Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act

[3] The draft of the act was submitted to the American Bar Association at its meeting in Washington in 1932, and it was officially approved by that body and sent to various states the following year.

The purpose of the act was to make the law uniform in various states with respect to controlling the sale and use of narcotic drugs.

President Roosevelt supported adoption of the Act in many more states in a message on Columbia radio network in March 1935.

In which case, this opinion of the court should not preclude practitioners from prescribing buprenorphine or methadone to patients suffering from an addictive disorder.

[8] The Act prohibited the importation of crude opium for the manufacture and possession of heroin, including the medicinal use of the psychoactive drug.

[1] The purpose of the act was to make the law uniform in the various states with respect to controlling the sale and use of narcotic drugs.

After receiving suggestions from Commissioner Anslinger, the committee presented a fourth tentative draft to the national conference in September 1931.

The only opposition to adoption of the final draft came from some commissioners who objected to tying the uniform state law to the terms of the federal Harrison Act.

These floor arguments at the national conference are a most important indication that no one challenged or even brought up the issue of the designations of the drugs to be prohibited.

[10]Examination of the annual proceedings of the commissioners immediately suggests several conclusions about the drafting and proposal of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act.

The Uniform Narcotic Drug Act was designed to aid the United States in carrying out its international obligations under the Hague Convention.

The act diminished the growth and spread of the traffic in illicit narcotics by replacing the present inadequate and conflicting state laws.

It utilized and called into full exercise the powers that reside in the states alone, permitting prosecution in such cases as illegal possession, over which the federal courts have no jurisdiction.

[11] Provide for revocation of licenses for violations of the state narcotic law, making direct control of this phase of enforcement beyond the power of the federal government.

[11] Strengthen enforcement by making admissible as evidence what are normally privileged communications when they are used to procure unlawfully a narcotic drug.