Monday, August 18, 2008

RIP ONDCP September 30, 2010

One of the things that has bothered me the most about our War on Some Drugs has been the way the law requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Director (the Drug Czar) to take an active role in the prevention of certain changes to the law.

U.S. Code
Title 21 - Food and Drugs,
Chapter 22 - National Drug Control Policy,
Section 1703 - Appointment and duties of Director and Deputy Directors
..
(b) Responsibilities
The Director—
...
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 812 of this title and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that—
(A) is listed in schedule I of section 812 of this title; and
(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;
...
Once again, in plain English:

The Drug Czar will take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form).

This is just plain wrong. It's anti-democratic, oppressive and evil. It's an affront to liberty. It serves only to further buttress preservation of special interests, and is contrary to the common good.

Good thing there is also:

Section 1712 - Termination of Office of National Drug Control Policy
(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, effective on September 30, 2010, this chapter and the amendments made to this chapter are repealed.
(b) Exception
Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to section 713 or the amendments made by that section.

But wait, what's that exception in pararaph (b)? There is no section 713 in Title 21, Chapter 22 of the U. S. Code. Is this a typo? There's section 1713, which says it's OK to develop and spray herbicides, but that doesn't make much sense here. What's going on?

Google eventually pointed me to the Wyoming State Law Library, which says that
Section 713, referred to in subsec. (b), is section 713 of Pub. L. 105-277, div. C, title VII, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-693, which amended sections 5312 to 5314 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, section 1105 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and section 402 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
The whole of section 713 seems to be
SEC. 713. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Title 5, United States Code.--Chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 5312, by adding at the end the following: ``Director of National Drug Control Policy.'';
(2) in section 5313, by adding at the end the following: ``Deputy Director of National Drug Control Policy.''; and
(3) in section 5314, by adding at the end the following: ``Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy.
``Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy.
``Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy.''.
(b) National Security Act of 1947.--Section 101 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 402) is amended by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g) and inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) The Director of National Drug Control Policy may, in the role of the Director as principal adviser to the National Security Council on national drug control policy, and subject to the direction of the President, attend and participate in meetings of the National Security Council.''.
(c) Submission of National Drug Control Program Budget With Annual Budget Request of President.--Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (25) the following:
``(26) a separate statement of the amount of appropriations requested for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and each program of the National Drug Control Program.''.

No wonder people hate lawyers and scoff at the law.

So, unless there's some provision hidden is (b) that makes (a) an empty nothing, it looks like there's a sunset clause on the Drug Czar's office.

Could it be that... Nah... Probably too much to hope for.

2 comments:

jj mollo said...

So, which candidate is more likely to let this happen? The maverick? or the Harvard Law Review president?

Neither, I fear. Politicians are required to be sanctimonious about drugs because the average citizen doesn't really believe in the Constitution. If it's bad, there has to be a Law against it.

Steve said...

Yes, I'm afraid you're right.

"Oh, the children!"