LEGAL ASPECTS OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE1

• Published date: 01 December 1989
• Citation: (1989) 1 SAcLJ 36
• Date: 01 December 1989
• Author: AMARJIT SINGH

The history of opium began in Singapore soon after its founding in 1819 when Stamford Raffles permitted an opium farm on the island. The plants presumably came from the British East India Co, which processed opium in the former Dutch factory in Bengal, the bulk of which was exported to China at a very great profit.

The early Chinese settlers in Singapore brought the habit of opium smoking with them and produce from the opium farm helped keep the habit alive.

When the Sultan of Rhio, Sultan Husain (Tengku Long) complained that the stipend he was receiving from the British for handing over Singapore to them was inadequate. Colonel Farquhar, in the absence of Raffles, because of a tight budget from the East India Company, kept the Sultan happy by giving him revenue from the opium farm lease.2

With opium coming in from China and with a contribution from what little was home grown, the habit of opium smoking increased, at first unchecked and later under controls and restrictions. In 1904, the importation, manufacture and possession of morphine was made illegal.3 In 1906 the comprehensive Opium Ordinance4 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law not only for collecting revenue on opium by granting exclusive privileges to persons to import, make, prepare and sell the same but by making only Chandu (defined as a form of prepared opium suitable for consumption) available for retail consumption from what became known as Chandu shops. The main offence was possession of opium or Chandu not purchased or imported as prescribed by the Ordinance.5

In 1910 the Chandu Revenue Ordinance6 gave the Government the exclusive right to prepare and sell Chandu. Seventeen years later, the Deleterious Drugs Ordinance7 was passed. Possession of more than 5 tahils8 of Chandu became an offence. Only after World War II when the harmful effects of the use of prepared opium became clearer did the Government put a stop to the legal

sale of Chandu and in 1951 possession of prepared opium became an offence.9

Two successive pieces of legislation were introduced thereafter:-

(a) The Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act in 196910 and finally

(b) The Misuse of Drugs Acts in 197311 (and amended many times since)12 to incorporate tough new provisions for dealing with drugs offenders at all levels from the trafficker through to the addict to match the threat of the addictive use of new and more powerful drugs that science was spawning — both synthetic and those that were opiate derivatives which were a fraction of their previous bulk, were far more potent and which made trafficking and consumption considerably easier.

Science was reducing a kilogram of opium to a hundred grams of morphine and today the object of an efficient chemist working in a make-shift surrounding is to produce a kilo of heroin from every kilogram of morphine put into the process.

Heroin now has become the drug of choice of most opiate dependent individuals. Morphine on the other hand is not very popular as it often produces nausea and vomitting.

The 1973 law has expanded and classified the various drugs into Class A, B and C13 consisting of about 100 drugs including morphine, heroin and all forms of opium. There are heavier penalties for the more dangerous drugs and there is in additional a maximum and a minimum penalty plus compulsory caning. The provisions have fettered the court’s discretion somewhat in sentencing.

It is well known that Singapore was one of the first countries to introduce the death penalty for trafficking offences in 1973 — 15 grams or more in the case of heroin and 30 grams or more in the case of morphine.14 There was a constitutional challenge to these amounts attracting the death penalty in 1981 in an appeal to the Privy Council but the consitutionality of the amounts legislated was upheld on the grounds of social policy.15

However, I wish to restrict my discussion to the narrow field of the law that affects the individual who is a “substance” or “drug dependent”— a phrase of relatively new coinage amongst academics and social workers. Its usage

has replaced the more damaging and harmful label “drug addict” which though continues to find its place in the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The phrase “substance dependence” is also employed to encompass a wider net of abusers — the sniffers — those who sniff volatile substances such as glues and thinners which can lead to a permanent damage of the brain, liver kidney and bone marrow. Glue sniffing is not a new phenmenon, but a modern manifestation of an older problem of inhaling gases such as nitrous oxide, chloroform and petrol. So far 29 deaths15(a) have been linked to glue sniffing in Singapore. In 1987 the Intoxicating Substances Act16 was passed to prohibit the misuse of certain substances which may cause intoxication when inhaled.

The phrase unfortunately may also be wide enough to cover those who can “drink” their friends “under the table” as well as those who since the extension to more and more places of The Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act, 1970,17 avoid being penalised by not going to the cinema anymore, those who leave their office-desks and head for the corridors or lift wells every hour or so for a couple of minutes and those who have stopped flying to Kuala Lumpur by the national carrier.

Since the air has been cleared by that piece of legislation and its twin Act, Smoking (Prohibition on Advertisements) Act 1970,18 no further discussion on the matter is necessary and I can continue to focus on the law affecting the drug and inhalant abuser.

Legal Aspects of Drug and Inhalant Abuse

The law on the legal aspects of drug and inhalant abuse in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Intoxicating Substances Act, 1987, may be conveniently summarised as covering:-

1. (i) Consumption and consumption related offences;

2. (ii) Control and checks on Medical Practitioners and others in respect of drug abuse;

3. (iii) Treatment and Rehabilitation;

4. (iv) Urine Drug Screening and Blood Testing.

Consumption and consumption related offences

The Misuse of Drugs Act makes it an offence to smoke, administer to oneself or otherwise consume a controlled drug.19 The average punishment for a first

offender is a fine of between $1,000 to $2,000 depending on the circumstances although the maximum is very much higher. There is only one punishment for consumption whatever the controlled drug is i.e. Class A, B or C.20

The possession of pipes utensils etc for consumption of a controlled drug also constitute an offence punishable with 3 years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000/-.21

Owners, tenants and occupiers, or the persons concerned in the management of premises who permit or suffer a place to be used for consumption of a controlled drug also offend against the Act.22

Normally in a criminal case, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Misuse of Drugs Act employs a large number of presumptions — many averse to common law concepts — that give rise to presumptive facts which are held against an offender until he proves the contrary. The most stringent are those which relate to possession or worse presumed possession above a minimum quantity of certain drugs whereby the presumption is raised that possession is for the purpose of trafficking.23 Again, whenever a pipe, syringe, utensil, apparatus or other article intended for consumption of a controlled drug is found in any premises the law presumes until the contrary is proven that the premises are used for consumption of the controlled drug.24

Similarly, if a person is found in or escaping from any premises which is proven or presumed to be used for the consumption of a controlled drug, that person is until the contrary is proven, presumed to have consumed a controlled drug.25

The Intoxicating Substances Act makes it an offence for a person to inhale intoxicating substance for the purpose of causing himself to be in a state of intoxication. Intoxicating substances is defined as any substance which contains a chemical compound which releases toxic vapours or fumes. The offence is punishable with a fine of $2,000/- or 6 months imprisonment or both.26

Control and checks on Medical Practitioner and others

Regulations27 made under the Act require a Medical Practitioner, Dentist, Pharmacist, Ventinerary Surgeon and other persons who deal in controlled drugs to keep proper records and make all returns in respect of such drugs

used.28 More particularly, the regulations require any Medical Practitioner who attends a person who he considers is or has reasonable grounds to suspect is addicted to any controlled drug, to furnish to the authorities his particulars.29 The Medical Practitions is prohibited from administering, supplying or authorising the administration and supply to the person addicted of a controlled drug.

Violation of these provisions prescribed a punishment of up to $10,000/- fine or a term not exceeding 4 years.30

Treatment and Rehabilitation

Treatment and Rehabilitation of the drug and inhalant abuse form an important and vital part of the controlling legislation in these areas.

In the 50s and 60s when the problem of drug abuse was confined to elderly opium smokers, their treatment and rehabilitation was the responsibility of a single centre sited at St John’s Island.

In the late 60s and early 70s, as young abusers responded to “pots and pills”, the scope of treatment and rehabilitation widened and an outpatient referral clinic was opened for these young abusers. The treatment was totally ineffective.

The 1973 legislation marked the watershed in the treatment of drug addiction.

The Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) who is in charge of administering the Misuse of Drugs Act makes an order admitting an addict to an approved institution i.e. Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) of which there are several. An initial detention period of 6 months is required under the Act subject...