21 U.S.C. § 1521 — Findings

Page 939 TITLE 21—FOOD AND DRUGS § 1521 EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPEAL Repeal effective Sept. 30, 1997, see section 1009 of Pub. L. 100–690, which was formerly classified to section 1506 of this title. § 1509. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–469, title XI, § 1101(b), Dec. 29, 2006, 120 Stat. 3539 Section, Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6073, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4323; Pub. L. 101–647, title XX, § 2001(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4854; Pub. L. 102–393, title VI, § 638(c), Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1788; Pub. L. 103–322, title IX, § 90205(a), (d), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1994, 1995; Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title VII, § 712, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–692, re- lated to establishment of Special Forfeiture Fund. SUBCHAPTER II—DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES Editorial Notes CODIFICATION This subchapter is chapter 2 of subtitle A of title I of Pub. L. 100–690. Section 1009 of Pub. L. 100–690 [former 21 U.S.C. 1506] repealed subtitle A effective Sept. 30, 1997. However, that repeal was not executed to this sub- chapter because of Pub. L. 105–20, § 2(a)(1), (b), which not only designated subtitle A as chapter 1 of subtitle A, but also provided that any existing reference to sub- title A was to be deemed to be a reference to chapter 1 of subtitle A (see note set out under former section 1501 of this title). Based on that provision, the repeal was executed in the Code only to subchapter I of this chapter, which comprises chapter 1 of subtitle A, and not to this subchapter, which comprises chapter 2. Nev- ertheless, Pub. L. 115–271, title VIII, § 8203(a)(1), (2), Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 4110 (set out as a note under section 1521 of this title), directed the revival and restoration of chapter 2 (this subchapter), except for subchapter II thereof (part B of this subchapter), as in effect on Sept. 29, 1997, and as amended by Pub. L. 107–82 and Pub. L. 109–469. § 1521. Findings Congress finds the following: (1) Substance abuse among youth has more than doubled in the 5-year period preceding 1996, with substantial increases in the use of marijuana, inhalants, cocaine, methamphet- amine, LSD, and heroin. (2) The most dramatic increases in substance abuse has occurred among 13- and 14-year-olds. (3) Casual or periodic substance abuse by youth today will contribute to hard core or chronic substance abuse by the next genera- tion of adults. (4) Substance abuse is at the core of other problems, such as rising violent teenage and violent gang crime, increasing health care costs, HIV infections, teenage pregnancy, high school dropouts, and lower economic produc- tivity. (5) Increases in substance abuse among youth are due in large part to an erosion of understanding by youth of the high risks asso- ciated with substance abuse, and to the soft- ening of peer norms against use. (6)(A) Substance abuse is a preventable be- havior and a treatable disease; and (B)(i) during the 13-year period beginning with 1979, monthly use of illegal drugs among youth 12 to 17 years of age declined by over 70 percent; and (ii) data suggests that if parents would sim- ply talk to their children regularly about the dangers of substance abuse, use among youth could be expected to decline by as much as 30 percent. (7) Community anti-drug coalitions through- out the United States are successfully devel- oping and implementing comprehensive, long- term strategies to reduce substance abuse among youth on a sustained basis. (8) Intergovernmental cooperation and co- ordination through national, State, and local or tribal leadership and partnerships are crit- ical to facilitate the reduction of substance abuse among youth in communities through- out the United States. (Pub. L. 100–690, title I, § 1021, as added Pub. L. 105–20, § 2(a)(2), June 27, 1997, 111 Stat. 224.) Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM AND REVIVAL OF ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988 Pub. L. 115–271, title VIII, § 8203(a)(1), (2), Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 4110, 4111, as amended by Pub. L. 116–74, § 2(c)(1)(A)(i)(II), Nov. 27, 2019, 133 Stat. 1157, provided that: ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 2 of subtitle A of title I of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.), except for subchapter II (21 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.), as in ef- fect on September 29, 1997, and as amended by the laws described in paragraph (2), is revived and restored. ‘‘(2) LAWS DESCRIBED.—The laws described in this paragraph are: ‘‘(A) Public Law 107–82 (115 Stat. 814) [amending sections 1524, 1532, 1533, and 1535 of this title and en- acting provisions set out as notes below]. ‘‘(B) The Office of National Drug Control Policy Re- authorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–469: 120 Stat. 3502) [amending sections 1524 and 1532 of this title and provisions set out as notes under this sec- tion and section 1532 of this title], as amended by paragraph (4) [amending sections 1524 and 1532 of this title and provisions set out as a note under section 1532 of this title].’’ FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM Pub. L. 107–82, § 1(a), Dec. 14, 2001, 115 Stat. 814, pro- vided that: ‘‘Congress makes the following findings: ‘‘(1) In the next 15 years, the youth population in the United States will grow by 21 percent, adding 6,500,000 youth to the population of the United States. Even if drug use rates remain constant, there will be a huge surge in drug-related problems, such as aca- demic failure, drug-related violence, and HIV inci- dence, simply due to this population increase. ‘‘(2) According to the 1994–1996 National Household Survey, 60 percent of students age 12 to 17 who fre- quently cut classes and who reported delinquent be- havior in the past 6 months used marijuana 52 days or more in the previous year. ‘‘(3) The 2000 Washington Kids Count survey con- ducted by the University of Washington reported that students whose peers have little or no involvement with drinking and drugs have higher math and read- ing scores than students whose peers had low level drinking or drug use. ‘‘(4) Substance abuse prevention works. In 1999, only 10 percent of teens saw marijuana users as pop- ular, compared to 17 percent in 1998 and 19 percent in 1997. The rate of past-month use of any drug among 12- to 17-year-olds declined 26 percent between 1997 and 1999. Marijuana use for sixth through eighth graders is at the lowest point in 5 years, as is use of cocaine, inhalants, and hallucinogens. ‘‘(5) Community Anti-Drug Coalitions throughout the United States are successfully developing and im- Page 940 TITLE 21—FOOD AND DRUGS § 1521 plementing comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse among youth on a sustained basis. For example: ‘‘(A) The Boston Coalition brought college and university presidents together to create the Cooper- ative Agreement on Underage Drinking. This agree- ment represents the first coordinated effort of Bos- ton’s many institutions of higher education to ad- dress issues such as binge drinking, underage drink- ing, and changing the norms surrounding alcohol abuse that exist on college and university cam- puses. ‘‘(B) In 2000, the Coalition for a Drug-Free Great- er Cincinnati surveyed more than 47,000 local stu- dents in grades 7 through 12. The results provided evidence that the Coalition’s initiatives are work- ing. For the first time in a decade, teen drug use in Greater Cincinnati appears to be leveling off. The data collected from the survey has served as a tool to strengthen relationships between schools and communities, as well as facilitate the growth of anti-drug coalitions in communities where such coalitions had not existed. ‘‘(C) The Miami Coalition used a three-part strat- egy to decrease the percentage of high school sen- iors who reported using marijuana at least once during the most recent 30-day period. The develop- ment of a media strategy, the creation of a network of prevention agencies, and discussions with high school students about the dangers of marijuana all contributed to a decrease in the percentage of sen- iors who reported using marijuana from over 22 per- cent in 1995 to 9 percent in 1997. The Miami Coali- tion was able to achieve these results while na- tional rates of marijuana use were increasing. ‘‘(D) The Nashville Prevention Partnership worked with elementary and middle school children in an attempt to influence them toward positive life goals and discourage them from using sub- stances. The Partnership targeted an area in East Nashville and created after school programs, men- toring opportunities, attendance initiatives, and safe passages to and from school. Attendance and test scores increased as a result of the program. ‘‘(E) At a youth-led town meeting sponsored by the Bering Strait Community Partnership in Nome, Alaska, youth identified a need for a safe, sub- stance-free space. With help from a variety of com- munity partners, the Partnership staff and youth members created the Java Hut, a substance-free coffeehouse designed for youth. The Java Hut is helping to change norms in the community by pro- viding a fun, youth-friendly atmosphere and activi- ties that are not centered around alcohol or mari- juana. ‘‘(F) Portland’s Regional Drug Initiative (RDI) has promoted the establishment of drug-free work- places among the city’s large and small employers. Over 3,000 employers have attended an RDI training session, and of those, 92 percent have instituted drug-free workplace policies. As a result, there has been a 5.5 percent decrease in positive workplace drug tests. ‘‘(G) San Antonio Fighting Back worked to in- crease the age at which youth first used illegal sub- stances. Research suggests that the later the age of first use, the lower the risk that a young person will become a regular substance abuser. As a result, the age of first illegal drug use increased from 9.4 years in 1992 to 13.5 years in 1997. ‘‘(H) In 1990, multiple data sources confirmed a trend of increased alcohol use by teenagers in the Troy community. Using its ‘multiple strategies over multiple sectors’ approach, the Troy Coalition worked with parents, physicians, students, coaches, and others to address this problem from several an- gles. As a result, the rate of twelfth grade students who had consumed alcohol in the past month de- creased from 62.1 percent to 53.3 percent between 1991 and 1998, and the rate of eighth grade students decreased from 26.3 percent to 17.4 percent. The Troy Coalition believes that this decline represents not only a change in behavior on the part of stu- dents, but also a change in the norms of the com- munity. ‘‘(6) Despite these successes, drug use continues to be a serious problem facing communities across the United States. For example: ‘‘(A) According to the Pulse Check: Trends in Drug Abuse Mid-Year 2000 report— ‘‘(i) crack and powder cocaine remains the most serious drug problem; ‘‘(ii) marijuana remains the most widely avail- able illicit drug, and its potency is on the rise; ‘‘(iii) treatment sources report an increase in admissions with marijuana as the primary drug of abuse—and adolescents outnumber other age groups entering treatment for marijuana; ‘‘(iv) 80 percent of Pulse Check sources reported increased availability of club drugs, with ecstasy (MDMA) and ketamine the most widely cited club drugs and seven sources reporting that powder co- caine is being used as a club drug by young adults; ‘‘(v) ecstasy abuse and trafficking is expanding, no longer confined to the ‘rave’ scene; ‘‘(vi) the sale and use of club drugs has grown from nightclubs and raves to high schools, the streets, neighborhoods, open venues, and younger ages; ‘‘(vii) ecstasy users often are unknowingly pur- chasing adulterated tablets or some other sub- stance sold as MDMA; and ‘‘(viii) along with reports of increased heroin snorting as a route of administration for initi- ates, there is also an increase in injecting initi- ates and the negative health consequences associ- ated with injection (for example, increases in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C) suggesting that there is a generational forgetting of the dangers of in- jection of the drug. ‘‘(B) The 2000 Parent’s Resource Institute for Drug Education study reported that 23.6 percent of children in the sixth through twelfth grades used il- licit drugs in the past year. The same study found that monthly usage among this group was 15.3 per- cent. ‘‘(C) According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future study, the use of ecstasy among eighth graders in- creased from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 3.1 percent in 2000, among tenth graders from 4.4 percent to 5.4 percent, and from 5.6 percent to 8.2 percent among twelfth graders. ‘‘(D) A 1999 Mellman Group study found that— ‘‘(i) 56 percent of the population in the United States believed that drug use was increasing in 1999; ‘‘(ii) 92 percent of the population viewed illegal drug use as a serious problem in the United States; and ‘‘(iii) 73 percent of the population viewed illegal drug use as a serious problem in their commu- nities. ‘‘(7) According to the 2001 report of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Colum- bia University entitled ‘Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets’, using the most conservative assumption, in 1998 States spent $77,900,000,000 to shovel up the wreckage of substance abuse, only $3,000,000,000 to prevent and treat the problem and $433,000,000 for alcohol and tobacco regu- lation and compliance. This $77,900,000,000 burden was distributed as follows: ‘‘(A) $30,700,000,000 in the justice system (77 per- cent of justice spending). ‘‘(B) $16,500,000,000 in education costs (10 percent of education spending). ‘‘(C) $15,200,000,000 in health costs (25 percent of health spending). ‘‘(D) $7,700,000,000 in child and family assistance (32 percent of child and family assistance spending). Page 941 TITLE 21—FOOD AND DRUGS § 1523 ‘‘(E) $5,900,000,000 in mental health and develop- mental disabilities (31 percent of mental health spending). ‘‘(F) $1,500,000,000 in public safety (26 percent of public safety spending) and $400,000,000 for the state workforce. ‘‘(8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordina- tion through national, State, and local or tribal lead- ership and partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of substance abuse among youth in commu- nities across the United States. ‘‘(9) Substance abuse is perceived as a much greater problem nationally than at the community level. Ac- cording to a 2001 study sponsored by The Pew Chari- table Trusts, between 1994 and 2000— ‘‘(A) there was a 43 percent increase in the per- centage of Americans who felt progress was being made in the war on drugs at the community level; ‘‘(B) only 9 percent of Americans say drug abuse is a ‘crisis’ in their neighborhood, compared to 27 percent who say this about the nation; and ‘‘(C) the percentage of those who felt we lost ground in the war on drugs on a community level fell by more than a quarter, from 51 percent in 1994 to 37 percent in 2000.’’ AUTHORIZATION FOR NATIONAL COMMUNITY ANTIDRUG COALITION INSTITUTE Pub. L. 107–82, § 4, Dec. 14, 2001, 115 Stat. 821, as amended by Pub. L. 109–469, title VIII, § 805, Dec. 29, 2006, 120 Stat. 3535; Pub. L. 115–271, title VIII, § 8204, Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 4112; Pub. L. 116–74, § 2(e), Nov. 27, 2019, 133 Stat. 1159, provided that: ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning in fiscal year 2020, the Director shall make a competitive grant to provide for the continuation of the National Community Anti-drug [sic] Coalition Institute. ‘‘(b) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.—An organization eligi- ble for the grant under subsection (a) is any national nonprofit organization that represents, provides tech- nical assistance and training to, and has special exper- tise and broad, national-level experience in community antidrug coalitions under this subchapter [sic, probably means chapter 2 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.)]. ‘‘(c) USE OF GRANT AMOUNT.—The organization that receives the grant under subsection (a) shall continue a National Community Anti-Drug [sic] Coalition Insti- tute to— ‘‘(1) provide education, training, and technical as- sistance for coalition leaders and community teams, with emphasis on the development of coalitions serv- ing economically disadvantaged areas; ‘‘(2) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and measures to better assess and docu- ment coalition performance measures and outcomes; and ‘‘(3) bridge the gap between research and practice by translating knowledge from research into prac- tical information. ‘‘(d) ADMINISTRATION OF GRANT.— ‘‘(1) DURATION.—With respect to a grant made under subsection (a) in fiscal year 2020, the term of the grant shall be 4 years. ‘‘(2) DISBURSEMENT.—To the extent amounts are provided in appropriation Acts for such grant, the Di- rector shall disburse the amount of the grant made under subsection (a) on an annual basis.’’ PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION OF EFFORT Pub. L. 107–82, § 5, Dec. 14, 2001, 115 Stat. 821, provided that: ‘‘The Director of the Office of National Drug Con- trol Policy shall ensure that the same or similar activi- ties are not carried out, through the use of funds for ad- ministrative costs provided under subchapter II [prob- ably means chapter 2] of the National Narcotics Lead- ership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.) or funds pro- vided under section 4 of this Act [set out as a note above], by more than one recipient of such funds.’’ § 1522. Purposes The purposes of this subchapter are— (1) to reduce substance use and misuse among youth in communities throughout the United States, and over time, to reduce sub- stance use and misuse among adults; (2) to strengthen collaboration among com- munities, the Federal Government, and State, local, and tribal governments; (3) to enhance intergovernmental coopera- tion and coordination on the issue of sub- stance use and misuse among youth; (4) to serve as a catalyst for increased cit- izen participation and greater collaboration among all sectors and organizations of a com- munity that first demonstrates a long-term commitment to reducing substance use and misuse among youth; (5) to rechannel resources from the fiscal year 1998 Federal drug control budget to pro- vide technical assistance, guidance, and finan- cial support to communities that demonstrate a long-term commitment in reducing sub- stance use and misuse among youth; (6) to disseminate to communities timely in- formation regarding the state-of-the-art prac- tices and initiatives that have proven to be ef- fective in reducing substance use and misuse among youth; (7) to enhance, not supplant, local commu- nity initiatives for reducing substance use and misuse among youth; and (8) to encourage the creation of and support for community anti-drug coalitions through- out the United States. (Pub. L. 100–690, title I, § 1022, as added Pub. L. 105–20, § 2(a)(2), June 27, 1997, 111 Stat. 225; amended Pub. L. 115–271, title VIII, § 8203(b)(1), Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 4111; Pub. L. 116–74, § 2(c)(1)(A)(ii)(II), Nov. 27, 2019, 133 Stat. 1157.) Editorial Notes AMENDMENTS 2019—Pub. L. 116–74, § 2(c)(1)(A)(ii)(II), made technical amendment to directory language of Pub. L. 115–271, § 8203(b)(1). See 2018 Amendment note below. 2018—Pub. L. 115–271, § 8203(b)(1), as amended by Pub. L. 116–74, § 2(c)(1)(A)(ii)(II), substituted ‘‘substance use and misuse’’ for ‘‘substance abuse’’ wherever appearing. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2019 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 116–74, § 2(c)(2), Nov. 27, 2019, 133 Stat. 1158, provided that: ‘‘The amendments made by this sub- section [amending this section, sections 1506, 1523, 1524, 1531 to 1533, 1535, 1541 to 1548, and 1705 of this title, and provisions set out as notes under sections 1521, 1524, and 1532 of this title] shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Substance Abuse Prevention Act of 2018 (subtitle K of title VIII of Public Law 115–271) [see Tables for classification].’’ § 1523. Definitions In this subchapter: (1) Administrator The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Ad- ministrator appointed by the Director under section 1531(c) of this title.