004a). Debating the Controlled Substances Act. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 76, 17–29.
Spillane, J. F. (2004b). The road to the Harrison Narcotics Act: Drugs and their control, 1875–1918. In J. Erlen & J. F. Spillane (Eds.), Federal drug control: The evolution of policy and practice (pp. 1–24). New York: Pharmaceutical Products Press.
Spillane, J. F., & McAllister, W. B. (2003). Keeping the lid on: A century of drug regulation and control. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 70, S5–S12.
Street, J. P. (1917). The patent medicine situation. American Journal of Public Health, 7, 1037–1042.
Sutherland, E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, 5, 1–12.
Wax, P. M. (1995). Elixirs, diluents, and the passage of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Annals of Internal Medicine, 122, 456–461.
Worthen, D. B. (2006). Pharmaceutical legislation: An historical perspective. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Compounding, 10, 20–28.
Cases Cited
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. Angel McClary Raich et al. (2005). 545 U.S. 1.
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. Oregon, et al. (2006). 546 U.S. 243.
Alston v. United States (1927). 274 U.S. 289.
Bifulco v. United States (1980). 447 U.S. 381.
Brolan v. United States (1915). 236 U.S. 216.
Casey v. United States (1928). 276 U.S. 413.
Direct Sales Co. v. United States (1943). 319 U.S. 703.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon, et al. v. Smith (1988). 485 U.S. 660.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith (1990). 494 U.S. 872.
Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal et al. (2006). 546 U.S. 418.
Hipolite Egg Company v. United States (1911). 220 U.S. 45.
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982). 455 U.S. 489.
Leary v. United States (1969). 395 U.S. 6.
Linder v. United States (1925). 268 U.S. 5.
Marbury v. Madison (1803). 5 U.S. 137.
Minor v. United States (1969). 396 U.S. 87.
Nigro v. United States (1928). 276 U.S. 332.
Seven Cases of Eckman’s Alterative v. United States; Six Cases of Eckman’s Alterative v. United States (1916). 239 U.S. 510.
Sonzinsky v. United States (1937). 300 U.S. 506.
State of Minnesota on the Relation of Whipple v. Martinson, Sheriff of Hennepin Country, Minnesota (1921). 256 U.S. 41.
Poster ‘N’ Things, LTD, et al., Petitioners v. United States (1994). 511 U.S. 513.
Touby v. United States (1991). 500 U.S. 160.
United States v. Balint (1922). 258 U.S. 250.
United States v. Behrman (1922). 258 U.S. 280.
United States v. Coca Cola Company of Atlanta (1916). 241 U.S. 265.
United States v. Covington (1969). 395 U.S. 57.
United States v. Doremus (1919). 249 U.S. 86.
United States v. Giorgio Piaget (1990). 915 F. 2d 138 (1987).
United States v. Jin Fuey Moy (1916). 241 U.S. 394.
United States v. Johnson (1911). 221 U.S. 488.
United States v. Moore (1975). 423 U.S. 122.
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones (2001). 532 U.S. 483.
United States v. Sanchez et al. (1950). 340 U.S. 42.
United States v. Sischo (1923). 262 U.S. 165.
United States v. Wong Sing (1922). 260 U.S. 18.
United States et al. v. Rutherford et al. (1979). 442 U.S. 544.
Webb et al. v. United States (1919). 249 U.S. 96.
Wong Tai v. United States (1927). 273 U.S. 77.
Yee Hem v. United States (1925). 268 U.S. 178.
Statutes Cited
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Public Law 99–570, 100 Stat. 3207.
Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal. Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5.
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Public Law 98–472, 98 Stat. 1976.
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, ch. 91–513, 84 Stat. 1242.
Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000, Title XXXV, Section 3502 of the Children’s Health Act of 2000.
Drug Importation Act of 1848, An Act to Prevent the Importation of Adulterated and Spurious Drugs and Medicines. 30th Congress, Session I, ch. 70; 1848: 237–239.
Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Prohibition Act of 2000, 21 U.S.C. 802(34) (65 FR 645, April 24, 2000).
Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 25, 1 Stat. 73, 85 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 1257).
Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act, Pub. L. 99–570, Tit. I, § 1822, 100 Stat. 3207–51.
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 551.
National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.S. §§ 1132 – 1132q.
Oregon Death with Dignity Act of 1994, ORS 127.800-955.
Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, ch. 3915, 34 Stat. 768.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103–141, 107 Stat. 1488.
Sherley Amendment of 1912, ch. 352, 37 Stat. 416.
Smoking Opium Exclusion Act of 1909, ch. 100, 35 Stat. 614.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Griffin, O.H. The Role of the United States Supreme Court in Shaping Federal Drug Policy. Am J Crim Just 39, 660–679 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9224-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9224-4