harrison act

[Gimmeshelter]

does anyone know if the HARRISON ACT has ever been challenged..

[Gimmeshelter]

dominosarah,

GLAD YOU ASKED.
I want to challenge this act in federal court.

[Gimmeshelter]

VICKI595
            AWSOME ANSWER, THANKS FOR YOUR HELP !

[Gimmeshelter]

Vicki
Thank you, for taking the time too answer my question..

                                                        THANKS AGAIN !

                                                       GIMMESHELTER

[Gimmeshelter]

THANK YOU SO MUCH, for taking the time to reply. I will keep looking for more posts from you..
                                           THANKS AGAIN,
                                                  GIMMESHELTER

[meegWpaw]

ty Annie ... I was feeling SO guilty after I read this post ... it just was a coincidence ... he just Looked like a Harrison!  sheepishly ... or lionly ... or bearly ... I think the subconscious inspiration was Ford ... always had a weakness for him ... doh!  forgive me ... yes he's the one in the pics ... ain't he hansome?  ;)

ps I wish I could say it was WH Harrison ... that would have been so erudite ...

[EvolverU]

HA! Meegs.....(Is that the one in your pics?) How'd you name him? Harrison Ford? Harrison, NJ? William Henry Harrison? ....or the dreaded 'Harrison Narcotic Tax Act' ? (probably none of the above, eh?) Good name.

[meegWpaw]

well im honestly not trying to be obnoxious but I felt it was incumbent upon me to say that I had no idea this act even existed when I named my new teddy bear/lion yesterday ... but Harrison he shall remain ... and with no relation to the act ...  :p

[EvolverU]

There were many luminaries, doctors & politicians who were quite outspoken along the way at the damage that it has generally caused. It was actually a Federal tax act that challenged state's rights & became the model for many that followed. I think the definitive challenge to it was Linder v. the United States. He was a Dr. whose conviction was unanimously overturned by the supreme court.

Here's a Wiki re: Linder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linder_v._United_States

Here's an interesting article re: criticism throughout the years re: The Harrison Narcotic Act: (quite interesting)

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cu8.html

[vicki595]

The Harrison Act has been challenged many times but I couldn't tell you how many times a defendant has won a challenge.  It is illegal for a physician to provide narcotics to a known drug addict, although it remains a vague area of practice. Pain Management Clinics were created to avoid or circumvent this law...

I think one of the more familiar cases was the charge against Dr. Nick, Elvis's long time physician. He eventually lost his license after years of court drama.

[ROSYouralright]

I am looking into it and that was a great question... For those that don't know here is a summary of the Harrison act:                                                                                    

On its face, moreover, the Harrison bill did not appear to be a prohibition law at all. Its official title was "An Act to provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax upon all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes ." 4 The law specifically provided that manufacturers, importers, pharmacists, and physicians prescribing narcotics should be licensed to do so, at a moderate fee. The patent-medicine manufacturers were exempted even from the licensing and tax provisions, provided that they limited themselves to "preparations and remedies which do not contain more than two grains of opium, or more than one-fourth of a grain of morphine, or more than one-eighth of a grain of heroin . in one avoirdupois ounce." 5 Far from appearing to be a prohibition law, the Harrison Narcotic Act on its face was merely a law for the orderly marketing of opium, morphine, heroin, end other drugs-in small quantities over the counter, and in larger Quantities on a physician's prescription. Indeed, the right of a physician to prescribe was spelled out in apparently unambiguous terms: "Nothing contained in this section shall apply . . . to the dispensing or distribution of any of the aforesaid drugs to a patient by a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under this Act in the course of his professional practice only." 6 Registered physicians were required only to keep records of drugs dispensed or prescribed. it is unlikely that a single legislator realized in 1914 that the law Congress was passing would later be decreed a prohibition law.

The provision protecting physicians, however, contained a joker hidden in the phrase, "in the course of his professional practice only ." 7 After passage of the law, this clause was interpreted by law-enforcement officers to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict to maintain his addiction. Since addiction was not a disease, the argument went, an addict was not a patient, and opiates dispensed to or prescribed for him by a physician were therefore not being supplied "in the course of his professional practice." Thus a law apparently intended to ensure the orderly marketing of narcotics was converted into a law prohibiting the supplying of narcotics to addicts, even on a physician's prescription.

Many physicians were arrested under this interpretation, and some were convicted and imprisoned. Even those who escaped conviction had their careers ruined by the publicity. The medical profession quickly learned that to supply opiates to addicts was to court disaster.

[89NotAgain]

Thats new to me & I am going to check it out. Ty.