A draft may be payable to a designated payee
or to the bearer—the person who has posses-
sion of the draft at the time it is presented to the
drawee for payment—pursuant to the drawer’s
directions.
A draft is sometimes synonymous with a
BILL OF EXCHANGE, COMMERCIAL PAPER,orNEGOTIA-
BLE INSTRUMENT
.
DRAFTER
The person who draws or frames a legal document
such as a will, pleading, conveyance, or contract.
One who writes an original legislative bill for the
U.S. Senate or House of Representatives is called
the drafter of that bill.
DRAIN
A trench or ditch to convey water from wet land; a
channel through which water may flow off. The
word has no technical legal meaning. Any hollow
space in the ground, natural or artificial, where
water is collected and passes off, is a ditch or
drain.
Also, sometimes, the easement or servitude
(acquired by grant or prescription) that consists of
the right to drain water through another’s land.
A number of states have drainage statutes in
order to protect the welfare of the public. Such
statutes provide for the construction of drains
in areas that are swampy, marshy, or overflowed
past their natural boundaries. Also contained in
drainage statutes are provisions that regulate the

improvements. Generally, only those lands inclu
ded within a particular district are subject to such
assessment. In certain states, school lands are
exempted from assessments that drainage dis-
tricts levy. Assessment review boards frequently
entertain objections to drainage assessments;
however, if no such board exists, assessments
are subject to judicial reviews in the courts. A
property owner can, therefore, go to court to
challenge what he or she believes to be an unjust
drainage assessment against his or her land.
DRAMSHOP ACTS
Statutes, also called civil liability acts, that impose
civil liability upon one who sells intoxicating
liquors when a third party has been injured as a
result of the purchaser’s intoxication and such
sale has either caused or contributed to the state of
intoxication.
A dramshop is any type of drinking establish-
ment where liquor is sold for consumption on the
premises, such as a bar, a saloon, or, in some cases,
a restaurant. Under
DRAMSHOP ACTS, the seller of
liquor can be sued by an individual who is injured
by an intoxicated person. Such acts protect the
injured
THIRD PARTY not only against personal
injuries and property damages resulting directly
from the actions of the intoxicated individual
(such as those resulting from drunken driving or

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
By the late 1980s, dramshop statutes and
court rulings had caused a dramatic increase in
lawsuits involving liquor liability, with a corre-
sponding increase in damage awards to victims.
As a result, liquor liability in surance became
increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain.
To guard against costly dramshop suits,
liquor vendors have taken a variety of steps to
prevent negligent behavior: eliminating “happy
hours,” reducing late-night operation, offering
free Breathalyzer tests, instituting designated-
driver programs, and training servers on how to
deal with intoxicated patrons. Several states
have made precautions such as these mandatory.
Some, such as Oklahoma, have banned happy
hours (see 37 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 537 [West]);
others have required server training. Many
insurance companies either require such preven-
tive measures or offer incentives for their use.
Many states have extended dramshop liability
to corporate or individual social hosts who
provide alcoholic beverages without charge. This
new source of liability has produced an extraordi-
nary number of lawsuits. Accordingly, individuals
wishing to host a social orbusiness function in one
of these states would now be required to take
many of the same precautions commercial
establishments do, including obtaining liquor
liability insurance, or else they would have to

pay a designated sum to a person according to
the terms of a check or a draft.
CROSS REFERENCE
Commercial Paper.
ALCOHOL-RELATED TRAFFIC FATALITIES, 1990 TO 2007
Percentage of traffic fatalities involving
alcohol-impaired driver or nonoccupant
0
10
20
30
40
50
1990
2000
2007
1995
60
Year
.01 to .07 BAC
a
.08 or over BAC
a
a
BAC stands for blood alcohol concentration.
50.7
42.5
41.5
38.0
6.7

Justice ROGER B. TANEY, a former slaveholder,
authored the Court’s opinion, holding that the
U.S. Constitution permitted the unrestricted
ownership of black slaves by white U.S. citizens.
In a stunning 7–2 decision, the Court declared
that slaves and emancipated blacks could not
be full U.S. citizens. Any attempt by Congress
to limit the spread of slavery in U.S. territories
was held to be a direc t violation of slave owners’
due process rights.
Chief Justice Taney’s opinion fueled the
nineteenth-century abolitionist movement and
helped push the United States toward civil
war. Although Taney was an accomplished
jurist who served as chief justice for 29 years,
his record was permanently tarnished by what
many considered to be his flawed reasoning in
the Dred Scott case.
African slavery was introduced in the
American colonies in 1619. As the new country
grew, slavery spread throughout the South,
where cheap labor was needed for harvesting
large cotton and tobacco crops. During the
early nineteenth century, opponents of slavery
began to organize in the North.
Abolitionists initially wanted to restrict
slavery to the south ern states, but their ultimate
goal was to outlaw black servitude throughout
the United States. As new territories from the
LOUISIANA PURCHASE applied for U.S. statehood,

lived in northern U.S. territories that later
became the free states of Minnesota and
Wisconsin. In 1838 Scott and his family
returned to Missouri with Emerson.
When Emerson died, Scott sued Emerson’s
widow in Missouri state court, seeking free-
dom for himself and his family. Scott’s 1846
lawsuit claimed that his prior residence in a
free state and free territories entitled him to
liberty and back wages since 1834.
Scott won his case in the lower court.
Emerson’s widow appealed to the state supreme
Dred Scott sued for
his freedom in 1857,
claiming that his
residence with his
owner in a free state
and free territories
entitled him to liberty.
The Supreme court
ruled against Scott,
sparking outrage
among abolitionists.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
20 DRAWER
court, which sided with her. Then she married
Calvin Clifford Chafee, a prominent Massachu-
setts abolitionist and member of Congress. The
new Mrs. Chafee switched to the abolitionist
camp and agreed to seek a federal ruling against

SHALL
as chief justice. He used Dred Scott as a
national forum on constitutional rights and race.
Chief Justice Taney’s colleague, Associate
Justice
SAMUEL NELSON, urged the Court to reach
a narrow decision based on the facts in Dred
Scott. Because Scott’s original action was brought
in a Missouri court, Nelson believed simply
that state law should prevail in the case. Under
Missouri law, a slave’s status was not affected
by a temporary change in residence.
Chief Justice Taney did not want Scott
defeated in a narrow holding. Instead, he wrote
a sweeping defense of slavery, emphasizing
the slave owners’ constitutional rights and
privileges. Taney observed that under the Due
Process Clause of the
FIFTH AMENDMENT of the
U.S. Constitution, no person can be deprived of
property without
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. By out-
lawing slavery in certain U.S. territories, the
Missouri Compromise stripped slave owners of
their constitutional right to own property, or
“articles of merchandise,” as Taney referred to
slaves. Taney found the Missouri Compromise
unconstitutional. (Actually, the Missouri Com-
promise had been repealed by Congress in 1854,
but Taney’s ruling nevertheless worried aboli-

to restrict slavery. Presidential candidate
ABRAHAM
LINCOLN
used the case as a campaign issue and
pledged to overturn the Court’srulingagainst
Scott. Lincoln won the presidential election in
1860, and in 1861, the Civil War began.
After the unfortunate ruling, Scott was freed
by Sanford and worked as a porter in a St. Louis
hotel. He died of tuberculosis in 1858 or 1859.
Sanford was institutionalized for mental illness,
a condition his friends traced to his public
involvement in the Scott fiasco.
The Supreme Court’s reputation suffered
greatly owing to its poor handling of the slavery
issue. Newspaper editors and politicians lam-
basted the Court for its colossal misstep. His-
torians single out Taney’s Dred Scott decision
as one of the lowest points in U.S. jurisprudence.
FURTHER READINGS
Bernstein, Richard, and Jerome Agel. 1989. The Supreme
Court: Into the Third Century. New York: Walker.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD 21
Fehrenbacker, Don. 1981. Slavery, Law, and Politics: The
Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press.
Finkelman, Paul. 1996. “The Dred Scott Case, Slavery and
the Politics of Law.” Hamline Law Review 20 (fall).
———. 1997. Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with

treatment specialists, probation officers, law
enforcement and correctional personnel, edu-
cational and vocational experts, commun-
ity leaders, and others on individuals who are
charged with illicit drug abuse. The criminal
justice system works cooperatively with treatment
systems and others to provide an offender with
the necessary tools to get into recovery, stay in
recovery, and lead a productive, crime-free life.
The drug court acts to help offenders change
their lives in order to stop criminal activity,
rather than focusing only on punishment of
offenders. Drug courts also help to provide
consistent responses to drug offenses among
the judiciary, and they can foster coordination
between intervention agencies and resources,
thus increasing the cost-effectiveness of drug-
intervention programs. Successful completion
of the drug court’s treatment or intervention
regimen usually results in the dismissal of drug
charges, shortened or suspended sentences, or
a combination of these. Participants acquire
the wherewithal to rebuild their lives.
Several studies have supported the effective-
ness of drug courts. According to a report
published in 2003 by the Treatment Research
Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, “drug
courts outperform virtually all other strategies that
have been used with drug-involved offen ders.”
Another study produced by researchers at Colum-

juvenile offenders. Juvenile drug courts likewise
have proven successful, and now many jurisdic-
tions includ e family drug courts that primarily
hear substance-abuse and neglect cases.
Goals of Drug Court Programs
Differing needs across jurisdictions have resulted
in a variety of drug courts in terms of their
structure, scope, and target populations, but
they all share three primary goals: reduction of
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
22 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI)
recidivism, reduction of substance abuse among
participants, and rehabilitation of participants.
To achieve these goals, drug courts generally
structure themse lves to include the following
features:
n
Incorporation of drug testing into case
processing
n
Creation of a non-adversarial relationship
between the offender and the court
n
Identification of offenders who are in need
of treatment and referring them to treat-
ment as soon as possible after arrest
n
Access to a continuum of treatment and
rehabilitation services
n

participating in the drug court program. At
that point in the process, they have not pleaded
guilty to any charges. This program is designed
principally for non-violent, first-time, low-risk
offenders.
Post-plea drug courts are not as common
but are used most ly in the cases of more serious
offenders when the
PROSECUTOR wants to ensure
a guilty plea in order to avoid a trial. The
chances of a more serious offender successfully
completing a program in a drug court might be
reduced, but the prosecution’s trial-preparation
time is saved in the event of failure.
As drug courts have consistently proven to
be effective at controlling both the drug use and
the criminality of drug-using offenders, com-
munities have successfully expanded drug court
programs to include those who are on proba-
tion for drug offenses, exte nding them to drug-
using offenders who are charged with non-drug
offenses. Some jurisdictions are even beginning
to apply the drug court model to cases of
driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). In
doing so, DUI courts, like the traditional drug
courts, make DUI offenders accountable for
their actions in ways that go beyond standard
punitive measures such as fines and
INCARCERA-
TION

Justice, BJA also evaluates drug court programs
to identify the most effective program features
and organizational structures to combat drug
abuse and crime. State Courts, local courts,
units of local gover nment, and American Indian
tribal governments may apply for funding. Some
$29 million was available in 1995, and $971
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
DRUG COURTS 23
million was authorized under this program to
cover the four years from 1996 to 2000.
The record of success, supported by large,
federal support initiatives such as the 1994
act, led to a rapid proliferation of drug courts
throughout the United States. By the end of 2000
nearly 600 drug courts were in operation in all
50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
Guam, and two federal districts. By 2009 the
number of drug courts had expanded to 2,140,
with another 284 being planned or developed.
Drug courts paved the way for another
criminal justice innovation: therapeutic juris-
prudence. Accordingly, several jurisdictions
are developing special dockets that are modeled
after the drug court format. Courts and judges
have become more receptive to new approaches
and thus have brought about a proliferation of
problem-solving courts, including DUI courts,
domestic-violence courts, mental-health courts,
and re-entry courts.

had often worked at cross-purposes. Its mission
is to “enforce the controlled substances laws and
regulations of the United States and bring to the
criminal and civil justice system those organiza-
tions and principal members of organizations
who are involved in the growing, manufacture,
or distribution of controlled substances in the
United States.” In addition to its domestic
oversight, the DEA has sole responsibility for
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS
CREATIVE RESOURCES.
REPRODUCED BY
PERMISSION OF GALE,
A PART OF CENGAGE
LEARNING.
DEA Domestic Arrests, 1990–2008
SOURCE: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, “Stats & Facts,” available online at />statistics.html (accessed on Au
g
ust 14, 2009).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
22.7

concentrates on investigating and prosecuting
organizations and their members who are
involved in the cultivation, production,
SMUG-
GLING
, distribution, or diversion of controlled
substances in, or destined for, the United States.
The agency seeks to disrupt thes e organizations
by arresting their members, confiscating their
drugs, and seizing their assets. It creates,
manages, and supports enforcement-related
programs, both domestically and international-
ly, aimed at reducing the availability of and
demand for controlled substances. This effort
requires the ongoing management of a national
narcotics intelligence system, the fruits of which
are shared with federal, state, and local law
enforcement authorities.
Because the importation of contro lled
substances is the main source of illegal dru gs,
the DEA has increasingly put its energies into
international enforcement programs. It cur-
rently has 87 foreign offices in 63 countries and
maintains contacts with the
UNITED NATIONS,
INTERPOL (the international police organiza tion,
which is headquartered in Paris and has
approximately 180 member countries), and
other international drug enforcement agencies.
Training agents and other law enforcement

forfeiture removes the profit from these illegal
activities, and it can financially disable drug-
trafficking organizations. Assets that are acquired
through forfeiture are sold, and the money is put
into the Asset Forfeiture Fund, which is used to
help crime victims and to fund law enforcement
programs. Property is seized by the DEA only
when it is determined to be a tool for, or the
proceeds of, illegal activities such as drug traf-
ficking,
ORGANIZED CRIME,orMONEY LAUNDERING.
The DEA seeks both to destroy illegal
narcotics and to reduce the demand for drugs.
For example, the DEA works to halt the spread
of marijuana cultivation to the United States
through the Domestic Cannabis Eradication
and Suppression Program (DCE/SP), which as
of the early 2000s was the only nationwide
program that exclusively targets marijuana. In
2007 the DEA provided resources to support
the 114 state and local law enforcement agencies
that participate in its marijuana eradication
efforts. In addition, the DEA monitors state
legislation to combat marijuana legalization.
The DEA also funds a Demand Reduction
program in the hopes that education will lead to
reduced drug use. The DEA employs 31
demand reduction coordinators who work in
communities throughout the United States.
The DEA interdiction programs along the

United States, a reduction from the 31 that
existed in 1999.
With the growing popularity of community-
based policy in the 1990s, the DEA sought ways
to provide local law enforcement agencies with
support for reducing violent crime related to
drugs. Out of this work came the Mobile
Enforcement Team (METs) progra m in 1995,
which uses DEA and state and local law
enforcement personnel and resources to target
high-crime areas. Thanks to the program, by
August 2000, 265 deployments were completed
resulting in more than 11,000 arrests of violent
drug criminals. In areas where the DEA has
deployed MET s, assaults have been reduced by
15 percent, homicides by 16 percent, and
robberies by 14 percen t. METs also contributed
to the overall national decrease in violent crime
during the 1990s.
By 2002 the DEA had identified heroin
and me thamphetamine as major threats to the
United States. Although heroin is imported
to the United States, methamphetamine is
produced domestically in numerous meth labs
throughout the country. In addition, the DEA
argued that international terrorists had used
drug trafficking and the laundering of proceeds
from this trafficking to fund their violent
actions against the United States and other
nations. The DEA labeled these persons narco-

U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. [1938]). Federal drug
abuselawsmakeprovisionsforthespecialregis-
tration of any individual who handles controlled
substances.
Regulation
As a public health measure, states have the
power to regulate the preparation and dispens-
ing of drugs. They can proscribe the sale of
certain substances without a prescription and
specifically designate who is permitted to deal in
prescription drugs. Statutes govern the proce-
dures that must be observed when drugs are
handled, as well as the steps that must be taken
for the inspection of drugstores and pharmacy
records by agents of the state.
States can prop erly mandate that pharma-
cists be licensed, provided the necessary quali-
fications are not unreasonable. For example,
although it would be reasonable for a state to
require that pharmac ists earn college degrees, it
would be unreasonable to require them to be
natural-born citizens of the United States. State
legislatures have the authority to prohibit any
type of improper competition that would tend
to lower the service standards.
Education and License
A druggist must ordinarily be a graduate of
an accredited pharmacy school and be of sound
moral character. In some instances, he or she
might be required to pass a written qualifying

money is owed by the customer. Since the 1970s
some pharmacists have refused to fill prescrip-
tions for contraceptives, and emergency contra-
ceptives that prevent pregnancy after sexual
intercourse. They have invoked religious and
moral objections for their refusal. Some states
have enacted co nscience clause laws, which
permit druggists to do so, whereas other states
have passed laws mandating that druggists fill
such prescriptions.
Pharmacists are required to maintain writ-
ten records of the drugs they sell and must allow
the proper state officials to inspect such records.
It is not ordinarily unlawful for a pharmacist to
fill a prescription on the direction of a doctor
who telephones it in, even if the doctor does not
subsequently send a written authorization. The
pharmacist, however, is required to make a
written record at the time the prescription is
filled.
Although a pharmacist is not required to
know ev erything possible about drugs, he or she
is required to be as skilled as most others in the
profession. Additionally, a pharmacist owes
customers a high degree of care in the service
given to them, and they may properly make the
assumption that the drugs that they are sold are
suitable for the use that he or she recommends.
Customers can rely upon any specific claims
that the pharmacist makes for the drugs.

Druggists must
ordinarily be a
graduate of an
accredited pharmacy
school. Because they
handle controlled
substances, they must
also be licensed and
registered.
AP IMAGES
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
DRUGGIST 27