California adopted the Cal.

Health & Safety Code, statute § 11721 that made it a

misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment to “be addicted to the use of narcotics.” 1 In Robinson
vs California ,2 a jury found the defendant, Robinson, guilty under § 11721 for being addicted to
the use of narcotics. Robinson appealed the decision, and the case was affirmed on appeal;
Robinson sought further review from the United States Supreme Court.

Upon review, the Court reversed the decision of the State Courts and found that § 11721
was unconstitutional and inflicted a cruel and usual punishment.  The Court ruled that “a law
may not punish a status”2; However, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The
Court found that criminalizing addiction would violate the Eighth Amendment and further
concluded that a criminal act was required as a precondition for composition of the criminal
sanction. The question becomes, “What if the status "forces" the action? What if a person,
because of his or her addiction to drugs, is "forced" by the addiction to purchase and abuse the
illegal drug? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?”3

Challenging the constitutionality of Texas Penal Code Art 477, Powell sought to overturn
the courts finding of guilty after being found in violation of Art 477 for being intoxicated in
public. 4 Powell argued, using Robinson, that the statute criminalized the status of being an
alcoholic but was once again found guilty. The Courts declined to extend Robinson stating, “that
even if defendant could not have avoided being drunk, he could have avoided being drunk in
public.” 4 Thus, the Court held the statute valid because it criminalized the act of being drunk in
public, not the status of being an alcoholic.

There remains an overwhelming consensus between the Courts that there must be a
concordance of the consideration of “wrongfulness or unlawfulness” as well as the tangible
manifestation of the cognitive operations in order for the act or behavior to be classified as
criminal conduct. Especial criminal behaviors, i.e, disturbing the peace, are often seen as
symptoms of a disease rather than acts, and crimes that are a symptom of mental illness
(addiction) should generally not be held criminally actionable.

When Powel permitted criminal punishment for alcoholism, State ex rel. Harper v.
Zegeer disagreed. In Harper v Zeeger, the court held that “alcoholism is a defense to the charge
of public intoxication, but because alcoholics may pose a danger to themselves and others, the
State may remove them from the streets if it does not incarcerate them as criminals.”5 Alcoholics,
by definition, do not drink voluntarily. Since the initial act, i.e., drinking, is an involuntary
action, the acts preceding it could also be seen as involuntary and as such, may absolve the actor
of liability.

Addiction is not a disorder of motivation or willpower, it is a chronic, progressive

disease. Addiction changes the chemistry of the brain and creates a dependency that perpetuates
further addictive behavior without regard to self or society. The addiction forces the addict to
purchase the drug, to use the drug, to break the law. These actions all stem from the addiction
which is involuntary ergo the actions themselves should be held as involuntary as well, as argued
in Harper v Zeeger.

The question remains, “What if the status "forces" the action? What if a person, because
of his or her addiction to drugs, is "forced" by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal
drug? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?” I believe it would be. If the
addiction itself is involuntary, then the actions proceeding it should be seen as the same. There
are of course limitations. In Powel, the Courts found that the alcoholic does not need to be in
public, it was his choice to be in public rather than in his own home. Playing the devils advocate,
it could then be argued that the addiction forced Powell into a public place and thus would be an
involuntary action.

To corroborate my reasoning that addicts have no choice, they are drawn by the addiction
and every action that they take is to support that addiction, I cite the Courts opinion on
Robinson, given by Justice Douglas.

“To be a confirmed drug addict is to be one of the walking dead . . . . The teeth have
rotted out; the appetite is lost, and the stomach and intestines don't function properly. The gall
bladder becomes inflamed; eyes and skin turn a bilious yellow. In some cases, membranes of the
nose turn a flaming red; the partition separating the nostrils is eaten away -- breathing is difficult.
Oxygen in the blood decreases; bronchitis and tuberculosis develop. Good traits of character
disappear, and bad ones emerge. Sex organs become affected. Veins collapse and livid purplish
scars remain. Boils and abscesses plague the skin; gnawing pain racks the body. Nerves snap:
vicious twitching develops. Imaginary and fantastic fears blight the mind and sometimes
complete insanity results. Often times, too, death comes -- much too early in life . . . . Such is the
torment of being a drug addict; such is the plague of being one of the walking dead.” 2
1
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11721 (Deering, Lexis Advance through Chapter 138 of the 2022 Regular Session)
2
Robinson vs California, 370 U.S. 660, 660, 66-7 (1962) (2022). Retrieved 31 August 2022,
from https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=d956d3c0-dd71-45f7-8081ac2eab28edda&pddocfullpath
Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3S4X-FH10-003B-S53H000&pdconten
3
"National Paralegal College - View Assignments - National Paralegal College", 2022. Retrieved 31 August 2022, from
https://nationalparalegal.edu/Students/ViewAssignment.aspx?AssignmentID=633
4
Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 88 S. Ct. 2145 (1968)
5
State ex rel . Harper v. . Zegeer, 170 W. Va. 743, 296 S.E.2d 873 (1982) Retrieved 30 August 2022, from
https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1r4525rtgd&4w-dd71-45f78081-fhwtesgh5634

In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not
punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished for being an alcoholic or for being addicted to
drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs.

The question becomes: What if the status "forces" the action? What if a person, because of his
or her addiction to drugs, is "forced" by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drug?
Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

Please find some case law and write a minimum of a 1-2 page essay addressing this question.