Us Territories: Exempt From Federal Drug Laws?

Drug laws in the United States have undergone significant changes over the years, with the federal government enforcing policies to regulate drugs outside of medical use since the early 1900s. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) categorizes substances into five schedules based on their medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability. While federal laws provide a framework, individual states and U.S. territories also have their own drug laws and regulations, leading to variations across the country. This raises the question: Do drug laws apply uniformly to U.S. territories, or do these areas have their own unique approaches to drug regulation and enforcement?

Drug laws in US territories and drug testing in the workplace

Drug laws in the United States are enforced by the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The Controlled Substance Act defines and enforces the classification of drugs, listing them into five categories based on their potential for abuse and medical use. These categories are alcohol, cannabis, opioids, and stimulants.

Federal law does not require private employers to implement drug testing in the workplace. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as federal contractors and grantees, as well as safety and security-sensitive industries. Federal laws like the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 explicitly target workplace substance use and mandate certain employers to take action. Additionally, federal laws also protect the civil rights of employees, setting limits on how employers can investigate and discipline employees for drug use. These include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, and the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA) of 1935.

While federal laws provide a broad framework, state and local laws in US territories can vary significantly. Many US territories have their own laws and regulations dictating when and how workplace drug testing should be conducted. For example, some states like Louisiana allow drug testing in almost all types of businesses, while others like Maine impose restrictions on who can be tested and how rehabilitation and disciplinary actions are carried out. State laws also play a role in workers' compensation and unemployment insurance, with some states offering discounts on insurance premiums for employers with drug-free workplace programs and denying benefits to workers whose injuries are substance-related.

It is important to note that no single set of rules applies across all US territories. Therefore, employers must be aware of the specific laws and regulations in their state and local jurisdiction when implementing drug-free workplace policies and drug testing procedures. Consulting with legal counsel is advisable to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local laws and to avoid potential litigation.

The Controlled Substances Act and scheduling of drugs

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the federal statute that establishes US drug policy. Passed in 1970, it regulates the manufacture, importation, possession, use, and distribution of certain substances. The CSA places all substances under its jurisdiction into one of five schedules, based on the substance's medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability.

The scheduling of drugs is as follows:

Schedule I

Substances in this category have a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. They are unsafe for use, even under medical supervision, and prescriptions are not permitted. Examples include heroin, LSD, marijuana, ecstasy, and peyote.

Schedule II

Drugs in this schedule have a high potential for abuse and are considered dangerous, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. However, they do have accepted medical uses. Examples include cocaine, methamphetamine, oxycodone, Adderall, and fentanyl.

Schedule III

Substances in this category have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence, with accepted medical uses. Examples include ketamine, anabolic steroids, and testosterone.

Schedule IV

Drugs in this schedule have a low potential for abuse and a low risk of dependence, with accepted medical uses. Examples include Xanax, Valium, Ambien, and Tramadol.

Schedule V

Substances in this category have a lower potential for abuse than those in Schedule IV and are used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. They have accepted medical uses and a low risk of dependence. Examples include cough preparations with codeine and Lomotil.

The scheduling of drugs under the CSA is not static and can be changed by Congress or the DEA. The most common way to change the scheduling of a substance is through legislation by Congress. Additionally, the CSA provides a mechanism for substances to be added, removed, or transferred between schedules. Proceedings for these actions can be initiated by the DEA, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or by petition from interested parties, including citizens, medical societies, and public interest groups.

The War on Drugs and its impact on communities of colour

The War on Drugs has had a devastating impact on communities of colour in the US. Initiated by President Nixon in 1971, the War on Drugs was a response to two perceived enemies of the Nixon campaign and White House: the anti-war left and Black people. John Ehrlichman, former White House Counsel, is quoted as saying:

> "We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."

The War on Drugs has resulted in mass incarceration that has disproportionately affected Black and Latino communities. Black people, who make up 13% of the US population, accounted for 24% of all drug arrests in 2020, despite people of all races using and selling drugs at similar rates. This is reflected in research that shows that Black men are five times more likely to be incarcerated than white men, with one-third of Black men expected to be imprisoned in their lifetime.

The War on Drugs has also had a detrimental impact on social determinants of health for communities of colour, including housing, education, income, and employment. Drug war surveillance and control mechanisms have become embedded in everyday life, involving physicians, nurses, teachers, social workers, employers, and landlords as enforcers. For example, drug testing and criminal background checks create significant barriers to employment, and drug-related convictions can result in exclusions from certain professions and restrictions on licences. Black men are disproportionately affected by these policies.

In the realm of housing, the War on Drugs has led to policies such as "One Strike" laws, which authorise public housing authorities to evict tenants if they or their guests are suspected of using or selling drugs. These policies have resulted in the displacement and housing instability of low-income Black and Latinx tenants.

Additionally, the War on Drugs has had a negative impact on education, with punitive responses to drug use in schools, including surveillance, policing, drug testing, and expulsion. This disrupts educational attainment, which is linked to economic mobility and positive health outcomes.

Furthermore, drug policies have restricted access to public assistance programs, with lifetime bans on benefits for people with felony drug convictions. These bans disproportionately impact Black and Latinx communities and contribute to food and economic insecurity, which are associated with poor health outcomes.

The War on Drugs has also had a detrimental effect on family regulation systems, with drug use during pregnancy being treated as a predictor of child abuse or neglect. Black pregnant women are more likely to be tested for drug use and reported to family regulation authorities, leading to higher rates of family separation.

In conclusion, the War on Drugs has had far-reaching and devastating consequences for communities of colour in the US, exacerbating racial inequality and negatively impacting social determinants of health, education, employment, housing, and family stability.

State laws and their approach to marijuana legalization

State laws on marijuana legalization vary across the United States, with 38 of 50 states legalizing it for medical use and 24 states for recreational use. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act at the federal level, prohibiting its use for any purpose. Despite this, federal law is generally not enforced against possession, cultivation, or intrastate distribution in states where it has been legalized.

The movement toward relaxing punishment for marijuana use gained momentum in October 2022, when President Joe Biden announced he would pardon those convicted of simple marijuana possession, and called for governors to do the same for convictions under state laws. Marijuana laws have disproportionately impacted people from minority communities, contributing to mass incarceration. As a result, states that have legalized marijuana have sought to retroactively address the consequences of marijuana prohibition, often including provisions for the expungement or vacation of low-level marijuana convictions.

Some states have gone beyond decriminalization and have fully legalized marijuana for recreational use, with varying regulations on possession limits, home cultivation, public consumption, and taxation. For example, in Colorado, adults over 21 can possess and give away up to an ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants each, though residences are limited to 12 plants total. Retail purchases are subject to standard sales tax, plus an additional 10% marijuana sales tax, and a 15% excise tax on the wholesale price.

Other states have taken a more cautious approach, decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use, reducing penalties, and allowing for medical marijuana programs. For instance, in Delaware, adults over 21 can possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana but are prohibited from growing their own for personal consumption.

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use has been a divisive issue, with opponents citing public health and safety risks, and proponents arguing for its therapeutic benefits and potential economic gains for states. As of April 2024, 31 states and the District of Columbia have decriminalized low-level marijuana possession offenses, removing the possibility of jail time for first-time offenses, but fines and criminal records may still apply.

Overall, the approach to marijuana legalization varies greatly among states, with some fully embracing legalization, while others maintain more restrictive policies, highlighting the ongoing debate surrounding this issue in the United States.

Drug decriminalization and its potential effects on overdose deaths

Drug laws in the United States are enforced by the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration. In 2020, Oregon passed Ballot Measure 110, which decriminalized the possession of small amounts of controlled substances. This made Oregon the first US state to decriminalize the personal possession of illegal drugs.

The effects of this policy change have been mixed. One study by Noah Spencer, published in the Journal of Health Economics, found that Oregon's decriminalization of drugs caused 182 additional unintentional drug overdose deaths in 2021, a 23% increase compared to the predicted number of deaths if Oregon had not changed its laws. However, another study by researchers at NYU, the Network for Public Health Law, and the CDC, found that decriminalization did not cause more overdose deaths. This study compared Oregon's overdose rates to those of 13 states with similar overdose rates before Measure 110 was implemented.

Proponents of drug decriminalization argue that it will reduce the stigma associated with drug use, encourage people to seek treatment, and reduce government expenditure on the justice system. On the other hand, skeptics fear that decriminalization will increase the number of people using drugs by removing the threat of punishment. Some commentators believe that decriminalization must be paired with public health investments to achieve positive outcomes.

The impact of drug decriminalization on overdose deaths is a complex issue that requires further research. While some studies suggest that decriminalization may lead to an increase in overdose deaths, others find no significant link between the two. It is important to consider the specific context and details of decriminalization policies, as well as the availability of treatment and harm reduction services, when evaluating their potential effects.

Frequently asked questions