CHAPTER – 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction: Drugs and Substances in Teenager’s Generation

Children and young people are appropriately at the forefront of public and

political concerns about drugs and the drug trade. Nobody wants to see children and young

people harmed by drug use, whether it is their own, a parent, or a family member’s. Drug

use in early youth can affect development, and children and young people who use drugs

are at higher risk of health harms. It is well known, moreover, that initiation of drug use in

adolescence can lead to longer-term use and dependence more readily than initiation in

adulthood. As such, there is considerable agreement on the importance of prevention and

appropriate targeted interventions for children and young people who use drugs.

All are agreed, moreover, that the exploitation of children by organized

criminal groups in the drug trade is to be fought, and that drug-related violence is enor-

mously damaging for children and young people. All too often, however, the threat to chil-

dren and young people presented by drugs is merely stated without sufficient scrutiny of

the appropriateness and effectiveness of the measures adopted to protect them, hindering

accountable evaluation and policy deliberation. While there are many positive programs

and guidelines from which to learn, it cannot be overlooked that many strategies to counter

the “world drug problem” have had documented negative effects for children and young

people. Important gaps in our understanding of drug use, drug-related harms, and children’s

involvement in the drug trade must also be recognized.

1
 The available information at European level (see ’Methodology’) suggests

that illicit drug use among very young people is confined to a small minority who experi-

ment with drugs at a very early age. Regular use among the very young is rarer still — as

is partly reflected in the European data on people attending drug treatment. Among those

who start using substances at a very young age, evidence suggests that early experimenta-

tion with psychoactive substances, including substance and tobacco, is associated with an

increased risk of developing drug problems later in life. Regular drug use among the under-

15s is most often found among a highly problematic group of the population, in whom drug

use is combined with other concurrent or preceding psychological and social disorders and

might often be a marker of social problems or of an underlying neurobehavioural pathway

(Clark et al., 2005).

Responses targeted at substance use by very young people usually focus on

both licit and illicit substances and, in addition to tackling the problems relating to sub-

stance use, seek to bring about early treatment of concomitant psychological or social dis-

orders. This approach is also reflected in European and national legislation and strategies.

Interventions aimed at very young people range from universal approaches to early inter-

vention, when substance use is already suspected. Drug treatment targeted at drug-using

young people is rare, but most European countries have identified the need for such pro-

grammes.

Legal regulations are especially important in protecting children and ado-

lescents from drugs and ensuring that they have easy access to help and support. Education

plays a crucial role in this respect, and the responsibility for this may be assumed by

2
authorities if it cannot be fulfilled by parents. In this selected issue, information from Eu-

rope on the prevalence and patterns of substance use among very young people and on

available responses in terms of legislation, prevention and treatment is presented.

Children are an important asset for future of a nation. Those aged between

10 and 19 years of age constitute 22.8% of population and those aged 5-9 years comprise

another 12.5% of population in India. Use of tobacco, substance, and other substances

among children and adolescents is a public health concern in several parts of the world,

including India. The childhood and adolescent years are important formative years of life

during which the child acquires academic, cognitive, social and life skills. Any substance

abuse at this age is likely to interfere with the normal child development and may have a

lasting impact on the future life.

Not only the child, but the family and society as a whole are likely to be

affected as a result of early onset substance use. Thus, this issue is a matter of national

interest and priority. Recent times have witnessed a gradual increase in substance use

among younger population, with more people initiating substance use from an early age.

While rave parties have increasingly come to attention, the use of various licit and illicit

substances among the school students, out-of-school children and street or homeless popu-

lation is also on the rise.

Further, the problem is seen across all socioeconomic groups, from metro-

politan cities to small towns and rural areas, with newer substances and multiple substance

use also being documented.

3
 Early initiation of substance use is usually associated with a poor prognosis

and more serious impact on health, education, familial or social relationships. Substance

use may lead to behavioural problems, relationship difficulties and may cause disruption in

studies, and even dropping out of school. At times, anti-social behaviours e.g. lying, steal-

ing, pick pocketing etc may occur in association with early-onset substance use. Further,

adolescents using substances may tend to engage in several sexual (e.g. unprotected sex)

and other high risk behaviours (e.g. driving under influence, violence), predisposing them

further to the negative consequences of substance use. In spite of the potentially serious

threat posed by the childhood and adolescent substance use, only scarce literature is avail-

able from India.

A few small or moderate sample studies mostly conducted at a single setting

or at a local or regional level have described the prevalence and profile of substance use in

younger population. Large scale surveys on substance use have mainly focused on adult

population, with some collateral information available on adolescents. Consequently, sub-

stance use among children has remained grossly under-researched. In this context, the pre-

sent survey was conducted to examine the pattern, profile and correlates of substance use

among Indian children. This is the first nation-wide survey reaching out to a reasonably

large sample of school going/ out of school/street children across various cities and towns

in India.

Substance abuse includes the frequent use of illegal drugs or the misuse of

legal drugs. Widespread drugs include hashish, charas, bhang, opium, substance, tobacco

and psychotropic drugs. However, heroin is the most commonly used drug worldwide.

4
Substance abuse is particularly debilitating for young people. According to WHO, young

people as those age 10-24.

As the incidence of substance and other drug abuse becomes more visible

in our Nation, parental substance abuse is increasingly recognized as a significant factor in

cases of child maltreatment. Estimates suggest that 50 to 80 percent of all child abuse and

neglect cases substantiated by Child Protective Services (CPS) involve some degree of sub-

stance abuse by the child's parents. The profound impact of substance abuse on the lives of

children is also documented in research on perinatal abuse. A 1990 General Accounting

Office study of medical records at 10 hospitals in 5 cities (Boston, New York, Chicago,

Los Angeles, and San Antonio) found the incidence of drug-affected newborns ranges from

1.3 to 18.1 percent of all live births. Other research suggests that over 7,000 children each

year are born with Fetal Substance Syndrome, a consequence of maternal substance use

during pregnancy.

Infants and children who reside in households in which substance and other

drugs are abused may suffer harm in a variety of ways. A parent's overriding involvement

with substance and other drugs may leave the parent emotionally and physically unavaila-

ble to the child. A parent's mental functioning, judgment, inhibitions, and/or protective ca-

pacity may be seriously impaired by substance or drug use, placing the child at increased

risk of all forms of abuse and neglect. A substance-abusing parent may “disappear” for

hours or days, leaving the child alone or with someone unable to meet the child's basic

needs. A parent may also spend the household budget on substance and/or other drugs,

depriving the child of adequate food, clothing, housing, and health care. A child's health

5
and safety may be seriously jeopardized by criminal activity associated with the manufac-

ture and distribution of illicit drugs in the home. Consistent exposure to parental abuse of

substance and other drugs may contribute to the child's own substance abuse.

As is true in most cases of child maltreatment, parents and caregivers who

abuse substance and/or other drugs do not intend to harm their children. Most do not stop

to consider that even a single incident of substance abuse can result in serious injury to their

child. Further, the risks associated with parental substance abuse have no socioeconomic

or racial boundaries. Upperand middle-class parents who abuse substance and/or other

drugs pose just as much risk of harming their children as parents who abuse drugs and live

in poverty. The primary difference lies in the tendency of professionals to overlook or for-

give the upper or middle-class substance abuser, or to offer help more expediently to these

families.

Because of the harmful repercussions commonly associated with substance

abuse, early identification of the problem and early intervention are essential. All profes-

sionals who work with parents and children need to understand the indicators and dynamics

of substance abuse, routinely probe for the problem in families, and be prepared to inter-

vene when the problem is suspected or confirmed. This requires examining one's own atti-

tudes about substances of abuse and substance abusers, the origins of these attitudes, and

how one's attitudes influence intervention with families. Professionals also need to be sen-

sitive to the cultural context in which the families exist.

Additionally, professionals need to be informed about the various sub-

stances of abuse and their effects on adult behaviour, child development, and parenting.

6
They need to be knowledgeable about the nature of substance abuse and the chronic, often

relapsing nature of this disorder. They need to learn to recognize the warning signs of sub-

stance abuse in a family and know how to ask the “right” questions, how to conduct a

comprehensive family assessment, and ways to protect a child from maltreatment. Lastly,

professionals need to be able to provide culturally sensitive support and guidance to fami-

lies affected by substance abuse, act as advocates for these families in the service system,

and work toward improvements in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse. Unless

professionals possess these skills and knowledge, services provided for parents and chil-

dren many prove inadequate or inappropriate.

Substance abuse, also known as drug abuse, is the use of a drug in amounts

or by methods which are harmful to the individual or others. It is a form of substance-

related disorder. Differing definitions of drug abuse are used in public health, medical and

criminal justice contexts. In some cases, criminal or anti-social behaviour occurs when the

person is under the influence of a drug, and long-term personality changes in individuals

may also occur. In addition to possible physical, social, and psychological harm, the use of

some drugs may also lead to criminal penalties, although these vary widely depending on

the local jurisdiction.

Drugs most often associated with this term include: substance, ampheta-

mines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, methaqualone,

and opioids. The exact cause of substance abuse is not clear, but there are two predominant

theories: either a genetic predisposition or a habit learned from others, which, if abuse de-

velops, manifests itself as a chronic debilitating disease.

7
 In 2010 about 5% of people (230 million) used an illicit substance. Of these,

27 million have high-risk drug use—otherwise known as recurrent drug use—causing harm

to their health, causing psychological problems, and/or causing social problems that put

them at risk of those dangers. In 2015, substance use disorders resulted in 307,400 deaths,

up from 165,000 deaths in 1990. Of these, the highest numbers are from substance use dis-

orders at 137,500, opioid use disorders at 122,100 deaths, amphetamine use disorders at

12,200 deaths, and cocaine use disorders at 11,100.

The extent of drug use among young people, in particular past-year and past-

month prevalence, which are indicators of recent and regular use, remains much higher than

that among older people. However, lifetime prevalence, which is an indicator of the extent

of exposure of the general population to drugs, remains higher among older people than

among young people for the use of substances that have been on the market for decades.

Conversely, the use of substances that have emerged more recently or have infiltrated cer-

tain lifestyles are reportedly much higher among young people. One such example is “ec-

stasy”, which has low levels of lifetime use and hardly any current use among older people,

but high levels of lifetime use among young people.

Differences in the extent of lifetime drug use should be interpreted taking

into account the “cohort effect”, which pertains to differences in drug use, related attitudes

and behaviours among people born during specific time periods. Persons who reach the age

of greatest vulnerability to drug use initiation during a period when drugs are popular and

widely available are at particularly high risk of trying drugs and, possibly, continuing to

use them. One such example in the United States of America is of the “baby boomers”

8
(those who were born between 1946 and 1964), who had the highest rates of substance use

as young people compared with previous cohorts. Typically, when a cohort of people starts

using a certain substance in large numbers, as in the case of baby boomers, this is reflected

in lifetime prevalence in the general population in the years to come, even when many of

them discontinue drug use at a later stage. Therefore, lifetime prevalence is an indicator of

the extent of exposure of the population and different age groups within the population at

any point in time to drugs, while past-year and past-month prevalence are indicators of

current levels of drug use in that population.

Summary –

Here in the chapter-1 we studied the introduction that what is the drug and

substance abuse in today’s minors and young generation around the world and in India and

how the drugs and other substances are harming the children.

In the next upcoming chapter-2 we will study the roots of drug and substance

abuse that how they came in existence.

9
 CHAPTER - 2

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF DRUGS AND SUBSTANCE

ABUSE

2.1 Abuse – History of Word ‘Abuse’

The definition of abuse has evolved over time. Today, abuse is defined by

the characteristic features that are shared by a variety of substances: the pattern of admin-

istration can progress from use, to abuse, to dependence and, as discussed in the previous

paragraph, a common feature of several substances is that they induce pleasure by activat-

ing a mesolimbic dopaminergic reward system, and dependence by mechanisms involving

adaptation of prefrontal glutamatergic innervation to the nucleus accumbent.

The term “abuse,” in its current medical meaning, was used first in English-

speaking countries, and then passed on to other languages that had used other terms previ-

ously. For instance, abuse has displaced the words toxicomanie or assuétude in French. In-

terestingly, the word assuétude (from the Latin assuetudo [habit]) had originally been in-

troduced into French in 1885 to translate the English abuse. German uses non-Latin roots,

such as Abhängigkeit (dependence), Sucht (abuse), and Rausch (intoxication). In Roman

law and in the Middle Ages, abuse was the sentence pronounced against an insolvent debtor

who was given over to a master to repay his debts with his work. Thus, the addictus was a

person enslaved because of unpaid debts. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the

term “addict,” in the meaning of “attached by one's own inclination, self-addicted to a prac-

tice; devoted, given, inclined to” has been used since the first part of the 16th century.

However, abuse, in its current medical meaning of “state of being addicted to a drug; a

10
compulsion and need to continue taking a drug as a result of taking it in the past” has been

in widespread use only since the 20th century In medical English, abuse replaced older

terms, such as “inebriety.”

The difference between the terms dependence and abuse has long been de-

bated. The meaning of these terms among public health professionals can only be under-

stood in the light of their historical development. Abuse is defined as “strong depend-

ence, both physiologic and emotional” in Campbell's psychiatric dictionary28 In 1964, the

World Health Organization recommended that the term drug dependence re-

place abuse and habituation because these terms had failed to provide a definition that

could apply to the entire range of drugs in use. Historically, the archetypal model of abuse

was opiates (opium, heroin), which induce clear tolerance (the need to increase doses),

severe physical withdrawal symptoms when use is discontinued, and have serious conse-

quences for the social, professional, and familial functioning of users. The spread of the

concept of abuse to other substances, notably nicotine, occurred only in recent dec-

ades.29 The diagnosis of tobacco dependence or abuse did not exist in the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 2nd ed (DSM-II, American Psychiatric Associa-

tion in 1968).

In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed (DSM-

W) this diagnostic category was called “nicotine” dependence instead of “tobacco” depend-

ence. A similar historical evolution was observed with the International Classification of

Diseases (ICD), the World Health Organization's Classification of Diseases: the ICD-10

Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Clinical descriptions and diagnostic

11
guidelines (ICD-10, published in 1992,)32 contains a category for tobacco dependence,

whereas the previous classification, the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revi-

sion (ICD 9),33 devised in the mid 1970s, had no such specific category and offered only

a category for nicotine abuse. The current labeling of “dependence” in the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed,Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR)34 is confus-

ing. During the preparation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-

ders, 3rd ed, revised. (DSM-III-R),35 committee members disagreed as to whether “abuse”

or “dependence” should be adopted.

A vote was taken at a committee meeting and the word “dependence” won

over “abuse” by a single vote! As pointed out by O'Brien, the term “abuse” can describe

the compulsive drug-taking condition and distinguish it from “physical” dependence,

which is normal and can occur in anyone taking medications that affect the brain.36 For

instance, pain patients requiring opiates become dependent, but are not automatically ad-

dicted.

2.2 The Historical Roots

Humans have used drugs of one sort or another for thousands of years. Wine

was used at least from the time of the early Egyptians; narcotics from 4000 BC; and me-

dicinal use of marijuana has been dated to 2737 BC in China. But not until the 19th cent.

AD were the active substances in drugs extracted. There followed a time when some of

these newly discovered substances—morphine, laudanum, cocaine—were completely un-

regulated and prescribed freely by physicians for a wide variety of ailments. They were

available in patent medicines and sold by traveling tinkers, in drugstores, or through the

12
mail. During the American Civil War, morphine was used freely, and wounded veterans

returned home with their kits of morphine and hypodermic needles. Opium dens flourished.

By the early 1900s there were an estimated 250,000 addicts in the United States.

The problems of abuse were recognized gradually. Legal measures against

drug abuse in the United States were first established in 1875, when opium dens were out-

lawed in San Francisco. The first national drug law was the Pure Food and Drug Act of

1906, which required accurate labeling of patent medicines containing opium and certain

other drugs. In 1914 the Harrison Narcotic Act forbade sale of substantial doses of opiates

or cocaine except by licensed doctors and pharmacies. Later, heroin was totally banned.

Subsequent Supreme Court decisions made it illegal for doctors to prescribe any narcotic

to addicts; many doctors who prescribed maintenance doses as part of an abuse treatment

plan were jailed, and soon all attempts at treatment were abandoned. Use of narcotics and

cocaine diminished by the 1920s. The spirit of temperance led to the prohibition of alcohol

by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1919, but Prohibition was repealed in

1933.

In the 1930s most states required antidrug education in the schools, but fears

that knowledge would lead to experimentation caused it to be abandoned in most places.

Soon after the repeal of Prohibition, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Drug

Enforcement Administration) began a campaign to portray marijuana as a powerful, addict-

ing substance that would lead users into narcotics abuse. In the 1950s, use of marijuana

increased again, along with that of amphetamines and tranquilizers. The social upheaval of

the 1960s brought with it a dramatic increase in drug use and some increased social

13
acceptance; by the early 1970s some states and localities had decriminalized marijuana and

lowered drinking ages. The 1980s brought a decline in the use of most drugs, but cocaine

and crack use soared. The military became involved in border patrols for the first time, and

troops invaded Panama and brought its de facto leader, Manuel Noriega, to trial for drug

trafficking.

Throughout the years, the public's perception of the dangers of specific sub-

stances changed. The surgeon general's warning label on tobacco packaging gradually

made people aware of the addictive nature of nicotine. By 1995, the Food and Drug Ad-

ministration was considering its regulation. The recognition of fetal alcohol syndrome

brought warning labels to alcohol products. The addictive nature of prescription drugs such

as diazepam (Valium) became known, and caffeine came under scrutiny as well.

Drug laws have tried to keep up with the changing perceptions and real dan-

gers of substance abuse. By 1970 over 55 federal drug laws and countless state laws spec-

ified a variety of punitive measures, including life imprisonment and even the death pen-

alty. To clarify the situation, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act

of 1970 repealed, replaced, or updated all previous federal laws concerned with narcotics

and all other dangerous drugs. While possession was made illegal, the severest penalties

were reserved for illicit distribution and manufacture of drugs. The act dealt with preven-

tion and treatment of drug abuse as well as control of drug traffic. The Anti-Drug Abuse

Acts of 1986 and 1988 increased funding for treatment and rehabilitation; the 1988 act

created the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Its director, often referred to as the

drug czar, is responsible for coordinating national drug control policy. The 21st cent. has

14
seen penalties for marijuana use ease in some states. At the same time there was a signifi-

cant increase in opioid abuse, in many cases originating with abuse to prescription painkill-

ers and subsequently involving illicit synthetic opioids and heroin when the prescription

drugs were no longer available. In 2017, a record 72,000 people died from drug overdoses,

and 29,000 of those deaths were due to the synthetic opioid fentanyl, which is often com-

bined into heroin.

Abnormal patterns of substance use have been described since antiquity, at

least since Alexander the Great's deathin 323 BC was precipitated by years of heavy drink-

ing. Aristotle recorded the effects of alcohol withdrawal and warned that drinking during

pregnancy could be injurious.13 The Roman physician Celsus held that dependence on in-

toxicating drink was a disease.14 The birth of abuse medicine in modern times is sometimes

credited to Calvinist theologians who offered explanations for the phenomenon of compul-

sive drinking, which were later accepted by physicians.15 Dr Nicolaes Tulp, a Dutch phy-

sician depicted in Rembrandt's painting “The Anatomy Lesson,” adapted theological mod-

els to explain the loss of control over various types of behaviour (1641).

In this process, what was considered sinful behaviour was given medical

explanations. A few decades later, one of Tulp's colleagues, Cornelius Bontekoe, applied

his teaching to the progressive loss of wilful control over alcohol intake.

With the colonial era, industrial revolution, and international trade, abuse

became a global public health problem. In the 18th century, opium's addictive potential was

recognized when a large number of Chinese people became addicted, and the Chinese gov-

ernment tried to suppress its sale and use. In Europe, the working classes were threatened

15
by alcoholism.16 At that time, psychiatry had matured into a scientific discipline, estab-

lished nosological classifications, and taken stands on societal issues. The American phy-

sician Benjamin Rush, writing in the 18th century, maintained that compulsive drinking

was characterized by a loss of self-control, and that the disease was primarily attributable

to the drink itself and not the drinker. His remarks concerned only strong liquors; wine and

beer, in his view, were salutary thirst-quenchers.

In German-speaking countries, the most influential physician was Constan-

tin von Brühl-Cramer, who is credited with coining the term “dipsomania” (“Über die

Trunksucht und eine rationelle Heilmethode derselben” [1819]). Dedicated medical jour-

nals were created in the 19th century. The Journal of Inebriety appeared in the United States

in 1876, while the British Journal of Abuse was first published in 1884. Emil Kraepelin,

the physician who exerted the greatest influence on the shaping of modern psychiatry,

fought alcohol with extreme dedication. He published the first psychometric data on the

influence of tea and alcohol in the early 1890s. As a result of his research, he came to the

conclusion that chronic alcoholism provoked cortical brain lesions that led to a permanent

cognitive decline. Drawing from personal consequences, Kraepelin became a teetotaler in

1895.

Before that, he had been a moderate drinker, recognizing alcohol's relaxing

and mood-elevating effects, as in this letter to the psychiatrist August Forel in December

1891: “I have often found that, after great exertion, and also after severe mood depression,

alcohol has had a clearly beneficial effect on me”19 Kraepelin was particularly concerned

about the social and genetic consequences of alcohol. Sigmund Freud, a contemporary of

16
Kraepelin, laid the ground for the psychological approach to abuse. Freud wrote in a letter

to Fliess in 1897: “it has dawned on me that masturbation is the one major habit, the ”pri-

mal“ abuse and that it is only as a substitute and replacement for it that the other abuses -

for alcohol, morphine, tobacco, etc - come into existence.”

A consequence of the psychological approach is that the abuse to different

substances (alcohol, opiates, etc) and even to certain types of behavlor, such as gambling,

have been gathered together under a common denominator, and regarded as different ex-

pressions of a single underlying syndrome. Interestingly, the Qur'an warns against both

wine (khamr) and gambling (maisir) in the same sura (2,219). In the 20th century, abuse

medicine has been enriched by (i) diagnostic classifications and (ii) neurobiological and

genetic research.

Louis Lewin published his influential classification in 1924, distinguishing

between stimulants (nicotine; caffeine-containing compounds such as coffee, tea, mate);

inebriants (alcohol, ether); hallucinogens (lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], peyote); eu-

phoriants (cocaine; opium derivatives such as morphine, codeine, heroin); and hypnotics.

Also, animal research and functional brain imaging studies in humans have led to the cur-

rent influential hypothesis that all drugs of abuse share a common property in exerting their

addictive and reinforcing effects by

1. Acting on the brain's reward system and

2. Conditioning the brain by causing it to interpret drug signals as biologically reward-

ing or potentially salient stimuli comparable to food or sex. Cues associated with

morphine, nicotine, or cocaine activate specific cortical and limbic brain regions.

17
 This conditioning involves the prefrontal cortex and glutamate systems.

However, in rats, this pattern of activation displays similarities to that elicited by condi-

tioning to a natural reward-highly palatable food such as chocolate. Confronted by cues

that serve as drug reminders, the individual experiences craving, and the degree of volun-

tary control that he or she is able to exert may be impaired. This hypothesis is partly derived

from Pavlov's conditioning paradigm, where food is equated to cocaine, the animal's sali-

vation to cocaine craving, and the bell to the drug cue. Family, adoption, and twin studies

have demonstrated the intervention of genetic factors in abuse, notably in alcohol abuse

and dependence. Genetic factors interact in a complex way with the environment.

Summary –

In the chaper-2 we studied the historical background and roots of origin of

the drugs and substance abuse means how the abuse of drugs and other substances come in

existence among youngsters and minors.

In the next upcoming chapter-3 we will study the impact of drug and sub-

stance abuse on the minors and youngsters’ life.

18
 CHAPTER – 3

DRUG AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN MINORS: A COMPLETE

STUDY

3.1 Drugs and Substance Abuse

Substance abuse can devastate families. However, alcohol and other drug

abuse is treatable, and appropriate interventions can protect children as well as help parents

better care for themselves and their offspring. Because of the complex needs of chemically

involved families, it is clear that a multitude of services is needed to achieve recovery and

rehabilitation. Further, even individuals who are already in recovery commonly require on-

going support because new stressors as well as contact with substance-abusing friends and

family members can interfere with maintenance of a sober lifestyle.

Although there remain many unanswered questions about the types of inter-

vention that are most effective, our understanding of substance abuse and the needs of fam-

ilies suggests we are most successful when we provide programs that are family-focused,

nonpunitive, and supportive in orientation. It also is important that programs are sensitive

to cultural and language issues and that staff are well-trained with respect to the special

needs of this high-risk population of parents and children.

Furthermore, we have a greater chance of being successful when we use an

interdisciplinary approach and insist on collaboration among professionals and agencies.42

Substance abuse among families with young children has increased during the past decades,

and service providers need to keep in mind the fact that effective treatment strategies are

just beginning to emerge. Long-term effects have not yet been reported, and, likewise, we

19
know very little about interventions that can be beneficial over time for older children and

adolescents from substance-abusing families. However, we do know that chemical depend-

ency is a chronic, relapsing problem, and that a long-term commitment to supporting fam-

ilies by reducing stresses, enhancing overall family health, providing opportunities for

learning, and improving the family and community environment can make a difference.

Such carefully crafted, multidisciplinary interventions can improve the odds that all mem-

bers of a family affected by parental substance abuse will more fully realize their potential.

Patterns of intergenerational substance abuse and child abuse that are a tragic part of many

parents' histories need not be written into the futures of their children

Children are an important asset for future of a nation. Those aged between

10 and 18 years of age constitute 22.8% of population and those aged 5-9 years comprise

another 12.5% of population in India. Use of tobacco, alcohol, and other substances among

children and adolescents is a public health concern in several parts of the world, including

India. The childhood and adolescent years are important formative years of life during

which the child acquires academic, cognitive, social and life skills. Any substance abuse at

this age is likely to interfere with the normal child development and may have a lasting

impact on the future life. Not only the child, but the family and society as a whole are likely

to be affected as a result of early onset substance use. Thus, this issue is a matter of national

interest and priority.

Recent times have witnessed a gradual increase in substance use among

younger population, with more people initiating substance use from an early age.

20
 While rave parties have increasingly come to attention, the use of various

licit and illicit substances among the school students, out-of-school children and street or

homeless population is also on the rise. Further, the problem is seen across all socioeco-

nomic groups, from metropolitan cities to small towns and rural areas, with newer sub-

stances and multiple substance use also being documented.

Early initiation of substance use is usually associated with a poor prognosis

and more serious impact on health, education, familial or social relationships. Substance

use may lead to behavioural problems, relationship difficulties and may cause disruption in

studies, and even dropping out of school. At times, anti-social behaviours e.g. lying, steal-

ing, pick pocketing etc may occur in association with early-onset substance use. Further,

adolescents using substances may tend to engage in several sexual (e.g. unprotected sex)

and other high risk behaviours (e.g. driving under influence, violence), predisposing them

further to the negative consequences of substance use.

In spite of the potentially serious threat posed by the childhood and adoles-

cent substance use, only scarce literature is available from India. A few small or moderate

sample studies mostly conducted at a single setting or at a local or regional level have

described the prevalence and profile of substance use in younger population. Large scale

surveys on substance use have mainly focused on adult population, with some collateral

information available on adolescents.

Consequently, substance use among children has remained grossly under-

researched. In this context, the present survey was conducted to examine the pattern, profile

and correlates of substance use among Indian children. This is the first nation-wide survey

21
reaching out to a reasonably large sample of school going/ out of school/street children

across various cities and towns in India.

3.2 Type of drug Abuse

Drugs which are Used in Abuse

Commonly Used Illegal Drugs are classified in a number of ways. Many are

potentially addictive and harmful. Examples of illegal drugs include:

1. Prescription medication (painkillers, stimulants, antianxiety pills)

2. Methamphetamines

3. Cocaine

4. Opiates

5. Marijuana

6. Hallucinogens

7. Bath Salts

8. Benzodiazepines

9. Crystal Meth

10. Ecstasy

11. Heroin

12. Over the Counter Drugs

13. Methadone

14. Marijuana

15. LSD

16. Mushrooms

17. PCP

22
Commonly Used Prescription Drugs

Prescription drugs which can be obtained legally are also used by all age

groups for non-medical reasons, often in combination with alcohol. The risks of drug in-

teraction or accidental overdose can be deadly. Commonly used and misused prescription

drugs include:

1. Opioid painkillers

2. Benzodiazepines

3. Stimulants, such as those used to treat ADHD

4. Antidepressants

5. Anti-obsessive agents

6. Mood stabilizers

3.3 Signs, Symptoms and Diagnosis of Drug Abuse

While opioids are especially dangerous, a drug addict can overdose on any

drug. Clear signs of drug overdose include:

1. Breathing difficulties

2. Bluish tint to the skin

3. Agitation, restlessness

4. Loss of equilibrium

5. Dizziness

6. Confusion, disorientation

7. Strange speech or behaviour

8. Elevated body temperature

23
9. Nausea and vomiting

10. Aggression, hostility

11. Signs of internal bleeding

12. Loss of consciousness

13. Feeling that you have to use the drug regularly daily or even several times a day

14. Having intense urges for the drug that block out any other thoughts

15. Over time, needing more of the drug to get the same effect

16. Taking larger amounts of the drug over a longer period of time than you intended

17. Making certain that you maintain a supply of the drug

18. Decreased coordination

19. Difficulty concentrating or remembering

20. Slowed reaction time

21. Anxiety or paranoid thinking

22. Cannabis odour on clothes or yellow fingertips

23. Exaggerated cravings for certain foods at unusual times

24. Long-term (chronic) use is often associated with:

25. Decreased mental sharpness

26. Poor performance at school or at work

27. Reduced number of friends and interests

28. You take more drugs than you want to, and for longer than you thought you would.

29. You always have the drug with you, and you buy it even if you can’t afford it.

30. You keep using drugs even if it causes you trouble at work or makes you lash out

at family and friends.

24
31. You spend more time alone.

32. Spending significant time finding drugs, using them, and/or recovering from their

effects

33. Physical and psychological cravings so powerful they become an obsession

34. Continued consumption of drugs despite associated difficulties in meeting work,

school, financial, or family/personal obligations

35. Substance abuse that continues even though it causes painful interpersonal conflicts

36. Neglect of meaningful social and/or recreational activities because of the drug use

37. Frequent and excessive use of drugs in potentially hazardous situations, or hazard-

ous behavioural traceable to drug abuse

38. You don’t take care of yourself or care how

39. You lie, or do dangerous things like driving while high or have unsafe sex.

40. You spend most of your time getting, using, or recovering from the effects of the

drug.

41. You feel sick when you try to quit.

42. Drug abuse symptoms or behaviours include, among others.

43. A sense of euphoria or feeling "high"

44. A heightened sense of visual, auditory and taste perception

45. Increased blood pressure and heart rate

46. Red eyes

47. Dry mouth

48. Spending money on the drug, even though you can't afford it

25
 49. Not meeting obligations and work responsibilities, or cutting back on social or rec-

reational activities because of drug use

50. Continuing to use the drug, even though you know it's causing problems in your life

or causing you physical or psychological harm

51. Doing things to get the drug that you normally wouldn't do, such as stealing

52. Driving or doing other risky activities when you're under the influence of the drug

53. Drug abuse symptoms or behaviours include, among others:

54. Spending money on the drug, even though you can't afford it

55. Not meeting obligations and work responsibilities, or cutting back on social or rec-

reational activities because of drug use

56. Continuing to use the drug, even though you know it's causing problems in your life

or causing you physical or psychological harm

57. Doing things to get the drug that you normally wouldn't do, such as stealing

58. Driving or doing other risky activities when you're under the influence of the drug

59. Spending a good deal of time getting the drug, using the drug or recovering from

the effects of the drug

60. Failing in your attempts to stop using the drug

61. Experiencing withdrawal symptoms when you attempt to stop taking the drug

3.4 Causes of Abuse

No one factor can predict if a person will become addicted to drugs. A com-

bination of factors influences risk for abuse.

26
 Changes in the brain that support physical and psychological dependency

on mind-altering substances are the direct cause of abuse, but those changes do not occur

at random. For example:

Biology:

The genes that people are born with account for about half of a person's risk

for abuse. Gender, ethnicity, and the presence of other mental disorders may also influence

risk for drug use and abuse.

Family History:

Your genes are responsible for about half of your odds. If your parents or

siblings have problems with alcohol or drugs, you’re more likely as well. Women and men

are equally likely to become addicted. Studies have determined that genetic factors are

about 50 percent responsible for the development of drug abuse, and one of the surest iden-

tifiers of genetic risk is having parents or siblings who’ve suffered from drug or alcohol

dependency.

Environment:

A person’s environment includes many different influences, from family

and friends to economic status and general quality of life. Factors such as peer pressure,

physical and sexual abuse, early exposure to drugs, stress, and parental guidance can greatly

affect a person’s likelihood of drug use and abuse.

Problems At School or Work:

Frequently missing school or work, a sudden disinterest in school activities

or work, or a drop in grades or work performance

27
Mental Disorder:

If you’re depressed, have trouble paying attention, or worry constantly, you

have a higher chance of abuse. You may turn to drugs as a way to try to feel better. Many

people with mental health issues turn to drugs and alcohol to help them cope with frighten-

ing and disabling symptoms: studies indicate that four out of 10 drug addicts have at least

one co-occurring mental health disorder.

Development:

Genetic and environmental factors interact with critical developmental

stages in a person’s life to affect abuse risk. Although taking drugs at any age can lead to

abuse, the earlier that drug use begins, the more likely it will progress to abuse. This is

particularly problematic for teens. Because areas in their brains that control decisionmak-

ing, judgment, and self-control are still developing, teens may be especially prone to risky

behaviours, including trying drugs.

Money Issues:

sudden requests for money without a reasonable explanation; or your dis-

covery that money is missing or has been stolen or that items have disappeared from your

home, indicating maybe they're being sold to support drug use

Early Age of Initial Usage:

The earlier a person starts using drugs and alcohol the more likely they are

to become addicted to any type of drug.

Peer Pressure:

28
 The influence of peers, especially during adolescence, is often the decisive

factor in the onset of abuse (most drug addicts begin consuming during their teen years).

Early Drug Use:

Children’s brains are still growing, and drug use can change that. So taking

drugs at an early age may make you more likely to get addicted when you get older.

Troubled Relationships:

If you grew up with family troubles and aren’t close to your parents or sib-

lings, it may raise your chances of abuse.

Physical Health Issues:

Lack of energy and motivation, weight loss or gain, or red eyes

Neglected Appearance:

Lack of interest in clothing, grooming or looks

Changes In Behaviour:

Exaggerated efforts to bar family members from entering his or her room or

being secretive about where he or she goes with friends; or drastic changes in behaviour

and in relationships with family and friends

3.5 Disadvantage of Abuse

Drug Abuse Affects Every Organ in the Body Aside from overdose, there

are many adverse medical effects of drug abuse. These include:

1. Most drugs affect the brain's "reward circuit," causing euphoria as well as flood-

ing it with the chemical messenger dopamine. A properly functioning reward

29
 system motivates a person to repeat behaviours needed to thrive, such as eating

and spending time with loved ones. Surges of dopamine in the reward circuit

cause the reinforcement of pleasurable but unhealthy behaviours like taking

drugs, leading people to repeat the behaviour again and again.

2. Cardiovascular disease

3. Contraction of HIV, hepatitis and other illnesses

4. Heart rate irregularities, heart attack

5. Respiratory problems such as lung cancer, emphysema, and breathing problems

6. Abdominal pain, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea

7. Kidney and liver damage

8. Seizures, stroke, brain damage

9. As a person continues to use drugs, the brain adapts by reducing the ability of

cells in the reward circuit to respond to it. This reduces the high that the person

feels compared to the high they felt when first taking the drug an effect known

as tolerance. They might take more of the drug to try and achieve the same high.

These brain adaptations often lead to the person becoming less and less able to

derive pleasure from other things they once enjoyed, like food, sex, or social

activities.

10. Hanges in appetite, body temperature, and sleeping patterns

11. Stroke

12. Pancreatitis

13. Gastrointestinal problems

14. Malnutrition

30
 15. Insomnia and sleep disorders

16. Long-term use also causes changes in other brain chemical systems and circuits

as well, affecting functions that include:

17. Learning

18. Judgment

19. Decision-making

20. Stress

21. Memory

22. Behaviour

Your brain is wired to make you want to repeat experiences that make you

feel good. So, you’re motivated to do them again and again

3.6 Treatment of Abuse (Drug Abuse Withdrawal and Detox)

As with most other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, asthma, or heart dis-

ease, treatment for drug abuse generally isn’t a cure. However, abuse is treatable and can

be successfully managed. People who are recovering from an abuse will be at risk for re-

lapse for years and possibly for their whole lives. If left untreated drug abuse will inevitably

worsen over time, leaving a trail of heartbreak and tragedy in its wake. But when addicts

do seek treatment for their drug abuse symptoms (plus any co-occurring mental health dis-

orders), if they are truly committed to their recovery programs they have real hope of find-

ing lasting sobriety.

Research shows that combining abuse treatment medicines with behavioural

therapy ensures the best chance of success for most patients. Treatment approaches tailored

31
to each patient’s drug use patterns and any co-occurring medical, mental, and social prob-

lems can lead to continued recovery. Addicts develop a strong physical and emotional re-

liance on their drugs of choice. Consequently, any attempt to stop using drugs will leave

drug abusers vulnerable to powerful symptoms of withdrawal, which can put their recovery

and their health in jeopardy. A severe drug use disorder means at least six of these symp-

toms have been reported, although a mild drug use disorder can be diagnosed if only two

of these symptoms are experienced.

In addition to the threat of abuse, heavy drug users are at grave risk of over-

dose, which can lead to hospitalization and ultimately to death. And thanks to the growing

epidemic of opioid painkiller abuse, overdose deaths have been expanding dramatically.

Withdrawal can begin soon after the cessation of drug use and will likely peak in intensity

in the first 24 to 48 hours. If severe withdrawal is left unchecked, in some instances it can

be fatal. Anyone experiencing the symptoms of withdrawal should be under a doctor’s care,

and for drug addicts entering treatment medical detox is often required before therapy for

abuse can begin.

Medical detox in an abuse treatment centre takes place in a fully-staffed

medical facility where patients are monitored around the clock, and treatment for the side

effects of withdrawal is provided as needed. Medications to reduce the intensity of with-

drawal symptoms may be administered, and patients will not be released from detox until

they are symptom-free and physically and mentally well enough to handle the daily routine

of an abuse treatment regimen.

32
 1. Using drugs compulsively, for longer periods or in larger amounts than originally

intended

2. Multiple failures to stop or reduce drug use

3. Continued use of drugs despite their role in exacerbating other physical or psycho-

logical health problems

4. Progressive build-up of drug tolerance, which means users must consume more

drugs to experience the same effects

5. Powerful, painful, debilitating, and dangerous withdrawal symptoms that develop

within a few hours of an attempt to stop using a particular drug

As recently as 1980, less than 10,000 people were dying of drug overdoses

in the United States each year. But in 2016 that number rose to an astonishing 64,000, and

about two-thirds of those deaths were related to opioid abuse (this category includes opioid

painkillers, heroin, and synthetic opioid drugs). There is no cure for abuse. But inpatient

treatment programs that include detox (if necessary), psychotherapy (individual, group, and

family), medication management, life skills training, and holistic healing practices can

make a significant impact in the lives of men and women diagnosed with substance use

disorders.

The risk of relapse in drug abuse recovery is substantial, and that makes

outpatient aftercare programs vitally important for newly-sober individuals, as well as for

those working to maintain their recovery.

Regular therapy sessions and 12-step (or alternative) peer group meetings

can provide much-needed guidance and moral support to people in the midst of making

33
major lifestyle changes, and family participation in ongoing relapse prevention programs

can boost their effectiveness even further.

While aftercare programs don’t guarantee permanent wellness, they can sig-

nificantly decrease the likelihood of relapse and make it easier for recovering addicts to get

back on track if and when they slip. Drug abuse recovery is a long-term process, and those

who attempt to overcome their drug problems must be prepared for a challenging struggle.

In the end, persistence and determination will make all the difference, and if people recov-

ering from substance use disorders are strong enough to stay the course, a happy, healthy,

drug-free future will be within their grasp.

3.7 Prevention of Drug and Substance Abuse

1. Understand how substance abuse develops. Substance abuse starts by:

(i) Using addictive drugs (illicit or prescribed) for recreational purposes

(ii) Seeking out intoxication every time you use

(iii)Abusing prescription medication

2. Avoid Temptation and Peer Pressure. Develop healthy friendships and relationships

by avoiding friends or family members who pressure you to use substances. It’s

often said “we become most like those we surround ourselves by,” meaning if you

surround yourself with people who abuse drugs and alcohol you are more likely to

as well. Peer pressure is a major part of life for teens and adults. If you are looking

to stay drug free develop a good way to just say no, prepare a good excuse or plan

ahead of time to keep from giving into peer pressure.

34
 3. Seek help for mental illness. Mental illness and substance abuse often go hand in

hand. If you are dealing with a mental illness such as anxiety, depression or post-

traumatic stress disorder you should seek professional help from a licensed therapist

or counsellor. A professional will provide you with healthy coping skills to alleviate

your symptoms without turning to drugs and alcohol.

1. Examine the risk factors. Look at your family history of mental illness and addic-

tion, several studies have shown that this disease tends to run in the family, but can

be prevented. The more you are aware of your biological, environmental and phys-

ical risk factors the more likely you are to overcome them.

2. Keep a well-balanced life. People often turn to drugs and alcohol when something

in their life is missing or not working. Practicing stress management skills can help

you overcome these life stressors and will help you live a balanced and healthy life.

Develop goals and dreams for your future. These will help you focus on what you

want and help you realize that drugs and alcohol will simply get in the way and

hinder you from achieving your goals.

3. Deal with life pressure. People today are overworked and overwhelmed, and often

feel like a good break or a reward is deserved. But in the end, drugs only make

life more stressful and many of us all too often fail to recognize this in the moment.

To prevent using drugs as a reward, find other ways to handle stress and unwind.

Take up exercising, read a good book, volunteer with the needy, create something.

Anything positive and relaxing helps take the mind off using drugs to relieve stress.

Summary –

35
 Here in the chapter – 3 we have studied the impact of substances and drugs

abuse on the young generation. Here we studied that how they impacting the life, types of

drugs and substances used, impact of their addiction on the life, reasons behind all this, and

how to prevent the uses of drugs and other substances.

In the next chapter-4 we will study about the national and international law

related to the drugs and substances.

36
 CHAPTER – 4

LEGAL PROVISIONS

4.1 What is a Drug policy?

A drug policy is the policy regarding the control and regulation of psycho-

active substances (commonly referred to as drugs), particularly those that are addictive or

cause physical and mental dependence. While drug policies are generally implemented by

governments, entities at all levels (from international organisations, national or local gov-

ernment, administrations, or private places) may have specific policies related to drugs.

Drug policies are usually aimed at combatting drug abuse or depend-

ence addressing both the demand and supply of drugs, as well as mitigating the

harms of drug use, and providing medical assistance and treatment. Demand reduc-

tion measures include voluntary treatment, rehabilitation, substitution therapy, overdose

management, alternatives to incarceration for drug related minor offenses, medical pre-

scription of drugs, awareness campaigns, community social services, and support for fam-

ilies. Supply side reduction involves measures such as enacting foreign policy aimed at

eradicating the international cultivation of plants used to make drugs and interception

of drug trafficking, fines for drug offenses, incarceration for persons convicted for drug of-

fenses. Policies that help mitigate the dangers of drug use include needle syringe pro-

grams, drug substitution programs, and free facilities for testing a drug's purity.

The concept of "drugs" –a substance subject to control– varies from juris-

diction to jurisdiction. For example, heroin is regulated almost everywhere; substances

such as khat, codeine, or substance are regulated in some places, but not others. Most

37
jurisdictions also regulate prescription drugs, medicinal drugs not considered dangerous

but that can only be supplied to holders of a medical prescription, and sometimes drugs

available without prescription but only from an approved supplier such as a pharmacy, but

this is not usually described as a "drug policy". There are however some international stand-

ards as to which substances are under certain controls, in particular via the three interna-

tional drug control conventions.

4.2 Indian Laws Related to Drugs and Substances

1. The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985

2. The Poison Act, 1919

3. The Drugs Act, 1940

4. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

5. The Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945

6. The Pharmacy Act, 1948

7. The Drugs Control Act, 1950

8. The Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954

9. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

10. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973

11. The Indian Evidence Act (IEA), 1872

The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985

India is a signatory to three of United Nation’s drug conventions. The first

being the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic drugs, the second being the 1971 Conven-

tion on Psychotropic Substances and the last being the 1988 Convention against Illicit

38
trafficking Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances. The domestic legislation was en-

acted after almost 25 years of signing the 1961 convention when the grace period for abol-

ishing the non-medical use of drugs expired under the 1961 Convention. The 1985 Act was

passed in a hurry without any discussion, and it replaced the 1930 act of Dangerous Drugs

Act, but the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 remained and still continues to apply. The Act

of 1985 has been amended three times in 1989, 2001 and then a couple of years ago in

2014. The amendments will be discussed further. The NDPS Act places a restriction upon

cultivation, production, sale, purchase, possession, use, consumption, import, and export of

narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances except when they are used for a scientific pur-

pose or medical use.

The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act was en-

acted “to consolidate and reform legislation pertaining to narcotic drugs, as well as to pro-

vide strict measures for the control and regulation of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-

stances activities.”

The legislation makes it illegal “to produce, manufacture, cultivate, own,

sell, transfer, purchase, or consume any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances”. The

term “narcotic” in the legal sense is quite different from the one used in the medical context

which denotes a sleep-inducing agent. Legally, a narcotic drug could be an opiate (a true

narcotic), cannabis (a non -narcotic), or cocaine (the very antithesis of a narcotic, since it

is a stimulant). Mind-altering drugs such as LSD, phencyclidine, amphetamines, barbitu-

rates, methaqualone, benzodiazepines, mescaline, psilocybin, and designer compounds are

referred to as “psychotropic substances” (MDMA, DMT, etc.).

39
 Initially, there were no Special Courts however, by an amendment in 1989,

now the Government can establish Special Courts. and there will be one single Judge who

has powers to take cognizance of all the offences under the NDPS Act.

There are certain procedural safeguards under NDPS Act, like Panchnama,

Seizure report, Seal report, Proper arrest report etc. One of the key features of the NDPS

Act is, not only is the consumption of drugs an offence, but possession of drugs is an of-

fence, as well. So that is to say you have kept illegal drugs in your house, but you don’t

consume them, you will still be punished under sections of the NDPS Act. The consumption

of Drugs is punishable under “Section 27 of NDPS Act”.

One more important thing to understand in the NDPS Act is, your punish-

ment will depend on the quantity of drugs involved in the case. The NDPS Act categorises

drug quantity into 2 types. One is a Small Quantity and the other one is Commercial Quan-

tity. If you have Small Quantity drugs your punishment will be of a lesser degree and if you

have Commercial Quantity your punishment will be higher. To know what is Small Quan-

tity and Commercial Quantity, NDPS Act itself provides details of the Quantity of each

drug.

Your punishment will range anywhere from 6 months to rigorous imprison-

ment of 20 years. Another feature of the NDPS Act is Section 31A which prescribes the

death penalty, for repeated offences or certain rare cases.

There are also some special provisions for addicted persons prescribed un-

der the NDPS Act. As stated above, the consumption of drugs is an offence under Section

27 of the NDPS Act. However, if the accused person wishes to undergo a de-abuse

40
programme and expresses his intent “to undergo some de-abuse programme then he will be

immune. Section 64A of NDPS Act provides “immunity from prosecution to addicts vol-

unteering for treatment.

Three classes of substances are covered under the NDPS Act-

1. Narcotic drugs covered under the 1961 Convention.

2. Psychotropic substances, and those substances which are covered under the 1971

Convention.

3. Controlled substances that are used to manufacture drugs or psychotropic sub-

stances.

Narcotic drugs include-

1. Coca Plant- Leaf or other derivatives including cocaine. It also includes any prepa-

ration which contains 0.1% cocaine.

2. Opium- This category includes poppy straw, poppy plant, opium poppy juice, and

any preparation having 0.2% morphine. Derivatives of opium include morphine,

heroin, thebaine, etc.

3. Cannabis- Resin (Charas and Hashish), plant, fruit tops and flowering of the plant

(Ganja), or any mixture of Ganja, Charas and Hashish are all included in this cate-

gory. It is important to note that cannabis leaves i.e. bhang is excluded from this

category and is regulated by the state laws.

The NDPS Act lays down the procedure to be followed in case any search

or seizure is to be done. Procedure for arresting a person in relation to an offense In the

NDPS Act is also provided for. But the norms of investigation and permissibility of

41
evidence are interpreted in such a way that they are prejudicial to the cause of the accused. It

can be said that the NDPS Act is essentially a punitive and punishing statute, it also contains

a regulatory framework. The Act gives authority to the Central and the State government

to frame rules in relation to drug-use activities. The regulatory framework also paves a way

for supply of opium, to registered users, for medicative purposes. Prevention of Illicit Traf-

ficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was introduced in 1988 as a

supplementary to the NDPS Act.

NDPS Amendments

In 1989

The NDPS Act went through its first change in the year 1989. Very harsh

punishments were introduced, like the mandatory minimum imprisonment of 10 years, a

bar on suspension, restriction on bail, trial by special court, forfeiture of property, and man-

datory death penalty in some cases of repeated offense. After these amendments, people

caught even with small amount of drugs had to go through long imprisonments and very

hefty fines, until and unless the person could prove that it was for his own personal use.

In 2001

Due to the criticism faced by the 1989 amendment because of its irregular sentencing pol-

icies, the 2001 amendment was passed. According to the 2001 amendment, the penal pro-

visions were upgraded, and penalties were imposed based on the quantity of the drugs.

Three categories regarding the quantity were made- small, commercial, and intermediate.

The threshold was provided through a Central Government notification in October 2001.

In 2014

42
The NDPS Act had been amended in early 2014 for the third time and certain new provi-

sions were inserted within the Act from 1 May 2014. The main highlights of these new

changes are as follows:

1. It created a different class of essential narcotic drugs•, that can be directly regu-

lated by the central government.

2. It widened the goal of the law from comprising of unlawful use to the promotion of

the scientific and medical use of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs with

regards to the rule of balance within the control and accessibility of narcotic drugs

that supports the international drug control treaties of the world.

3. The inclusion of the phrase recognition and approval of the treatment centre along

with the management of drug dependence which provides for the foundation of law-

fully binding treatment standards and evidence completely based on medical inter-

ventions.

4. It made capital punishment optional for a subsequent offense including the specific

amount of drugs under section 31A. The court now has other alternatives for the

imposition of detainment or imprisonment for a term of 30 years under this section.

5. The increased punishment from a maximum of 6 months imprisonment to 1 year of

imprisonment for small quantity offenses as well.

6. The authorization of the private sector and their inclusion in the processing of con-

centrated poppy straw and opium.

7. The raising of the ranks of the officers who have been approved to conduct the arrest

and search permit holders for affirmed NDPS violations.

43
 8. A much more detailed provision for relinquishment of the property of people sum-

moned over charges of drug trafficking etc.

Significant Aspects of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act

1. Quantity Based Sentencing- under the NDPS Act, sentencing of punishment is

based on the substance and its quantity found. The government has also cleared the

fact that when the quantity of the seized product is to be calculated, the weight of

the product will be given prime consideration instead of the pure drug content of

the product.

2. Death Penalty- the harshness of the NDPS Act is very evident from the fact that

death penalty has also been included as a form of punishment under the Act. Courts

can award death sentence in the case of certain repeated offense (such as manufac-

ture, production, import, export, possession, and transportation) involving large

quantities of drugs. The death penalty was made mandatory through the 1989

amendment, but the rage of offenses in which death penalty could be awarded was

narrowed down in 2001. Through the 2014 amendment, the death penalty was made

discretionary and an alternative punishment of 30 years of imprisonment was intro-

duced.

3. Treatment for Drug Dependence- the NDPS Act supports treatment for people who

use drugs both as an ‘alternative’ to, and independent of criminal measures. Several

provisions stipulated under the Act depenalise consumption and offenses involving

small quantities of drugs and encourage treatment seeking.

4. Sec 4(2) (d) and 7A states that treatment of drug addict is one of the measures for

which the Central Government should create funds.

44
 5. Sec 64A states that drug dependent people who are charged with an offense involv-

ing small quantities of drugs or consumption can go for treatment and will be ex-

empted from prosecution.

6. Sec 39 says that instead of awarding sentences, the courts can divert drug dependent

people convicted for consumption or an offense involving a small quantity of drugs,

to a recognized medical facility for detoxification.

7. Sec 71, 76 (2) (f), and 78 (2) (b) contains provisions that the Central or the State

government can set up and regulate centres for identification, care, and treatment of

drug dependent people.

The evil of drug abuse not only creates shackles on the very idea of a better

life but it also acts as an impediment to the growth of the country. The legal framework

which is present to counter the abuse of drugs is based on a solid foundation. A lot more

can be achieved by just efficiently implementing the existing laws and streamlining the

procedure.

Loopholes Within the Act

India’s primary statute on drug trafficking is still not free from the many

loopholes which leave certain aspects within the law ambiguous to the parties involved.

These have been summarised below:

1. The Act has no reasonable distinction between the definition of an addict and a

consumer. The definitions which have been tried so far are neither backed by law

nor by ethics.

45
 2. The Act constantly makes use of terms such as use, possession, and consumption

but still neglects to inform and educate about what they truly mean.

3. Further, the non-appearance of any political initiative in the setting up of machinery

sanctioned to enforce and regulate rehabilitation acts as an impediment too. Fur-

thermore, the scarcity of the related institutions in charge of training the judicial

machinery, the insufficient rehabilitation facilities and other similar factors have

advanced the inadequacy of the law to deal with the widespread drug menace in

India.

4. Moreover, the ineffectual enforcement of the statute and the deficiency in rehabili-

tative organizations in the country has only added to the many shortcomings within

the Act.

5. Further, the stringent rules and the strictness of the NDPS Act is revealed by the

provision for granting capital punishment in instances of repeated offenses, similar

to the manufacture, production, transportation, possession and import/export of

drugs.

6. Moreover, there is a huge lack in the amount of data and statistics pertaining to drug

abuse, which in no way whatsoever arises simply from the absence of substance

abuse.

7. The provisions of criminalizing the utilization of drugs, punishing the possession

of drugs for individual utilize, imposing the death penalty and other different as-

pects of the enactment are far harsher than those specified in the UN drug control

convention.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860

46
1. Section 176: Failure to provide notice or information to a public servant by a person

who is legally obligated to do so. Doctors are required to report all cases of homi-

cidal poisoning to the police; if they do not, they will be prosecuted.

2. Section 193: False evidence is punishable. False information about a poisoning in-

stance is penalised by law.

3. Section 201: It is a capital offence to cause the deletion of evidence of an offence

or to provide false information to a screen offender.

4. Section 202: Intentional failure to report an offence by a person who is obligated to

do so. Intentional concealment of facts concerning a poisoning case treated by him

is punishable.

5. Section 272: Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.

6. Section 273: Sale of noxious food or drink.

7. Section 274: Adulteration of drugs.

8. Section 275: Sale of adulterated drugs.

9. Section 276: Sale of drug as a different drug or preparation.

10. Section 284: Negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substances.

11. Section 299: Culpable homicide that was caused through the consumption of poi-

sonous substances.

12. Section 300: Murder caused by using poisonous substances.

13. Section 302: Punishment for murder.

14. Section 306: Abetment of suicide.

15. Section 307: Attempt to murder.

16. Section 309: Attempt to commit suicide.

47
 17. Section 304 A: Causing death by negligence.

18. Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

19. Section 326: Voluntarily bring about severe hurt by dangerous weapons or other

resources.

20. Section 326 A: Causing grievous hurt by the use of acid.

21. Section 326 B: Throwing or attempting to throw acid.

22. Section 328: Causing harm to others using poison, etc., with the aim to commit an

offence.

The Drugs and Cosmetics Rule 1945

This is supplementary legislation to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and

is concerned mainly with the standard quality of drugs, apart from exercising control over

the “manufacture, sale, and distribution, of Drugs and Cosmetics”. In order to assist the

progress of the statement of results from examination or experiment of drug samples to

assess their characteristics, the Central Drugs Laboratory was established in 1962. Individ-

ual states have started Drugs Control Laboratories. Substandard or fraudulent drugs are

punishable with harsh penalties if they are manufactured, stocked, or sold. The require-

ments for conducting clinical studies for newer medicines have been tightened.

According to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, drugs are divided into the fol-

lowing Schedules:

1. Schedule C and C1—Biological products, e.g. serums and vaccines.

2. Schedule D– Non-medicinal substances, such as condensed or powdered milk, oats,

spices and sauces, and so on.

48
 3. Schedule E1—In the Ayurvedic (including Siddha) and Unani systems of medicine,

a list of toxic drugs is maintained.

4. Schedule G—Chemotherapeutic agents for cancer, antihis-taminics, and hypogly-

cemic agents.

5. Schedule H and L—Injectables, antibiotics, antibacterials and other prescription

drugs.

6. Schedule J— AIDS, cancer, cataract, congenital malformations, deafness, blind-

ness, hydrocoele, hernia, piles, leukoderma, stammering, paralysis, and other dis-

eases and ailments that a drug may not purport to prevent or cure or make claims to

prevent or cure, such as AIDS, cancer, cataract, congenital malformations, deafness,

blindness, hydrocoele, hernia, piles, leukoderma,

7. Schedule O— Disinfectant fluids must adhere to certain guidelines.

8. Schedule S—Standards to be followed with regard to cosmetics and allied products.

9. Schedule X drugs— Amphetamines and other stimulants, as well as barbiturates

and other sedatives.

The Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940

This Act was amended in 1964, and very recently in 2008. It deals with “the

import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of all kinds of drugs (allopathic, ayurvedic,

unani, siddha, etc.) and cosmetics”. As per the Act, “every patented or proprietary medici-

nal preparation should display on the label of the container, either the exact formula or a

list of the ingredients”. The modified Act has increased the severity of penalties for a vari-

ety of offences, including the selling of counterfeit medications, drug and cosmetic adul-

teration, hazardous pollution, and so on.

49
Provisions of the act

1. Import of Drugs.

2. Manufacturing of Drugs.

3. Sale of Drugs.

4. Labelling and Packaging – all the general and specific labelling and packaging spec-

ified to all classes of Drugs and Cosmetics should be as per provisions made under

the act.

Classes of Drugs prohibited to import:

1. Misbranded Drugs.

2. Drugs of Substandard Quality.

3. Dugs claiming to cure diseases specified in Schedule – J.

4. Adulterated Drugs.

5. Spurious Drugs.

6. Drugs that are forbidden in their originating country of manufacturing, sale, or dis-

tribution, except for the purposes of testing, evaluation, and analysis.

Offence –

Import of spurious or adulterated drug or drug during which involves risk to

human beings or animals or drug not having therapeutic values.

Penalty –

Three years imprisonment and 5000 fine on just conviction 5 years impris-

onment or 1000 fine or both for a subsequent conviction.

Offence –

Contravention of provision

50
Penalty –

6 months imprisonment or 500 rupees fine or both for the first conviction1-

year imprisonment or 1000 rupees fine for a subsequent offence.

The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973

Section 39: Public to give information of certain offences. Everyone who

is aware of the commission or intention to commit an offence shall inform the nearest police

station or nearest magistrate.

Section 40: Duty of person in law enforcement working in connection with

matters or business to be taken care of in a village to form a certain report.

Section 175: Power to summon persons- police officers in charge of the po-

lice station or other police officers have the power to summon the person who has commit-

ted the offence.

4.3 Other Legal Bodies Which Govern Drugs and Substances

1. Narcotics Control Division.

2. Central Bureau of Narcotics.

3. Narcotic Control Bureau.

4. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

5. Central Bureau of Investigation.

6. Customs Commission.

7. Border Security Force.

8. Police.

4.4 International Drug Control Treaties

51
 The first international treaty to control a psychoactive substance was

adopted at the Brussels Conference in 1890 in the context of the regulations against slave

trade, and concerned substanceic beverages. It was followed by the final act of the Shang-

hai Opium Commission of 1909 which attempted to settle peace and arrange the trade in

opium, after the opium wars in the 19th Century.

In 1912 at the First International Opium Conference held in the Hague,

the multilateral International Opium Convention was adopted; it ultimately got incorpo-

rated into the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. A number of international treaties related to

drugs followed in subsequent decades: the 1925 Agreement concerning the Manufacture

of, Internal Trade in and Use of Prepared Opium (which introduced some restrictions but

no total prohibition on the export of "Indian hemp" pure extracts), the 1931 Convention for

Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs and Agree-

ment for the Control of Opium Smoking in the Far East, the 1936 Convention for the Sup-

pression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs, among others. After World War II, a

series of Protocols signed at Lake Success brought into the mandate of the newly-cre-

ated United Nations these pre-war treaties which had been handled by the League of Na-

tions and the Office International hygiene Pulque.

Finally, in 1961 the nine previous drug-control treaties in force were super-

seded by the 1961 Single Convention, which rationalized global control on drug trading

and use. Countries commit to "protecting the health and welfare of humankind" and to

combat substance abuse and abuse. The treaty is not a self-enforcing agreement: countries

have to pass their own legislation aligned with the framework of the Convention. The 1961

52
Convention was supplemented by the 1971 Convention and the 1988 Convention, forming

the three international drug control treaties upon which other legal instruments rely. Con-

trary to common beliefs, these treaties have not particularly been influenced by the United

States in their drafting, but rather by countries like France, the United Kingdom, South Af-

rica or Egypt. Their implementation, however, has been led by the USA, in particular after

the Nixon administration's declaration of "War on drugs" in 1971 and the creation of the

DEA in 1973.

The core drug control treaties currently in force internationally are:

1. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (1961 Convention or Single Con-

vention) composed of:

2. The original Single Convention concluded at New York (United States), 30 March

1961, and

3. Its amendment, the Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic

Drugs which was adopted in Geneva (Switzerland), 25 March 1972,

4. The Convention on psychotropic substances (1971 Convention), concluded at Vi-

enna, 21 February 1971, and

5. The UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-

stances (1988 Convention) concluded at Vienna (Austria), 20 December 1988.

There are other treaties that address drugs under international control, such as:

1. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), concluded on 10 December

1982 in Montego Bay (Jamaica),

53
 2. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), concluded on 20 November

1989 in New York City,

3. The International Convention Against Doping in Sport concluded in Paris (France)

on 19 October 2005.

4.5 International Drug Policies

Australia

Australian drug laws are criminal laws and mostly exist at the state and ter-

ritory level, not the federal, and are therefore different, which means an analysis of trends

and laws for Australia is complicated. The federal jurisdiction has enforcement powers over

national borders. In October 2016, Australia legislated for some medicinal use cannabis.

Bolivia

Like Colombia, the Bolivian government signed onto the ATPA in 1991 and

called for the forced eradication of the coca plant in the 1990s and early 2000s. Until 2004,

the government allowed each residential family to grow 1600m2 of coca crop, enough to

provide the family with a monthly minimum wage. In 2005, Bolivia saw another reformist

movement.

The leader of a coca grower group, Evo Morales, was elected President in

2005. Morales ended any U.S. backed War on Drugs. President Morales opposed the de-

criminalization of drugs but saw the coca crop as an important piece of indigenous history

and a pillar of the community because of the traditional use of chewing coca leaves. In

2009, the Bolivian Constitution backed the legalization and industrialization of coca prod-

ucts

54
Colombia

Under President Ronald Reagan, the United States declared War on Drugs

in the late 1980s; the Colombian drug lords were widely viewed as the root of the cocaine

issue in America. In the 1990s, Colombia was home to the world's two largest drug cartels:

the Cali cartel and the Medellín cartel. It became Colombia's priority, as well as the priority

of the other countries in the Andean Region, to extinguish the cartels and drug trafficking

from the region. In 1999, under President Andrés Pastrana, Colombia passed Plan Colom-

bia. Plan Colombia funded the Andean Region's fight against the drug cartels and drug

trafficking. With the implementation of Plan Colombia, the Colombian government aimed

to destroy the coca crop. This prohibitionist regime has had controversial results, especially

on human rights. Colombia has seen a significant decrease in coca cultivation. In 2001,

there were 362,000 acres of coca crop in Colombia; by 2011, fewer than 130,000 acres

remained. However, farmers who cultivated the coca crop for uses other than for the crea-

tion of cocaine, such as the traditional use of chewing coca leaves, became impoverished.

Since 1994, consumption of drugs has been decriminalized. However, pos-

session and trafficking of drugs are still illegal. In 2014, Colombia further eased its prohi-

bitionist stance on the coca crop by ceasing aerial fumigation of the coca crop and creating

programs for addicts. President Juan Manuel Santos (2010–present), has called for the re-

vision of Latin American drug policy, and is open to talks about legalization.

Ecuador

In the mid-1980s, under President León Febres-Cordero, Ecuador adopted

the prohibitionist drug policy recommended by the United States. By cooperating with the

55
United States, Ecuador received tariff exemptions from the United States. In February

1990, the United States held the Cartagena Drug Summit, in the hopes of continuing pro-

gress on the War on Drugs. Three of the four countries in the Andean Region were invited

to the Summit: Peru, Colombia and Bolivia, with the notable absence of Ecuador. Two of

those three countries Colombia and Bolivia joined the Andean Trade Preference Act, later

called the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, in 1992. Ecuador, along

with Peru, would eventually join the ATPA in 1993. The Act united the region in the War

on Drugs as well as stimulated their economies with tariff exemptions.

In 1991, President Rodrigo Borja Cevallos passed Law 108, a law that de-

criminalized drug use, while continuing to prosecute drug possession. In reality, Law 108

set a trap that snared many citizens. Citizens confused the legality of use with the illegality

of carrying drugs on their person. This led to a large increase in prison populations, as 100%

of drug crimes were processed. In 2007, 18,000 prisoners were kept in a prison built to hold

up to 7,000. In urban regions of Ecuador as many as 45% of male inmates were serving

time for drug charges; this prison demographic rises to 80% of female inmates. In 2008,

under Ecuador's new Constitution, current prisoners serving time were allowed the "smug-

gler pardon" if they were prosecuted for purchasing or carrying up to 2 kg of any drug, and

they already served 10% of their sentence. Later, in 2009, Law 108 was replaced by the

Organic Penal Code (COIP). The COIP contains many of the same rules and regulations as

Law 108, but it established clear distinctions among large, medium and small drug traffick-

ers, as well as between the mafia and rural growers, and prosecutes accordingly. In 2013,

the Ecuadorian government left the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.

56
Germany

Compared with other EU countries, Germany's drug policy is considered

progressive, but still stricter than, for example, the Netherlands. In 1994 the Federal Con-

stitutional Court ruled that drug abuse was not a crime, nor was the possession of small

amounts of drugs for personal use. In 2000, Germany changed the narcotic law ("BtmG")

to allow supervised drug injection rooms. In 2002, they started a pilot study in seven Ger-

man cities to evaluate the effects of heroin-assisted treatment on addicts, compared to

methadone-assisted treatment. The positive results of the study led to the inclusion of her-

oin-assisted treatment into the services of the mandatory health insurance in 2009.

In 2017, Germany re-allowed medical cannabis; after the 2021 German fed-

eral election, the new government announced in their coalition agreement they intention to

legalise cannabis for all other purposes (including recreational), although concrete legisla-

tion to this effect has not yet been introduced.

Netherland

Drug policy in the Netherlands is based on two principles: that drug use is a

health issue, not a criminal issue, and that there is a distinction between hard and soft drugs.

The Netherlands is currently the only country to have implemented a wide scale, but still

regulated, decriminalisation of marijuana. It was also one of the first countries to intro-

duce heroin-assisted treatment and safe injection sites. From 2008, a number of town coun-

cils have closed many so called coffee shops that sold cannabis or implemented other new

restrictions for sale of cannabis, e.g. for foreigners.

57
 Importing and exporting of any classified drug is a serious offence. The pen-

alty can run up to 12 to 16 years if it is for hard drugs, or a maximum of 4 years for import-

ing or exporting large quantities of cannabis. Investment in treatment and prevention of

drug abuse is high when compared to the rest of the world. The Netherlands spends signif-

icantly more per capita than all other countries in the EU on drug law enforcement. 75% of

drug-related public spending is on law enforcement. Drug use remains at average Western

European levels and slightly lower than in English speaking countries.

Peru

According to article 8 of the Constitution of Peru, the state is responsible for

battling and punishing drug trafficking. Likewise, it regulates the use of intoxicants. Con-

sumption of drugs is not penalized and possession is allowed for small quantities only.

Production and distribution of drugs are illegal.

In 1993, Peru, along with Ecuador, signed the Andean Trade Preference

Agreement with the United States, later replaced with the Andean Trade Promotion and

Drug Eradication Act. Bolivia and Colombia had already signed the ATPA in 1991, and

began enjoying its benefits in 1992. By agreeing to the terms of this Agreement, these

countries worked in concert with the United States to fight drug trafficking and production

at the source. The Act aimed to substitute the production of the coca plant with other agri-

cultural products. In return for their efforts towards eradication of the coca plant, the coun-

tries were granted U.S. tariff exemptions on certain products, such as certain types of fruit.

Peru ceased complying with the ATPA in 2012, and lost all tariff exemptions previously

58
granted by the United States through the ATPA. By the end of 2012, Peru overtook Co-

lombia as the world's largest cultivator of the coca plant

Russia

Drugs became popular in Russia among soldiers and the homeless, particu-

larly due to the First World War. This included morphine-based drugs and cocaine, which

were readily available. The government under Tsar Nicholas II of Russia had outlawed

substance in 1914 (including vodka) as a temporary measure until the conclusion of the

War. Following the Russian Revolution and in particular the October Revolution and

the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks emerged victorious as the new political power in

Russia. The Soviet Union inherited a population with widespread drug abuse, and in the

1920s, tried to tackle it by introducing a 10-year prison sentence for drug-dealers. The Bol-

sheviks also decided in August 1924 to re-introduce the sale of vodka, which, being more

readily available, led to a drop in drug-use.

Portugal

In July 2001, a law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing

any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was however changed from a

criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the possessing

was no more than up to ten days' supply of that substance. This was in line with the de facto

Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then aggressively targeted

with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers. Even if there are no crim-

inal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained

59
prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, deal-

ers and traffickers.

Sweden

Sweden's drug policy has gradually turned from lenient in the 1960s with an

emphasis on drug supply towards a policy of zero tolerance against all illicit drug use (in-

cluding cannabis). The official aim is a drug-free society. Drug use became a punishable

crime in 1988. Personal use does not result in jail time if not combined with driving a

car.[34] Prevention includes widespread drug testing, and penalties range from fines for

minor drug offenses up to a 10-year prison sentence for aggravated offenses. The condition

for suspended sentences could be regular drug tests or submission to rehabilitation treat-

ment. Drug treatment is free of charge and provided through the health care system and the

municipal social services. Drug use that threatens the health and development of minors

could force them into mandatory treatment if they don't apply voluntarily. If the use threat-

ens the immediate health or the security of others (such as a child of an addict) the same

could apply to adults.

Among 9th year students, drug experimentation was highest in the early

1970s, falling towards a low in the late 1980s, redoubling in the 1990s to stabilize and

slowly decline in 2000s. Estimates of heavy drug addicts have risen from 6000 in 1967 to

15000 in 1979, 19000 in 1992 and 26000 in 1998. According to inpatient data, there were

28000 such addicts in 2001 and 26000 in 2004, but these last two figures may represent the

recent trend in Sweden towards out-patient treatment of drug addicts rather than an actual

decline in drug abuses.

60
 The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports that Swe-

den has one of the lowest drug use rates in the Western world, and attributes this to a drug

policy that invests heavily in prevention and treatment as well as strict law enforce-

ment. The general drug policy is supported by all political parties and, according to opinion

polls made in the mid 2000s, the restrictive approach received broad support from the pub-

lic at that time.

Switzerland

The national drug policy of Switzerland was developed in the early 1990s

and comprises the four elements of prevention, therapy, harm reduction and prohibition. In

1994 Switzerland was one of the first countries to try heroin-assisted treatment and

other harm reduction measures like supervised injection rooms. In 2008 a popular initia-

tive by the right wing Swiss People's Party aimed at ending the heroin program was re-

jected by more than two thirds of the voters. A simultaneous initiative aimed at legalizing

marijuana was rejected at the same ballot.

Between 1987 and 1992, illegal drug use and sales were permitted

in Platzspitz park, Zurich, in an attempt to counter the growing heroin problem. However,

as the situation grew increasingly out of control, authorities were forced to close the park.

Thailand

Thailand has a strict drug policy. The use, storage, transportation and distri-

bution of drugs is illegal. In 2021, Thailand unified all the laws on narcotic, psychoactive

substances, and inhalants into the Narcotic Code 2564 BE (2021 AD) with more relaxing

61
policy. The sentence of many criminal offenses relating to narcotic was reduced as the new

law focuses more on drug rehabilitation.

According to the Narcotic Code, narcotic substances are divided into 5 categories.

1. Category I - highly addictive narcotic such as heroin, amphetamines, methamphet-

amines, etc.

2. Category II - highly addictive narcotic with medical use such as morphine, co-

caine, ketamine, codeine, medicinal opium (opium extracts or products), etc.

3. Category III - drug formularies that legally contain the category II narcotic, etc.

4. Category IV - chemicals used for synthesizing the categories I and II narcotic such

as acetic anhydride, acetyl chloride, etc.

5. Category V - narcotic plants such as opium poppy, magic mushroom, cannabis ex-

tracts with THC higher than 0.2% by weight and cannabis seed extracts.

With the current law, kratom and cannabis plant no longer belong to the cat-

egory V narcotic. They are on longer considered narcotic plants. However, plantation, pos-

session, distribution, and use of these plants are still controlled by certain level of permis-

sion and regulations.

It is also illegal to import more than 200 cigarettes per person to Thailand.

Control takes place at customs at the airport. If the limit has been exceeded, the owner can

be fined up to ten times the cost of cigarettes.

In January 2018, Thai authorities imposed a ban on smoking on beaches in

some tourist areas. Those who smoke in public places can be punished with a fine of

100,000 Baht or imprisonment for up to one year.

62
 It is forbidden to import electronic cigarettes into Thailand. These items are

likely to be confiscated, and you can be fined or sent to prison for up to 10 years. The sale

or supply of electronic cigarettes and similar devices is also prohibited and is punishable

by a fine or imprisonment of up to 5 years.

It is worth noting that most people arrested for possessing a small number

of substances from the V-th category are fined and not imprisoned.

At present, in Thailand, the anti-drug police are considering methampheta-

mines as a more serious and dangerous problem.

United Kingdom

Drugs considered addictive or dangerous in the United Kingdom (with the

exception of tobacco and substance) are called "controlled substances" and regulated by

law. Until 1964 the medical treatment of dependent drug users was separated from the pun-

ishment of unregulated use and supply. This arrangement was confirmed by the Rolleston

Committee in 1926. This policy on drugs, known as the "British system", was maintained

in Britain, and nowhere else, until the 1960s. Under this policy drug use remained low;

there was relatively little recreational use and few dependent users, who were prescribed

drugs by their doctors as part of their treatment. From 1964 drug use was increasingly

criminalised, with the framework still in place as of 2014 largely determined by the 1971

Misuse of Drugs Act.

United States

Modern US drug policy still has roots in the war on drugs started by presi-

dent Richard Nixon in 1971. In the United States, illegal drugs fall into different categories

63
and punishment for possession and dealing varies on amount and type. Punishment for ma-

rijuana possession is light in most states, but punishment for dealing and possession of hard

drugs can be severe, and has contributed to the growth of the prison population.

US drug policy is also heavily invested in foreign policy, supporting military

and paramilitary actions in South America, Central Asia, and other places to eradicate the

growth of coca and opium. In Colombia, U.S. president Bill Clinton dispatched military

and paramilitary personnel to interdict the planting of coca, as a part of the Plan Colombia.

The project is often criticized for its ineffectiveness and its negative impact on local farm-

ers, but it has been effective in destroying the once-powerful drug cartels and guerrilla

groups of Colombia. President George W. Bush intensified anti-drug efforts in Mexico, in-

itiating the Mérida Initiative, but has faced criticisms for similar reasons.

May 21, 2012 the U.S Government published an updated version of its Drug

Policy The director of ONDCP stated simultaneously that this policy is something different

than "War on Drugs":

1. The U.S Government see the policy as a “third way” approach to drug control one

that is based on the results of a huge investment in research from some of the

world’s preeminent scholars on disease of substance abuse.

2. The policy does not see drug legalization as the “silver bullet” solution to drug con-

trol.

3. It is not a policy where success is measured by the number of arrests made or prisons

built.

64
 The U.S. government generates grants to develop and disseminate evidence-

based abuse treatments. These grants have developed several practices that NIDA endorses,

such as community reinforcement approach and community reinforcement and family

training approach, which are behaviour therapy interventions.

Summary –

Here in the chapter – 4 we have studied that what is a drug policy and the

laws that are related to use and prevention to drugs and substance uses. Here we studied

the international law and Indian laws that are designed for the controlling the uses drugs

and other substances. Here the Indian laws are in depth and the changes that are made on

time to time in the Indian laws are also mentioned here.

In the next chapter-5 we will see some judiciary view and some judgement

related to abuse of drugs and substance.

65
 CHAPTER – 5

JUDICIAL TRENDS

Judicial Trends in Indian Democracy

Democracy means government of the people, by the people and for the peo-

ple. Democracy is not just a peripheral set-up. In democracy, belief and power of word or

speech has great importance. In every democratic country, judiciary plays pivotal role in

an institution. Judiciary is known as a watchdog of democracy and the constitution. It is

judiciary on which people have struck their trust for getting justice. Only judiciary has the

capability of imparting justice to the aggrieved people and cause of action can only be

bought by the arms of the judiciary.

In democratic processes, of which judicial process is one, it is necessary that

issues or controversies should be decided by discussion and exchange of views and not by

resorting to the use of the police or the army. The elected representatives in a democracy

adapt the process of debate or discussion on public issues of importance for making laws

and solving problems of the people. Issues which are to be brought into limelight and are a

matter of importance are brought in legislative assembly and parliament. The power of

speech and discussion should be nurtured. Resort to the army and the police should be

minimum and should be adopted in the event of some unavoidable emergency. Unfortu-

nately, the situation is otherwise. If we are adapting to non-violent processes as conducive

for functioning of the society and democracy, gradually we would be able to eliminate the

power of arms and weapons. We should not be satisfied with merely outward and formal

structure of democracy. To strengthen the democracy, we have to increase the power of

66
words and speech. In other words, this requires increase mutual trust. The judiciary is one

organ in which, we can find non-violent democratic process in action .

It is that structure of our society, which cemented its place next to the God and if not

properly dispensed will shatter down the entire trinity of democratic instrumentalists with

checks balances, parliamentary structure and the judicial facets of our constitution. Gener-

ally, aggrieved with lots of pain, anguish and hope in their heart approaches the court of

law for their grievances to be redressed but at the end of the day the procedural lacunae left

them bare handed. They are denied of their most important right i.e Justice. In India, Justice

is beyond the reach of most and the right of access is not communicated to the citizens

properly.

Some cases related to the abuse of drugs and substances are given below to

under the views of judiciary regarding to the cases.

5.1 State of Punjab vs Balbir Singh: 1994 AIR 1872, 1994 SCC (3) 299

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.In

almost all the above cases the State of Punjab is the petitioner. The common question that

arises for consideration is whether any arrest and search of a person or search of a place

without conforming to the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short), becomes illegal and consequently vitiates the conviction.

The trial court in these cases acquitted the accused on the ground that the arrest, search and

seizure were in violation of some of the relevant and mandatory provisions of the NDPS

Act. The High Court declined to grant leave to appeal against the said order of acquittal.

Questioning the same the State of Punjab has filed these special leave petitions and appeals.

67
In a few cases, the convicted accused also have questioned their convictions on the ground

that arrest and trial were illegal. Since a common question arises in all these matters, they

are being disposed of by a common judgment.

The principal contention of Mr Suri, learned counsel appearing for the State

of Punjab is that in all these cases, the police officers effected arrest, search and seizure on

reasonable suspicion that a cognizable offence has been committed and not on any prior

information that any offence punishable under NDPS Act has been committed and there-

fore the question of complying with some of the provisions of the NDPS Act in this regard

at the time of the said arrest, search and seizure would not arise-and as long as such arrest,

search and seizure are substantially in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal

Procedure, such arrest, search and seizure cannot be declared as illegal. The further sub-

mission is that even if such arrest, search and seizure are not in strict conformity with the

provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, at that stage, the same may at the most be irreg-

ular and the courts have to consider the prosecution case and appreciate the relevant evi-

dence from that background and should only see whether any prejudice is caused to the

accused but cannot throw out the whole prosecution case as such. Several learned counsel

appearing for the respondents-accused on the other hand contended that since deterrent

punishments are prescribed under the NDPS Act, the Legislature has taken care to incor-

porate several provisions in Chapter V of the NDPS Act governing the arrest, search and

seizure to afford safeguards so that innocent persons are not harassed and these provisions

are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of the same vitiates the trial.

68
 The NDPS Act was enacted in the year 1985 with a view to consolidate and

amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, to make stringent provisions for the control and

regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to provide

for the forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and

psychotropic substances, to implement the provisions of the International Conventions

on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and for matters connected therewith. Sec-

tions 1 to 3 in Chapter I deal with definitions and connected matters.

The provisions in Chapter 11 deal with the powers of the Central Govern-

ment to take measures for preventing and combating abuse of and illicit traffic in nar-

cotic drugs and to appoint authorities and officers to exercise the powers under the Act.

The provisions in Chapter III deal with prohibition, control and regulation of cultivation of

coca plant, opium poppy etc. and to regulate the possession, transport, purchase and con-

sumption and poppy straw etc. Chapter IV deals with various offences and penalties for

contravention in relation to opium poppy, coca plant, narcotic drugs and psychotropic sub-

stances and prescribes deterrent sentences. The provisions of Chapter V deal with the pro-

cedure regarding the entry, arrest, search and seizure. Chapter V-A deals with forfeiture of

property derived from or used in illicit traffic of such drugs and substances. The provisions

of Chapter VI deal with miscellaneous matters. We are mainly concerned with Sections

41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 57. Under Section 41 certain classes of Magistrates are

competent to issue warrants for the arrest of any person whom they have reason to believe

to have committed any offence punishable under Chapter IV or for search of any building,

conveyance or place in which they have reason to believe that any narcotic drug or

69
psychotropic substance in respect of which an offence punishable under Chapter IV has

been committed, is kept or concealed.

Section 42 empowers certain officers to enter, search, seize and arrest with-

out warrant or authorisation. Such officer should be superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or

constable of the Departments of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue, Intelligence

or any other department of the Central Government or an officer of similar superior rank

of the Revenue, Drugs Control, Excise, Police or any other department of a State Govern-

ment as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government.

Such officer, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information taken

down in writing, that any offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed, he

may enter into and search in the manner prescribed thereunder between sunrise and sunset.

He can detain and search any person if he thinks proper and if he has reason to believe such

person to have committed an offence punishable under Chapter IV. Under the proviso, such

officer may also enter and search a building or conveyance at any time between sunset and

sunrise also provided he has reason to believe that search warrant or authorisation cannot

be obtained without affording opportunity for concealment of the evidence or facility for

the escape of an offender. But before doing so, he must record the grounds of his belief and

send the same to his immediate official superior.

Section 43 empowers such officer as mentioned in Section 42 to seize in any

public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in respect of which

he has reason to believe that an offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed

and shall also confiscate any animal or conveyance along with such substance. Such officer

70
can also detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed

such offence and can arrest him and any other person in his company. Section 44 merely

lays down those provisions of Sections 41 to 43 shall also apply in relation to offences re-

garding coca plant, opium poppy or cannabis plant. Under Section 49, any such officer

authorised under Section 42, if he has reason to suspect that any animal or conveyance is,

or is about to be, used for the transport of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, can

rummage and search the conveyance or part thereof, examine and search any goods in the

conveyance or on the animal and he can stop the animal or conveyance by using all lawful

means and where such means fail, the animal or the conveyance may be fired upon. Then

comes Section 50. Since sufficient emphasis has been laid on this section, we shall extract

the same in full. It reads as under:

Therefore under this section the provisions of the CrPC are applicable

where an offence under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law is being inquired

into, tried and otherwise dealt with. From the words "otherwise dealt with" it does not nec-

essarily mean something which is not included in the investigation, inquiry or trial and the

word "otherwise" points to the fact that the expression "dealt with" is all comprehensive

and that investigation, inquiry and trial are some of the aspects dealing with the offence.

Consequently, the provisions of the CrPC shall be applicable insofar as they are not incon-

sistent with the NDPS Act to all warrants, searches, seizures or arrests made under the Act.

But when a police officer carrying on the investigation including search,

seizure or arrest empowered under the provisions of the CrPC comes across a person being

in possession of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances then two aspects will arise.

71
If he happens to be one of those empowered officers under the NDPS Act also then he must

follow thereafter the provisions of the NDPS Act and continue the investigation as pro-

vided thereunder. If on the other hand, he is not empowered then the obvious thing he

should do is that he must inform the empowered officer under the NDPS Act who should

thereafter proceed from that stage in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act.

But at this stage the question of resorting to Section 50 and informing the

accused person that if he so wants, he would be taken to a Gazetted Officer and taking to

Gazetted Officer thus would not arise because by then search would have been over. As

laid down in Section 50 the steps contemplated thereunder namely informing and taking

him to the Gazetted Officer should be done before the search. When the search is already

over in the usual course of investigation under the provisions of CrPC then the question of

complying with Section 50 would not arise.

The question considered above arise frequently before the trial courts.

Therefore we find it necessary to set out our conclusions which are as follows : If a police

officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS

Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal course of investigation into an offence

or suspected offences as provided under the provisions of CrPC and when such search is

completed at that stage Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted and the question

of complying with the requirements thereunder would not arise. If during such search or

arrest there is a chance recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the

police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should

thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. If he happens to be

72
an empowered officer also, then from that stage onwards, he should carry out the investi-

gation in accordance with the other provisions of the NDPS Act.

5.2 Raj Kumar Karwal vs Union Of India And Ors.Withkirpal: 1991 AIR 45, 1990

SCR (2) 63

We may at once examine the scheme of the Act. Before the enactment of

the Act, statutory control over narcotic drugs was exercised through certain State and Cen-

tral enactments, principally through the Opium Act, 1856, the Opium Act. 1878, the Dan-

gerous Drugs Act, 1930, etc.

However, with the increase in drug abuse and illicit drug traffic certain de-

ficiencies in the existing laws surfaced which made it necessary for Parliament to enact a

comprehensive legislation sufficiently stringent to combat the challenge posed

by drug traffickers. India had participated in the second International Opium Conference

held at Geneva in 1925 which adopted the convention relating to dangerous drugs.

To give effect to the obligations undertaken by the Government of India by

signing and ratifying the said convention, the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 came to be en-

acted to vest in the Central Government the control over certain operations concerning dan-

gerous drugs. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and Article

12 of the International Covenant on Economical, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, reflect

the concern of the international community for the protection of the individual's right to the

enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health. The other In-

ternational Conventions which prompted the legislation are set out in Section 2(ix) of the

Act. Besides, one of the primary duties of the Government under our Constitution is

73
improvement of public health. inter alia, by prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating

drinks and drugs injurious to health. The Act was, therefore, enacted, as is evident from its

Preamble, inter alia, to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of opera-

tions relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and to provide for deterrent

punishment, including the forfeiture of property derived from or used in illicit traffic of

such drugs and substances.

The Act is divided into VI Chapters accommodating 83 Sections. Chapter I

contains the short title of the Act. definitions of various terms and expressions used therein

and provisions enabling addition to and omission from the list of psychotropic substances.

Chapter II entitled 'authorities & officers' empowers the Central as well as the State Gov-

ernment to make appointments of certain officers. etc. for the purposes of the Act. The

newly added Chapter IIA provides for the Constitution of a national fund for control

of drug abuse. Provision for the prohibition, control and regulation on cultivation, produc-

tion, manufacture, etc., of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is to be found in

Chapter III. Chapter IV defines the offences punishable under the Act and prescribes the

penalties therefore. Needless to say that the punishments prescribed are very severe. In

some cases the minimum punishment is 10 years with fine extending to Rs.2 lacs and above.

By a recent amendment death penalty is prescribed for certain offences committed by per-

sons after a previous conviction. Provision for rebuttable presumption of mensrea-culpable

mental state--is also made under Section 35 and Special Courts are envisaged by Sections

36 and 36A for the trial of offences punishable under the Act. Every offence punishable

under the Act is made cognizable by virtue of Section 37., notwithstanding the provi-

sions of the Code. Then comes Chapter V which outlines the process.

74
 Power to stop, rummage and search any conveyance or goods carried in any

conveyance or on any animal is conferred by Section 49. Section 51 provides that all war-

rants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made shall be governed by the provisions of

the Code unless such provisions are not consistent with the provisions of the Act. Next

comes Section 53 which we consider proper to reproduce at this stage. It reads as under:

Section 53: Power to invest officers of certain departments with powers of

an officer-in-charge of a police station.-(1) The Central Government, after consultation

with the State Government, may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, invest

any officer of the department of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or

Border Security Force or any class of such officers with the powers of an officer-in-charge

of a police station for the investigation of the offences under this Act. (2) The State Gov-

ernment may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, invest any officer of the

department of drugs control, revenue or excise or any class of such officers with the powers

of an officer-in-charge of a police station for the investigation of offences under this

Act." Section 53A, inserted by Act 2 of 1989, makes a statement made and signed by a

person before any officer empowered under Section 53 for investigation of offences, dur-

ing the course of such investigation, relevant in certain circumstances e.g., when the maker

of the statement is dead or cannot be traced or is incapable of giving evidence or is kept

away by the opposite party or whose presence cannot be secured without delay or when he

is examined as a witness in the case.

Section 54 permits raising of a rebuttable presumption against an accused in

a trial for any offence under the Act to the extent permitted by clauses (a) to (d)

75
thereof. Section 55 enjoins upon an officer-in-charge of a police station to take charge of

and keep in safe custody any article seized under the Act and made over to him. Section

57 enjoins upon the officer making an arrest or effecting seizure under the Act to make a

full report thereof to his immediate superior within 48 hours. Section 58 provides the pun-

ishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest. Section 67 empowers an authorised

officer to call for information or require any person to produce or deliver any document or

thing useful or relevant to the enquiry or examine any person acquainted with the facts and

circumstances of the case. The newly added Chapter VA deals with forfeiture of property

derived from and used in illicit traffic of drugs, etc. The last Chapter VI contains miscella-

neous provisions. The scheme of the Act clearly shows that the Central Government is

charged with the duty to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for

preventing and combating the abuse of narcotic drugs (Section 2(xiv) and psychotropic

substances (Section 2(xxiii) and the menance of illicit traffic (Section 2(viiia) therein As

pointed out earlier Chapter IV defines the offences and prescribes the punishments for vi-

olating the provisions of the Act.

We must immediately concede that the punishments prescribed for the var-

ious offences under the Act are very severe e.g., Sections 21 and 23 prescribe the punish-

ment of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which

may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one

lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees, Section 29 which makes abetment

an offence prescribes the punishment provided for the offence abetted while Section 30 pre-

scribes the punishment which is one half of the punishment and fine for the principal of-

fence. In addition thereto certain presumptions, albeit rebuttable, are permitted to be raised

76
against the accused. Counsel for the appellants, therefore, argued that when such extensive

powers are conferred on the officers appointed under the Act and the consequences are so

drastic, it is desirable that the protection of Section 25, Evidence Act, should be extended

to persons accused of the commission of any crime punish-

Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to

above, we may now proceed to apply the test in the context of the provisions of the Act.

We have noticed that Section 37 makes every offence punishable under the Act cognizable

notwithstanding anything contained in the Code. Section 41(1) empowers a Magistrate to

issue a warrant for the arrest of any person suspected of having committed any offence

under Chapter IV, or for the search of any building, conveyance or place in which he has

reason to believe any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or any document or other

article is kept or concealed. Section 41(2) empowers certain gazetted officers of central

excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence, etc., of the Central Government or the Bor-

der Security Force, or any such officer of the revenue, excise, police, drug control, or other

departments of the State Governments empowered by general or special orders in this be-

half to issue an authorisation for the arrest of any person believed to have committed an

offence or for the search of any building, conveyance or place whether by day or by night

in which the offending drug or substance or article is kept or concealed.

Section 42 enables certain officers duly empowered in this behalf by the

Central or the State Governments to enter into and search any building, conveyance or

enclosed place between sunrise and sunset without any warrant or authorisation, if there is

reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given any person and reduced

77
to writing, that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance inrespect of which such an of-

fence has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of

the commission of such offence has been kept or concealed therein and seize the same. The

proviso requires that the concerned officer must record the grounds of his belief before

exercising power under the said provision.

Sub-section (2) of section 42 enjoins upon an officer taking down the infor-

mation or recording grounds for his belief to forward a copy thereof to his immediate su-

perior. Section 43 confers on any officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section

42, power to seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic sub-

stance, in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under Chapter

IV has been committed, and along therewith any animal or conveyance or article liable to

confiscation under the Act and any document or other article which furnishes evidence of

the commission of the offence relating to such drug or substance. Power is also conferred

on such an officer to detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have

committed an offence under Chapter IV and if such person has any narcotic drug or psy-

chotropic substance in his possession and such possession appears to him unlawful, arrest

him, and any other person in his company.

By Section 44 the provisions of Sections 41, 42 and 43 are made applicable

in relation to offences concerning coca plant, opium poppy or cannabis plant. Where it is

not practicable to seize any goods (including standing crop) liable to confiscation, any of-

ficer duly authorised under Section 42 is empowered to serve on the owner or person in

78
possession of the goods, an order that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with

the goods except with the previous permission of such officer.

Section 48 confers on the Magistrate or any officer of the gazetted rank em-

powered under Section 42, power of attachment of crop illegally cultivated. Section 49 em-

powers any officer authorised under Section 42, if he has reason to suspect that any animal

or conveyance is, or is about to be, used for the transport of any narcotic drug or psycho-

tropic substance in respect of which he suspects that any provision of the Act has been. or

is being, or is about to be contravened, to stop such animal or conveyance and rummage

and search the conveyance or part thereof; examine and search any goods on the animal or

in the conveyance and use all lawful means for stopping it and where such means fail, the

animal or conveyance may be fired upon. Section 50 enjoins upon the officer who is about

to search any person, if such person so requires, to take him without unnecessary delay to

the nearest gazetted officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the

nearest Magistrate.

Then comes Section 51 which says that the provisions of the Code shall ap-

ply, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, to all warrants issued

and arrests, searches and seizures made under the Act. On a plain reading of the section it

is clear that if there is any inconsistency between the provisions of the Act and the Code,

the former will prevail.

Section 52 deals with the disposal of persons arrested and articles seized

under Sections 41, 42, 43 or 44 of the Act. It enjoins upon the officer arresting a person to

inform him of the grounds for his arrest. It further provides that every person arrested and

79
article seized under warrant issued under sub-section (1) of Section 41 shall be forwarded

without unnecessary delay to the Magistrate by whom the warrant was issued. Where, how-

ever, the arrest or seizure is effected by virtue of Sections 41(2), 42, 43 or 44 the Sec-

tion enjoins upon the officer to forward the person arrested and the article seized to the

officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or the officer empowered to investigate un-

der Section 53 of the Act.

Special provision is made in Section 52A in regard to the disposal of

seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Then comes Section 53 which we have

extracted earlier. Section 55 requires an officer-incharge of a police station to take charge

of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under

the Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him. Sec-

tion 57 enjoins upon any officer making an arrest or effecting seizure under the Act to make

a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior

within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure. These provisions found in Chapter V of

the Act show that there is nothing in the Act to indicate that all the powers under Chapter

XII of the Code, including the power to file a report under Section 173 of the Code have

been expressly conferred on officers who are invested with the powers of an officer-in-

charge of a police station under Section 53, for the purpose of investigation of offences

under the Act. The Act was enacted for the control and regulation of operations relating

to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Under Sections 41, 42, 43, 44 and 49 of the Act certain powers of arrest,

search and seizure have been conferred on certain officers of different departments. If the

80
arrest or seizure is made pursuant to a warrant issued under Section 41(1), the person ar-

rested or the article seized has to be forwarded to the Magistrate with despatch. If the arrest

or seizure is made under Sections 41(2), 42, 43 or 44 the person arrested or the article

seized has to be forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or the officer

empowered under Section 53 of the Act. Special procedure has been prescribed for the dis-

posal of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances having regard to the factors set out

in Section 52A. The role of the officers effecting arrest or seizure, except in the case of a

police officer, ends with the disposal of the person arrested and the article seized in the

manner provided by Section 52 and 52A of the Act. Section 57 obliges the officer making

the arrest or seizure to report the same to his superior within 48 hours. These powers are

more or less similar to the powers conferred on Customs Officers under the Customs Act,

1962.

5.3 Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat: 2000 (1) SCR 542

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Thomas, J. Appellant was an

auto-rickshaw driver. On the evening of 12.1.1988 an auto-rickshaw was intercepted by a

posse of police person-nel while it was proceeding to Shahpur (Gujarat). Four gunny bags

were found stacked in the vehicle. They contained 'Charas' (Cannabis hemp). Appellant

was arrested and prosecuted for offences under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') besides Section 66(l)(b) of the

Bombay Prohibition Act.

The trial court acquitted the appellant, but on appeal by the State of Gujarat

a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat set aside the order of acquittal and convicted

81
him of the offences under the above sections. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment

for ten years and a fine of Rupees one lakh for the first count while no separate sentence

was im-posed for the second count.

Facts are not seriously disputed by the appellant. More details about the facts

are the following: PW-2 Premsingh M. Vishen, Inspector of Police at Dariapur Police Sta-

tion, got information on 12.1.1988 that one Iqbal Syed Husen was trying to transport Charas

upto Shahpur in an auto-rickshaw bearing No. GTH 3003. PW-2 collected some more po-

licemen and proceeded to the main road in quest for the contraband movement. At about

4.00 PM they sighted the autorickshaw which was then driven by the appellant. They

stopped it and checked it and found four gunny bags placed inside the vehicle. Police took

the vehicle to the Police Station and when the gunny bags were opened ten packets of

Charas were found concealed therein. The value of the said contraband was estimated to be

Rs. 5.29 lakhs. When investigation was conducted it was revealed that the said consignment

was loaded in the auto rickshaw by two persons Iqbal Syed Husen and Mahaboob Rasal

Khan. The police made a search to trace them out but failed. And unceremoniously drop-

ping them, a charge sheet was laid against the appellant only before the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate for the above mentioned offences and the case was later committed to the Court

of Sessions.

Prosecution examined four witnesses. PW-1 is a panch witness and PW-2

Premsingh M. Vishen, the Inspector of Police, who headed the raiding party which inter-

cepted the vehicle, PW-3 PSO of Dariapur Police Station was examined to prove the FIR.

PW-4 Baldev Singh Vaghela was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dariapur, Forensic Science

82
Laboratory which conducted tests on the samples of contraband reported that it contained

Charas.

When the appellant was questioned by the trial court under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure he did not dispute the fact the he rode the auto-rickshaw

and that the same was intercepted by the police party and that gunny bags kept in the vehicle

were taken out and examined by them at the Police Station. His defence was that those four

gunny bags were brought in a truck at Chokha Bazar by two persons who unloaded them

into his vehicle and directed him to transport the same to the destination mentioned by

them. He carried out the assignment without knowing what were the contents of the load

in the gunny bags.

The Division Bench of the High Court found that the appellant failed to

prove that he did not know the contents of the load and hence the presumption in Section

35 of the Act remained unrebutted. It was mainly on the said premise that the Division

Bench held the appellant guilty of the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced

as aforesaid.

As the appellant did not engage any advocate for himself Mr. Sudhir Nan-

drajog, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to argue for him. Learned counsel con-

tended first that there was total non-compliance with the requirements of Section 50 of the

Act which had vitiated the seizure of the contraband.

In the former case, accused was a person who arrived at Sabar International

Airport (Mumbai) and when the intelligence officer of Nar-cotic Central Bureau checked

one of his baggage he detected 2 Kgs. of Heroin therefrom. Before the baggage was opened

83
the accused was asked to identify it and when he did so the officer again checked it up with

the Baggage Tag affixed on the Air Ticket in the possession of the accused. The contention

that the conditions under Section 50 of the Act were not complied with before the baggage

was searched, has been repelled by this Court on the premise that it was not a search of the

"person" of the accused. In the second mentioned case, the contention based on Section

50 was negative on the factual premise that "Charas" was found kept in a bag which was

hanging on the scooter ridden by the accused. Learned Judges held that opening and check-

ing the said bag did not amount to search of the "person" of the accused.

In the present case, the appellant has no case that he was searched by the

police party. The place where the gunny bags found stacked in the vehicle was not inextri-

cably connected with the person of the appellant. Hence it is an idle exercise in this case,

on the fact situation, to consider whether there was noncompliance with the conditions

stipulated in Section 50 of the Act.

But the more important contention advanced by Shri Sudhir Nandrajog,

learned amicus curiae was that there was noncompliance with Section 42 of the Act which

was enough to vitiate the search as a whole.

Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation,

(1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the

departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other depart-

ment of the Central Government or of the Border Security Force as is empowered in this

behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being

an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control,

84
excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf

by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from per-

sonal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing, that any

narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, in respect of which an offence punishable under

Chapter IV has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evi-

dence of the commission of such offence is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance

or enclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset -

1. enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;

2. in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;

3. seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and

any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to

be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he

has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence pun-

ishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance; and

4. detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason

to believe to have committed any offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to

such drug or sub-stance.

Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or

authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of ev-

idence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building,

conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sun set and sun rise after recording the

grounds of his belief.

85
 Where an officer takes down any information in writing under subsection

(1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto he shall forthwith send a copy

thereof to his immediate official superior."

For the purposes of this case, PW-2 being a police officer much above the

rank of a constable, would be "any such officer" as envisaged b the Section, If he had reason

to believe from information given by any person that narcotic drug was kept or concealed

in any building, con-veyance or enclosed place the requirements to be complied with by

him before he proceeded to search any such building or conveyance or enclosed place were

two-fold. First is that he should have taken down the informa-tion in writing. Second is that

he should have sent forthwith a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. In this case

PW-2 admitted that he proceeded to the spot only on getting the information that somebody

was trying to transport narcotic substances.

When he was asked in cross-examination whether he had taken down the

information in writing he had answered in negative. Nor did he even apprise his superior

officer of any such information either then or later, much less sending a copy of the infor-

mation to the superior officer. However, learned counsel for the respondent State of Gujarat

contended that the action was taken by him not under Section 42 of the Act but it was un-

der Section 43 as per which he was not obliged to take down the information. We are unable

to appreciate the argument because, in this case, PW-2 admitted that he proceeded on get-

ting prior information from a constable and the information was precisely one falling within

the purview of Section 42(1) of the Act. Hence PW-2 cannot wriggle out of the conditions

86
stipulated in the said subsection. We therefore, unhesitatingly hold that there was non-com-

pliance with Section 42 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the State next contended that such noncom-pliance

with Section 42 of the Act cannot be visited with greater conse-quences than what has been

held by the Constitution Bench of this Court regarding non-compliance of the conditions

in Section 50 of the Act.

A two Judge Bench of this Court has considered the said question along with

other questions in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, [1994] 3 SCC 299. In paragraph 25 of

that judgment the conclusions were laid down, of which what is relevant for this case re-

garding Section 42(1) is the following:

"(2-C) Under Section 42(1) the empowered officer if has a prior information

given by any person, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if he has reason

to believe from personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed

or materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in

any building etc. he may carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise

and sunset and this provision does not mandate that he should record his reasons of belief.

But under the proviso to Section 42(1) if such officer has to carry out such search between

sunset and sunrise, he must record the grounds of his belief.

To this extent these provisions are mandatory and contravention of the same

would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial.

87
 (3) Under Section 42(2) such empowered officer who takes down any infor-

mation in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Section 42(1) should forthwith

send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is total non-compliance of

this provision the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. But if

there is delay whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be

a question of fact in each case."

When the same decision considered the impact of non-compliance of Sec-

tion 50 it was held that !!it would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial". But the

Constitution Bench has settled the legal position concerning that aspect in State of Punjab

v. Baldev Singh (supra), the relevant portion of which has been extracted by us earlier. We

do not think that a different approach is warranted regarding non-compliance of Sec-tion

42 also.

If the officer has reason to believe from personal knowledge or prior infor-

mation received from any person that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance (in re-

spect of which an offence has been com-mitted) is kept or concealed in any building, con-

veyance or enclosed place, it is imperative that the officer should take it down in writing

and he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. The action of

the officer, who claims to have exercised it on the strength of such unrecorded information

would become suspect, though the trial may not vitiate on that score alone. Nonetheless the

resultant position would be one of causing prejudice to the accused.

Learned counsel for the State of Gujarat thereupon contended that as the

appellant did not dispute the factom of recovery of the "charas" from the vehicle it does not

88
matter that the information was not recorded at the first instance by the police officer. We

cannot approve the contention because non-recording of information has in fact deprived

the appellant as well as the court of the material to ascertain what was the precise infor-

mation, which PW-2 got before proceeding to stop the vehicle. Value of such an infor-

mation, which was the earliest in point of time, for ascertain-ing the extent of the involve-

ment of the appellant in the offence, was of a high degree. A criminal court cannot normally

afford to be ignorant of such a valuable information. It is not enough that PW-2 was able

to recollect from memory, when he was examined in court after the lapse of a long time, as

to what information he got before he proceeded to the scene. Even otherwise, the infor-

mation which PW2, in this case, recollected itself tends to exculpate the appellant rather

than inculpate him.

In the above context, learned counsel for State sought to rely on the legal

presumption envisaged in Section 35 of the Act, In fact the Division Bench of the High

Court also mainly rested on that legal premise. Section 35 reads thus:

"35. Presumption of culpable mental state. (1) In any prosecution for an of-

fence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the court shall

presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove

the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in

that prosecution. Explanation In this section 'culpable mental state' includes intention, mo-

tive, knowledge, of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. For the purpose of this

section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a

89
reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of

probability."

No doubt, when the appellant admitted that narcotic drug was recovered

from the gunny bags stacked in the auto-rickshaw, the burden of proof is on him to prove

that he had ao knowledge about the fact that those gunny bags contained such a substance.

The standard of such proof is delineated in sub-section (2) as "beyond a reasonable doubt*.

If the court, on an appraisal of the entire evidence does not entertain doubt of a reasonable

degree that he had real knowledge of the nature of substance concealed in the gunny bags

then the appellant is not entitled to acquittal. However, if the court entertains strong doubt

regarding the accused's awareness about the nature of the substance in the gunny bags, it

would be a miscarriage of criminal justice to convict him of the offence keeping such strung

doubt un-dispelled. Even so, it is for the accused to dispel any doubt in that regard. The

burden of proof cast on the accused under Section 35 can be discharged through different

modes. One is that, he can rely on the materials available in the prosecution evidence. Next

is, in addition to that be can elicit answers from prosecution witnesses through crossexam-

ination to dispel any such doubt. He may also adduce other evidence when he is called upon

to enter on his defence. In other words, if circumstances appearing in prosecution case or

in the prosecution evidence are such as to give reasonable assurance to the court that ap-

pellant could not have had the knowledge or the required intention, the burden cast on him

under Section 35 of the Act would stand discharged even if he has not adduced any other

evidence of his own when he is called upon to enter on his defence.

90
 In this case non-recording of the vital information collected by the police at

the first instance can be counted as a circumstance in favour of the appellant. Next is that

even the information which PW-2 recollected from memory is capable of helping the ac-

cused because it indicates that the real culprits would have utilized the services of an auto-

rickshaw driver to transport the gunny bags and it is not necessary that the auto-rickshaw

driver should have been told in advance that the gunny bags contained such offensive sub-

stance. The possibility is just the other way around that the said culprits would not have

disclosed that information to the auto-rickshaw driver unless it is shown that he had entered

into a criminal conspiracy with the other main culprits to transport the contraband. Prose-

cution did not adduce any evidence to show any such connivance between the appellant

and the real culprits. There is nothing even to suggest that those culprits and the appellant

were close to each other, or even known to each other earlier. Yet another circumstance

discernible from the evidence in this case is that the police had actually arrayed two other

persons as the real culprits and made all endeavour to arrest them, but they absconded

themselves and escaped from the reach of the police.

From the above circumstances we hold that the accused had dis-charged the

burden of proof in such a manner as to rebut the presumption envisaged in Section 35 of

the Act. He is therefore, not liable to be convicted for the offences pitted against him.

In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence

passed on the appellant by the High Court in the impugned judgment We restore the order

of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court We direct him to be set at liberty forth-

with, if he is not required in any other case,

91
5.4 Ansar Ahmed vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi): 123 (2005) DLT 563

As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Basheer v. State of Kerala: ,

the NDPS Act contemplates severe and deterrent punishments as is evident from the mini-

mum terms of imprisonment prescribed in Sections 21 and 22 thereof. It was found that a

large number of cases, in which the accused were found to be in possession of a small

quantity of drugs, were really cases of drug addicts and not of traffickers in nar-

cotic drugs and psychotropic substances. As a result of the stringent bail provisions there

were hardly any cases where such persons could obtain bail. Thus, trials were pending for

long periods and the accused languished in jail. Under Section 27 of the Act of 1985, there

was a marginal concession in favor of drug addicts by providing a reduced quantum of

punishment if the accused could prove that the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in

his possession was intended for his personal consumption and not for sale or distribution.

It is, therefore, Entry 56 which shall apply. The quantities of heroin (diace-

tylmorphine) specified therein are by weight. Keeping in mind that the object of introducing

this classification was to rationalise the sentencing structure 'so as to ensure that

while drug traffickers who traffic in significant quantities of drugs are punished with de-

terrent sentences, the addicts and those who commit less serious offences are sentenced to

less severe punishment', it does appear to me that what has to be seen is the content of

heroin by weight in the mixture and not the weight of the mixture as such. Otherwise,

anomalous consequences would follow. While a recovery of 4 grams of heroin would

amount to a small quantity, the same 4 grams mixed up with say 250 grams of powdered

sugar would be quantified as a 'commercial quantity'! And, where would this absurdity

stop? Suppose one were to throw a pinch of heroin (say 0.5 gram) into a polythene bag

92
containing small steel ball bearings having a total weight of 1kg: would the steel ball bear-

ings be also weighed in and it be declared that a commercial quantity (1000.5 grams) of

heroin was recovered! Surely, it is only the content of heroin (0.5 gram) in the 'mixture' of

heroin and steel ball bearings that is relevant? Clearly, then, it would qualify as a small

quantity. Therefore, in a mixture of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance with one

or more neutral substances, the quantity of the neutral substance or substances is not to be

taken in considering whether a small quantity or a commercial quantity of the nar-

cotic drug or psychotropic substance is recovered. Only the actual content by weight of

the narcotic drug or the psychotropic substance (as the case may be) is relevant for detr-

mining whether it would constitute a 'small quantity' or a 'commercial quantity'.

Therefore, the contrary decision of a learned single judge (O.P. Dwivedi, J)

of this court5 in the case of Yogesh Tyagi & ors v. State: would be of no avail to the learned

counsel for the respondents who relied upon it rather heavily. In Yogesh Tyagi (supra) (a

decision rendered on 26.5.20046), the court held:

'I am of the view that the entire quantity recovered in each of

these cases falls within the definition of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and the

percentage mentioned in the CFSL reports whether by weight or potency is irrelevant for

determining whether the quantity of drug recovered in each case is small quantity or com-

mercial quantity.' This view is clearly the diametrical opposite of the view taken by not

only earlier Single Benches of this Court but also the Supreme Court. I have no hesitation

in holding that the decision in Yogesh Tyagi (supra) was per incuriam7 inasmuch as the

decisions in Masoom Ali (supra) and Ouseph (supra) have not been noticed. With regard

93
to the decision in Mohd. Sayed (supra), Yogesh Tyagi (supra) refers to it in, inter alia, the

following terms:-

'It is not clear from the judgment as to what would be the weight in terms of

mg of .18 ml Buprenorphine contained in each ampule. Moreover, the question of calculat-

ing the weight of diacetylmorphine on the basis of percentage given in the FSL report was

not at all raised in that case. So the said decision has no direct bearing on the facts of

these cases.' These observations have overlooked the aforesaid clear finding in Mohd.

Sayed (supra) to the following effect:- 'In my view, in this case it could only be the actual

quantity/ value of Buprenorphine as found present in each ampoule i.e. 0.18 ml and not the

total quantity of 2 ml that may be taken for the purposes of framing of charge against the

petitioner. So calculated, the aggregate Buprenorphine in 3215 ampoules would come to

0.578 gm which is a small quantity.'

Clearly, the decision in Yogesh Tyagi (supra) being per incuriam, it does

not constitute a binding precedent. Accordingly, based upon the reasoning given above and

respectfully following the decisions of this court in Mohd. Sayed (supra) and Masoom Ali

(supra) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ouseph (supra), I reiterate that in a mixture

of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance with one or more neutral substances, the

quantity of the neutral substance or substances is not to be taken while considering whether

a small quantity or a commercial quantity of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is

recovered. Only the actual content by weight of the narcotic drug or the psychotropic sub-

stance (as the case may be) is relevant for determining whether it would constitute a 'small

quantity' or a 'commercial quantity'.

94
5.5 Narcotics Control Bureau vs Krishan Lal And Others: 1991 AIR 558, 1991 SCR

(1) 139

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. The

High Court of Delhi by a common order in two petitions filed under The Narcotic Drugs &

Psychtropic Substances Act, 1985 (`NDPS Act' for short) held that the restrictions placed

on the powers of the Court to grant bail in certain offences under the amended Section 37 of

the NDPS Act are not applicable to the High Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the Nar-

cotic Control Bureau has filed these two appeals.

The peritioners before the High Court in two different cases were arrested

for offences under various Sections of the NDPS Act. They were refused bail and remanded

to judicial custody. On the basis of the report the Magistrate concerned took cognizance

and remanded them to judicial custody. The petitioners filed a writ petition as well as a

criminal miscellaneous petition seeking bail firstly on the ground that they are entitled to

be released on bail as required under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as

the charge-sheet was filed at a belated stage and secondly on the ground of illness. A

learned Single Judge referred this matter to a Division Bench and the Division Bench by

the impugned order held that the limitations placed on the Special Court under Section

37(2) of the NDPS Act cannot be read as fetters on the High Court in exercise of powers

under Section 439 Cr. P.C. for granting bail. The only limited question to be decided in

these appeals is whether the view taken by the High Court is right or wrong and we may

also mention that leave was granted only to this limited extent.

95
 The learned counsel appearing for,the appellants submitted that the High

Court has misconstrued the provisions of Section 36-A and 37 of the NDPS Act and that

latter Section as amended starts with the non-obstante clause limiting the scope of provi-

sions of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of granting bail and as such the High Court has no un-

tremelled powers to grant bail inasmuch as the provisions of the amended Section 37 of the

NDPS Act override the provisions of Section 439 Cr. P.C.

We may at this stage note the relevant provisions of NDPS Act. The pream-

ble to the NDPS Act shows that the object of the Act is to consolidate and amend the law

relating to narcotic drugs and to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of

operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotrophic substances etc. Sections

15 to 35 deal with various offences and penalties. Section 36 provides for constitution of

Special Courts and empower the Government to constitute Special Courts and a person

shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Special Court unless he is immedi-

ately before such appointment, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. Section

36-A enumerates the offences triable by Special Courts and also deals with the procedure

regarding the detention of the accused when produced before a Magistrate. Sub-section (b)

of Section 36-A lays down that if the Magistrate to whom an accused is forwarded un-

der Section 167 Cr. P.C., considers that the detention of such person for fifteen days is

unnecessary he shall forward him to the Special Court having jurisdiction who shall take

cognizance and proceed with the trial. Sub-section (3) of Section 36-A reads thus:

"Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special pow-

ers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

96
1973 (2 of 1974), and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under

clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "magistrate" in that section

included also a reference to a "Special Court" constituted under Section 36."

The High Court having taken into consideration subsection (3) of Section

36-A took the view that the limitations placed on the Special Courts cannot be read as fet-

ters in its exercise of the powers under Section 439 Cr. P.C. In this context, the Division

Bench referred to to subsections(8) and (9) of Section 20 of the Terrorist and Disruptive

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA Act' for short) which are similar to Section 37 of

NDPS Act and also relied on a judgment of this Court in Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon

and Others v. State of Gujarat, [1988] 2 SCC 271 a case which arose under the TADA Act.

We shall refer to this judgment at a later stage after analysing the scope and effect of Sec-

tion 37 of NDPS Act.

Section 37 as amended starts with a non-obstante clause stating that not-

withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no person ac-

cused of an offence prescribed therein shall be released on bail unless the conditions con-

tained therein were satisfied. The nDPS Act is a special enactment as already noted it was

enacted with a view to make stringent provision for the control and regulation of operations

relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The being the underlying object and

particularly when the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are in negative terms limiting

the scope of the applicability of the provisions of Cr. P.C. regarding bail, in our view, it

cannot be held that the High Court's powers to grant bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. are not

subject to the limitation mentioned under Section 37 of NDPS Act. The non-obstante clause

97
with which the Section starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to

restrict the powers to grant bail. In case of inconistency between Section 439 Cr. P.C.

and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, Section 37 prevails. In this context Section 4 Cr. P.C.

may be noted which read thus:

"Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws--(1) All of-

fences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried,

and otherwise dealt with according to the provision hereinafter contained. (2) All offences

under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with

according to the same provision, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force

regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing

with such offences."

It can thus be seen that when there is a special enactment in force relating to

the manner of investigation, enquiry or otherwise dealing with such offences, the other

powers under Cr. P.C. should be subject to such special enactment. In interpretating the

scope of such a statute the dominant purpose underlying the statute has to be borne in mind.

In Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi etc. v. Union of India & Others, [1983] 1 SCR 393 regard-

ing the mode of interpretation the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"The dominant purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the intention

of Parliament. One of the well recognised canons of construction is that the legislature

speaks its mind by use of correct expression and unless there is any ambiguity in the lan-

guage of the provision, the Court should adopt literal construction if it does not lead to an

absurdity."

98
 As already noted, Section 37 of the nDPS Act starts with a non-obstante

clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the Conde of Criminal Procedure,

1973 no person accused of an offence prescribed therein shall be released on bail unless

the conditions contained therein are satisfied. Consequently the power to grant bail under

any of the provisions of Cr. P.C. should necessarily be subject to the conditions mentioned

in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

"Though there is no express provision excluding the applicability of Section

439 of the Code similar to the one contained in Section 20(7) of the Act in relation to a case

involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence pun-

ishable under the Act or any rule made thereunder, but that result must, by necessary im-

plication, follow. it is true that the source of powerof a Designated Court to grant bail is

no Section 20(8) of the Act as it only places limitations on such power. This is made ex-

plicit by Section 20(9) which enacts that the limitations on granting of bail specified in Sec-

tion 20(8) are 'in addition to the limitations under the Code or any other law law for the

time being in force'. But it does not necessarily follow that the power of a Designated Court

to grant bail is relatable to Section 439 of the Code. it cannot be doubted that a Designated

Court is 'a court other than the High Court or the Court of Session' within the meaning of

of section 437 of the Code. The exercise of the power to grant bail by a Designated Court

is not only subject to the limitations contained therein, but is also subject to the limitations

placed by Section 20(8) of the Act."

Having held so, the learned Judge proceeded to consider the controversy as

to the power of the High Court to grant bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. Act excluding the

99
jurisdiction of the High Court entertain an appeal or revision against the judgment of the

designated court, it is held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application

for bail under Section 439 or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure. however, re-

garding the construction of non-obstante clause in Sec. 20(8) of the Act, this Court held as

under:

"The controversy as to the power of the High Court to grant bail under Sec-

tion 439 of the Code must also turn on the construction of Section 20(8) of the Act. It com-

mences with a non-obstante clause and in its operative part by the use of negative language

prohibits the enlargement on bail of any person accused of commission of an offence under

the Act, if in custody, unless two conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the

prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and the

second condition is that where there is such opposition, the court must be satisfied that there

are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not

likely to commit any offence while on bail. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied,

the ban operates and the person under detention cannot be released on bail. it is quite obvi-

ous that the source of power of a Designated Court to grant bail is not section 20(8) of the

Act but it only places limitations on such powers. This is implicit by Section 20(9) which

in terms provides that the limitations or granting of bail specified in subsection (8) are in

addition to the limitations under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on

granting of bail. it therefore follows that the power derived by a Designated Court to grant

bail to a person accused of an offence under the Act, if in custody, is derived from the

Code and not from section 20(8) of the Act.

100
 It can thus be seen that even in Usmanbhai's case also there is no observation

supporting the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment. As a matter of fact

in Usmanbhai's case Sen, J. who spoke for the Bench, after referring to the ratio laid down

in Balchand Jain's case observed thus:

"The view expressed in Balchand Jain case is not applicable at all for more

than one reason. There was nothing in the defence and Internal Security of India Act or the

Rules framed there-under which would exclude the jurisdiction and power of the High

Court altogether. On the contrary, Section 12(2) of that Act expressly vested in the High

Court the appellate jurisdiction in certain specified cases. In view of the explicit bar in Sec-

tion 19(2), there is exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court. It interdicts that no ap-

peal or revision shall lie to any court, including the High Court, against any judgment,

sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Designated Court.

The Act by Section 16(1) confers the right of appeal both on facts as well as

on law to the Supreme Court. Further while it is true that Chapter XXXIII of the Code is

still preserved as otherwise the Designated Court would have no power to grant bail, still

the source of power is not Section 439 of the Code but Section 437 being a court other than

the High Court or the Court of Session. Any other view would lead to an anomalous situa-

tion. If it were to be held that the power of a Designated Court to grant bail was relatable

to Section 439 it would imply that not only the High Court but also the High Court of Ses-

sion would be entitled to grant bail on such terms as they deem fit. The power to grant bail

under Section 439 is unfettered by any conditions and limitations like Section 437. It would

run counter to the express prohibition contained in Section 20(8) of the Act which enjoins

101
that notwithstanding anything in the code, no person accused of an offence punishable un-

der the Act or any rule made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail unless the

conditions set forth in clauses (a) and (b) are satisfied."

The High Court in the impugned judgment, however, referred to Us-

manbhai's case and held that the limitations placed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are

exactly similar to the ones in sub-section (8) and (9) of Section 20 of the TADA Act and

they are applicable only to special courts. But we may point out that in paragraph 16 in

Usmanbhai's case it is observed:

"As a murder of construction, we must accept the contention advanced by

learned counsel appearing for the State Government that the Act being a special Act must

prevail in respect of the jurisdiction and power of the High Court to entertain an application

for bail under section 439 of the Code or by recourse to its inherent powers under section

482."

However, as already mentioned, the learned Judges held that the view ex-

pressed in Balchand Jain's case is not applicable to the facts in Usmanbhai's case and the

same is clear from the observations made in Usmanbhai's case which read as under:

"Lastly both the decision in Balchand Jain and that in Ishwar Chand turn on

the scheme of the Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971. They proceed on the

well recognised principle that an outer of jurisdiction of the ordinary courts is not to be

readily inferred, except by express provision or by necessary implication. It all depends on

the scheme of the particular Act as to whether the power of the High Court and the Court

of Session to grant bail under Sections 438 and 439 exists. We must accordingly uphold

102
the view expressed by the High Court that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application

for bail under Section 439 or under Section 482 of the Code"

From the above discussion it emerges that in Usmanbhai's case the Supreme

Court did not express anything contrary to what has been observed in Balchand Jain's case

and on the other hand at more than one place observed that such enactments should prevail

over the general enactment and the non-obstante clause must be powers of the High Court

to grant bail under Section 439 are subject to the limitations contained in the amended Sec-

tion 37 of the NDPS Act and the restrictions placed on the powers of the Court under the

said section are applicable to the High Court also in the matter of granting bail. The point

of law is ordered accordingly.

The two accused respondents in these two appeals have been on bail pursu-

ant to the order of the High Court, for a long time. The learned counsel appearing for the

Narcotics Control Bureau, the appellant herein, is also not pressing cancellation of the bail.

Therefore, we are not remitting the matters of the High Court for fresh consideration. Pend-

ing the proceedings, they would continue to be on bail. Subject to the above clarification

of law, the appeals are disposed of.

Summary –

Here in this chapter – 5 we studied about some judiciary views and some

special cases judgements related to the abuse of drugs and substances in young generation

in India.

In the next chapter-6 we will conclude the conclusion and some suggestions

are also made regarding this problem of drugs and substance abuse.

103
 CHAPTER – 6

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

6.1 Conclusion and Suggestions

Factors that contribute to the emergence of substance abuse in the pediatric

population are multifactorial. Behavioural, emotional, and environmental factors that place

children at risk for the development of substance abuse may be remediated through preven-

tion and intervention programs that use research-based, comprehensive, culturally relevant,

social resistance skills training and normative education in an active school-based learning

format.

The direct and indirect effects of substance and other drugs on children lead

to many adverse health and safety risks for the child, family, and community. Understand-

ing risk and protective factors that may affect the development of substance abuse is a first

step in ameliorating the problem of drug use in the pediatric population. This article reviews

the literature on the prediction, protection, and prevention of substance abuse in the pedi-

atric population, including a list of available prevention programs for children across the

age continuum.

The younger a child initiates substance and other drug use, the higher the

risk for serious health consequences and adult substance abuse. Fatalities, accidental and

intentional, that are associated with drug and substance use in the adolescent population

represent one of the leading preventable causes of death for the 15to 24-year-old popula-

tion. Substance and other drug use in the adolescent population carries a higher risk for

school underachievement, delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and depression. Inadvertent

104
passive drug exposure in infants and toddlers has resulted in multiple medical complica-

tions including respiratory illnesses, seizures, altered mental status, and death.

Illicit drug use is associated with an increased risk of contracting human

immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The sharp rise in pediatric HIV infection from 1985 to

1990 paralleled the occurrence of the crack cocaine epidemic. In 1990, 68% of perinatally

acquired HIV infection was attributable to intravenous drug abuse in one or both of the

child's parents.24 Even without a history of intravenous drug use, an substanceand drug-

abusing lifestyle places the abuser, partners, and unborn children at risk for HIV infection

due to impaired judgment, reduction of inhibitions, and sex-for-drugs.

The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Substance Abuse rec-

ommends that pediatricians have the skills to detect drug-related problems in their patients

and their patients' family members and are knowledgeable about the extent of drug use and

availability of drug treatment resources (including those for substance and tobacco) in their

community.

Pediatric health care providers are often called on to be a consultant for par-

ents, schools, and the community on topics related to substance and other drug use. In this

capacity, knowledge about available drug and substance prevention curricula and their re-

searched effectiveness is of utmost importance. Some of the more widely available curric-

ula have had modest to no significant improvements in drug use patterns yet, through so-

phisticated marketing, have been implemented in many school districts.

Many prevention curricula targeted for the preschool population have lim-

ited random-design prospective research to document the programs' efficacy. Proactive

105
approaches by pediatric health care providers to recommend the use of effective validated

universal, selective, and indicated prevention curricula will assist community, public

health, and school officials in their decisions to select and implement prevention programs.

Drug abuse is a chronic disease characterized by drug seeking and use that

is compulsive, or difficult to control, despite harmful consequences.

Drug abuse causes sufferers to experience physical and psychological de-

pendency on illicit, mind-altering substances. Brain changes that occur over time with drug

use challenge an addicted person’s self-control and interfere with their ability to resist in-

tense urges to take drugs. This is why drug abuse is also a relapsing disease. Relapse is the

return to drug use after an attempt to stop. Relapse indicates the need for more or different

treatment.

Most drugs affect the brain's reward circuit by flooding it with the chemical

messenger dopamine. Surges of dopamine in the reward circuit cause the reinforcement of

pleasurable but unhealthy activities, leading people to repeat the behaviour again and again.

Over time, the brain adjusts to the excess dopamine, which reduces the high that the person

feels compared to the high they felt when first taking the drug an effect known as tolerance.

They might take more of the drug, trying to achieve the same dopamine

high. Habitual drug use causes changes in the structure and operation of the brain that

deepen and reinforce drug abuse, to the point where a desire to stop using drugs is not

enough to make it happen. No single factor can predict whether a person will become ad-

dicted to drugs. A combination of genetic, environmental, and developmental factors

106
influences risk for abuse. The more risk factors a person has, the greater the chance that

taking drugs can lead to abuse.

Drug abuse is a destroyer of hopes, dreams, and lives, but with inpatient

treatment plus a comprehensive aftercare program drug addicts can find lasting relief from

the ravages of chemical dependency, regardless of how long they’ve been addicted. Drug

abuse is treatable and can be successfully managed. More good news is that drug use and

abuse are preventable. Teachers, parents, and health care providers have crucial roles in

educating young people and preventing drug use and abuse.

In working with chemically involved families, it is important to remember

that parental substance abuse is rarely an isolated phenomenon. Individuals who abuse sub-

stance and/or other drugs themselves often come from abusive, traumatic, or substance-

abusing backgrounds, and their own substance abuse, in turn, has a profound effect on their

children. Not only does the intermittent altered mental status associated with chemical in-

volvement affect parenting abilities, but such parents also often lack models for effective

parenting.

Underlying mental health issues as well as basic survival issues may also

need to be addressed. Thus, professionals commonly must focus on a wide range of prob-

lems that require intervention in order to help substance-abusing parents meet their own

needs as well as the ongoing needs of their children. Fathers and mothers who abuse sub-

stance and/or other drugs often fail to seek nonemergency health care and other needed

services for themselves and their preschool-aged children, and this often makes identifica-

tion difficult.

107
 However, when a pregnant substance abuser delivers a child, health care

professionals often become alerted to problems within the family. Newborns who were

exposed to substance and/or other drugs in utero may present with a range of medical com-

plications related to their parents' substance abuse and lifestyle. Lack of prenatal care, poor

maternal nutrition, and infectious diseases (including sexually transmitted diseases and hu-

man immunodeficiency virus) are common health risks to drug-exposed neonates

Substance abuse is a significant public health problem around the world,

with particular consequences for youth. Risk factors for substance abuse are related to in-

dividual, social and economic vulnerabilities. Young substance abusers are prone to seri-

ous, sometimes fatal, physical and mental health problems. Family and community life are

also adversely impacted. Нe fight against substance abuse cannot be e‫و‬ective

‫ٴ‬ without the

involvement of a range of community stakeholders and the proper allocation of required

resources. Project STAR is a good example of a community-based programme to mobilise

individuals and communities to reduce drug abuse among youth.

While the majority of under-15s have not used licit or illicit substances, and

substance dependence is very rare in this age group, use at a very early age is recognised

as a predictor of later drug dependence and other problems and as an indicator and crucial

element of a difficult family and social situation for those concerned. The prevalence of

daily tobacco smoking at the age of 13 varies in European countries from 7 % to 14 % and

for having been drunk from 5 % to 36 %. The prevalence of illicit drug use at that age is

lower. In almost all European countries, lifetime prevalence of cannabis use among under-

15s is between 0 % and 8 %, though in the United Kingdom it rises to 13 %. Most countries

108
report either a stable or an increasing prevalence of cannabis use among very young people.

The prevalence of the use of inhalants is lower, and for other substances lower still. Prob-

lematic drug use is rarely found among very young people; in Europe only 1 % of treatment

clients are younger than 15.

While the numbers involved are low (about 4 000 in 2005), a sizable in-

crease in very young clients entering treatment for drug use is reported from 1999 to 2005.

An increase in the numbers of young people entering treatment is in itself a reason for the

establishment of drug treatment services specifically for children, and that could result in

further increases in the numbers of children in drug treatment. Often children enter drug

treatment referred by families and by social services or by the criminal justice system; the

primary drugs are mainly cannabis or inhalants; only in a few cases are opioids the primary

drug. The proportion of girls among the very young client group is higher than in the older

age group. Possible reasons include a greater similarity of behaviour in boys and girls in

this age group or a more equal gender distribution of co-morbid disorders at this age or

delayed psychosocial development of boys compared with girls.

The few regular drug users among very young people are often part of a

highly problematic group of the population, in which drugs are just one among other fac-

tors. Child drug users often come from problematic families and socially excluded groups;

a negative relationship with school also seems to be associated with a high risk of drug

taking among children. Increasing attention is currently being paid to the relation between

AD(H)D, conduct disorders and other psychological disorders and drug use among very

young people.

109
 Responses targeted at child drug users mainly focus on prevention strate-

gies, ranging from universal approaches to early intervention when substance use is already

suspected. More attention has recently been given to the treatment of behavioural disorders

in a global way. European and national legislation on substance use among young people

focuses on restrictions on the purchase of licit substances (tobacco and substance) and on

social interventions in the case of drug-using children committing crimes.

In countries where children committing crimes are sent to court, treatment

is often proposed as an alternative to punishment. Many of the children entering drug treat-

ment are referred to it by the criminal justice system. Specialised treatment for drug-using

children is still rare, but more targeted structures have been created recently, allowing better

responses to the specific needs of very young people.

In general, interventions for children tend to focus not on drug use, but on a

broader perspective in which the social context, in particular family and school, is a funda-

mental component. Preference is also given to integrated approaches in which drug treat-

ment is coordinated with health, education and social services; the justice system may also

be involved in ensuring compliance. The interventions aim to prevent an early initiation to

substance use, which might lead to later regular use, or target a risk group within the pop-

ulation, tackling drug problems together with other problems.

6.2 Suggestions

Recommendation 1:

The study has highlighted the pressing need of initiating programmes for

prevention and treatment. There is need to sensitize the state governments and all the

110
important stakeholders about the problem of substance use among children in the country.

Action to be taken by NCPCR/Ministry of Women and Child Development immediately:

The report of this study may be widely disseminated and shared with the concerned depart-

ments in the central and all the state governments (Ministry of women and child develop-

ment, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Social Justice and empowerment, Ministry of Edu-

cation, Ministry of Youth and Sports, Ministry of Labour and Employment, NACO/

SACS).

Recommendation 2:

Prevention programmes must target multiple settings and multiple risk fac-

tors particularly vulnerable children such as children of substance users, children injecting

substances, street children, children involved in child labour, trafficked children, children

of sex workers and any other category most at risk. Action to be taken: Appropriate minis-

try/department such as MWCD under ICPS, NACO, Ministry of Labour, MSJE, Ministry

of Health. Preventive interventions must be developed for this category of children and

evaluated as well as linked with services. Evidence based programmes should be developed

and promoted.

Recommendation 3:

Prevention in schools should include universal prevention programmes such

as education and life skill programmes. School going children who are at risk should have

access to professional counselling in the school setting. Action to be taken: By the Ministry

of Education and Ministry of Women and Child Development.

111
 Life skill programmes should be developed and evaluated in the cultural

context for substance use prevention and then widely disseminated. Posting at least one full

time trained psychologist in schools for counselling by the Ministry of Education/State ed-

ucation departments. Training of counsellors in life skill based prevention programmes,

identification and management of children at risk to be conducted with support from insti-

tutions familiar with substance use prevention issues in children. Prevention programmes

should also focus on providing life skills education and teach methods to handle stress be-

sides creating awareness as knowledge of harm in itself is not sufficient for prevention of

substance use.

This issue needs to be kept in mind in planning the design of any prevention

programmes. Prevention programmes must target the risk factors in the family. Prevention

programmes should also focus on resisting peer pressure and how to say no if offered sub-

stances by friends.

Prevention efforts must also work towards developing healthy recreational

avenues for children. Prevention programmes must focus on preventing initiation of to-

bacco and substance. They should also focus on tobacco and substance users so that they

do not progress to use of other substances.

Recommendation 4:

There is need for availability of specialized treatment services for children

who are using substances. These services should be available in government hospitals;

NGO funded by MSJE and also by NGOs that provide services to street children.

112
Detoxification should be available at government run de-abuse centres with rehabilitation

in NGO/Community setting with linkage with NGOs.

The settings in which the services are provided should be child sensitive,

safe and taking care of the needs of the children. Treatment programmes must try to involve

the family in treatment and address the family issues as a part of the treatment process.

Recommendation 5:

Rehabilitation efforts focussing on skill building and vocational training

should be provided by NGOS

Recommendation 6:

Juvenile homes and Children homes should have service provision for sub-

stance using children through linkage with treatment services. Action to be taken by Min-

istry of women and child development.

Recommendation 7:

There is need for provision of services by the TI NGOs to children who are

injecting substances. Action to be taken by NACO/SACS.

Recommendation 8:

Prevention efforts must target both demand and supply reduction efforts.

Supply reduction efforts should limit availability of tobacco and substance near residential

areas and schools. Action to be taken: By the appropriate departments for supply reduction

(Excise department for tobacco and substance control, NCB for illicit substances, DCGI

for pharmaceutical drugs).

113
Recommendation 9:

Size estimation of substance using children should be carried out in specific

high-risk areas, metropolitan cities, and conflict areas.

Recommendation 10:

School based surveys should be conducted at a national level based on a

representative sample.

Summary –

Here in this chapter we concluded the conclusion of the whole’s dissertation

and some suggestion are also suggested here regarding this report here.

The next topic will be about the references the resources that what resources

are used during the preparation of this dissertation report file.

114
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

1. Substance Abuse: Influences, Treatment Options and Health Effects by Tanya

Reid

2. Drug Use and Abuse: Signs, Symptoms, Physical and Pschycologiacla Effects and

Intervention Approaches by Marie Claire Van Hout

3. Drug Abuse in India by Geetanjali

4. Drug Abuse: Socio-Legal and Judicial Perspective by Nutan Kanwar

Websites

1. www.google.com

2. www.wikipedia.com

3. www.indiankanoon.org

4. www.legalservicesindia.com

5. www.jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/189961

6. www.unodc.org/wdr2018/prelaunch/WDR18_Booklet_4_YOUTH.pdf

7. www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/183152.pdf

8. www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/subabuse.pdf

9. www.movendi.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/68106596.pdf

10. www.nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/preventingdruguse_2.pdf

11. www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCoun-

cil/DrugProblem/OpenSocietyFoundations.pdf

12. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202501/

115
 13. www.drugabuse.com/abuse/history-drug-abuse/

14. www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/social-history-teenage-drug-use-

teen-drug-use-p-19-24-1986-george

15. www.blog.ipleaders.in/indian-laws-relating-to-drugs-and-poisons/

16. www.helplinelaw.com/national-and-social/DNITI/drugs-and-narcotics-in-in-

dia-and-their-illegal-consumption.html

17. www.unodc.org/documents/india/ccch5.pdf

18. www.drugabuse.com/blog/the-20-countries-with-the-harshest-drug-laws-in-

the-world/

19. www.transformdrugs.org/drug-policy/global-drug-policy

20. www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/features/teen-substance-use.html

21. www.abusecenter.com/teenage-drug-abuse/

Journals

1. "Maternal substance use and integrated treatment programs for women with sub-

stance abuse issues and their children: a meta-analysis". crd.york.ac.uk. Re-

trieved 2016-03-09.

2. O'Donohue, W; K.E. Ferguson (2006). "Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology

and Behavior Analysis". The Behavior Analyst Today. 7 (3): 335–

350. doi:10.1037/h0100155. Retrieved 2008-03-24.

3. POST, MICHELLE BRUNETTI. "Bill passes expanding needle exchanges Bill to

expand syringe access programs in NJ passes Legislature." Press of Atlantic City,

view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/18775686DB717F58. Accessed 30 May

2022.

116
4. SHELLY, MOLLY. "AIDS Alliance files suit to save needle exchange South Jersey

AIDS Alliance, residents file lawsuit to stop Atlantic City needle exchange clo-

sure." Press of Atlantic City, The (NJ), 01 ed., sec. Main, 30 Sept. 2021, p. 1A.

NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current, infoweb.news-

bank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLD-

NEWS&docref=news/185562C2B083C108. Accessed 30 May 2022.

5. Souza, Rafael Sampaio Octaviano de; Albuquerque, Ulysses Paulino de; Monteiro,

Júlio Marcelino; Amorim, Elba Lúcia Cavalcanti de (October 2008). "Jurema-Preta

(Mimosa tenuiflora [Willd.] Poir.): a review of its traditional use, phytochemistry

and pharmacology". Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 51 (5): 937–

947. doi:10.1590/S1516-89132008000500010.

6. Al-Mugahed, Leen (2008). "Khat Chewing in Yemen: Turning over a New Leaf:

Khat Chewing Is on the Rise in Yemen, Raising Concerns about the Health and

Social Consequences". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 86 (10): 741–

2. doi:10.2471/BLT.08.011008. PMC 2649518. PMID 18949206. Archived from

the original on 10 March 2016. Retrieved 22 January 2016.

117