Tim Eckerman & Associates
Phone: 312-540-0451

Fax: 847-656-5801
2700 Patriot Blvd., Suite 250
Glenview, Illinois 60026
Offices also in downtown Chicago at Millennium Park Plaza on Michigan Ave. at Randolph
Free Consultations 24/7Call Now - 312-540-0451


The term narcotic, derived from the Greek word for stupor, originally referred to a variety of substances that induced sleep (such state is narcosis). In the U.S. legal context, narcotic refers toopium, opium derivatives, and their semisynthetic or totally synthetic substitutes. Cocaine and cocaleaves, which are classified as "narcotics" in the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA), are technically not narcotics.

Because the term is often used broadly, inaccurately and/or pejoratively outside medical contexts, most medical professionals prefer the more precise term opioid for all natural, semi-synthetic and synthetic substances that behave pharmacologically like morphine, the primary constituent of natural opium.

Narcotics can be administered in a variety of ways. Some are taken orally, transdermally (skin patches) or injected. They are also available in suppositories. As recreational drugs, they are often smoked, sniffed or self-administered by the more direct routes of subcutaneous ("skin popping") and intravenous ("mainlining") injection.

Drug effects depend heavily on the dose, route of administration, previous exposure to the drug, and the expectation of the user. Aside from their clinical use in the treatment of pain, cough suppression and acute diarrhea, narcotics produce a general sense of well-being by reducing tension, anxiety, and aggression. These effects are helpful in a therapeutic setting and contribute to their popularity as recreational drugs, as well as helping to produce dependency.

Narcotic use is associated with a variety of effects including drowsiness, inability to concentrate, apathy, lessened physical activity, constriction of the pupils, dilation of the subcutaneous blood vessels causing flushing of the face and neck, constipation, nausea and vomiting and, most significantly, respiratory depression. As the dose is increased, the subjective, analgesic, and toxic effects become more pronounced. Except in cases of acute intoxication, there is no loss of motor coordination or slurred speech as occurs with many depressants.

Among the hazards of careless or excessive drug use are the increasing risk of infection, disease and overdose. Medical complications common among recreational narcotic users arise primarily from adulterants found in street drugs and in the non-sterile practices of injecting. Skin, lung and brain abscesses, endocarditis, hepatitis and AIDS are commonly found among narcotic addicts. Since there is no simple way to determine the purity of a drug that is sold on the street, the effects of using street narcotics are unpredictable and can be fatal.

Most of these hazards are secondary to illegality and impurities, rather than being inherent to the chemicals themselves. This is one of the arguments used for legalization of narcotics (drug legalization): not that heroin isn't harmful, but that addicts would be at less risk if they could go to a pharmacy and get heroin of known purity, with no dangerous contaminants, and clean syringes. One suggestion is to make narcotics prescription-only, in order to discourage casual use and experimentation. During the 1990s, clean syringes became more readily available, despite opponents who feared that this would meant that society "condoned drug use". HIV and hepatitisinfection rates dropped among opiate injectors who had access to clean syringes.

With repeated use of narcotics, tolerance and dependence develop. The development of tolerance is characterized by a shortened duration and a decreased intensity of analgesia, euphoria andsedation, which creates the need to administer progressively larger doses to attain the desired effect. Tolerance does not develop uniformly for all actions of these drugs, giving rise to a number of toxic effects. Although the lethal dose is increased significantly in tolerant users, there is always a dose at which death can occur from respiratory depression.

Physical dependence refers to an alteration of normal body functions that necessitates the continued presence of a drug in order to prevent the withdrawal or abstinence syndrome. The intensity and character of the physical symptoms experienced during withdrawal are directly related to the particular drug in use, the total daily dose, the interval between doses, the duration of use and the health and personality of the user. In general, narcotics with shorter durations of action tend to produce shorter, more intense withdrawal symptoms, while drugs tha produce longer narcotic effects have prolonged symptoms that tend to be less severe.

The withdrawal symptoms experienced from heroin- or morphine-like addiction are usually experienced shortly before the time of the next scheduled dose. Early symptoms include watery eyes, runny nose, yawning and sweating. Restlessness, irritability, loss of appetite, tremors and severe sneezing appear as the syndrome progresses. Severe depression and vomiting are not uncommon. The heart rate and blood pressure are elevated. Chills alternating with flushing and excessive sweating are also characteristic symptoms. Pains in the bones and muscles of the back and extremitites occur as do muscle spasms and kicking movements, which may be the source of the expression "kicking the habit." At any point during this process, a suitable narcotic can be administered that will dramatically reverse the withdrawal symptoms. Without intervention, the syndrome will run its course and most of the overt physical symptoms will disappear within 7 to 10 days.

The psychological dependence that is associated with narcotic addiction is complex and protracted. Long after the physical need for the drug has passed, the addict may continue to think and talk about the use of drugs. There is a high probability that relapse will occur after narcotic withdrawal when neither the physical environment nor the behavioral motivators that contributed to the abuse have been altered.

There are two major patterns of narcotic dependence seen in the United States. One involves individuals whose drug use was initiated within the context of medical treatment who escalate their dose through "doctor shopping" or branch out to illicit drugs. A very small percentage of addicts are in this group.

The other more common pattern of non-medical use is initiated outside the therapeutic setting with experimental or recreational use of narcotics. The majority of individuals in this category may use narcotics sporadically for months or even years. These occasional users are called "chippers." Although they are neither tolerant of nor dependent on narcotics, the social, medical and legal consequences of their behavior can be very serious. Some experimental users will escalate their narcotic use and will eventually become dependent, both physically and psychologically. The earlier drug use begins, the more likely it is to progress to dependence. Heroin use among males in inner cities is generally initiated in adolescence, and dependence often develops in about 1 or 2 years.

Prohibition (drugs)

The prohibition of drugs through legislation or religious law is a common means of controlling the perceived negative consequences of non-medical drug use at a society- or world-wide level. Present-day attempts to enforce drug prohibition are frequently considered to be part of the ongoingwar on drugs instituted by United States president Richard Nixon in 1972.

The prohibition of non-medical drug use is controversial. Opponents often feel that prohibition unfairly impinges on the perceived right of the individual to alter their consciousness. They also argue that prohibition is an ineffective means of controlling the negative effects of non-medical drug use. Proponents of prohibition feel that the use of psychoactive drugs outside of a medical context is so dangerous that absolute prohibition is the only sensible means of control. Some people also oppose the use of certain drugs on moral or dogmatic grounds. For further elaboration see:Arguments for and against drug prohibition.


Most countries have a very similar set of prohibited drugs. Some exceptions exist; most notably,Islamic countries mostly prohibit the use of alcohol, while most other states allow at least adults to purchase and consume alcohol. The United States, Finland and Canada also instituted alcohol prohibition in the first half of the 20th century. All countries regulate the manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of some or all drugs, such as by using a prescription system. Only certain drugs are banned with a "blanket prohibition" against all use. However, the prohibited drugs generally continue to be available through the illegal drug trade. Many countries allow a certain amount of personal use of certain drugs, but not sale or manufacture. Some also set a specific amount of a particular drug, above which is ipso jure considered to be evidence of trafficking or sale of the drug.

In July 2000, the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan ruled opium to be "against Islam" and outlawed it, with verbal and foreign aid support of the US government. After the Taliban was swept out of power by the USA (for other reasons), opium cultivation resumed. In April 2004, Afghan interim presidentHamid Karzai declared a jihad on drugs (after opium output reached a near-record 3,600 tonnes in 2003 -- equivalent to three-quarters of world supply).


Early Drug Laws

Although the present War on Drugs is a distinctly modern phenomenon, drug laws have been a common feature of human culture throughout history.

Perhaps the earliest recorded example in the Old World is the prohibition of the use of alcohol underIslamic law (Sharia), which is usually attributed to passages in the Qur'an purportedly dating from the5th century. Although Islamic law is often interpreted as prohibiting all intoxicants (not only alcohol), the ancient practice of hashish smoking has continued throughout the history of Islam, against varying degrees of resistance. A major campaign against hashish-eating Sufis was conducted inEgypt in the 11th and 12th centuries resulting among other things in the burning of fields ofcannabis, and the public torture of hashish users (Ref 1).

Religious intolerance was also the motivation for drug prohibition in Christian Europe. In a move interpreted as support of the efforts of the Spanish Inquisition against the Arabs, in a 1484 fiat Pope Innocent VIII banned the use of cannabis. The persecution of heretics in the form of witch-hunts also gathered momentum around this time, and frequently targeted users of medicinal and hallucinogenic herbs. The Inquisition proceeded apace in Central and South America, where peyote, ololiuqui,toloache, teonanocatl and other sacred plants of the Aztec culture were prohibited as works of the devil.

In Northern Europe, the Protestants were also guilty of passing drug laws motivated by religious intolerance, according to Stephen Harrod Buhner (Ref 2). Buhner argues that the 1516 Reinheitsgebot, which stipulates that beer may only contain water, malt and hops was a "reflection of Protestant irritation about 'drugs' and the Catholic Church". Unlike the typically stimulating herbal blends widely used at the time (e.g. gruit), hops cause sedation and reduce libido. In 1536 Edward VIcommended hopped beer as "notable, healthy and temperate", while the exclusive use of hops had been compulsory in France since 1268 (Ref 3).

Coffee almost followed the same fate as cannabis as its use spread from Ethiopia through the Middle East to Europe. Its use was banned in the Middle East on numerous occasions as in conflict with Islamic law, but eventually it came to be accepted. The introduction of coffee in Europe from MuslimTurkey also prompted calls for it to be banned as the Devil's work, however Pope Clement VIIIsanctioned its use, declaring that it was "so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it."

In late Qing Imperial China, opium imported by the British East Indian Company was vastly consumed by all social classes in Southern China. Between 1821 and 1837 imports of the drug increased five-fold. The Chinese government attempted to end this trade, on public health grounds. The effort was initially successful with the destruction of all British opium stock in May 1839. However to protect this trade, the British declared war on China (First Opium War). China was defeated and the war which ended with the Treaty of Nanking, in which the opium trade is legalised. The resulting trade greatly weakened Chinese society, and set into motion a chain of events that would lead to the massive Taiping Rebellion.

Twentieth century

The next great wave of anti-drug legislation began in the late 19th century, and continues to the present day. The United States have been the driving force in the present war on drugs.

The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug was a San Francisco, California ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chineseopium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." The primary cause of the movement for the law was a moral panic based on a fear of Chinese immigrants and other railroad workers seducing white women with the drug. This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a mixture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The dividing line was usually the manner in which the drug was ingested. Chinese immigrants smoked it, while it was included in various kinds of (generally liquid) medicines for white people. The laws were aimed at smoking opium, but not otherwise ingesting it.1 As a result of this discrepancy, modern commentators believe that these laws were racist in origin and intent.

Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine. Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine.

This was followed by the Harrison Act, which required sellers of opiates and cocaine to get a license (which were usually only distributed to white people). The supporters of the Harrison Act did not support blanket prohibition of the drugs involved 1 . This is also true of the later Marijuana Tax Actin 1937. Soon, however, the people who were allowed to issue the licenses did not do so, effectively banning the drugs.

The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The prohibition of alcohol commenced in the United States and Finland in 1919. Because alcohol was the most popular recreational drug in these countries, reactions to its prohibition were very different to those of other drugs, which were commonly perceived to be associated with racial and ethnic minorities. Public pressure led to the repealing of alcohol prohibition in 1933 in the United States, 1932 in Finland. Residents of many provinces of Canada also experienced alcohol prohibition for similar periods of time in the first half of the 20th century.

1937 saw the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of NarcoticsCommissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races". This specifically referred to Mexicanimmigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs during the Great Depression. The law passed quickly and with little debate. The American Medical Association (AMA) protested the law soon after, both on the grounds of actual disagreement with the law and the supporters' lies on the subject; Anslinger and others had claimed the AMA had vocalized support when, in fact, the opposite was true.

In response to rising drug use amongst young people and the counter-culture in particular, efforts to enforce prohibition were strengthened in many countries from the late 1960s onwards. In 1972United States president Richard Nixon announced the commencement of the so-called War on Drugs. Later, President Reagan added the position of drug czar to the President's Executive Office.

Lobbying at an international level for the prohibition of non-medical drug use has been a feature of United States policy since the beginnings of the modern War on Drugs in the late 19th century, to such an extent that US support for foreign governments is sometimes contingent on adherence to US drug policy. Major milestones in this campaign include the successful introduction of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances in1971 and the Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in1988.

Methods of enforcement

The War on Drugs utilizes several techniques to achieve its goal of eliminating recreational drug use:
• specialized law enforcement agencies, officers and techniques
• information campaigns to educate the public on the real or perceived dangers of recreational drug use
• streamlined enforcement and evidence-gathering procedures

The War on Drugs involves action taken against three groups of criminals:
• Manufacturers (whether through chemical synthesis or agriculture)
• Traffickers and dealers
• Users

A War on Drugs is usually run like a modern war with police and other law enforcement officers instead of military personnel. The apparatus prepared for the War is ordinarily organized to faceguerrilla situations, armed attacks or counter-attacks and bombings. These tactics includeespionage, as undercover agents (spies) are used to infiltrate drug use and trafficking circles.

Investigation on drug trafficking often begins with the recording of unusually frequent deaths byoverdose, monitoring financial flows of suspected trafficants, or by finding concrete elements while inspecting for other purposes. For example, a person pulled over for traffic violations may have illicit drugs in his or her vehicle, thus leading to an arrest and/or investigation of the source of the materials. Most investigations into trafficking or manufacturing are fruitless, and casual users remain at a greater risk of arrest, conviction and imprisonment than others.

Legal Provisions

The following frequently used drugs are prohibited or otherwise regulated for recreational use in most countries:
• Alcohol
• Benzodiazepines such as diazepam (Valium)
• Cannabis products, e.g. marijuana, hashish and hashish oil)
• Dissociatives such as dextromethorphan (DXM), phencyclidine (pcp), and ketamine
• Hallucinogens such as GHB, LSD, mescaline, peyote, and psilocybin
• Opium, opiates such as heroin and morphine, and opioids such as codeine, hydrocodone(Vicodin), methadone, and oxycodone (Percocet, Oxycontin)
• Sedatives such as methaqualone (Quaalude)
• Stimulants such as Adderall, amphetamines, coca leaves and their derivative cocaine, MDMA(Ecstasy), methamphetamines, methcathinone, methylphenidate (Ritalin), and nicotine

The regulation of the above drugs varies in many countries; cannabis and hashish, for example, are sometimes legal for personal use, though not sale. In some countries Dextromethorphan is available in ordinary over-the-counter products such as cough medicines. Alcohol possession and consumption by adults is today banned only in Islamic countries and various parts of India. The United States, Finland, and Canada banned alcohol in the early part of the 20th century; this was called Prohibition. Tobacco is not illegal for adults in any country.

In countries where alcohol and tobacco are legal, certain measures are frequently undertaken to discourage use of these drugs. For example, packages of alcohol and tobacco sometimes communicate warnings directed towards the consumer, communicating the potential risks of partaking in the use of the substance. These drugs also frequently have special sin taxes associated with the purchase thereof, in order to recoup the losses associated with public funding for the health problems the use causes in long-term users. Restrictions on advertising also exist in many countries, and often a state holds a monopoly on manufacture, distribution, marketing and/or the sale of these drugs.

In the United States, there is considerable legal debate about the impact these laws have had on Americans' civil rights. Critics claim that the War on Drugs has lowered the evidentiary burden required for a legal search of a suspect's dwelling or vehicle, or to intercept a suspect's communications. However, many of the searches that result in drug arrests are often "consent searches" where an arresting officer does not have probable cause or a warrant, but has asked for and received permission to search a person or their property.

Sometimes, crimes not directly related to drug use and sale are prohibited. For example, the United States recently brought charges against club owners for maintaining a place of business where a) Ecstasy is known to be frequently consumed; b) paraphernalia associated with the use of Ecstasy is sold and/or widely tolerated (such as glow sticks and pacifiers); and c) "chill-out rooms" are created, where Ecstasy users can cool down (Ecstasy raises the user's blood temperature). These are being challenged in court by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Drug Policy Alliance.

Many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs. Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction. Some people have criticized this practice as failing to ensure equality under the law because it grants police officers the right to commit crimes that no other citizen could commit without potential consequences.

The War on Drugs has stimulated the creation of international law enforcement agencies (such asInterpol), mostly in Western countries. This has occurred because a large volume of illicit drugs come from Third-World countries.

Visit Wikipedia to further review or edit the terminology for this word.

Tim Eckerman is an experienced, aggressive, and successful trial lawyer, who concentrates in cases involving Personal Injury and Criminal Defense.

For the quickest response to your legal needs, please call Tim Eckerman at 312-540-0451, and/or fill out the Quick Contact Request form below.
Quick Contact Request
Your Name:
* Required
Street Address:
Phone Number:
* Required
Confirm Phone:
* Required
Email Address:
* Required
Best Time To Call
Briefly Describe Your Case:

The viewing of any part of the content of this website does not establish an attorney/client relationship between Tim Eckerman & Associates and the viewer, and no such relationship is implied or should be inferred. Such a relationship can only begin with a contract that is mutually agreed upon and signed by both the attorney and the client. Further, the forwarding by e-mail of any information to the firm by any viewer of the website does not constitute the establishment of an attorney/client relationship. Visitors are discouraged from sending sensitive information through e-mail, due to the insecure nature of e-mail communication.
Designed by Dynamic Webs, LLC
Hosted with US Lawyer Locator