Jacob Bell
New Member
RECOMIMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH
NEW YORK ACADEMY OF MEDICINE
In May 1972 the Subcommittee on Drugs and Drug Abuse met
to consider the disposition of the Report on Marihuana tabled by the
Committee on Public Health in June I968. That report was compared
with the recent report of the National Commission on Marihuana
and Drug Abuse, which contains specific recommendations similar
to the general positions taken in our I968 report. A statement
comparing the two reports was submitted to the Committee on Public
Health in June 1972.
After an extensive debate, the statement was referred back to the
subcommittee for further study. The subcommittee added revisions,
and the final paper was accepted by the Committee on Public Health
on October 2, 1972. It reads as follows:
The committee sees no need to attempt a new review of the marihuana
problem of the scope of the I944 study by the Mayor's Committee
on Marihuana. A vast literature has accumulated since then and
the National Commission's recent survey provides a comprehensive
review. A statement in reaction to the National Commission's report
was developed to provide additional guidance to the medical profession
and the public on the present medical view of this problem.
Presented here are the recommendations of the National Commission
followed by the recommendations of the Committee on Public
Health.
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION
The comnnission recommends the following changes in federal
law:
Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer
be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain
contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture.
Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no
remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit,
would no longer be an offense.
Federal law should be supplemented to provide:
A plea for marihuana intoxication shall not be a defense to
any criminal act committed under its influence, nor shall proof
of such intoxication constitute a negation of specific intent.
The commission recommu1ends the following uniform statutory
scheme for marihuana at the state level:
Cultivation, sale or distribution for profit and possession with
intent to sell would remain felonies (although we do recommend
uniform penalties).
Possession in private of marihuana for personal use would
no longer be an offense.
Distribution in private of small amounts of marihuana for
no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving a
profit, would no longer be an offense.
Possession in public of one ounce or under of marihuana
would not be an offense, but the marihuana would be contraband
subject to summary seizure and forfeiture.
Possession in public of more than one ounce of marihuana
would be a criminal offense punishable by a fine of $ioo.
Distribution in public of small amounts of marihuana for no
remuneration or insignificant remuneration not involving a profit
would be a criminal offense punishable by a fine of $ioo.
Public use of marihuana would be a criminal offense punishable
by a fine of $ioo.
Disorderly conduct associated with public use of or intoxication
by marihuana would be a misdemeanor punishable by up
to 6o days in jail, a fine of $ioo. or both.
Operating a dangerous vehicle or instrument while under
the influence of marihuana would be a misdemeanor punishable
by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $i,ooo. or both, and
suspension of a permit to operate such a vehicle or instrument
for up to I 8o days.
In considering what its own recommendations should be, the Committee
on Public Health reviewed the following arguments and questions:
i) There is general agreement that marihuana should not be considered
a dangerous addictive drug whose use necessarily precedes or
predisposes to heroin addiction. There is heavy support for the contention
that its social use is not as physically damaging as the social
use of alcohol or tobacco.
2) The relative harmlessness of the use of marihuana is supported
by the position of the National Commission that there should be no
punishment for its private possession for personal use.
3) The National Commission's action in recommending that private
use and possession of marihuana no longer be considered an offense,
while failing to provide for a legal means to obtain the drug,
is confusing and contradictory. The commission's position is that its
approach removes the criminal stigma and threat from a widespread
behavior (possession for personal use) while continuing to discourage
the use of marihuana.
4) Should our committee recommend governmental control and
regulation of marihuana with the drug being made available through
specified approved channels? Would such a position signify approval
of its use? Would it possibly generate a public health problem? Is
there enough scientific certainty about marihuana to justify this stand?
5) Which course (that recommended by the National Commission,
or legalization) will more successfully de-emphasize marihuana as an
emotional issue?
6) Which will permit effective efforts to reduce irresponsible
use of the drug, particularly by youth? Which course will best promote
increased research on the drug?
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH
After debating these and other issues the committee agreed to support
the recommendations of the National Commission on Marihuana
and Drug Abuse at this time. Such a position appears justified by the
known facts about marihuana, including a consideration of the complex
sociolegal issues involved in its use.
The committee recommends, however, that an appropriate agency
of government investigate the feasibility of a system of governmental
control of the distribution of marihuana. Such a system should assure
that the active drug content and purity of marihuana cigarettes would
be compatible with its social use. The government should also provide
optimal control of distribution to prevent illegal dissemination and
should make advertisement of the product illegal. It also should conduct
a continuing educational program to discourage the use of marihuana.
The National Commission will issue a final second report in 1973.
At that time, or any time before then, the committee may reconsider
its position as scientific research and changing social and cultural factors
provide a basis for a revision of the present stand.
The committee recommends further that any remaining legal impediments
to active and thorough research on the physiologic effects
of the use of marihuana be removed and such research be given a high
priority for governmental support.
The committee considered the suggestion that the book on manhuana
published in 194 by the mayor's committee composed mostly
of Academy members, now out of print, be republished as a resource
for discussion and guidance in the public debates as well as forming
a base for the Academy's position. It is suggested that the committee's
reaction to the Report of the National Commission could serve as
a foreword to the new edition of the book.
Source: Marihuana And Drug Abuse
NEW YORK ACADEMY OF MEDICINE
In May 1972 the Subcommittee on Drugs and Drug Abuse met
to consider the disposition of the Report on Marihuana tabled by the
Committee on Public Health in June I968. That report was compared
with the recent report of the National Commission on Marihuana
and Drug Abuse, which contains specific recommendations similar
to the general positions taken in our I968 report. A statement
comparing the two reports was submitted to the Committee on Public
Health in June 1972.
After an extensive debate, the statement was referred back to the
subcommittee for further study. The subcommittee added revisions,
and the final paper was accepted by the Committee on Public Health
on October 2, 1972. It reads as follows:
The committee sees no need to attempt a new review of the marihuana
problem of the scope of the I944 study by the Mayor's Committee
on Marihuana. A vast literature has accumulated since then and
the National Commission's recent survey provides a comprehensive
review. A statement in reaction to the National Commission's report
was developed to provide additional guidance to the medical profession
and the public on the present medical view of this problem.
Presented here are the recommendations of the National Commission
followed by the recommendations of the Committee on Public
Health.
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION
The comnnission recommends the following changes in federal
law:
Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer
be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain
contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture.
Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no
remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit,
would no longer be an offense.
Federal law should be supplemented to provide:
A plea for marihuana intoxication shall not be a defense to
any criminal act committed under its influence, nor shall proof
of such intoxication constitute a negation of specific intent.
The commission recommu1ends the following uniform statutory
scheme for marihuana at the state level:
Cultivation, sale or distribution for profit and possession with
intent to sell would remain felonies (although we do recommend
uniform penalties).
Possession in private of marihuana for personal use would
no longer be an offense.
Distribution in private of small amounts of marihuana for
no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving a
profit, would no longer be an offense.
Possession in public of one ounce or under of marihuana
would not be an offense, but the marihuana would be contraband
subject to summary seizure and forfeiture.
Possession in public of more than one ounce of marihuana
would be a criminal offense punishable by a fine of $ioo.
Distribution in public of small amounts of marihuana for no
remuneration or insignificant remuneration not involving a profit
would be a criminal offense punishable by a fine of $ioo.
Public use of marihuana would be a criminal offense punishable
by a fine of $ioo.
Disorderly conduct associated with public use of or intoxication
by marihuana would be a misdemeanor punishable by up
to 6o days in jail, a fine of $ioo. or both.
Operating a dangerous vehicle or instrument while under
the influence of marihuana would be a misdemeanor punishable
by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $i,ooo. or both, and
suspension of a permit to operate such a vehicle or instrument
for up to I 8o days.
In considering what its own recommendations should be, the Committee
on Public Health reviewed the following arguments and questions:
i) There is general agreement that marihuana should not be considered
a dangerous addictive drug whose use necessarily precedes or
predisposes to heroin addiction. There is heavy support for the contention
that its social use is not as physically damaging as the social
use of alcohol or tobacco.
2) The relative harmlessness of the use of marihuana is supported
by the position of the National Commission that there should be no
punishment for its private possession for personal use.
3) The National Commission's action in recommending that private
use and possession of marihuana no longer be considered an offense,
while failing to provide for a legal means to obtain the drug,
is confusing and contradictory. The commission's position is that its
approach removes the criminal stigma and threat from a widespread
behavior (possession for personal use) while continuing to discourage
the use of marihuana.
4) Should our committee recommend governmental control and
regulation of marihuana with the drug being made available through
specified approved channels? Would such a position signify approval
of its use? Would it possibly generate a public health problem? Is
there enough scientific certainty about marihuana to justify this stand?
5) Which course (that recommended by the National Commission,
or legalization) will more successfully de-emphasize marihuana as an
emotional issue?
6) Which will permit effective efforts to reduce irresponsible
use of the drug, particularly by youth? Which course will best promote
increased research on the drug?
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH
After debating these and other issues the committee agreed to support
the recommendations of the National Commission on Marihuana
and Drug Abuse at this time. Such a position appears justified by the
known facts about marihuana, including a consideration of the complex
sociolegal issues involved in its use.
The committee recommends, however, that an appropriate agency
of government investigate the feasibility of a system of governmental
control of the distribution of marihuana. Such a system should assure
that the active drug content and purity of marihuana cigarettes would
be compatible with its social use. The government should also provide
optimal control of distribution to prevent illegal dissemination and
should make advertisement of the product illegal. It also should conduct
a continuing educational program to discourage the use of marihuana.
The National Commission will issue a final second report in 1973.
At that time, or any time before then, the committee may reconsider
its position as scientific research and changing social and cultural factors
provide a basis for a revision of the present stand.
The committee recommends further that any remaining legal impediments
to active and thorough research on the physiologic effects
of the use of marihuana be removed and such research be given a high
priority for governmental support.
The committee considered the suggestion that the book on manhuana
published in 194 by the mayor's committee composed mostly
of Academy members, now out of print, be republished as a resource
for discussion and guidance in the public debates as well as forming
a base for the Academy's position. It is suggested that the committee's
reaction to the Report of the National Commission could serve as
a foreword to the new edition of the book.
Source: Marihuana And Drug Abuse
