7. Surcharge

States should enact legislation providing for surcharge fines on all persons convicted of violations of the controlled substances and alcohol codes, to be used to supplement funding for prevention, intervention, treatment, and research on alcohol and other drug problems, especially for minors.

Many witnesses at the Advisory Commission field hearings testified about the lack of adequate funding for substance abuse treatment facilities and prevention programs directed at youth alcohol and drug abuse.177 Mandated insurance, state excise taxes, forfeiture, and surcharge fines are all methods of raising additional funds. However, the forfeiture proposal and the surcharge proposal, discussed below, are directed at raising funds from drug law violators themselves. Based on the testimony of a New Jersey state health of ficia1,178 various enforcement personnel, and others concerned,179 the imposition of a "dedicated" surcharge fine on controlled substance and liquor code violators would be an effective and appropriate tool for funding of treatment and prevention programs. Based on the large number of current violations, even a small fine on violators could generate the much needed revenue.180. Moreover, there are relevant legal precedents for such dedicated surcharges in the area of drunk driving fines,181 liquor license revenues,I82 excise taxesI83 and other similar existing or proposed regulatory enforcement measures.184 In addition, if surcharges are viewed as a form of "victim compensation," there are apt analogies to statutes across the country which compensate individual victims of specific crimes' 85.

To a great extent, drug and alcohol violations are societal as well as individual crimes. Substance abuse is as costly to society as to the individuals directly involved.186 A report recently developed for the Alcohol Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration, estimates 1983 costs of alcohol and drug abuse to society at $176.4 billion.I87 To identify and recompense individual victims for these general harms would be costly and impracticable. Therefore, it would seem only appropriate to require the substance violator to provide for some of the "system" costs for the rehabilitation of his victims.I88 A dedicated surcharge, especially a nominal one, would violate no constitutional norm against cruel or unusual punishment. Such fines for environmental, food and drug, and other societal crimes are relatively routine. The treatment and prevention costs thus recovered would still be minimal compensation to the societal costs and illegal profits involved in these violations.I89

177See, etg., testimony of Sue Rusche, Gregg Ruduka, Atlanta; and Ray Chavira, Los Angeles.

178See testimony of Richard J. Russo, Assistant Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Health, Princeton. This health official estimated that between $1 to $1.5 million could be raised by adding a $100 fine to penalities for controlled substance and liquor law violations based on an annual rate of 34,000 drug arrests and 13,000 liquor law violations, (exclusive of drunk driving) with a 25 - 30 percent conviction rate. He suggested that this revenue could directly support two or three new residential youth treatment centers or to reimburse existing programs for treating indigent youth clients.

179See,    testimony of Mark J. Byre, Nancy Brach, Mia Anderson, Princeton.

180See supra note 178.

181See eg New Jersey drunk driving law regarding dedicated charges for Intoxicated Driver Resource Centers, 39 N.J. Stat. Ann. 4-50 (f) (West 1984).

I82See e g National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, State Survey Fact Sheet, Dedicated Alcohol Taxes (1982)(listing Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, and Washington as having liquor license fees dedicated in part to funding treatment). See, e.g., Mich. Comp. Laws Sec. 436.47 (1978); Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 16-404, 408 (1983); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 4301.30 (Page 1971); and Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 66.08.180 (1985).

183See recommendation and report on funding.

I84See U.S. J. of Alcohol and Drug Dependence, at 15 (Jan. 1985), regarding Texas Senate Bill 620 providing for dedication of substance abuse and DUI fines to fund treatment facilities. This bill permits the exact percentage of these funds dedicated to be determined by each county from its total fines. The bill was introduced by Amarillo State Senator William Sarpalius on behalf of a group of judges and the Panhandle Regional Planning Commission. Senate Bill 620 passed the Texas Senate but was not acted on by the House before adjournment.

185See eg numerous articles on the growing trend of "victimology," including Kiesel, Crime and Punishment, 70 A.B.A. J. 25 (1984); Harland, Monetary Remedies for the Victims of Crime: Assessing the Role of the Criminal Courts, 30 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 52 (1982); Goldstein, A New Role for the Victim: The Federal Victim Act of 1982, 100 F.R.D. 94 (1982) (concerning the Federal Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. S. 3579, at 80). The new emphasis on "Dram Shop Acts" also reflects this trend. See the recommendation and report on dram shop laws.

I86See, stg., Fein, Alcohol in America the Price We Pay (Care Institute 1984).

I87Harwood, Napolitano, Kristiansen, Collins, Economic Costs to Society of Alcohol & Drug Abuse & Mental Illness, Report developed by the Research Triangle Institute for the Alcohol Drug Abuse & tvlental Health Administration, June 1984.

188Id. See also supra note 57 at 182. ("Because drivers under the influence are responsible for this problem with its great resulting human cost, it is appropriate that offenders should defray the costs of enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, treatment and education.")

1890ne Georgia witness estimated the total spending for alcohol and drugs for that state alone to be $1 billion annually. See testimony of Martha Morrison, M.D., Atlanta.