Webb v. United States | |
---|---|
Argued January 16, 1919 Decided March 3, 1919 | |
Full case name | Webb, et al. v. United States |
Citations | 249 U.S. 96 ( more ) 39 S. Ct. 217; 63 L. Ed. 497; 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2230; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 88 |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Day, joined by Holmes, Pitney, Brandeis, Clarke |
Dissent | White, joined by McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds |
Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prescriptions of narcotics for maintenance treatment was not within the discretion of physicians and thus not privileged under the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. [1]
In 1915, Congress passed the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act to limit the spread of opioids and cocaine. As Governor-General of the Philippines, Francis Burton Harrison proposed the act as an indirect restriction on the importation of drugs from Asian countries into the United States. The act required that "every person who produces, imports, manufactures, compounds, deals in, dispenses, distributes, or gives away any of the aforesaid drugs shall pay to the said collector a special tax at the rate of $1 per year" (equivalent to $30in 2023), allowing the federal government to monitor the sale of such drugs. [2]
Under this act, the federal government convicted a physician and pharmacist in Memphis, Tennessee, for routinely providing individuals with whatever amount of morphine was requested, rather than applying their medical expertise to tailor prescriptions around actual need. [3]
Having upheld the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act as a valid use of a federal power earlier that day in United States v. Doremus, Associate Justice William R. Day reasoned that allowing Webb to escape prosecution for widespread distribution of morphine simply because he was a physician would undermine the law's legislative intent. [3]
Chief Justice Edward Douglass White dissented based on his minority view in United States v. Doremus that the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was an unconstitutional encroachment on the police power left to state governments in violation of the Tenth Amendment. [4]
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the statute establishing federal U.S. drug policy under which the manufacture, importation, possession, use, and distribution of certain substances is regulated. It was passed by the 91st United States Congress as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The Act also served as the national implementing legislation for the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was a United States federal law that regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates and coca products. The act was proposed by Representative Francis Burton Harrison of New York and was approved on December 17, 1914.
The term narcotic originally referred medically to any psychoactive compound with numbing or paralyzing properties. In the United States, it has since become associated with opiates and opioids, commonly morphine and heroin, as well as derivatives of many of the compounds found within raw opium latex. The primary three are morphine, codeine, and thebaine.
The prohibition of drugs through sumptuary legislation or religious law is a common means of attempting to prevent the recreational use of certain intoxicating substances.
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, Pub. L. 75–238, 50 Stat. 551, enacted August 2, 1937, was a United States Act that placed a tax on the sale of cannabis. The H.R. 6385 act was drafted by Harry Anslinger and introduced by Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina, on April 14, 1937. The Seventy-fifth United States Congress held hearings on April 27, 28, 29th, 30th, and May 4, 1937. Upon the congressional hearings confirmation, the H.R. 6385 act was redrafted as H.R. 6906 and introduced with House Report 792. The Act is referred to, using the modern spelling, as the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. It was overturned in 1969 in Leary v. United States, and was repealed by Congress the next year.
Paregoric, or camphorated tincture of opium, also known as tinctura opii camphorata, is a traditional patent medicine known for its antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic properties.
The regulation of therapeutic goods, defined as drugs and therapeutic devices, varies by jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, they are regulated at the national level by a single agency. In other jurisdictions they are regulated at the state level, or at both state and national levels by various bodies, as in Australia.
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, commonly referred to as assisted suicide. It was the first major case heard by the Roberts Court under the new Chief Justice of the United States.
Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1925), is a Supreme Court case involving the applicability of the Harrison Act. The Harrison Act was originally a taxing measure on drugs such as morphine and cocaine, but it later effectively became a prohibition on such drugs. However, the Act had a provision exempting doctors prescribing the drugs. Dr. Charles O. Linder of Spokane, Washington prescribed the drugs to addicts, which the federal government said was not a legitimate medical practice. He was prosecuted and convicted. Linder appealed, and the Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction, holding that the federal government overstepped its power to regulate medicine. The opinion of the court was written by Justice James Clark McReynolds and states, "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government."
In the United States, increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
The drug policy in the United States is the activity of the federal government relating to the regulation of drugs. Starting in the early 1900s, the United States government began enforcing drug policies. These policies criminalized drugs such as opium, morphine, heroin, and cocaine outside of medical use. The drug policies put into place are enforced by the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Classification of Drugs are defined and enforced using the Controlled Substance Act, which lists different drugs into their respective substances based on its potential of abuse and potential for medical use. Four different categories of drugs are Alcohol, Cannabis, Opioids, and Stimulants.
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws developed the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act in 1934 due to the lack of restrictions in the Harrison Act of 1914. The Harrison Act was a revenue-producing act and, while it provided penalties for violations, it did not give authority to the states to exercise police power regarding either seizure of drugs used in illicit trade or punishment of those responsible.
This is a history of drug prohibition in the United States.
United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280 (1922), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Harrison Narcotics Act did not require a mens rea element and was thus a strict liability crime.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.
Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that reaffirmed the National Prohibition Act's limitation on the dispensation of alcoholic medicines. The five-to-four decision, written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which New York City physician Samuel Lambert sought to prevent Edward Yellowley, the acting federal prohibition director, from enforcing the Prohibition Act so as to preclude him from prescribing alcoholic medicines. The decision affirmed the police powers of the individual states, as well as the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution, which was cited in upholding the Prohibition Act's limitations as a necessary and proper implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Boylan Act was a piece of April 1914 legislation in New York State, dealing with narcotics and addiction. The Act predated the federal 1915 Harrison Act, and in some ways anticipated it. Charles B. Towns, one of the sponsors of the Act, stated "it takes only five or six days to cure a drug fiend in hospital."
United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919), was a decision of the US Supreme Court upholding the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act as a valid use of a federal power under the Taxing and Spending Clause.