Law Blog

Methamphetamines have become the most commonly abused drug in California according to LegalMatch.com case statistics.  Since 2005, 55% of LegalMatch customers seeking drug defense attorneys in California have been accused of possessing or distributing methamphetamines.  Marijuana only makes up 26%, and Cocaine 10%.  These statistics match 2007 stats released by the California Attorney General showing that “dangerous drugs” (methamphetamines and barbiturates) made up 49.5% of all arrests in the state.

There has been a lot of talk recently about the legalization of drugs as a means of saving tax dollars and cracking down on crime. At last week’s “Internet Town Hall,” President Obama was asked whether he thought legalizing marijuana could help improve the economy and create jobs. He responded with a blunt “no” while the audience laughed and applauded the President’s ability to be the same as everyone else.

Of course, no one is seriously considering legalizing meth as a means of dealing with the problem of methamphetamine abuse. But could legalizing other drugs such as marijuana help law enforcement and drug treatment professionals concentrate on this more dangerous drug? After all, statistics (and health concerns) prove it is clearly California’s biggest drug problem.

I have previously opined on the likelihood of marijuana legalization saving us billions of dollars, but what about this other possible side benefit? California Judges, Probation Officers, and Diversion Programs will similarly be able to concentrate more of their efforts on dealing with the startling fact that 50% of drug charges in California now deal with methamphetamines. By freeing up resources to better treat meth abusers and reduce recidivism and future abuse, we may also reduce incarceration rates and save the state even more money.

In a sense, legalization of one drug could have a domino effect on our state’s treatment of other, more serious drugs. Perhaps if President Obama had decided to answer a more serious question, we may have gotten something more than derisive laughter.

Reasonable minds may differ on the necessity of the drug war and the tactics used to fight it, but one thing is certain: it costs a heck of a lot of money. Some states are taking steps to spend their money wisely. One of these steps is de-criminalizing the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. Massachusetts has already done so and Connecticut is considering following suit. Efforts to do so have failed in California, but the movement to ease the burden on our courts by removing small-time cases from the docket is gaining momentum.

How much could be saved? According to statistics compiled by LegalMatch, in 2007 44% of LegalMatch clients arrested for drug crimes were marijuana related. Federal statistics for the same period show that that 47% of all drug arrests were for marijuana possession. Nationally this works out to 775,137 marijuana possession arrests, or almost 10 times the amount of arrests for drug trafficking and sales.

Reducing the burden on our courts by shifting almost 3 quarters of a million defendants off the criminal docket could save a lot of money. Court costs for even the smallest of cases can still add up. A study of average court costs in Allen County, Indiana in 2001 show an average bill of $1,146 for processing drug offense charges. Factoring in inflation, this adds up to $1,345 in 2007 dollars. If we use this estimate for a national average (which seems on the low side as it is), that’s still over $1 billion spent simply processing marijuana possession offenses. That is not even taking into account the costs of other programs such as probation and incarceration.

Massachusetts estimates that it saves over $30 million a year by decriminalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. How much can the nation as a whole save by following suit? Probably a few billion dollars. Although that may seem like chump change in the face of an $800 billion stimulus packages, that is still a lot of money that would be better spent elsewhere. In these tough economic times, we need to look everywhere we can to shed the extra fat. So let’s support a more rational criminal justice policy. It might just save you some money.

According to a new report issued by the World Health Organization, drug use is more common in the United States than in any other country in the world, including those with comparatively lax drug enforcement laws such as the Netherlands.  Americans are the most frequent users of cocaine and marijuana; for instance, 16% of Americans reported using cocaine as opposed to the next closest contender, New Zealand (4%).  Americans are also the most likely to use marijuana (42%). 

Which drugs are Americans using?  Not surprisingly, the most common illegal drug today is marijuana, followed by cocaine, and methamphetamine.  According the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 42% of total drug arrests involve marijuana.  This figure takes on new significance considering that marijuana is more potent than it’s been in over 30 years. 

These findings comport with LegalMatch.com figures I gathered from 2005 through the end of 2008.  39% of people looking for a drug-related criminal defense attorney were arrested for a crime involving marijuana; while 20% of arrests involved methamphetamine, 15% involved cocaine, 11% involved crack, 10% involved other drugs such as prescription medications, 3% involved heroin, 2% involved ecstasy, and 0.2% involved steroids.

While it’s discouraging to know that despite spending almost $12 billion per year on drug prevention efforts, so many Americans continue to use, the White House has some positive news.   According to a recent press release, illegal drug use in America is on the decline. A report based on data compiled from workplace drug tests, a study conducted by the University of Michigan, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency shows that America’s tough drug policies are reducing illegal drug availability and demand.  Specifically, there was a 25% decline in overall illegal drug use by youths from 2001 to 2008.  Cocaine on American streets dropped in purity by 32% and increased in price by 89%, indicating a lack of supply.  Further, nationwide workplace drug tests showed a 38% drop in positive results from June 2006 to June 2008.

While illegal drug use may be on the decline as the economy tanks, some reports indicate that people are increasingly turning to prescription “escape” drugs, such as painkillers and mood enhancers to dull the pain of a foreclosure or job loss.  Drug industry sales figures show that many Americans are forgoing expensive doctor visits and high-priced medications, and instead choosing to mask their pain with prescription painkillers and psychiatric drugs.  Additionally, DEA officials recently reported that prescription drug abuse is rising sharply, at about an 80% increase from 2002. 

Is one problem merely being replaced by another?  Maybe not if the new administration recognizes that drug problems come in many different forms.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in a case that could affect tort law nationwide.  Drug manufacturer Wyeth is appealing a Vermont Supreme Court decision, in which a jury awarded local musician Diana Levine $6.7 million in her claim against Wyeth for failing to provide sufficient warnings regarding the administration of the drug Phenergan by intravenous injection.  Levine developed gangrene in her arm after receiving the drug via intravenous injection; and as a result, her arm had to be amputated and her career was cut short. 

Wyeth asserts that because the FDA approved Phenergan and its warning label, patients such as Levine are preempted by federal law from bringing personal injury claims against it in state court.  According to the doctrine of preemption, federal regulation takes precedence over state laws, which can vary significantly across the country.

Levine certainly makes a sympathetic plaintiff, and several justices have expressed dismay that a drug used to treat a relatively minor ailment (nausea) would be administered when it could lead to such devastating consequences.  Furthermore, it seems the FDA had adequate warning of Phenargan’s dangers, given at least 20 people previously developed gangrene after receiving it, and drug giant Pfizer had already stopped administering anti-nausea drugs by intravenous injection after two amputations resulted. 

It should be noted, however, that Levine already sued – and received a substantial settlement – from the clinic which faultily administered the drug to her.  The case before the Supreme Court is not about compensating Levine; rather, it’s about federal preemption.  Some say that preemption in necessary, at the very least for public policy’s sake, and I agree.  It would be dangerous to allow juries, who generally lack the requisite medical background, to set safety standards for new drugs coming to market.  

Ultimately, permitting juries to determine each medication’s safety profile will bog down the medical system in wasteful litigation and may even dissuade drug manufacturers from making their medications available on the market.  Moreover, a lack of uniform regulations may lead drug manufacturers to incorporate under the laws of those states with the least stringent guidelines, allowing them to in effect bypass safety measures that would have been in place if federal regulations still governed nationwide.  Finally, if erratic drug safety laws aren’t scary enough, the outcome of this case could set precedent in many industries, for example affecting automobile safety standards. 

Instead of allowing juries to determine individual state safety standards, wouldn’t it be wiser to force federal regulators to improve their review procedures and tighten their standards?