who,and why were the Rockefeller Drug Laws enacted. What was the enviroment of New York state prior to enactme
156458
Drug use was topping out, cocaine addiction was on the rise, and there was a steady population of about 200,000 heroin addicts in New york City alone, andother 50-70,000 upstate.  Nelson Rockefeller was governor at the time, and enacted legislation mandating a minimum one year to life in jail for more than a quarter ounce of coke or heroin.
465470
I wish I knew. check out the Cornell law website if you feel like doing some research on your own.
661356
Here are links that will help you.  There are many other sites - just do a search for cuny/act writing.\n\nGood luck with it.
249617
marijuana was legal up until 1937. george washington grew it and in virgina in the 1700s you could pay your taxes with it. and im not making that up, anyone who doesnt believe me can look it up.\n\npeace
806696
The Wheeler-Lea Act of 1938 which was constituted by the Fairy Princess Amanda Penza im period 11 financial Lit clause "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce are hereby declared unlawful" to the Section 5 prohibition of unfair methods of competition, in order to protect consumers as well as competition.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler_Lea_Ac\n\nThe wheeler lea act came about because of the Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy.\nThe story behind the Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy is as follows. In 1937, Massengill, a Tennessee drug company, began to market a liquid sulfa drug called Elixir Sulfanilamide. Unfortunately, the solvent in this drug was a highly toxic variant of antifreeze; as a result, over 100 people died from taking this drug. Public outcry over this tragedy was critical in breaking the Congressional deadlock over tighter regulation (Young 1967; Jackson 1970; Carpenter and Sin 2002).\n\nUnder the 1938 law, the FDA was given considerably greater authority over the food and drug industry. The FDA was granted the power to regulate the therapeutic claims drug manufacturers printed on their product labels; authority over drug advertising, however, rested with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the Wheeler-Lea Act of 1938. Additionally, the new law required that drugs be marketed with adequate directions for safe use, and FDA authority was extended to include medical devices and cosmetics. Perhaps the most striking and novel feature of the 1938 law was that it introduced mandatory pre-market approval for new drugs. \nhttp://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Law.Food.and.Drug.Regulation\n\nFor the full story\nhttp://www.fda.gov/oc/history/elixir.html
202361
It was made illegal primarily through racism, along with protection of certain special interests.  It has maintained its illegality through self-protection of the huge drug war industry, and extensive propaganda.  Read the source for the whole story.
504227
Section 1. -After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. \n\nSection 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. \n\nSection 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.\n\n\n\nAmendment XVIII (the Eighteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, along with the Volstead Act (which defined "intoxicating liquors"), established Prohibition in the United States.\n\n\nHistory\nThe senate passed the amendment on December 18, 1917. The amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919, having been approved by 36 states. It went into effect one year later on January 16, 1920.\n\nWhen Congress submitted this amendment to the states for ratification, it was the first time that a proposed amendment had a provision that placed a deadline on ratification. The validity of the amendment was challenged on that basis in Dillon v. Gloss. The Supreme Court ruled on the case in 1921, upholding the constitutionality of such deadlines.\n\nThe amendment was subsequently repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment on December 5, 1933, making it the only provision in the Constitution to be explicitly modified.\n\nThe ramifications of the 18th Amendment, which will live on to be remembered as "Prohibition", have reached into today. The Amendment eternally changed the notion that localized crime could not evolve into a full-fledged mafia syndicate; while also removing the facade of a utopian society without alcohol (or any other drug, for that matter) in its veins, because it is just one of the many luxuries that make up the plasma in the American bloodstream. Prohibition changed the lives and roles of moonshiners and rum-runners, transforming them, along their product, into the lifeblood of American speakeasies and mob dons, forever revolutionizing the American dream and image.
412185
Rules of the City of New York  \n\nFDNY Rules\n \n\nTitle 3 of the\nRules of the City of New York\n\n§24-02\nBarbecues on Residential Property. \n\nBarbecues on residential property shall not be operated within ten (10) feet of any combustible material and there shall be available for use a garden type hose attached to a water supply or at least a sixteen (16) quart pail of water.\n \n no list of fines given
986562
why is it my B.S. sensors are going off right now?\n\nFederal law requires a signature when picking up presciptions....ESPECIALLY narcotics. They also require the person selling the medication to either personally know who it is they are giving it to or ID them if they don't. Most states require ID to be documented for all narcotic purchases, even when selling it to your mother.\n\nSo who's lying?
1096195
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=431&invol=678\n\n CAREY, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL\nET AL.\nAPPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nNo. 75-443.\n\nArgued January 10, 1977\nDecided June 9, 1977\n\nSection 6811 (8) of the New York Education Law makes it a crime (1) for any person to sell or distribute any contraceptive of any kind to a minor under 16; (2) for anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute contraceptives to persons 16 or over; and (3) for anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives. In appellees' action against appellant state officials challenging the constitutionality of 6811 (8), a three-judge District Court declared the statute unconstitutional in its entirety under the First and Fourteenth Amendments insofar as it applies to nonprescription contraceptives, and enjoined its enforcement as so applied. Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 682-703; 707-708; 713-716.
260498
One June 30, 1906, a broiling day in Washington, President Theodore Roosevelt went to the Capitol to sign into law nearly a hundred bills hurried through the Congress as its session came to an end. Among them was one passed the day before by both Senate and House in a form agreed to in conference committee, the Food and Drugs Act. Although a latecomer to the cause of a pure food law, Teddy Roosevelt had used his weight decisively in 1906 to ensure that this time Congress would not adjourn, as so often before, leaving such legislation languishing.
68301
Its not a nationwide law, its specifc to the state and even to the municipality.  In New Orleans, they are very liberal with regard to walking around on the street with an open container.  In NYC, you can't do that, you'll get a ticket.
277369
Harrison Narcotics Act- 1937\n\nerowid.com
67444
Hi!\n\nOn February 14, 1911, after much tenacious lobbying, the first nurse practice act became law.\n\nHope this helps!\n\n--Stacey
182305
Beginning in 1978, Lois Gibbs, the president of the Love Canal Homeowners' Association, led an effort to investigate community concerns about the health of its residents. The neighborhood had an extremely high rate of cancer, and an alarming number of birth defects. Children at the 99th Street School were constantly ill. With further investigation, Gibbs discovered the chemical danger of the adjacent canal. This began her organization's three year fight to prove that the toxins buried by Hooker Chemical were responsible for the health problems of local residents.\n\nThroughout the ordeal, the homeowners were opposed not only by Occidental Petroleum, but also government of all levels. These opponents argued the area's endemic health problems were unrelated to the toxic chemicals buried in the canal. They believed the chemicals had been successfully contained within the former landfill. Since the residents could not prove the chemicals on their property had come from Hooker's disposal site, they could not prove liability. Homeowners continued to be ill throughout the legal battle, unable to sell their property and move away.\n\nThe 99th Street School, on the other hand, was located within the former boundary of the Hooker Chemical landfill site. While it was successfully closed and demolished, neither the school board nor the chemical company were willing to accept liability. This complicated matters for the homeowners' association, which was now battling with two organizations spending vast amounts of money to disprove negligence.\n\nInitially the organization had been frustrated by the lack of a public entity that could advise and defend them. These mostly middle-class families did not have the resources necessary to protect themselves. By 1978, Love Canal became a national media event with articles referring to the neighborhood as "a public health time bomb." On August 7, 1978, United States President Jimmy Carter declared a federal emergency at Love Canal, and those living closest to the site were relocated. However, there was not enough funding to move all the residents out of the area.\n\nIt was not until scientific investigations were undertaken that it could be proven the chemicals were responsible for the ill health of residents. Geologists were recruited to prove that underground swales were responsible for carrying the chemicals to the surrounding residential areas. Once there, they explained, chemicals leached into basements and evaporated into household air. On May 17, 1980, the EPA announced the result of blood tests that showed chromosome damage in Love Canal residents. Residents were told that this meant they were at increased risk of cancer, reproductive problems and genetic damage. Two days later, residents became so frustrated that they held two Environmental Protection Agency officials hostage for two hours.\n\nWith the growing evidence and two years of effort by Lois Gibbs and other residents, the White House agreed to evacuate all Love Canal families temporarily until permanent relocation funds could be secured. Eventually, the government relocated more than 800 families and reimbursed them for their homes. Occidental spent more than $200 million to clean up the site, and Congress passed the Superfund law holding polluters accountable. The cleanup was investigated, designed, and overseen by the environmental consulting firm Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, based in Waterloo, Canada.\n\nAftermath\nToday, the residential areas on the east and west sides of the canal have been demolished. All that is left on the west side are eerie abandoned residential streets. Some older east side residents, whose houses stood alone in the demolished neighborhood, chose to stay.\n\nThough the containment area is still enforced, new developments have since begun. Recreational buildings have been built against a thin, chain-link fence that keeps the toxic area separated from the safe one. The town h
39084
Couldnt find a quick summary, but the link below is the text of the act as it was written. Perhaps that will help.
560211
Not true.  Those laws are controversial and apply only to specific localities.  Step outside that locality and you will be arrested.  In fact, the feds freely ignore those local and even state laws and arrest people and successfully convict them.  California is the only state to pass a law like this on the state level and the feds freely ignore it and arrest people.  Actually, they show great restraint in this.  They only arrest the 90% of people who fraudulently claim they are sick in an attempt to smoke pot recreationally.  They ignore the ones who are actually sick.