Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Drugs Addiction…
A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism,
alters normal bodily function. There is no single, precise definition, as there are different meanings
in drug control law, government regulations, medicine, and colloquial usage.
In pharmacology, a drug is "a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or
diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being." Drugs may be
prescribed for a limited duration, or on a regular basis for chronic disorders.
Recreational drugs are chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, such as opioids or
hallucinogens. They may be used for perceived beneficial effects on perception, consciousness,
personality, and behavior Some drugs can cause addiction and habituation
Drugs are usually distinguished from endogenous biochemicals by being introduced from outside the
organism.[citation needed] For example, insulin is a hormone that is synthesized in the body; it is called a
hormone when it is synthesized by the pancreas inside the body, but if it is introduced into the body
from outside, it is called a drug.[citation needed]
Many natural substances such as beers, wines, and some mushrooms, blur the line between food and
drugs, as when ingested they affect the functioning of both mind and body.
Lsd and ecstasy which are the new designed drugs from United states and
Europe.
Heroin is from Pakistan, Taiwan, India and Afghanistan while the highly
addictive drug which known as Mandrax which used to origin in India now they
are manufactured in South Africa.
Cocaine
A cocaine is a white powder made from a coca plant .A
powerful 'upper' or drug . Sometime is sold as a 'rock'
which is 90% pure. Cocaine users experience a
temporary sense of happiness and increased energy. To
maintain these feelings they must use more and more
cocaine.
PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS
1. Runny noise
2. Loss of appetite and weight
3. Noise bleeds and frequent sniffing
4. Loss of concentration
EFFECTS OF DRUGS
Over confidence
Convulsions
Depression
Paranoia
Even death
DANGERS
Heroin
Heroin is the most dangerous of all the abused drugs. Heroin is
a highly dangerous and addictive drug that is increasing
dramatically in popularity.
PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS
Infectious disease
Bacterial infections
Abscesses nausea and vomiting
Personality changes
Impaired breathing
WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS
Sweating
Nausea
Vomiting
Trembling
Stomach cramps
Diarrhea
Hallucinations
Felling of terror
Cold sweat
Skin and possibilities of heart collapse
An Act 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 1 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.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty- sixty Year of the Republic of India as follows:--
CHAP
PRELIMINARY
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY
What if he is caught carrying drugs for himself and his friends for a party?
Then the quantity of drugs she is found with may exceed what is considered “small” and she
will be dealt with accordingly. The penalty for possession of various quantities of drugs is
shown below:
Will he get any consideration for his young age under the law?
Yes. If he is less than 18 years of age, then a special law called the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection) Act applies for any offence, which he may commit under any law including NDPS
Act.
Is there any quantity of a drug (esp. weed) that one can carry legally?
No. Possession of drugs is an offence no matter how large or small. Some drugs such as
diazepam, buprenorphine, proxyvon have medical uses. You can buy and use such drugs if
the doctor prescribes it. The pharmacists selling them and the companies manufacturing
them also have licenses under the law.
What if the amount of drug I’m carrying is less than what is prescribed as a
“small quantity” under the law?
If you carry any quantity below the threshold prescribed as small quantity, you will be
punishable for possession of small quantity of drug.
My friends are using drugs on my property (we are minors). In this case, would
my parents be held responsible?
If you are a minor, it is likely that the property is in the name of your parents. They will be
liable for punishment if they knowingly allow your friends to use drugs in their premises. As
minors, your friends may enjoy protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act,
which means you will be sent to a remand home instead of jail. However, your parents, being
adults, will be sentenced for allowing their premises to be used for using drugs. It is better to
play safe. If you suspect someone is likely to use drugs on your premises, DO NOT allow them
to use your premises.
The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Case Law:
Union of India (Uoi) v/s Thamisharasi And Ors. On 1 May, 1995
Organon (India) Ltd v/s Collector of Excise on 22 July, 1994
Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v/s Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors… On 17 April,
1995
Rathinam v/s. State, Rep. by Its Secretary to ... on 17 November, 2004
Case Study:-
ORDER
P.D. Dinakaran, J.
(ii) Crime No. 524 of 2002 on the file of the Virudhunagar West Police
Station with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 24.11.2002
for alleged illegal possession of 250 grams of Ganja without having any
Government licence nor valid permit;
(iii) Crime No. 108 of 2003 on the file of the Virudhunagar West Police
station with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 4.3.2003
for alleged illegal possession of 100 grams of Ganja without having any
Government licence nor valid permit;
(iv) Crime No. 363 of 2003 on the file of the Virudhunagar West Police
Station with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 20.7.2003
for alleged illegal possession of 1 Kg. of Ganja without having any Government
licence nor valid permit;
(v) Crime No. 670 of 2003 on the file of the Virudhuriagar West Police
Station with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 26.11.2003
for alleged illegal possession of 100 grams of Ganja without having any
Government licence nor valid permit; and
(vi) Crime No. 64 of 2004 on the file of the Virudhunagar West Police
Station with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 14.2.2004
for alleged illegal possession of 100 grams of Ganja without having any
Government licence nor valid permit.
3. Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner attacks the
impugned order of detention on two grounds:
(i) the detaining authority ought not to have invoked the provisions of
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in view of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for brevity the "PIT NDPS
Act"), which occupies the field of legislation relating to preventive detention,
inasmuch as PIT NDPS Act prevails over the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, by
operation of Article 254 of the Constitution of India; and
(ii) as the offences punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are non-bailable in view of Section 37 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, there is no imminent
possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and therefore, the finding of the
detaining authority, that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out
on bail, suffers from non-application of mind.
4.1. The first contention, viz., the detaining authority ought not to have
invoked the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in view of the provisions in
PIT NDPS Act which occupy the field by operation of Article 254 of the
Constitution of India, is misconceived.
Section 2 - Definitions:
(a) to (d)......
4.3. The impugned order of detention was passed on the detenu, branding him
as "drug-offender", exercising the power conferred under Section 3(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and after having satisfied that
it is necessary to detain him.
4.4. The acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
in the case of drug-offender is defined as follows under Section 2(a)(ii) and
the explanation of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982:
Section 2 - Definitions:
(i).....
(ii-A) to (v)...
Explanation: For the purpose of this Clause (a), public order shall be
deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected
adversely, inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred
to in this Clause (a) directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause
any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public
or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life of public health
or ecological system.
4.5. It is true, the Central Government legislated the PIT NDPS Act for the
prevention of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and
for the matters connected therewith, finding that illicit traffic in narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances possess serious threat to the health and
welfare of the people and the activities of persons engaged in such illicit
traffic have a deleterious effect on the national economy.
4.6. While enacting the PIT NDPS Act, the Parliament was well aware that the
Central Government and State Government are empowered to make orders of
detention with respect to any person (including a foreigner) if they are of
opinion that it is necessary so to do with a view to preventing him from
committing illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
However, it is relevant, to note that the word "drug-offender" is nowhere
defined in the PIT NDPS Act, even though the word "drug-offender" as defined in
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 includes a person who contravenes the provisions of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act No. 61 of
1985). Hence, it is obvious that the "drug-offender" as defined in Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982 is exhaustive in nature, even though the subject matter of both
the legislations are relating to preventive detention governed under Entry (3)
List (III) of the Concurrent List, viz., Preventive detention for reasons
connected with the security of a State, the maintenance of public order, or the
maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community; persons
subjected to such detention.
"Repugnancy between two statues may thus be ascertained on the basis of the
following three principles:
(3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State
Legislature occupy the same field."
Article 254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by
the Legislatures of States.-
(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of
the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant
to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with
respect to that matter, then the law so made by the Legislature of such State
shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has
received his assent, prevail in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting
at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to,
amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.
(1) Entries in each of the Lists must be given the most liberal and widest
possible interpretation and no attempt should be made to narrow or whittle down
the scope of the entries.
(2) The application of the doctrine of pith and substance really means that
where a legislation falls entirely within the scope of an entry within the
competence of a State Legislature then this doctrine will apply and the Act will
not be struck down.
(3) If the entrenchment is minimal and does not affect the dominant part of
some other entry, which is not within the competence of the State Legislature,
the Act may be upheld as constitutionally valid.
(4) The nature and character of the scope of the entries having regard to
the touchstone of the provisions of Articles 245 and 246.
(5) The doctrine of occupied field has a great place in the interpretation
as to whether or not a particular Legislature is competent to legislate on a
particular entry. This means that when the field is completely occupied by List
I, as in this case, then the State Legislature is wholly incompetent to
legislate and no entrenchment or encroachment, minimal or otherwise, by a State
Legislature is permitted. Where the field is not wholly occupied, then a mere
minimal encroachment or entrenchment would not affect the validity of the State
Legislation. These five principles have to be read and construed together and
not in isolation. It is also well settled that where two Acts, one passed by the
Parliament and the other by a State Legislature, collide and there is no
question of harmonising them, then the Central legislation must prevail.
............
(1) A legislation, which in its pith and substance, falls within any of the
entries of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, would be
exclusively within the competence of the Parliament.
(3) A Central law which in its pith and substance, falls within any entry
In List I would be valid even though it might contain incidental provisions in
List II which may contain ancillary provisions which might touch on an entry of
List I incidentally.
(4) A State law, which in its pith and substance, within any entry in List
II would be valid even though it might incidentally touch upon a subject falling
within List I.
(5) A Central law, which in its pith and substance, dealt with a subject
falling within List II would be bad and ultra vires the Constitution. Similarly,
a State law which in its pith and substance dealt with a matter falling within
List I would be invalid and ultra vires the Constitution.
(6) The concept of repugnancy arises only with regard to laws dealing with
subjects covered by the entries falling in List III, in respect of which both
Parliament and State Legislature are competent to legislate, and only if both
the laws could not exist together.
4.10. It is a settled law that both the Acts can operate in their respective
fields and there is no repugnancy if both the Acts are considered in the light
of their respective true nature and character. While giving due weight to
Centre's supremacy in the matters of legislation, the States' legitimate sphere
of legislation should not be unnecessarily whittled down, because that would be
unwarranted by the spirit and basic purpose of the constitutional division of
powers; and all the entries should be construed in harmonious manner so as to
avoid any conflict. In other words, only in case of conflict or collision or
where there is a glaring repugnancy the very doctrine of occupied field will be
attracted.
4.11. In the instant case, keeping in mind the scope and object of both the
enactments and taking into consideration the exhaustive definition of the word
"drug-offender", which includes those who contravene the provisions of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and finding that there is
no conflict or collision between the same, in our considered opinion, there
cannot be any legitimate bar for invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982 in passing a detention order merely because the PIT NDPS Act was enacted to
prevent illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and for
the matters connected therewith.
4.12. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is,
therefore, rejected.
5.1. To deal with the next contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, viz., as the offences punishable under the provisions of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are non-bailable in view of
Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, there is
no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and therefore, the
finding of the detaining authority, thai there is imminent possibility of the
detenu coming out on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, it is apt to
extract Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
which reads as follows:
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the Court is
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.
5.3. For the reasons aforesaid, the second contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is also rejected.