[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROS AND CONS OF DRUG LEGALIZATION, DECRIMINALIZATION, AND HARM
REDUCTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 16, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-99
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-346 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California (Independent)
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
BOB BARR, Georgia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Robert B. Charles, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sean Littlefield, Professional Staff Member
Gilbert Macklin, Professional Staff Member
Amy Davenport, Clerk
Cherri Branson, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 16, 1999.................................... 1
Statement of:
Leshner, Alan, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse;
and Donnie Marshall, Deputy Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration............................................. 104
McCaffrey, General Barry R., Director, Office of National
Drug Control Policy........................................ 30
McDonough, James, director, Office of Drug Control Policy,
State of Florida; Scott Ehlers, senior policy analyst, Drug
Policy Foundation; Robert L. Maginnis, senior director,
Family Research Council; David Boaz, executive vice
president, Cato Institute; and Ira Glasser, executive
director, American Civil Liberties Union................... 149
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Boaz, David, executive vice president, Cato Institute,
prepared statement of...................................... 223
Ehlers, Scott, senior policy analyst, Drug Policy Foundation,
prepared statement of...................................... 177
Gilman, Hon. Benjamin A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, Tom Constantine's paper............. 11
Glasser, Ira, executive director, American Civil Liberties
Union:
Article dated December 29, 1997.......................... 284
Prepared statement of.................................... 167
Report entitled, ``Narrow Pathways to Prison: The
Selective Incarceration of Repeat Drug Offenders in New
York State''........................................... 251
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of Kevin Sabbitt..... 5
Leshner, Alan, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse,
prepared statement of...................................... 107
Maginnis, Robert L., senior director, Family Research
Council, prepared statement of............................. 200
Marshall, Donnie, Deputy Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration, prepared statement of...................... 120
McCaffrey, General Barry R., Director, Office of National
Drug Control Policy, prepared statement of................. 33
McDonough, James, director, Office of Drug Control Policy,
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 151
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida:..........................................
Article entitled, ``High on a Lie''...................... 293
Information concerning crack smokers directions.......... 289
Letter dated April 15, 1997.............................. 296
Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, prepared statement of................... 98
PROS AND CONS OF DRUG LEGALIZATION, DECRIMINALIZATION, AND HARM
REDUCTION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Barr, Gilman, Souder,
Hutchinson, Ose, Mink, Towns, Cummings and Kucinich.
Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director/chief
counsel; Andrew Greeley, clerk; Sean Littlefield and Gilbert
Macklin, professional staff members; Rob Mobley, congressional
fellow; Cherri Branson, minority counsel; and Ellen Rayner,
minority chief clerk.
Mr. Mica. Good morning, I would like to welcome you to this
meeting of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy,
and Human Resources and call this hearing to order.
It is my understanding that they are concluding a
Democratic Caucus, and we should be joined by members from the
minority side. The Republicans are having a conference which is
just concluding, and we should be joined by members from the
majority side in just a few minutes. But we will go ahead and
begin.
I have an opening statement and I will be followed by
others who have opening statements today. We have three panels
that we will hear from.
The subject of today's hearing is the pros and cons of drug
legalization, decriminalization, and harm reduction. Today the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources will examine a subject which is frequently talked
about but rarely the topic of a congressional hearing--that is
the question of drug legalization. Specifically, we will
discuss issues relating to drug use, drug offenses,
decriminalization, and harm reduction.
This hearing is just one more in a series of hearings that
we have held and will continue to hold examining our Nation's
drug control policy and its effectiveness. As you know, recent
statistics on drug use by young people are not just worrisome,
they are tragic and sobering. Methods to deter the use and
abuse of dangerous substances should be the centerpiece of any
serious effort to reverse the rising drug use trends.
The simple truth is that drugs destroy lives. They steal
away opportunities that might have been. They produce fatal
overdoses, fatal accidents, and death by criminal homicide.
Despite the warm glow of well-intentioned words, the
reality is hard to miss. Drug overdose deaths continue to
plague our metropolitan areas, our suburbs, and our schools.
There is really no element of our society today untouched by
the ravages of illegal narcotics. Drug use is soaring among our
12th graders. More than 50 percent of them have tried an
illicit drug, and more than one in four are today a current
user.
There have been serious proposals across our land and here
in Washington about how to best combat school violence and deal
with drug traffickers, restore individual and community
security, and reduce overall youth drug use. These proposals
have ranged from legalization of marijuana for medical use to
tough sentencing guidelines and needle exchanges.
Today, we venture into a first-of-its-kind hearing with
this subcommittee's undertaking to provide new information and
also solicit informed opinions from both the policymakers and
the public on issues relating to drug legalization and
decriminalization. The often high-pitched debate over
legalization of drugs appears to have intensified during the
past several years. There appears to be more public support for
these initiatives than there was several years ago when they
were first proposed.
My concern is that the media and other opinion leaders are
paying more attention to drug legalization because there has
been in-fact a well-financed and internationally and nationally
coordinated effort championed by several organizations and
wealthy backers. Quite frankly, I am not certain of their
motivation, and I am not certain of their end game.
Regardless of which seed bed this movement is sprouting
from, the issue needs to be openly and honestly addressed by
both government and nongovernmental officials. That is why I
decided to conduct this hearing and conduct additional hearings
on this subject. That is why today we are bringing together
Federal officials with responsibility in this area and a
sampling of outside policy experts. The notion that dangerous
drugs might one day be legalized has come from a number of
sources, including former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders,
mayor of Baltimore Kurt Schmoke, the press, and other opinion
leaders.
If this debate is going to be, as Justice Brennan once
said, as all controversial debates should be, open and robust,
it must at last be joined. Honest debate over these issues, I
believe, will benefit the American people. Hopefully, we can
also act to discredit those who promote positions without a
basis in fact and add credibility to those who have facts on
their side. The American public should understand the policy
implications of legalization, decriminalization and harm
reduction. They need to hear both sides of this debate, that is
why we begin today, hopefully, in a civil and well-informed
discussion.
There are many facets and nuances to this debate. However,
I would like to take just a few moments to share my personal
views on several issues.
As many of you know, I have been highly critical at times
of this administration's drug policies and budget priorities.
For a number of years, this administration floundered without
specific goals or objectives in a coherent drug control policy.
General McCaffrey has helped to change that direction, but in
the prior leadership vacuum, substantial ground was lost and
the war on drugs was nearly closed down. That said, I believe
this void helped provide momentum to the current drive toward
legalization and decriminalization.
The problems associated with drug use are not simple and
will not respond to simple solutions. I believe that there have
been victories and successes in the fight against drug
trafficking and drug use and abuse; however in my own view, we
can and must do more. The alternative isn't very pretty. In
fact, the alternative may be consigning a generation to
addiction and drug dependency in unprecedented numbers. We
cannot step backward after beginning to move forward.
The 50 percent drop in drug users, from 15.4 million in
1979 to a little over 12 million in 1992, and the 75 percent
drop in cocaine use between a measured peak in 1985 of 5.7
million to a bottom of 1.4 million in 1992 are what I would
term successes. As many of you know, these successes were the
combined result of a strong parents' movement and a strong
Federal antidrug policy. In New York City, we have seen that
tough enforcement has reduced crime, murder, and drug abuse.
In the past few years, we have restarted, I believe,
effective eradication and source country programs. We have also
begun an unprecedented education and demand reduction program.
It is important that before we reverse course, we must
carefully examine what has worked and what has failed. If we
can identify effective treatment for those incarcerated or
those afflicted with drug addiction, nothing should stand in
our way to provide care to those individuals. However, we
cannot turn our backs on felonious conduct and issue those who
traffic and deal in deadly substances a license to destroy
lives.
Today's hearing solicits initial comments from this
administration; and, as I said, we will have a sampling of
experts on the subject today. This is our first hearing in a
series of hearings that I hope will provide factual testimony
on the questions of drug legalization, decriminalization and
harm reduction.
Those are my opening comments. As I said, we have three
panels we will hear from shortly.
I am pleased that we have been joined by our ranking
member. I know she may be out of breath in running back, but I
am delighted to recognize her at this time, the gentlelady and
ranking member, as I said, Mrs. Mink from Hawaii. You are
recognized.
Mrs. Mink. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do apologize for
being late.
The Democratic Caucus was convened this morning on a very
important matter: juvenile justice. The majority leadership
reoriented the debate procedure, as you know, at the last
minute so we have been trying to sort things out. Half of the
bill came out of my Committee on Education and the Workforce,
which has now been pulled, so things are in somewhat of a
disarray, and I apologize for being late.
I will insert my remarks at a later point. I would like at
this time to yield a few minutes to Dennis Kucinich, who has an
introduction to make.
Mr. Kucinich. With the permission of the chair, with
unanimous consent, I would like to introduce----
Mr. Mica. Without objection.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much. I would like to
introduce Kevin Sabbitt from the Community Antidrug Coalition.
If Kevin could stand. Kevin is one of the many young people
from across this country who is working on strategies to quell
the use of drugs in communities. He had some remarks, with the
permission of the chair, I would like with unanimous consent to
be included in the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Kucinich. I might mention that Kevin's involvement and
testimony was called to my attention by the wife of the
Governor of the State of Ohio, Mrs. Hope Taft, who called me
and asked me if I would communicate this to the chair. I would
certainly appreciate your indulgence and the committee's
indulgence.
Mr. Mica. We are very pleased for his participation.
Without objection, his remarks will be made a part of the
record.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. Mrs. Mink, thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.004
Mr. Mica. I am pleased now to recognize our ranking member
on this side, who is the chairman of the International
Relations Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for conducting what I consider to be a
very important hearing today on this controversial issue of the
legalization of mind-altering drugs. I also want to thank you
for bringing some excellent witnesses, including General
McCaffrey and Dr. Leshner and Mr. Marshall, our Deputy
Administrator of the DEA, Mr. McDonough, Mr. Ehlers, Mr.
Maginnis, Mr. Boaz and Ira Glasser. I think you have an
excellent set of witnesses today that should help to focus our
attention on this very important issue.
Legalization is virtually a surrender to despair. It cannot
and should not be any topic of serious discussion in our
Nation's debate on the challenges of illicit drugs. Hopefully
by the time this hearing is over, we will make it clear that
this is certainly not the direction in which any drug policy
should be headed now, or ever.
Most importantly, we must not be perceived as sending mixed
and confusing messages on illicit drug use to our young people.
Illicit drugs are wrong, they are destructive, they are not
recreational, they are deadly--nothing more, nothing less.
We have a firm, moral obligation not to lead our citizens
into any spiral of despair and substance dependency through the
legalization of mind-altering substances.
As Tom Constantine, our DEA Administrator, who is also a
great cop and proven drug fighter, said so well at our November
1997, international antidrug conference in Scotland, ``for
those elites who proposed legalization, let them start in their
own families and in their own school districts and then we can
better evaluate this option.''
Looking down from an ivory tower, it may be easy to throw
up your hands and say it is time to surrender to the scourge of
illicit drugs. But let those who offer such an unsophisticated
solution, which avoids the hard choices and the difficult
battles, first pass the Constantine home and school test if
they want credibility in advocating legalization.
And for those who would despair in our fight against
illicit drugs, let me state unequivocally that we can and we
have made progress in fighting drugs in the past. Between 1985
and 1992, we reduced monthly cocaine usage in our Nation by
nearly 80 percent, nearly an 80 percent reduction. There aren't
many Federal programs that can claim that rate of success with
such a difficult and a challenging problem as illicit drug use.
We made that kind of remarkable progress through a good
public relations campaign, through Mrs. Reagan's Just Say No
theme, and through a balanced, evenhanded supply and demand
approach. Any balanced strategy in our Nation's drug war must
include a reduction in both supply and demand and it must be
simultaneous. By reducing supply, we have to eradicate the
product at its source, we have to interdict when it gets into
the mainstream of distribution, and we have to enforce when it
reaches our shorelines, be able to arrest, convict and put away
the drug traffickers. And in reducing demand, we have to
educate our young people about the dangers of drug use, and we
have to treat and rehabilitate the victims.
We have to do all of those things simultaneously. You can't
take funding from one of those elements and give it to another.
I am looking forward to today's testimony. I hope that we
may initiate the beginning of the end of this misguided and
unfortunate debate about legalization. This debate detracts us
from the important aspects of what we are trying to do, a
debate that would take us in the wrong direction for both our
Nation and our young people's future and well-being.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make certain that we refer in the
record to DEA Administrator Tom Constantine's paper, as
delivered in Austria this past January at another important
international drug conference. DEA Administrator Constantine
recounts as part of that excellent paper the impact of the de
facto legalization of illicit drugs in the city of Baltimore.
He stated that the strategy used in Baltimore was a lost
strategy.
Chairman Mica, who participated in that Austrian
conference, frequently cites the DEA Baltimore heroin figures.
That startling data indicates that there exists one heroin
addict for every 17 people in that nearby city.
Mr. Constantine's paper outlines the extensive devastation
and adverse impact that heroin has had on the Baltimore
community when it took a laissez-faire approach to the use of
illicit drugs. Let no community follow Baltimore's example.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Administrator
Constantine's Vienna paper be included in the record of these
proceedings.
Before closing, I would like to commend General McCaffrey
for the outstanding job he has done in focusing attention on
the drug war in our Nation and trying to elicit support for
what our Nation should be doing to eliminate this very critical
problem in our Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. Without objection, the
paper that you referred to will be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.021
Mr. Mica. I am pleased now to recognize for an opening
statement the gentleman from Maryland. I was going to say the
gentleman from Baltimore, but after the comments from the
gentleman from New York, I thought I should cool it. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
certainly am from Baltimore, and I am very proud to be so.
As I listened to the gentleman from New York, I could not
help but think about the fact that there are so many people who
need medical treatment. They need treatment. For a lot of
people, it is very easy to sit back and look at folks. Well, I
live in the middle of it. I live in a drug-infested
neighborhood. I know people who have been trying to get
treatment for years--for years--and can't get it.
As a matter of fact, General McCaffrey came to Baltimore
about 2 years ago and went through one of those neighborhoods
in east Baltimore and had an opportunity to see young men and
women who were struggling, taking their own resources, coming
up with innovative ways to get the funds to treat themselves.
So I think we have to be very, very careful when someone sits
at a distance and then tries to put a microscope on any
community and still complain but don't provide the funds to
address the problem.
The problem is very serious. It is one, as I said before, I
count as a top priority on my list since I live with it. I have
known the little girls who I have watched grow up from babies
and now selling their bodies for $5 at 14 years old. I see them
every day. I know the pain of coming home and seeing my home
ransacked, my car broken into because people are in so much
pain they don't even know they are in pain.
I am glad that we are having this hearing today. I am
personally against decriminalization of drugs, but I am for
making sure that people are treated. I am glad that General
McCaffrey has made the efforts he has made with regard to
inmates, people going to jail and coming out worse off than
when they went in. At least we are beginning to try to deal
with that problem so when they come out they are better off.
The fact is, sometimes this whole problem reminds me of my
little girl when she was a little younger--she is 5 now, but
when she was a little younger, she was about 2 years old, I
guess, she would come up to me and say, ``daddy, let's play
hide and go seek,'' and she would put her hand up to her face
and say, ``daddy, you can't find me.'' But she was standing
right in front of me.
What I am trying to say is that so often the solutions to
the problems are right in front of us, but we don't address
them for various reasons. And sometimes I think--I think it was
Martin Luther King, Sr., who said, you cannot lead where you do
not go, you cannot teach what you do not know. I would ask some
folks to do what General McCaffrey has done, to walk in my
neighborhood, to see what happens when children are left out
and left behind, to see that babies do grow up and are placed
in difficult circumstances.
And so, no, decriminalization is not the solution.
Legalization is not the solution. The solution is that we must
have a more humane society so that people don't grow up feeling
that they have to do these things. And, second, if they do
these things, to make sure that they get appropriate treatment
so that they can come back to a life that is productive and a
life that is meaningful.
I look forward to the testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to thank you for holding this hearing. I am just so anxious to
hear what is going to be said, I just don't know what to do.
With that, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being
here and thank you for taking your time.
I would remind our witnesses--I am almost finished, Mr.
Chairman--I would remind our witnesses that your testimony is
so important to us. This is the Congress of the United States
of America, the greatest country in the world, the most
powerful country in the world; and we so happen--we folks up
here have been charged with leading this country. Your
testimony helps us to address the policies that make this
country the great country that it is. We simply take time out
to say thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentleman from Arkansas for an opening
statement, Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome General McCaffrey. I look forward to your
testimony.
General, I want to express that I have enormous respect for
you and the work that you have done, the commitment that you
have made to this endeavor and to your work. I can't think of
any public official that puts his heart more into the job that
you are trying to perform than you do, and our country should
be grateful to you.
We do have some, I think, differences in emphasis. I have
read your testimony. I think that when you talk about a
fallacy, it being a fallacy that we are fighting a war on
drugs, and that the reality is that it is analogous to the
fight against cancer, you have some legitimate points, I guess,
that you don't want to declare war on your citizens and
whenever someone goes out to make a drug arrest, you don't want
to treat it like a war. Those points are well-taken; and,
obviously, there is some merit to that.
But, to me, as a parent of teenagers, and I have had family
members that have struggled with drugs, it is a war in a
family, I guarantee you, and it is a war in our society. You
document that through your testimony, which is a very strong
statement as to why we should not legalize marijuana in our
country. So I guess you can use whatever term--it just doesn't
make any sense to me to make a big issue out of the contention
that the terminology of ``war against drugs'' is wrong. This is
not something I want to live with in America's families.
Second, and I hope you will address some of these issues,
because I am not aware of all that you are doing, but this
legalization of marijuana across the country is of enormous
concern, the initiatives in the various States. Please explain
specifically what the administration is doing in each of these
States to combat these efforts. It would appear to me that the
media campaign budget is extraordinarily--generous is not the
right word--but hefty and should be targeted toward these
States and not just necessarily an antidrug message but a
specific message that relates to the problems in legalization
that you have articulated so well in the testimony that I have
reviewed.
And also I just think it takes your presence and the
presence of the Attorney General of the United States in each
of these States holding news conferences, outlining the
problems that you have recited and urging people not to be
swept away with this legalization effort. And so please comment
on what you are doing, what the administration is doing, and
what the Attorney General is doing in that regard.
Then, finally, in looking at the goals of your 1999
strategy, certainly you can't disagree with those goals, I
mean, they are very important. The education is critically
important, obviously the key component of any campaign,
reducing crime, social cost, the interdiction efforts. It just,
at least in overall goals, it seems like there is not a strong
enough law enforcement component. Are these goals different
from previous years in regard to the law enforcement component
and the emphasis upon law enforcement? If you could comment on
that and advise me if there is any change or retreat from the
hard push in the law enforcement arena.
With that, I will yield back; and I look forward to your
testimony, General McCaffrey.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
We have no further opening statements at this time.
As you know, General, this is an investigation and
oversight subcommittee of Congress. We swear in all of our
witnesses. So if you would stand, sir and raise your right
hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Welcome, General. We won't put the time clock on
you today. You are the only one on the panel. Welcome back. We
look forward to your testimony. Without further ado, sir, you
are recognized.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL BARRY R. MCCAFFREY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
General McCaffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and
Congresswoman Mink and all the members of your committee.
The enormous amount of energy that all of you collectively
and individually have poured into this. I have watched your
travels around the country, the two of you on your trip to the
Andean ridge, and I thank you for your engagement on the issue
and indeed for your guidance and support over the last several
years.
Let me say that some of the witnesses who are here to
support your hearing, particularly Dr. Alan Leshner, without
meaning to embarrass him, I consider a national treasure. You
gave him a half billion dollars last year in research money.
You have increased his budget by 36 percent in 4 years. He
knows what he is talking about. That research has been the
basis of an informed policy on drug abuse in America that has
guided our efforts over the last several years.
You also have Donnie Marshall here, representing Tom
Constantine and the 9,000 men and women of the DEA. Thank God
for their integrity and for the skill with which they have
confronted this international and implacable drug criminal
threat that we face. I look forward to hearing what Donnie
says. He has a ton of common sense, and the DEA and
counternarcotics officers who are present understand drug abuse
at face value.
Bob Maginnis, from the Family Research Council, has been a
very important NGO and a voice of common sense; and we thank
him for his writing and thinking and influence.
And Jim McDonough, my former head strategic planner, now
working for Governor Jeb Bush, we look forward to his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to have the
opportunity to bring together these witnesses and listen to the
people that have really formed and guided our own efforts.
Sue Thaugh is here from the Community Antidrug Coalition of
America. There are more than 4,000 coalitions around the
country. Thanks to the Portman-Levin bill, we are now growing
the number of community coalitions--Johnny Hughes from the
National Troopers Coalition, Bill McGiveney from DARE. There
are 26 million American children involved in the biggest drug
prevention program in the world. There are now 9 million plus
kids in the international arena. It is spreading throughout
Latin America. A lot of the teaching of the DARE coordinators
is going on in Costa Rica.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, he has brought some of
his kids here, and they may sort of provide an underpoint, if I
could ask them to stand up. How about these DARE kids? Go
ahead. Stand on up.
Dr. Linda Wolf Jones, Therapeutic Communities of America,
is here to again key off Congressman Cummings' point. We are
not going to solve this problem until we understand that there
are 4.1 million Americans who are chronically addicted to
illegal drugs. We will go on to talk about this, if you wish,
but at the end of the day, we believe we have probably half the
infrastructure we require to bring effective drug treatment to
bear on that problem. We thank Dr. Wolf Jones for her
leadership.
Wes Huddleston is here, Director of the National Drug Court
Institute. What a concept. Four years ago, there were a dozen
drug courts. Today, there are more than 600 either online or
coming online this year. The first national convention was 5
years ago. There were less than 300 people there. This year it
was in Miami. There were more than 3,000 people there from all
over America.
Jessica Hulsey is here, the youth member of our Drug Free
Communities Advisory Board.
We are very grateful the YMCA has Eden Fisher Derbman here,
they have tremendous program engagement with young people.
I thank Christie McCampbell, the president of the
California Narcotics Officers Association for being here. The
National Narcotics Officers Association has been an extremely
influential body in helping form our own thinking.
Let me also, mention Rob Connelly, Boys and Girls Clubs of
America, for their tremendous work. They are supported by
Congress and by many municipal governments in pulling on-line
literally 1,000 plus boys and girls clubs. This is one of the
most effective concepts I personally know of in the field of
drug prevention.
Let me, if I may, Mr. Chairman, draw attention to the
statement which Congressman Hutchinson was generous enough to
refer to. We put an enormous amount of work into this thing.
I thank you for this hearing which really formed the basis
of us going to the administration, going to our stakeholders
and saying, ``Let's form a written response to not just the
drug legalization community but those who have disguised
themselves under other terms to advance that argument.'' I
would hope that this statement, which is cleared by the
administration, will stand as a position paper to guide our
future discussions.
Mr. Mica. Excuse me. I think we would ask unanimous consent
that statement be inserted as part of the record at this time.
General McCaffrey. Yes, that would be a useful addition to
the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General McCaffrey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.069
General McCaffrey. Some quick comments if I may, Mr.
Chairman.
To what extent is there a drug legalization movement in the
United States? If you try to overtly move that argument
forward, it is very difficult to do. There are probably around
400 groups in America that we can identify, sort of a
superficial Lexis-Nexis check, that are advancing that
argument.
To put that in context, we have brought together 47
national civic, service, fraternal, veteran's and women's
organizations in something we call Prevention of Drug Abuse
Through Service. That represents 100 million people and a
million chapters. Those are people, American citizens, who have
stated publicly that we are opposed to drug abuse. There are
121,000 local Boy Scout units, 4,000 plus community antidrug
coalitions, 2,300 local YMCA chapters, et cetera. Though I
would argue, if you look out at America, the 270 million of us,
there is unanimous opposition to the notion of making these
drugs more available to our children.
The second thought I would table for you is we should make
people stand upon their written record. If you write a book, if
you write an article, if you give a speech and advance an
argument in favor of drug legalization, you should not be
allowed later to move to a disguised position. I have provided
previously to the committee excerpts from some of the books and
writings that I think make this point.
Ethan Nadelmann said, ``personally when I talk about
legalization, I mean three things. The first is to make drugs
such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin legal. I propose a mail
order distribution system based on the right of access.''
Professor Arnold Trebach out at American University:
``under the legalization plan I propose here, addicts would be
able to purchase the heroin and needles they need at reasonable
prices from a nonmedical drugstore.''
Now, we have been culling this kind of material out. We
ought to be civil, we ought to be charitable and have
democratic debate, but some of these notions are sheer
buffoonery. They are from an ivory tower. They are not informed
on the kind of problem that I see at face value, in prisons in
America, in drug treatment centers, in families and in the
workplace. I think we need to strip away the disguise and label
people with the arguments they are actually trying to support.
I believe the American people support our strategy against
drugs. According to the 1999 Gallup poll 69 percent firmly
oppose any legalization of marijuana. The 1998 Family Research
Council poll, indicated that 82 percent oppose making drugs
legal like alcohol.
I think we also have some examples where we can look around
the world. We can look at the Dutch example. The European
Monitoring Centre notes that heroin addiction has tripled since
the Dutch liberalized their policy. Holland is now a synthetic
drug production center.
Our own experience in the United States in the 1800's when
legal opium use was available, we had our own use rates jump
400 percent.
I think we also should take into account that drug abuse is
not just a personal choice. It involves other people. We look
at child abuse and neglect and other innocent victims. We find
that substance abuse exacerbates 7 of 10 child abuse and
neglect cases. We look at workplace accidents. We believe that
a third of the industrial accidents in America are caused by
illegal drug use. We look at drunk driving and find the
enormous correlation between the use of illegal drugs and
alcohol in fatal accidents on the Nation's highways.
The bottom line is we are absolutely opposed to the
legalization of these substances or their de facto legalization
under the notion of harm reduction. It is really unfortunate
that they have captured that term. I would like to introduce
Bridgette Grant, a senior at George Mason University--thanks
for being here--she is one of our interns and will help me with
these charts.
If you look at our National Drug Control Strategy and what
we are trying to accomplish, goals two and three are, in fact,
a harm reduction approach. We recognize that 4 million plus
chronically addicted Americans are killing 14,000 people a year
and causing $110 billion of damages. Smart law enforcement and
smart drug treatment have to deal with that huge number of
Americans, a tiny percentage of the population. Unfortunately
the harm reduction label has been hijacked by people that in
many cases are actually talking about the legalization of
drugs.
I also have to underscore, our strategy does say you can't
hope for a magic solution on drug abuse. Clearly, our dominant
objective is prevention, education aimed at American
adolescents. We are trying to get kids from the age of 9
through about 19 where we minimize their exposure to gateway
drug-taking behavior. That certainly includes alcohol and
cigarettes. Primarily it is marijuana and huffing inhalants and
heroin and almost any drug you can name--Ecstasy and MDMA are
now spreading up and down the eastern seaboard.
Bridgette, if you will, the next chart.
A quick chart, what are the consequences? Is this an
individual choice? Can we buy a libertarian model or should we
be forced to recognize even though drug abuse in America has
come down dramatically in the last 15 years, if you look at
1979, 14 percent of the population was using drugs. In 1992 it
dropped to 6 percent. We are going to try and take it below 3
percent. But that has nothing to do with the fact that we have
4 million Americans who are sicker than ever committing
enormous amounts of crime and they dominate the population
behind bars, 1.8 million Americans and growing; and probably
between 50 and 80 percent of those people have a chronic drug
or alcohol problem.
That is the cost to you and I. This is not an individual
choice. This involves our workplaces, our children, and our
communities.
Bridgette, next chart.
Let me, if I may, underscore this chart. There has been a
notion of hard drugs and soft drugs. We understand that heroin,
methamphetamines, and crack cocaine have consequences that are
more severe than the softer drugs of MDMA, marijuana, et
cetera.
I think the strongest voice I listen to inside the
administration is Donna Shalala, who is essentially a teacher,
a college professor, a university president. We are adamantly
opposed to the use of marijuana in America, whether that is on
the Nation's highways or, more importantly, among our students
and our families.
When you look at some of the behavior that Dr. Leshner can
speak to, where you find high rates of marijuana abuse, you
find enormous statistical correlations to other behavioral
problems, one of which is violence. It is not just crashing
your car or an 18-wheeler. It is also personal aggressive
behavior.
We are not suggesting we have demonstrated a causal
linkage. I am just saying that is there. If your child is
involved in a lot of drug abuse, including marijuana, it will
probably also have beer involved. You have problems. Part of it
is aggressive behavior.
Next chart, please. You have seen this chart before, but it
deserves to be restated.
We believe, and this chart comes out of the University of
Michigan data, but it underscores a notion that attitudes drive
behavior. When youth attitudes about drug abuse change, when
they worsen, when they see it as less threatening, more
acceptable; they use more drugs. When they turn those attitudes
around, drug abuse goes down. That is why we are so grateful
for the bipartisan support we have gotten on this National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
We believe you have to talk to children, not just over TV,
the Internet, and the radio. It has to be parents, educators,
coaches, pediatricians, and local law enforcement.
We are seeing the initial stages of turning youth attitudes
around in America. For 5 years, it went in the wrong direction.
In the last 2 years, we have seen it stabilize and then modest
but statistically significant reductions in drug abuse in
America concerning 8th grade, 10th grade, 12th grade, with
cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and other drugs. We have 10
years of hard work ahead of us if we are going to capitalize on
this beginning effort.
Next chart. We have been playing around with this chart to
make a point.
Take 1991 as a baseline year; 1991 was the year before
actual youth rates of drug abuse started up. We had a long
period where it came down from the disaster in the 1970's.
Attitudes started changing in probably 1990, fear of drug use
in 1991. In 1992, drug use rates went up. So I took 1991 as a
baseline year. Those are increases or decreases in a given
year. The last 2 years, we have the beginning indications that
when America's communities and families and educators get
involved, we actually can talk to our children and turn the
situation around. But I would not even indicate this is the
beginning of a victory. It just indicates that our hard work
can pay off.
Next chart.
I am not going to go through this in much detail, but it is
just astonishing what is on the Internet. It is unbelievable.
When we tried to name one of our initial home pages Project
Know, K-n-o-w, I had initially asked for Project Teen. When we
went to that key word on the net, you get masses of child
pornography. When you fed in drug search words--marijuana,
heroin, et cetera--you ended up on drug legalization sites.
They are linked together. It is incredible.
The High Times home page. They are selling drugs over the
Internet. They are selling doping materials for young athletes
over the Internet, and they are providing credibility and an
argument that these materials don't cause physical harm.
We are going to try and counter that, but you need to
understand that it is out there, and it is incredible, the
material that many parents aren't aware their children see and
encounter in the computer they have in their room or basement.
Next chart.
We are now out there confronting that issue. We have done
some incredibly good work on this. I have two very
sophisticated firms, Ogilvy Mather and Fleishman Hillard, that
are helping guide our media buying campaign, but when it comes
to the Internet itself, we have provided you all of our linked
home pages. I just tell you we are up to almost a quarter of a
million hits on our White House Drug Site. Disney is running
Freevibe.com. Just since March--many of you were there when we
opened that--they are pushing a million hits. We are almost up
to 5 million visits on Project Know; we are up to a quarter of
a million on the Drug Resource Center, America Online, just
since the beginning of April.
We are also influencing all the search engines and
webpages. If you punch in on Yahoo, Warner Brothers, AOL, et
cetera, key words, you will end up getting scientifically,
medically accurate information that is in color, that is
interactive. If you are a mother, you can go to Drug Help AOL.
If you are a teen, you can go to Freevibe.com. You can see
pictures of this material, you can talk to personalities,
public people, movie stars, about why drug abuse is harmful to
your future.
We think we are starting to move ahead, and we welcome your
own involvement in that.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, let me just end my formal comments
there, but I thank you and your committee members for your
leadership in bringing this issue to the attention of the
American people.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, General.
Mr. Mica. I would like to start off with a couple of
questions, if I may.
First of all, General, I have a bibliography here of more
than 200 scientific studies indicating the extraordinary damage
that is done to the human body and the brain by marijuana,
probably from some of the most renowned scientific minds in the
world. The findings they come up with are absolutely
uncontestable, that THC and marijuana damage the brain, the
lungs, the heart, and the reproductive and immune systems. They
also show that marijuana is linked to increased aggressive and
violent behavior.
In view of these findings, why do you believe there is
still a fiction that is prevalent out there particularly among
our kids that taking drugs is fine and safe, that use of
marijuana is not dangerous or harmful?
General McCaffrey. Dr. Leshner will probably want to talk
to the medical issues. I am normally trying to be careful on
how I pose this.
What we are sure of is that if your 12 year old adolescent
is using marijuana on weekends, they are probably in a period
of enormous vulnerability, central nervous system development,
social development, and educational development. If they get
involved in that behavior younger, and they do a lot of it, the
chances of them being in trouble are significantly enhanced.
You can argue about what the stats are. The statistic I use
is that at age 12, if you are smoking pot on weekends, you are
80 times more likely to end up using cocaine than some 12-year-
old who isn't smoking pot. Dr. Leshner in the years to come
possibly will document that 15 percent of that population in
the high school years will end up dependent upon marijuana if
they use a lot of it. That figure is soft.
Now, to a high school kid, this might sound like pretty
good odds. To your mother or the coach, it sounds like dreadful
odds--15 percent chance of being in serious, possibly lifelong,
trouble. It is a complicated challenge.
A third of adult Americans have used an illegal drug. It is
age dependent. There are some demographics tied into it. The
lowest rates of drug abuse in American society are African
Americans under the age of 30. But depending on your year,
group, and college yes/no, the chances are you smoked a joint.
Thirty million Americans have been exposed to cocaine. They
have stopped it. They don't want to do it. But now they are
trying to sort out in their own mind what they tell their kids.
We have been remiss in not explicitly telling our children
that, regardless of mother's and my background, in this family
we are not going to drive drunk, smoke dope, or use inhalants.
These are behaviors that we have learned are destructive to
your future. I think the message has been too weak. That is the
answer, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. You have described in the past, when you were
speaking about medical marijuana, I think the term you used,
you called it ``a stalking horse for legalization.'' General,
many of those who are trying to promote legalization have
started with promoting the medical use of marijuana. Can you
tell me how your office has tried to deal with that issue?
Also, we have a problem that we have lost in many of the
States where this issue is on the ballot. Tell me, you have
said this is ``the stalking horse for legalization,'' and I
think you have just defined this as a serious drug problem.
What has been done by the ONDCP to deal with this situation?
General McCaffrey. Three years ago, I consulted with the
people who I think know what they are talking about--Dr.
Leshner, Dr. Harold Varmus, Dr. Nelba Chavez--the folks who
have devoted their lives to a study of drug addiction. We came
to a conclusion that we were getting, to be honest, rolled in
the public arena by some very clever people who were hiding
behind medical use of illegal drugs and were actually pushing a
drug legalization agenda.
But if there is one thing I know about and respect, it is
American medicine. I have spent more time in hospitals as a
patient than most young doctors have worked there. We have
great trust in American medicine and in the process under the
NIH and the FDA by which we make medicines available as
clinically safe and effective. We trust doctors. We give them
morphine. We give them heart medicines that can kill you.
So what we did is, we said, let's go out and we hired the
American Academy of Sciences, gave them $800,000 for a study to
review what we know and do not know about smoked marijuana. We
have a document that is done by serious people that we can
stand behind. That document says smoked marijuana ain't
medicine. It is a carcinogenic delivery vehicle, it is unknown
dose rates, it is 400 plus compounds, it is 30 plus
cannabinoids. It won't be medicine. It has a potential modest
contribution to some symptom management. It has no curative
impact at all.
It also went on to say, why don't you go research more of
the cannabinoids? There is one right now, THC, available in a
pharmacy. Maybe others could have benefit, particularly in
combination with other therapies. From a policy perspective, I
support such a research approach.
Finally, it said, you need a rapid onset delivery vehicle.
We will go ahead and support that notion. That means deep lung
inhalants, nasal gels, skin patches or suppositories. But what
we have to do is keep that issue with doctors and scientists
and not let it become a political issue.
We have a problem. Five States, as I remember, and possibly
the District of Columbia through some very clever investment of
advertising dollars, have now passed some form of medical
marijuana initiative, and it is State law. We are trying to
confront that in a prudent manner, to take into account the
State-Federal sensitivities.
These drugs are still not certified for medical
prescription. It is illegal under Federal law to grow, produce
or sell marijuana, and we will uphold the law.
Mr. Mica. Two final questions, and I want to give my other
colleagues ample opportunity for questions.
First of all, has your agency researched whether the
Federal Government can preempt efforts to make drugs such as
marijuana and their medical use illegal in the States? That is
the first question.
Second, you spoke to money coming into these referendums.
We have some documentation that Mr. Soros, George Soros, a
multimillionaire--incidentally, I invited him to testify today
and will invite him back because we are interested to find out
his motivation and what is going on here--he created the
Lindesmith Center and funded it with $4 million. He has also
given $6.4 million, we believe, to the Drug Policy Foundation,
a legal advocacy group for medical marijuana.
Two questions again. One, can we preempt State efforts? The
second part of the question: Here is one individual. I am not
sure what his end game is. Maybe you have some insight as to
the motivation for his money and where this money is coming
from to promote these initiatives and pass them? Those are my
two final questions.
General McCaffrey. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for your
permission to give you a written answer on the legal political
notion of preempting States.
Let me tell you the answer as I understand it. These
statutes were deemed to not be in conflict with Federal law;
and so the up-front answer is, it is still against Federal law
to grow marijuana, possess it, sell it or write a prescription
for medical purposes. It is against the law. We will uphold the
law.
Having said that, there are 7,000 DEA agents, a couple of
thousand staff, they are in 40 nations on the face of the
Earth. Criminal justice is a State responsibility almost across
the board. We have a problem here. We are going to have to sort
it out. The lead of solving the problem has to be the people of
California, Oregon, the State of Washington, Arizona, Hawaii,
et cetera.
I would be glad to provide you perhaps a more definitive
legal argument, but there is no conflict with Federal law, and
we will enforce Federal law.
The motivation of people behind these efforts, I think
there is probably a range of behaviors. Some of them are
patently personal, using drugs and trying to advance their own
use. I think that is probably not the motivation for many of
them. A couple of them have intellectually goofy positions.
Professor Trebach at American University, and I don't mean
to be uncharitable, but I don't think he has thought through
the argument that he is hoping to see a return of opium dens in
America and to contrast that with the evil of the bar, the
saloon.
I think there is a great sadness on the part of many of us
in America about this small percentage of the population, the
huge consequences we pay. Congressman Hutchinson talked about,
if you have a family member that is abusing drugs, is this a
war?
One of my best friends and his wife, whom I believe you
know, a very senior military officer, his 21-year-old baby is
now sitting in a wheelchair with permanent short-term and long-
term cognitive impairment, with massive muscle loss in the
right arm and right leg because he overdosed on Mexican black
tar heroin and was in a coma for 42 days. This has devastated
the family.
When we announced our last pulse check in an emergency room
in a New York City hospital and got these beautiful physicians
to talk about what they see in drug abuse in America, and it is
absolutely ugly, I don't think Mr. Soros and some of these
other people have seen that, and I don't think they appreciate
the consequences. They are hopeful from an elitist standpoint
that maybe it is some lower class kind of person that is
involved in this behavior, not my family, not my community. If
you just legalized it, it would all go away.
As we have tried to advance in that paper that Rob Housman
and Pancho Kinney from my strategic planning shop wrote,
nothing could be farther from the truth. The problem with drugs
isn't that they are illegal. They are destructive of the human
body, of brain function, and of spirituality. That is the
problem with drugs.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
I would like to yield now to our ranking member, Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. I thank you.
There is hardly a word, General McCaffrey, that you have
stated today that I don't agree with totally. Unfortunately,
however, we are faced with this nagging debate about marijuana.
I don't think there is any argument about any of the other
drugs with reference to legalization. At least I haven't heard
it in any of the constituent groups in my own State that are
talking about legalization. It is primarily concentrated in
this area of marijuana.
I think one of the important areas that we have to examine
is the effect of marijuana on the human brain, bodily functions
on all the other aspects of being a total person. And until we
do that, until the scientific research comes up with that
specific, unequivocal statement about the damage that a person
can suffer as a result of the use of marijuana, we are going to
have this continuing debate.
There is absolutely no doubt that those who use marijuana
are likely to go on to other drugs, but that is a different
issue. We can certainly point that out to young people who are
tempted by marijuana, that this is a dangerous road because it
leads to other addictions. We can certainly talk about the
criminal implications that come from the use of marijuana.
And all of that should militate against a society that
tolerates the use of marijuana. But until we can get this
definitive study with respect to the use of marijuana and the
harm that comes from that in terms of being a fully cognizant,
social, intelligent human being with total brain capacity, I
think that we are challenged; and I would like to hear your
comments about that. Because that is the only element that I
feel is missing in the debate in which I find myself having to
endure in many, many places in my own constituency.
General McCaffrey. I think your comments are right on the
money. Most people are not foolish enough to talk about why
they want methamphetamines in a 7-Eleven store near them,
although there are many that actually are advancing that
argument. I think that is the argument of the Lindesmith
Center.
Having said that, to go directly to your point, I think Dr.
Leshner and others can talk to the issue of what we know about
smoked marijuana and its impact on a human being. Not just from
its impact on brain function, but what we see as the
consequences of extensive use of marijuana, particularly among
adolescents. We do know quite a bit about it.
The other thing I would argue is that, overwhelmingly,
parents and educators get the point. When you ask them in an
abstract sense about marijuana, you may get one answer. But
when you ask about your daughter, your son, your employees, do
you personally, do you think marijuana smoking is
inconsequential, the answer is quite different. Americans don't
support the legalization of marijuana.
A final notion, if I may, Congresswoman. Two people that
have helped form my own thinking, one of them is Dr. David
Smith in the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic in San Francisco. What
a beautiful man. What an incredible organization they have put
together, initially to deal with the wreckage of the drug
revolution of the 1970's in San Francisco. I mean human
wreckage. And now it is very well organized, and it is
continuing.
If you asked Dr. David Smith with his lifelong
involvement--past president of the American Society of
Addictive Medicine--what about pot? Is it OK? He will answer,
``are you nuts?'' We get 300 kids a month off the streets of
San Francisco, and their drug problem is pot.
Now, Dr. Mitch Rosenthal, Phoenix House, one of the
biggest, best-organized drug treatment centers in the country,
this is the Cadillac of drug treatment, a lot of it publicly
funded. Go out to his center in California, the Youth Drug
Treatment Center, and those kids are in there for marijuana and
alcohol. It is polydrug abuse, but primarily it is pot.
I tell people, if you have this shiny young kid, he or she
is 12, 13, 14, they are playing sports, they are pleasant to be
around, you admire their friends, and then a year later they
are acting in a weird, irresponsible manner, their grades are
dropping, they are not playing sports, they are alienated from
the family, don't wonder what is going on. The problem is
drugs, and that means marijuana and beer. That is what you are
watching in action.
I am sympathetic to the argument, but I think if you are a
teacher, if you are a mother, we have to stand against
marijuana use by youngsters in particular.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady.
I yield now to the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson,
for questions.
Mr. Hutchinson. I thank the chairman.
General McCaffrey, I want to go back to the questions I
raised in my opening comments.
First of all, in reference to the media campaign fund that
has been provided by Congress to you, are any of those funds
targeted in States considering legalization of marijuana? And
do you see any legal problems with having a specific message in
those States urging citizens to oppose that legalization
effort?
General McCaffrey. That media campaign, Congressman, we are
enormously proud of it. We are into year two. I think we know
what we are doing. We have a real professional group running it
for us now. They do this for a living, Ogilvy Mather. It is no
longer five of my people at 2 o'clock in the morning. These
folks are buttressed by Dr. Alan Leshner who is running my
evaluation component: Is this going to work? Yes or no. Show me
the data. He has got Westech Corp. following it.
We have hired other outside critics, a behavioral science
expert panel, people like those from the Annenberg School of
Journalism. Partnership for a Drug-Free America and ONDCP have
put together this program that by the end of the summer we will
be in 11 foreign languages and English. We will have 102
different media strategies around this country. So whoever you
are, in the drug environment in this region, we are talking to
your children and the adult mentors.
It isn't much money, surprisingly. It was less than 1
percent of the Federal counterdrug budget. It was $185 million
last year. I have negotiated a 108 percent media match. But
that is modest money compared to alcohol and cigarettes, $2
billion, and $5 billion, respectively.
I am getting to your question. I apologize for the context.
Mr. Hutchinson. I do have some more questions.
General McCaffrey. The bottom line is, we have that $185
million targeted on confronting drug use by youngsters and
their adult mentors' attitudes.
Mr. Hutchinson. The answer is no?
General McCaffrey. The answer is absolutely not. We are not
going after this very important issue nor are we going to try
and confront underage drinking.
Mr. Hutchinson. Do you see any legal problem in doing that
or is that just a judgment call on your part?
General McCaffrey. I think it is a legal problem, but also
the funds wouldn't be there to take on a political State issue
to go after proposition 200 in Arizona or 215 in California.
Mr. Hutchinson. If there was some specific authorization by
Congress to allow those funds to be used in that effort, would
that overcome the legal problem you are concerned about?
General McCaffrey. I would think it would be harmful to
this effort.
Mr. Hutchinson. I asked about the legal problem. I know you
disagree from a policy standpoint.
General McCaffrey. Of course, Congress could write the law
any way they wanted. I would probably argue that we are making
a tremendous impact on the American people about the
legalization issue without directly confronting it. We are
talking about pot smoking and their kids.
Mr. Hutchinson. You are not using any of the campaign funds
for targeted States?
General McCaffrey. We don't go after proposition 200 or the
D.C. Campaign.
Mr. Hutchinson. Have you personally been into any of the
States that are considering these legalization efforts to hold
news conferences using the influence of your office to oppose
them?
General McCaffrey. I have been almost everywhere in this
country and have directly confronted that issue in op-eds,
radio interviews, and TV. I have been on 3,000 TV interviews,
7,000 news articles, and have directly confronted these issues
with some impact.
Janet Reno, of course, obviously stands with me, as does
Dick Riley and Donna Shalala. The four of us are the heart and
soul of this effort.
Mr. Hutchinson. I congratulate you on that. I would
encourage you to continue doing that. I would like to see, as
these issues heat up, you, Donna Shalala, the Attorney General
Janet Reno, and the President of the United States going into
those States and saying this is bad for the country. In my
judgment that is the kind of leadership we need on these
issues.
We certainly see every night on the news the power of this
Presidency when it comes to media. And you and I can go into
those States, we can hold news conferences, and we will not
have the impact as the top official. I hope that you will be
urging the President, the Vice President, and other officials
to go in and really make it an initiative to make the message
clear that legalization of marijuana is not the direction that
we need to go.
A final question, on your media campaign, I think you said
that some of your ads are specifically directed to marijuana,
is that correct?
General McCaffrey. Absolutely. In the next generation of
ads you will see starting in the fall, we have focused in on
that problem. We had very little material when we started this.
Mr. Hutchinson. You have some of that focus on marijuana.
Do you have some of that focus on crank, for example, and other
drugs?
General McCaffrey. Yes.
Mr. Hutchinson. And do you have separate ads for alcohol
and tobacco?
General McCaffrey. There are approximaely 20 ads playing
approximately 7,000 times that are in the matching component we
have now shown and that have been vetted through the Behavioral
Science Council and the Advertising Council of America. So
there is an anti-alcohol youth drinking in the nonpaid
component.
I would welcome the chance to provide any of you an
overview of how we are developing that campaign. It is very
complicated, and we think it is starting to work.
Mr. Hutchinson. I very well might take advantage of that. I
would welcome that opportunity.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
General, let me ask you something. We have spent a lot of
time here on marijuana. Let's talk about cigarettes. I think I
have heard you talk about how so many of our children become
involved in drugs and cigarettes. It sort of starts at
cigarettes. Is that still accurate? Initially?
General McCaffrey. I think it is probably correct to say
that cigarette smoking is almost a precursor to marijuana
smoking. It is not always the case, but generally it is rare to
see somebody smoking pot or, for that matter, if you go to a
drug treatment center to find somebody that didn't start
smoking as an adolescent.
Mr. Cummings. In answering Mr. Hutchinson's question, you
said that there was--I forgot your exact words, but there is a
piece of your ad campaign that goes to cigarettes, is that what
you said?
General McCaffrey. No. Some of the matching component is
authorized to address the cigarette issue. What I have done is,
I had a meeting with the Attorneys General of the States. They
have a committee that is trying to put together their cigarette
policy. I intend to support their work with our research. But
there will be a different research strategy, a different way
they go about that issue, since it is a legal product for those
18 and older. But we will be supporting that huge amount of
money going to anti-cigarette advertising.
There is a lot of material out there. California, Florida
and other States already know a lot about it.
Mr. Cummings. It just seems to me that if we are going to
spend this time today talking about marijuana and when we
consider what you just said, that is, there seems to be a
correlation in many instances between cigarette smoking and
marijuana, it just seems to me that would be something that we
would want to take a look at.
Again, it goes back to the hide-and-go-seek theory. The
question is, what are we doing about it? I think we have made
some great strides with all these settlements. So I take it
that States like Maryland, are now trying to come up with
strategies as to how to use that money to prevent our children
from smoking. You are saying that your office is collaborating
when asked?
General McCaffrey. We are going to be supportive of these
States with their programs. There is a lot of material out
there they can build on.
Mr. Cummings. I don't want anybody in this room to be
mistaken. I think you are doing a great job. I have felt that
way all along. I think you have a very difficult job, a very
challenging one.
We disagree on a few things. I think one of them may be
this whole thing of methadone. When I talk to people and the
former drug addicts who are recovering, living productive
lives, when I talk to them about methadone, these people are
averaging 12 years of nondrug use. They understand the argument
that by using methadone a person can continue to be productive,
and they understand all of that. But they still feel that it is
like trading one drug for another drug and that the person is
still addicted. I am just wondering, where are we on that?
Where are you right now on that issue?
General McCaffrey. We are fortunate. We have a brilliant
man, Dr. Wesley Clark, one of the smartest people I have run
into in government, a lifelong psychiatrist, drug researcher,
practitioner. He is Secretary Shalala's architect to relook at
the methadone, LAMM and other therapeutic tools program. What
we are moving toward is what evidence-based medicine has
produced before, credentialed the medical drug treatment
establishment to use it.
I share your uneasiness. Badly run methadone programs, the
kind that Mayor Giuliani railed against in New York, are a
nightmare. You shouldn't have people knock on a door that says
methadone, walk through and get it. You ought to have heroin
addicts--there are 810,000 of us Americans who are using
heroin. Sooner or later you are going to be in despair. We need
to reach out and put you in treatment, and you ought to be
diagnosed.
There ought to be a triage system. We ought to use an array
of tools which include psychotherapeutic communities, social
interventions and, in some cases, methadone or LAMM. If you are
a 35-year-old, male street prostitute, you are HIV positive,
you have tuberculosis leg sores, you have been unemployed for a
decade, you are living under a bridge, we have to get you into
treatment. Part of that treatment program probably ought to
include a methadone component.
Now, our purpose ought to be to move you along a path of
treatment and to end up with you employed, back with your
family and treating, not just the addiction, but treating your
other diagnoses: You are malnourished; you are HIV positive.
So I think methadone and LAMM do have a place in that
inventory, but it ought to be part of a package of
interventions.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I just have one more question.
One of the things that I have seen in Baltimore, one of the
reasons why numbers are so high for drug-addicted people, is
that we have people who started off on heroin many years ago,
and so they have been living with this thing. I know people who
have been on heroin for 30 years. There was a time where I
think people kind of looked at this population and said, well,
you know, with crack cocaine and cocaine coming along,
eventually this population would die out. That sounds a bit
morbid, but that is what they believed. Now, the word is that
heroin is becoming, in certain places, attractive again, or did
it ever die down? In other words, there have been some national
reports, like on national news, that say heroin is cheaper and
young people are more attracted to it.
What is happening there? Because I would hate to see us
move into a point where we have another 30 or 40 years of
someone on a substance like heroin.
General McCaffrey. The heroin addicts that have been on it
for 30 years are very clever people. There are very few stupid
folks who are addicted. It is such a dangerous life. The
chances of living beyond 10, 15 years with a severe drug abuse
problem are modest. Alcohol, heroin, methamphetamine, that is
sort of the tip of the iceberg, those that can go that long.
There is more heroin abuse in our society than there was 10
years ago. These numbers are so soft, I am nervous using them.
I have a number I can document, under 300,000. Another number
over 500,000. The number I am using is 810,000. I think that is
how many Americans are using heroin. I think there is a new
population using it. There are lots of suburbanites, working
class males. It is almost a new drug. Instead of 7 percent
heroin, it is 70 to 90 percent heroin. Mr. Marshall will talk
about it. It is like China white, stick it up your nose, ingest
it, smoke it.
I am wearing a memory bracelet from a young white girl,
freshman in college, dead on a respirator after 7 days smoking
pure heroin and crack cocaine. This drug--a young, 21-year-old
boy that I have known since he was born, Mexican black tar
heroin.
The world is awash in it. We are confronting it, but
Americans, we think, use 3 percent of the world's heroin. The
difference is we pay $250 to $500 a day for it. We steal
$60,000 a year in Baltimore to get it. And you can sell it in
Pakistan for $5 a day. We have a huge problem. If we are not
careful, we are going to see a resurgence in heroin addiction
which is very tough to deal with.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I recognize now the gentleman from
California, Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, General. I want to return to a subject you
were talking about earlier. We had a subcommittee hearing with
testimony in which there are State initiatives, referendums and
the like being proposed to legalize different drugs, similar to
California's where we legalized marijuana for medicinal
purposes. The question I have, based on the testimony we took
at this previous hearing, was that we have advertisments
designed to address demand abatement, knowledge for the
consumer. Are we putting those advertising efforts into these
States in direct competition to the prolegalization advertising
that is going on with these initiatives and referenda?
General McCaffrey. We are not targeting legislative
initiatives in the State. No, absolutely not. As a matter of
fact, I have been very careful--a lot of these State
authorities are prohibited by law. The Lieutenant Governor of
Washington, a person whom I admire enormously, was sued by a
drug legalization group to confront his efforts. He was
correctly, I think, claiming that in his off-duty time he was
confronting this State initiative. So we have to be a little
careful about the political and legal issues.
But to get to your point, every State in this country--we
are now in 102 different media markets to confront drug abuse
and its consequences among adolescents and their adult mentors.
Yes, we are arguing against drug abuse in America.
Mr. Ose. Let me make sure I understand, because this is the
part that was confusing for me. Are you telling me that there
are legal restrictions as to what the Federal Government can do
to advertise the medical consequences of drug abuse?
General McCaffrey. Absolutely not.
Mr. Ose. Then what is----
General McCaffrey. Not at all.
Mr. Ose. In terms of a marketing strategy, if my competitor
proposes, in a marketplace in which I am in, X and I happen to
think anti-X----
General McCaffrey. Oh, medical consequences, excuse me. It
is the way you are saying it.
What we can talk about is that there are consequences,
medical consequences, to abusing drugs. We have no restrictions
at all on accurately and scientifically portraying why we are
opposed to the use, never mind the abuse, of these drugs. We
are doing that.
What we wouldn't do is go head to head with a referendum in
a State that tries to do something like say, let's do medical
marijuana for anemia.
Mr. Ose. So the restriction deals with the specific
reference to the initiative, not to----
General McCaffrey. To some political debate, right, over an
initiative.
Mr. Ose. Cite for me a couple of the States--like
California has adopted, Arizona has adopted.
General McCaffrey. Washington, Hawaii, possibly the
District of Columbia, Colorado.
Mr. Ose. They have adopted it or it is pending?
General McCaffrey. A bunch of these have passed. The first
two States are California and Arizona that have passed some
form of medical legalization of certain kinds of drugs.
Mr. Ose. Are there any States where an initiative is
pending for medical legalization----
General McCaffrey. I have a map that should be in your
packet that shows you. I maintain a status watch by State of
drug legalization initiatives, either under the guise of
medical marijuana or industrial hemp. What we do about it
depends upon the State and the situation. But we do have a map,
you should have availability to it, and we try and track where
we are on this issue.
I write Governors. I just talked to the Mayors Conference.
We talk to county executives. We talk to State legislators. We
have a point of contact in every State by law, NASADAD
coordinators.
Mr. Ose. What I am trying to get to is, if there is someone
in a State advertising a product and the product is something
that is arguably harmful to the citizenry of the United States,
why aren't we matching with our own marketing program, in a
targeted fashion, the information that would contradict or
counterbalance that argument?
General McCaffrey. I want to make sure I don't talk by you.
The best answer I can give you is the drug legalization people
don't have a fraction of the power that we have now brought to
bear on this issue.
I don't know how much money Soros--there are three or four
people that have funded this whole effort. I doubt it was more
than $15 million.
So we are in the marketplace on the Internet, radio, TV,
billboards, print media. We clearly are presenting a correct
scientific argument on why you shouldn't use drugs. Fifty
percent of that energy is at adolescents, but another 50
percent of it is aimed at adult caregivers. So we are talking
to America about this problem right now.
Mr. Ose. Someone just brought me the map. Thank you for
sending it up here. Recognizing on this map that we have no
initiatives pending or in a large number of States, is there
any logic to providing a maintenance-type effort there and
transferring funds that would otherwise go in those States and
targeting them at States where--for instance, we have a
signature petition under way in Florida, and we have
legislation introduced in five other States here, targeting
those States for the purpose of either defeating very cleverly,
the petition drive or the legislation by informing the public?
General McCaffrey. Let me again be explicit. We are not
confronting State initiatives. We absolutely are not. If
Americans want to debate whether heroin should be used as a
painkiller, they are welcome to do that, to vote on it. Federal
law is quite clear.
What this media campaign is doing, it is trying to affect
youth attitudes to reject the abuse of drugs. Nobody has got a
drug legalization initiative on the table. Nobody is stupid
enough to do that. You couldn't get it through anywhere in
America. You have to go an indirect route of medical pot or
hemp industrialization. That is a different issue that we ought
to argue on medical scientific grounds.
We are talking to America's children and their adult
mentors about drug abuse, and we are swamping any drug
legalization message in that effort. Nobody is out there
competing now like we are. This is a 2-year, 5-year, 10-year
effort to talk to America's children. It will work. It will
affect youth attitudes.
Mr. Ose. I am confident of that. It seems that if whoever
these individuals are who are funding this, if they take their
money to Florida and target it on Florida, we ought to send the
clear and unequivocal message, you go there, we're coming
there, too; and we're going to make you waste your money
because we're going to bring the resources of the Federal
Government and its educational program to bear and put it up on
the TV opposite your stuff and give people the countervailing
view.
General McCaffrey. That is not what we are doing, though.
We are absolutely not confronting medical drug issues head to
head. We are not doing that. We are talking to young people
about why these drugs are harmful to their social,
intellectual, moral development.
I am normally not too hard to follow. We are not
confronting political initiatives by State. The legal authority
isn't there. That is not what I am doing with this money. We
are going after youth attitudes and adult caregivers. But we
are not shifting money around chasing George Soros's $15
million. We are talking to America's kids, and they are using
drugs in every one of these States.
This is not an urban problem, a minority problem. This is
America's problem.
We are in every State in the Union doing that. We are
trying to target the message by ethnic group, by age, by what
drugs this group of kids see. The message is different in
Boise, ID, than it is in Newark, NJ. Meth is in Boise; it isn't
in Newark. If you live in Los Angeles, you will hear Spanish on
the air a lot. If you are in San Francisco, we are going to be
in the Chinese language on radios. So we are going after the
target audience with a very powerful, correct message: Don't
use drugs.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
I would now like to recognize the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
for holding this hearing. I think this is a very important
debate that should take place. I am happy that you are doing
it.
It is also good to see you, Mr. Director, and to commend
you on the outstanding job that you are doing with limited
resources. I want you to know that we appreciate that as well.
My question basically, the first one, is why aren't we
looking more at antagonizers? The point is that something that
we could use to sort of help a person stay away from drugs when
they are off, why aren't we concentrating more on that?
General McCaffrey. On what?
Mr. Towns. Antagonizers. In other words, like cyclazocine,
a medication that would be used to sort of help a person go
through the crisis.
General McCaffrey. Yes, I see.
Mr. Congressman, by the way, let me thank you for the
opportunity to listen to you and talk to your faith leadership
community. That was a tremendously important day to me. I
benefited a lot from hearing their ideas.
You raise a good point. Dr. Leshner ought to talk to it.
We are putting a significant amount of money into research
efforts dealing with new medications. Columbia University is
doing some spectacular work, Johns Hopkins. There are some for-
profit corporations. We will try and give the drug treatment
community the same tools to deal with things like cocaine
addiction. There is nothing there right now to assess.
Alan Leshner has several very promising lines of research
going. We do believe that LAMM, methadone, buprenorphine and
other medications should be available as an antidote to some of
these drugs. I think you are quite correct. It is another tool
that we ought to give our drug treatment community.
Mr. Towns. How do you feel about the debate that is taking
place around legalization? Does it endanger the gains we have
made in reducing drug use?
General McCaffrey. I think it is a harmful background
message. On the other hand, it is a democracy. We have to
address these ideas.
Four years ago, Senator Hatch and Senator Biden told me,
stay away from the legalization group. Don't give legitimacy to
their argument. They don't have any hold over the American
people.
I think they are so clever, so devious that I welcome this
hearing and the chance to confront this issue publicly.
Having said that, it is a terrible problem. Congressman Ose
was quite correct. If you are a young person in California, in
Arizona, you are now hearing that smoking pot has some curative
power over diseases, and you wonder, if it is medicine, how can
it be bad for me at age 12?
That is a conflicting message. We think it is harmful. We
are going to have to deal with it, in open debate, in a
democratic society.
Mr. Towns. Do you think that the reason we get involved in
this debate so frequently is the fact that there are not enough
slots available for rehabilitation in terms of a person who
walked in this room right now and said, I want to be placed on
a program today, I am ready to give up drugs, I am ready to
give up drugs now?
I don't know what I would do, and I am a Member of the U.S.
Congress and have been a Member for 17 years. I don't know what
I would be able to do with that person if he or she walked in
here right now and said, I want a program today. So I think
that maybe the reason we keep debating this so frequently is
because of the lack of slots available for rehabilitation.
General McCaffrey. I don't argue your point. I have to tell
you, though, the U.S. Congress in 4 years has increased drug
treatment funding by 26 percent. Donna Shalala now is $3
billion plus in her prevention/treatment funding. You have
given us the tools; you are moving us in the right direction in
the appropriations process. We have 300,000 more treatment
slots today than we had 4 years ago. We now have programs.
Janet Reno is pushing to break the cycle between drugs and
crime.
If you are behind bars, if you have a drug abuse problem,
we have to bring effective drug treatment to bear on that
population or we will never break free of it.
You did give us the money to get the drug court program up
and running, so we can get on the front end of this system and
put these nonviolent offenders into mandated treatment and lock
them up for 3 days or 21 days to keep them on track. I think
you are giving us the tools, and over time it will pay off.
Mr. Towns. I see my time has expired. Let me just say, I
commend you on the work you are doing with the faith community.
I think that is so important. I think the tie-in of the faith
community with the rehabilitation is just so important, because
they can play a very important role in making certain that
young people in particular follow through on their treatment.
Thank you so very, very much for that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.070
Mr. Mica. I now recognize our vice chairman, the gentleman
from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a number of years since we have
had a comprehensive hearing on the drug legalization issue; and
I commend you for calling us together today.
Given the fact that much has happened in terms of research
and writing on issues involving legalization of drugs, so-
called medicinal use of marijuana, addiction and so forth since
the last hearings on this topic, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to introduce into the record a bibliography of
marijuana literature, studies.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Barr. The book entitled Marijuana and Medicine, edited
by Gabriel Nahas, Kenneth Sudan, David Harvey, Stig Agurwell.
Mr. Mica. Are you asking for the entire volume?
Mr. Barr. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
[Note.--The information referred to may be found in
subcommittee files.]
Mr. Barr. We do have some additional studies that we would
also like to have submitted for the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Barr. Thank you.
[Note.--The information referred to may be found in
subcommittee files.]
Mr. Barr. General McCaffrey, back in the spring of this
year, as you know, the Iowa Institute of Medicine published a
study. While it did not argue for marijuana legalization or the
ready availability of so-called medicinal use of marijuana, it
did keep the issue alive and move us ever so slightly down that
road.
You were quoted in the Washington Post as saying you,
``thoroughly endorse the study'' and called it, and this again
is, ``a significant contribution to discussing the issue from a
scientific and medical viewpoint.'' And that you would not, and
this is not a quote, but it is attributed to you, that you
would not oppose limited studies of smoked marijuana until a
less harmful way of inhaling the substance's active ingredients
is found.
It is that particular notion, attributed to you, that I
would like to have your reaction to. Do you, in fact, not
oppose limited studies of smoked marijuana until a less harmful
way of inhaling the substance's active ingredients is found?
General McCaffrey. It is true. Indeed, we now have under
way for about a year--Dr. Leshner can talk to it more
knowledgeably than I can--we already are doing studies of
smoked marijuana as medicine. We have ongoing, I think there
are two more that have passed peer group review.
I think this study is a pretty good piece of work. This is
the executive summary. I will make sure that the committee gets
a copy of it.
These are serious people. They said up front and, Mr.
Congressman, I don't believe you were here when we responded to
this in an earlier time, smoked marijuana isn't medicine. That
is what this study says. It is carcinogenic, it is a dangerous
drug, it is an unknown dose rate, it is 400 plus compounds, it
is 30 plus cannabinoids. Smoked marijuana isn't medicine. That
is what that study says.
It also says----
Mr. Barr. That being the case, General, why would you not
oppose further studies of smoked marijuana? That being the
case.
General McCaffrey. It goes on to say that you ought to do
further research on the potentially modest contributions to
symptom management of cannabinoid-based research; and to avoid
the problem with this carcinogenic delivery vehicle, you ought
to develop a new rapid onset vehicle. So that is about 80
percent of what this says.
It also suggests, in the interim, with a population that is
terminally ill, with 6 months or less to live, that something
could be learned from controlled studies of a population who
have not responded to any other available therapeutic measure;
and we could collect data as we do under other NIH guidelines
for, for example, chemotherapy drugs that haven't been yet
proven to be effective.
That is really sort of a modest exception. We have funded
one such study, and I think there are a couple of more we will
fund.
Mr. Barr. The problem--we have talked about this before--I
think it is absolutely, utterly inconsistent for the taxpayers
to be funding such studies. When a company proposing to seek
approval for and then market a drug seeks to do so, the
government doesn't pay them to conduct the studies. They absorb
the cost of that because they are the ones that want to market
that product.
Here we have just the opposite. We have the Federal
Government paying for it with taxpayer dollars, paying for
studies that lead us in the direction of medicinal use of
marijuana.
That is what I don't understand, why the Federal
Government--why you or anybody else in the Federal Government
should be advocating, and in fact, carrying out the use of
taxpayer dollars to fund studies directed toward the possible
so-called medicinal use of marijuana? If someone wants to study
that, why not make them pay for it? Why should the taxpayers
pay for it?
General McCaffrey. I think largely we are going to do that.
Mr. Barr. No, you are not.
General McCaffrey. If you will allow me to answer.
Mr. Barr. This other study cost $900 million of taxpayer
money.
General McCaffrey. If you will allow me to answer the
question, Congressman, I think the principal contribution that
NIH makes is to provide medical grade marijuana for these
studies. I think a lot of these sort of modest proposals are
actually funded by a San Francisco-based research group. But
the bottom line is, this is the same tool that is used on
chemotherapy as a waiver for certain products.
I agree with you. We don't agree with smoked marijuana, and
this study doesn't, either. It says smoked pot isn't medicine.
But some of the cannabinoids in smoked marijuana may----
Mr. Barr. If smoked pot is not medicine, why are we using
taxpayer dollars to continue to study it?
General McCaffrey. I have provided you with the answer. You
don't agree. I respect your viewpoint. That is where we are.
Mr. Barr. Let us move on to something else.
If, in fact, marijuana, the active ingredient in it, tetra-
hydrocannabinol, THC, is in fact a Schedule I substance, that
means the drug has a high potential for abuse. Do you agree
with that?
General McCaffrey. Sure. You get stoned if you use it.
Mr. Barr. That it has no currently accepted medicinal use
in treatment in the United States? I presume you agree with
that.
General McCaffrey. THC does. Marinol is available in
pharmacies with a doctor's prescription right now.
Mr. Barr. Do you advocate removing that to a lesser
schedule of controlled substances?
General McCaffrey. There is a practical matter that doctors
don't like using drugs under that restriction. I don't think
THC competes very well with other available drugs. Certainly
nobody in his right mind, according to this study, would use
THC for glaucoma management. It would be bad medical practice.
So THC itself has some modest potential. It has sort of passed
by history. Better drugs are available.
This study is saying, how about the other 30 some odd
cannabinoids? Do they have any benefit? That is really where
they are urging us to go.
Mr. Barr. But you are not advocating in any way, shape or
form at this time that marijuana be removed as a Schedule I
controlled substance?
General McCaffrey. Absolutely not. We are adamantly opposed
to making marijuana more available to America's children and
working people.
Mr. Barr. If I could, Mr. Chairman, ask one further
question; and I know we need to go vote. I know we have had
some discussion here today of Mr. Soros and others funding the
marijuana legalization movement. Aside from what a number of us
would like to see, and that is a more activist or proactivist
role by our Department of Justice in rebutting and fighting
these efforts, is any consideration being given to possible
prosecution under perhaps the racketeering title of chapter 96
of title 18?
General McCaffrey. Mr. Barr, in terms of the initiative by
State, you mean, these medical marijuana initiatives?
Mr. Barr. Well, they are engaged in medical marijuana
initiatives as well as funding other studies and activities
oriented toward circumventing our drug laws.
General McCaffrey. I don't know. That is a new one on me.
My view would be, it is a legitimate topic in a democracy
to debate whether or not these psychoactive drugs should be
more available in your community. If you want to propose that
idea, you ought to be able to make your argument. I think it is
a silly argument, it is dangerous, it is currently against the
law for well-thought-out reasons, but I welcome the chance to
confront that issue in open debate. I am positive American
families and local leadership are not going in that route, not
when the idea is aired in public as we are now doing.
Mr. Barr. You are not aware of any effort or even looking
into the possibility of prosecuting that as possible
racketeering?
General McCaffrey. I don't know. There is a bit of me that
says it is a possibly chilling implication on the right to free
speech.
Mr. Barr. It might have a chilling effect on the drug
legalization movement, which might not be bad.
General McCaffrey. I think we are going to win that. I have
enormous faith in the judgment of the American people. I think
this kind of argument in public, if you give them the facts,
the American people will do the right thing. They are already
against legalization. You can't get by the common sense of
parents, pediatricians, local law enforcement. Nobody really
has a grassroots movement on this effort. It is not there.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
I would like to yield now to Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I kind of hate to rain on the general consensus
of enthusiasm for free and open debate. I am one who is not
particularly happy that we are having a hearing called the pros
and cons of drug legalization.
I know the chairman is very committed and has spent his
whole career fighting illegal narcotics, but the plain truth of
the matter is, while we live in a democracy, we do not have
hearings called the pros and cons of rape, we do not have
hearings called the pros and cons of child abuse, we do not
have hearings called the pros and cons of racism, we do not
have hearings called the pros and cons of gangs.
The thrust of this being that somehow this is a libertarian
argument, that somehow somebody goes and smokes pot, that it is
a victimless crime, is just not true. Those who are advocating
the legalization of marijuana are responsible for blood in my
district, in my neighborhood, families and my community. I
don't believe they are any less guilty than those who publicly,
if we hauled a bunch of rapists in here and said, hey, why do
you do it--thousands of people do it, but we don't invite them
up here to talk about why they favor that position. Or there
are millions of Americans who are racists, but we don't openly
say, explain why you're a racist to us. I don't think it is
right.
I understand we are trying to be open minded here and that
this hearing, with all due respect, has mostly people who share
my hard-line view. But, at the same time, I don't believe that
there should be views of the pros of illegal activity that is
taking the lives of thousands and thousands of Americans and to
give them any kind of credibility that this is a democratic
debate.
I understand what General McCaffrey is arguing that, in
fact, like racism at different points in American history--and
in Indiana we had the Ku Klux Klan that took over the State, I
don't think that was particularly helpful to democracy. I
understand that some of these things, once it gets to a high
level in the democracy, that there is a debate that occurs; and
if we don't counter it, we have to do that. I do have an
uncomfortability to this.
On a more calmed-down subject--I have just been kind of
wound up since I heard about the hearing. I, too, have concerns
about George Soros. Clearly he and his closest allies have
funded predominantly every one of these referendums and many of
the things that I have fought so hard. We are about to embark--
and I appreciate all your work in many different areas and
particularly in the media campaign we are doing, much of what
we are doing. We are going to fight what he is doing. Have you
ever attempted to just sit down with him and talk with him and
say, can you divert some of this money to trying to actually do
a no use?
General McCaffrey. I have not talked to George Soros, Peter
Lewis or John Spurling. In California, for the medical rights
legalization campaign, they put essentially $1.3 million into
it. Maybe I should.
I actually have enormous sympathy and resonance with what
you just said. I want you to understand; don't think I've got
an open mind. I am not--after 3\1/2\ years of going to drug
treatment centers around America and listening to 14-year-old
girls who are addicted to heroin and listening to their parents
talk about it and just having come yesterday from New Orleans,
from a Baptist church-based drug treatment center, I am not
open minded about drug abuse in America. I think it is a crime.
It is why 1.5 million Americans got arrested. It is the
reason why half that 1.8 million people are behind bars. It is
more people dead each year than in the Vietnam War that
shattered my generation. I think it is crazy, and I think most
Americans feel the same way.
We have to put it out in public. We have to rediscover why
we are opposed to a drugged, dazed life-style for our children,
our fellow workers and our families.
And we are going to do that. I think it is moving in the
right direction, thanks to the kind of support this Congress
has given this program, and you in particular.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
I want to reiterate, too, that in the chairman's district,
we heard from a young boy and his dad who had started into
marijuana and the difficulties of that family and how that
led--that type of thing led a lot to the heroin epidemic in
Orlando, in Arizona.
We heard from a young spouse whose husband would come home,
smoke marijuana and mix it with alcohol and beat her. We have
heard many moving testimonies. I hope some of those we can pull
back out and put into the record with this hearing, too.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Our time has expired. We have a vote, just about 5 minutes
left in that.
I think we have gotten all the questions in that we can
now, General. We are going to submit additional questions to
you. We are looking for some responses to some of the questions
that have already been posed that you said you would respond to
in writing. We thank you for your participation and cooperation
and your efforts in this great mission. There being no further
business at this time, we will excuse you.
We will recess for one-half hour, until approximately
12:40, so people can get a quick meal. I would like all the
witnesses on the next panel to be here at 12:40, we will start
promptly at that time.
The subcommittee is in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to
reconvene at 12:40 p.m., the same day.]
Mr. Mica. I would like to call the subcommittee back to
order. Since we have two panels, I would like to proceed. We
will be joined by other Members shortly.
Our second panel, by way of introduction, is Dr. Alan
Leshner, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Our
second witness is Mr. Donnie Marshall, who is the Deputy
Administrator of our Drug Enforcement Administration.
Gentleman, as you may know, this is an investigation and
oversight subcommittee of Congress. We do swear in our
witnesses. So if you would please stand and raise your right
hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. I would like to again welcome both of our
panelists. If you have lengthy statements or additional
information you would like to submit as part of the record, we
would be glad to do that by unanimous consent request.
I will recognize now our first panelist, Dr. Alan Leshner,
Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. You are
recognized, sir.
STATEMENTS OF ALAN LESHNER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON
DRUG ABUSE; AND DONNIE MARSHALL, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Leshner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you and the other committee members for inviting me to
participate in this very important hearing and to speak a bit
about the science of drug abuse and addiction.
My full statement, which will be submitted for the record,
speaks extensively about some of the advances that we have
made. I hope everyone will have an opportunity to read it.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, that will be made part of the
record.
Dr. Leshner. Thank you, sir.
Let me make some introductory comments. Scientific advances
have been coming at an extraordinary rate and have virtually
revolutionized our fundamental understanding of drug abuse and
addiction and what to do about them.
I would say that of particular importance has been an
increased understanding of the very significant effects that
drug use has on the user's brain and, as a result, on his or
her behavior. Many of those effects on the brain persist long
after the individual stops using drugs and, therefore, their
consequences can be extremely long-lasting and extremely
serious.
One significant consequence, of course, is addiction, the
literal compulsion to use drugs that interferes with all other
aspects of life. Science has taught us that addiction is a
devastating illness that results from the prolonged effects of
drugs on the brain. However, I would also point out that the
effects of drugs on the brain are not limited to addiction.
They can result in other long-lasting behavioral abnormalities
like memory deficits and psychotic-like states with some drugs.
Of course, drug abuse and addiction have tremendous
negative consequences that go way beyond the health of the
individual, they have consequences for the health and social
well-being of the public as well. Since my written testimony
highlights the very diverse array of things that science has
been teaching us, I will only use one or two examples here to
make an introductory point.
As one example, recent scientific advances have taught us
much about the motivations or the reasons that people use
drugs; and, of course, there is no single reason that people
use these substances. Understanding what motivates an
individual to use drugs is extremely important in designing
both prevention and treatment programs. We need to know why
people are using drugs if we are to influence their decision to
use.
Research suggests that there are at least two distinct
categories of users. One subset of people appear to use drugs
simply to have a novel or sensational experience. They take
them simply to produce the positive experience of modifying
their mood, their perception or their emotional state.
But there is also another large group of people who take
drugs for a very different reason. Although they are also
trying to modify their mood, their perception, their emotional
state, this group is using drugs in an attempt to help them
cope with their problems. These individuals are, in effect,
self-medicating. They are using drugs as if they were anti-
anxiety or anti-depressant medications and, of course, over
time drug use has the opposite effect. Drug use exaggerates
rather than corrects underlying psychological, emotional or
situational problems.
Whatever the motivation for initial drug use, though, drugs
produce their effects on mood, perception and emotion by
modifying brain function; and those changes in brain function
have dramatic consequences both acutely in the short term and
over time in the long term.
It is significant that we now know in tremendous detail,
the mechanisms of action in the brain of every major drug of
abuse. Among the important things we have learned, by the way,
is that even though each drug has its own idiosyncratic or
individual mechanism of affecting the brain, they all share
some common effects and we are coming to understand these
common effects as a common essence of addiction.
The implication of all of this work is that addiction
actually comes about because prolonged drug use changes the
brain. I would like to use just one poster to demonstrate one
of these important differences in brain function caused by
prolonged drug use, but I would like you to know that we have
identified similar kinds of changes for many other drugs as
well.
What you are seeing here on my right is the brain's ability
to use a critical neurochemical called dopamine. The ability to
use dopamine is critical to normal cognitive functioning and to
the normal experience of pleasure, among other things, so
interfering with dopamine function has significant negative
behavioral consequences.
What this poster is showing you is the very long-lasting
effects on the brain that methamphetamine in particular can
have. So the scan on the left is that of a nondrug user. The
next one is of a chronic methamphetamine user who was drug free
for about 3 years when this image was taken. So this is a
persistent effect of methamphetamine, basically to destroy the
brain's ability to use this chemical substance.
The third scan is of a chronic methcathinone addict who was
also drug free for about 3 years, and the last image is of the
brain of an individual newly diagnosed with Parkinson's
disease. What you are seeing here is that, when compared with
the control on the left, there is a significant loss in the
brain's ability to transport dopamine back into brain cells.
As I just mentioned, dopamine function is critical to
emotional regulation. It is involved in the normal experience
of pleasure and, of course, is involved in controlling motor
function. Therefore, this long-lasting impairment in dopamine
function might account for some of the very bizarre behavioral
dysfunctions that persist for so long after long-term
methamphetamine use.
We believe that this kind of scientific evidence emphasizes
dramatically the significant dangers in drug use; and, again,
significant brain changes have been observed after individuals
use any drug--marijuana, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines,
nicotine; and no one is immune from the effects of drugs on the
brain and the body.
Studies such as these have taught us that drug use is an
equal opportunity destroyer. That is why we say that there is
no such thing as recreational drug use. Drug use is never good
for you. It is not like playing ping-pong, and it is not like
playing tennis. It is therefore as a scientist and an official
concerned with the public health that I applaud your holding
this hearing and your highlighting these kinds of health
consequences of drug use. I thank you for the opportunity to
participate.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Leshner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.079
Mr. Mica. We will withhold questions until we have heard
from our second panelist, who is Mr. Donnie Marshall, Deputy
Administrator of our Drug Enforcement Agency.
Welcome, and you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
thank you very much. It is an honor to appear here.
I have submitted a written statement that I would like to
have placed in the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Marshall. I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman, first
of all, that I want to express my thanks to the subcommittee,
the chairman and the members for your support of drug law
enforcement, the DEA in particular.
I would like to recognize the presence of members of the
law enforcement community here today--the National Troopers
Coalition, the National Narcotic Officers Association Coalition
and members of several State narcotic officers associations--
and recognize their tireless work in the efforts to protect our
citizens and particularly our youth from drugs and drug
trafficking.
What I would like to do today--I am not a scientist. It is
an honor to appear here with a distinguished scientist such as
Alan Leshner. I would like to talk to you really as a
professional law enforcement person but also as a parent and a
community volunteer. What I would like to discuss is what I
think would happen--based on my best professional opinion, what
would happen if drugs were legalized and then outline why I
think a policy of drug enforcement and prevention does work.
I know that a lot of the current debate has really been
over the legalization of marijuana, of medical marijuana. I
suspect, though, that legalization of medical marijuana is
really the first tactical maneuver in a strategy that some hope
will result ultimately in the legalization of marijuana and all
drugs.
I think the practical outcome of legalizing any drug would
simply be to increase the amount of drugs available and, in
turn, increase drug use, abuse and all of the crime and
violence that go along with that. I really can't imagine
anybody arguing that legalizing drugs would reduce the amount
of drug abuse that we already have.
Although drug abuse is down from its high mark in the
1970's, we still have entirely too much drug abuse and too much
drug availability in this country. In 1962, there were only 4
million Americans who had ever tried an illegal drug. In 1997,
roughly 77 million Americans have tried drugs.
This escalation I think, along with the permissiveness and
the greater availability of drugs--I think that the escalation
really drives a central point that I would like to make and
that is that supply, in my best professional judgment, drives
demand.
What legalization could mean for drug consumption in the
United States really can be seen in the marijuana
liberalization experiment in Holland, that has already been
referred to, that began in 1976. Holland has now acquired a
reputation as the drug capital of Europe.
Another illustration I think of supply driving demand is
the recent surge in heroin abuse in this country. Starting in
the early 1990's, traffickers from Colombia realized that there
were tremendous profits to be made in heroin trafficking; and
they began to produce sizable amounts of high-purity heroin. By
developing these high-purity heroin levels, they attracted many
new potential users that might not have otherwise been inclined
to use the needle because they can use this high-purity heroin
through an inhalant method of usage.
In order to develop a consumer market for this high-purity
heroin, they used aggressive marketing strategies. They began
to use brand names. They began to market their heroin with
cocaine. They began actually to require cocaine traffickers to
move heroin as a condition of accepting their cocaine product.
These examples really are not just my feelings from a law
enforcement perspective. There are others who support this line
of reasoning, such as Dr. Herbert Kleber, who is one of the
leading authorities on drug addiction.
In a 1994 article in the New England Journal of Medicine,
Dr. Kleber presented clinical data to support the premise that
drug use would increase with legalization. He stated in this
article, and I quote: Cocaine is a much more addictive drug
than alcohol. If cocaine were legally available as alcohol and
nicotine are now, the number of abusers might be nine times
higher than the current number.
I believe that there is also a close relationship between
drugs and crime, and this relationship can be borne out by
statistics. Invariably, a majority of the individuals who were
arrested for violent crime in recent years have tested positive
for the presence of drugs at the time of their arrest.
Further, there is a misconception that most drug-related
crimes involve people who are looking for money to buy drugs.
Most drug-related crimes are actually committed by people who
are under the influence of mind-altering drugs; and with
increased availability of drugs, more people would be abusing
drugs. Therefore, I believe more people would be committing
those crimes, and I think the crime rate would actually go up
rather than down.
To illustrate this, I would show a 1994 study by the Bureau
of Justice statistics that compared Federal and State prison
inmates in 1991. This study found that 18 percent of the
Federal inmates who were incarcerated for homicide had
committed that offense under the influence of drugs, whereas
only 2.7 percent of those people had committed the offense to
obtain money for drugs.
There has been example after example that illustrate the
effects of increased availability of drugs. We have heard a
couple of those examples today, particularly Baltimore. We
could debate the causes and the solutions to the Baltimore
example, but we really can't debate the tragedy that is
involved with the Baltimore example.
In New York, in response to the drug and crime problem, a
strong law enforcement response was mounted. This has been
effective in addressing the upward trend of violent crime. In
New York, the homicide rate in 1990 had risen to the highest
level ever, 2,262. By 1998, as a result of the law enforcement
response, that homicide rate dropped to 663, a 70 percent
reduction in just 8 years. What that really means in human
terms is had the murder rate stayed at the 1990 level, by 1998
there would have been 1,629 more people dead than had actually
died. I believe it is fair to say that those 1,629 human beings
owe their lives to the law enforcement response in New York.
Proponents of drug legalization often point to the
liberalization experiments in Europe to show that other nations
have successfully controlled drugs by providing drugs and areas
where they can be legally used. My question would be that if
those experiments have been so successful, why have there been
184 cities in 30 European countries who adopted the European
Cities Against Drugs resolution, commonly known as the
Stockholm resolution, which rejects the liberalization
approach?
If you really want to discover, though, what legalization
might mean to society, I suggest you talk to a clergyman, a
junior high school teacher, a high school coach, a scout leader
or a parent. I would ask you, and I bet I know the answer, how
many parents or teachers have ever come into your office to
say, Congressman, the thing our kids really need is easier
availability to illegal drugs? I bet you have never had a
parent come in and say that.
Drug addiction and its tragedy, affect entire families. It
is a tragedy for everybody involved. It wouldn't matter one bit
to those families and those victims whether those drugs were
legal or illegal. The human misery would be just the same. The
only difference is there would be more of it.
Finally, the point I would like to make, that drug
legalization would be a law enforcement nightmare. I bet there
are very few people in the country who would propose making
drugs legal to a 12-year-old child. That reluctance points up a
major flaw in the legalization proposal. Drugs will always be
denied to some sector of our population. So there will always
be some form of black market and some need for drug enforcement
and prevention programs.
I know that there are those who would make the case that
drug addiction hurts no one but the user, but if that lie
really becomes part of the conventional wisdom, there will be a
lot of pressure to legalize all drug use. If that were done, I
believe we could reverse that tide only when we see the harmful
effects over the years of widespread drug abuse. By then, I
believe it would be too late to reverse that tide. I believe
that this is no time to undermine our efforts to stem drug
abuse.
I would offer that from 1979 to 1994 the number of drug
users in America dropped almost by half. I believe that two
things significantly contributed to that drop--a strong program
of public education and a strict program of law enforcement.
Drug laws and prevention programs can work if we have the
national resolve to enforce them.
As a father and someone who has had a lot of involvement
with kids and Boy Scouts and Little League, and as a 30-year
civil servant in drug enforcement, I can tell you that there
are a lot of young people out there that are looking for help.
Sometimes helping those people means saying no, it means
setting limits, and it means having the courage to back that
up.
I would like to tell you about one of those young people
who I have helped over the course of my career. During the
early 1970's when I was a young drug agent in Austin, TX, we
arrested a young man, I will call him John, on drug charges.
John had a young pregnant wife at the time. They were
devastated by his arrest. But after he had served his sentence,
he and his wife came to my office in Austin looking for me. I
was a little bit apprehensive about meeting with them at first,
but I went ahead and met with them.
They told me that they had come in so that I could see
their new baby who had been born while John was in jail. They
also outlined a second reason. Both of these people agreed that
their experience with drugs and John's arrest had been one of
the most horrible experiences that had ever happened to them.
But that arrest was probably what saved them.
John explained to me that he had started using drugs
because they were readily available in Austin, TX, in the early
1970's and because he had seen widespread drug use among his
peers. He quit playing sports. He ignored warnings from his
parents, from his teachers. Finally, he dropped out of school
altogether.
I had no idea that night when I arrested him what the long-
term impact would be and that I would have a positive influence
on that young man's life. I suspect that this young man was a
pretty typical person, one who used drugs because they were
readily available and because they were socially acceptable.
I believe that as a society, we have to help our young
people and we have to keep them from taking that first step
into the world of drugs that will ruin their careers, destroy
marriages and leave them in a cycle of drug dependency. If we
don't have the courage to say no to drug abuse, I believe we
will find that drugs will ruin millions of lives and ultimately
could destroy the society that we have built over the last 200
years.
Drug-abuse-related crime, personal degeneration and social
decay, all of that goes with it, those things are not
inevitable. They are not inevitable. Too many people in this
country, I believe, seem resigned to this growing rate of drug
abuse; and too many people seem ready to give up. But our
experience with drugs shows that strong law enforcement and
prevention program policies can and do work if we have the
courage, the strength and the persistence to stay the course.
At DEA, our mission, quite simply, is to disrupt the major
trafficking organizations and to fight drug trafficking in
order to make drug abuse expensive, unpleasant, risky and
disreputable. If the drug users themselves and the traffickers
aren't worried about their own health, the health of others or
the welfare of people who are affected by their products, then
they should at least have to worry about the likelihood of
getting caught and going to prison.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to
appear. I will be happy to try to answer any questions you or
your committee may have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.099
Mr. Mica. I do have some questions. Let me start first with
Dr. Leshner.
Doctor, there have been questions raised about the need for
additional studies of the effect of marijuana. First of all,
the effect of marijuana and the marijuana that we see out there
now I think--is a little bit different than in the 1970's and
maybe even the 1980's--what would be, in general, the damage to
an individual?
The second part of that marijuana question would be, are
there additional studies that need to be conducted or is there
sufficient scientific, documented, factual evidence that there
is, or is not medical benefit for the use of marijuana?
Can you address both of those parts?
Dr. Leshner. The situation with the marijuana that is
available on the street is that if you were to look at the
average concentration of marijuana that is seized and analyzed,
what you find is that in the last decade or so it has been
relatively stable, on average, and that it is a bit higher, 1
or 2 percentage points of concentration higher than it had been
in the 1970's.
What has changed and what I think is a point of concern for
many people is that the diversity of forms and concentrations
of marijuana has increased tremendously. So although the
average may not be that much different, you now have
tremendously potent marijuana and marijuana-like products that
are available that might not have been available earlier.
As to the second question about the purported medical uses
of marijuana, both the National Institutes of Health and, as
General McCaffrey said this morning, the Institute of Medicine
of the National Academy of Sciences have looked at this
question in detail. Let me try and be precise in reporting what
they have said. That is, there is not a body of scientific
literature to suggest that marijuana is, in fact, a medicine.
However, having said that, both groups suggested that there
might be ultimate use for some of the components of marijuana,
for example, THC, and that research should be done in order to
answer that question.
One of the issues that confront public health officials is
that there is a lot of anecdote, intuition and common sense
that appears to be driving medical practice in some parts of
this country; and it is our obligation in the scientific
community to try to provide a scientific answer to that. It is
for that reason that these groups recommended that we enable
research into the medical uses of marijuana.
We do have some ongoing studies that we are supporting
looking at the potential use of marijuana for the treatment of
AIDS wasting, for the treatment of cancer chemotherapy for
those people who do not respond to existing medications, and
for a potential use in analgesia.
Mr. Mica. Do you feel that you have sufficient resources
this year to complete those studies?
Dr. Leshner. We will complete those studies.
I need to say that for the National Institutes of Health we
don't see this as a particularly high priority area, that is,
as it goes through the peer review process, the majority of
these studies have not received very high priority scores. That
is why additional studies have not been funded. We therefore
have provided a mechanism whereby bona fide research can be
conducted by other entities. It would have to be judged to be
genuine research through the Food and Drug Administration and
NIH. Therefore, we might supply marijuana on a reimbursable
basis.
Mr. Mica. Do you plan in the next fiscal year beginning in
October of this year to fund additional studies?
Dr. Leshner. We have not received additional proposals for
support from the National Institutes of Health, and we are not
actively soliciting such studies. If they come in the door, we
will evaluate them. If they receive sufficient priority and
merit, then we would consider funding them.
Again, we don't have any of those proposals before us that
I am aware of at the moment. Maybe another institute does.
Therefore, I think it is not very likely that we will fund many
additional studies in the coming fiscal year.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Marshall, some of the prolegalization folks
are taking to the airwaves and supporting various referendum
initiatives. They are even publicizing in paid advertisements,
this is a paid, multipage advertisement, to change drug control
strategy and policy.
One of the things they recommend on the last page is
effective drug control budget. They want to slice law
enforcement by 50 percent. Do you think that is an effective
strategy? What would it do if we sliced law enforcement by 50
percent?
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, no, I don't think that is an
effective strategy. As I have mentioned in my comments, I
believe that a combination of drug prevention programs and law
enforcement really works.
I heard this morning either yourself, Mr. Chairman, or
Congressman Gilman refer to some decreases in the amount of
cocaine use in this country. I would offer, that law
enforcement was a part of that reduction. Over the last 6 to 7
to 8 years, we have very effectively wiped out the Medellin
Colombia cocaine cartel. We have continued our enforcement
efforts against their successors, the Cali cartel. We really
have that group in tremendous disarray right now.
I would submit that law enforcement success is a part of
the reason that we have seen that reduction in the cocaine
abuse rate. So law enforcement does work. I think it would
devastate the total effort if we reduced our law enforcement
programs.
Obviously, I think prevention and education are the long-
term solutions to this problem; but, in the meantime, we have a
lot of vicious, violent criminals that are preying on our
citizens through drug trafficking; and those criminals need to
be dealt with. The only way to do that is through law
enforcement.
Mr. Mica. Two quick points in conclusion.
I think this Baltimore example which Tom Constantine, the
Director/Administrator, had prepared shows that liberalization
can be effective in population reduction, which took place in
Baltimore. There can be some, I guess lessening in crime,
although I don't think it has been very significant in
Baltimore. But liberalization leads to addiction.
Now, this number we have here is from 1950, 300 heroin
addicts in Baltimore, to 38,985. The gentleman from Baltimore,
Mr. Cummings, has told me it is closer to 60,000. That would
mean about 10 percent of the population of Baltimore. Do you
think this is the way we should go?
I mean, your statistics point that liberalization has some
effect, crime is down slightly in Baltimore, but we have, I
would say, more than a few more addicts. Does liberalization
lead to addiction?
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the
liberalization approach is the way that we should go. I have
already used the New York example, which I believe has resulted
in less violence in that city. I would also use as an example a
1998 study by the Justice Department, I believe it is the ADAM
report, that shows that arrestees for violent crimes tested
positive for drugs at the following rates: 74 percent of
arrestees for violent crimes in Atlanta tested positive for
illegal drugs, 49 percent in Miami, 60 percent in Oklahoma
City. I have given you examples of the homicides that were
committed under the influence of drugs. I believe there is
clear, clear evidence that drug use is accompanied by crime and
violence, and I absolutely do not believe that liberalization
is the right approach.
Mr. Mica. One final question. The Internet now has become a
source for market activity. Our staff produced this little
printout that shows price, drug price report, prices of Ecstasy
and LSD and marijuana. I guess this information can be made
public legally, although I am told additionally you can buy
drugs now over the Internet, illegal drugs. Is the DEA taking
any steps to go after folks that are dealing in this? And is it
illegal to market and sell drugs in this fashion?
Mr. Marshall. What you have referred to there in terms of
the prices and basically steering people toward sources, I
would be hard-pressed to say that that is illegal. You get into
freedom of speech issues and that sort of stuff. But as far as
the selling of drugs over the Internet, obviously that is just
as illegal as selling drugs in any other forum.
We have heard those same reports. We are in the early
stages of evaluating and assessing that. We will be looking at
that over the course of the near future.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
I will yield now to the ranking member, Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much.
Mr. Marshall, following on the chairman's question about
the use of the Internet to entice people to try drugs and
indicate that it is widely available and where it could be
purchased, is there any effort at the DEA to look at this as a
special problem and, if so, what are you doing about it?
Mr. Marshall. We are actually investigating the reports
that we have heard of the sale of drugs over the Internet.
Quite honestly, we are in the early stages of that, and we do
not have a handle on that. I would like to respond to that at a
later date after we have had a chance to completely look into
it.
Mrs. Mink. But it would seem to me that it would be
important for the DEA to have a cyberspace cop section that
would be looking at all of this and keeping on top of it and
making a search to see who is doing all of this and whether, in
fact, sales are taking place.
Mr. Marshall. We have requested in our 2001 budget funding
for a computer forensics program. What you are suggesting would
become a part of that computer forensics program. We have a
limited capability in that area right now, but we hope to
increase that over the next couple of years through the budget
process.
Mrs. Mink. Currently we are discussing Internet sales of
guns, Internet sales of wine and beer and hard liquor. So I
think this suggests a new area to begin some very serious
studies and suggestions for legal efforts on the part of the
Federal Government to intercept the growth of this particular
industry.
I am very distressed about it. I have a bill myself that
bans the Internet sale of guns. It would seem to me that we
could easily expand it to this if there is any gap in the law
that prevents you from getting into this field at all.
Mr. Marshall. I agree totally with everything you have
said.
I would point to a particular issue with law enforcement,
and it is going to become more of an issue as Internet commerce
grows, and that is the issue of encryption. We are sort of at a
crossroads right now. We have a need to preserve law
enforcement's legitimate court-ordered, court-authorized
capability to intercept both telephone communications, fax
communications and Internet communications that involve
criminal activities. We are, frankly, in some danger of losing
that. That is an issue that the law enforcement community has
had a lot of dialog with Congress and industry on. It is an
issue which is very important to law enforcement.
Mrs. Mink. The statistics that you brought forth about the
number of people in prison today who have a drug use connection
is very startling. Could you tell the committee how many major
drug traffickers are in prison today?
Mr. Marshall. I would have to get that actual information
as to how many are in prison.
I can tell you this. The Drug Enforcement Administration
and our local law enforcement partners who are working with us
through formalized task forces arrested some 33,000 drug
traffickers in the most recent fiscal year, 1999. I could not
tell you how many of those are actually in prison, but we do
target the major traffickers, the major command and control
figures, the communications managers, the money launderers,
those kinds of people.
Among those 33,000 that we have arrested, we believe that
they are, for the most part, major drug criminals. If you would
like, I will try to get you those statistics.
Mrs. Mink. I would appreciate having that for the record,
Mr. Chairman, when you are able to assemble it.
Now, if you were able to arrest and convict those 33,000
drug traffickers, what percentage of the drug traffic in
America would that then represent?
Mr. Marshall. That is a very difficult, if not impossible,
question to really answer. The reason it is difficult to answer
is that when you look at drug production in the aggregate, you
have to consider a number of things. You have to consider that
there is a demand for drugs at a certain level in the United
States. There are numbers on this. I don't have them with me.
If you assume a certain level of demand, we know that the
traffickers have an actual production level of drugs that is in
excess of that demand. So you would think that would be a
simple equation, you bring that down below the demand, you
impact availability of drugs.
But what we also have to consider is that somewhere above
the actual production is production capability. The traffickers
have this built-in capability to account for loss and spoilage
and law enforcement seizures and that sort of stuff. So what
you have to do is really impact the production capability, not
the actual production, before you can impact the demand level.
And because that production capability so far exceeds the
demand level, it is really hard to say--it is probably
impossible to say what percentage those 33,000 arrested
represent.
Mrs. Mink. What you are really saying is, even if you put
all of them in jail, there will still be traffickers to replace
them that will be out there to sell whatever else is being
produced?
Mr. Marshall. As long as there is widespread drug use. That
is where the prevention side of the equation comes in.
Mrs. Mink. That is the reason for my question, is that when
we are dealing with the subject of youthful potential users,
say, of marijuana, for instance, the whole issue that I am
confronted with when I talk to teenagers about this is that
they would say, but it's so easy to get, it's down on that
street corner or over at this shopping center or wherever. So I
always confront the question of what can we do as a society to
stop this easy access, easy availability? And so I go back to
the trafficking and how this thing moves through our society.
Unless we can come to grips with that issue, it is tough on the
other aspect, of keeping our kids away from it.
Mr. Marshall. Here is what we can do, in my best
professional judgment. It really has to be a two-pronged
attack. We have to do the prevention and the demand reduction
side of the equation as the ultimate long-term solution. But in
the meantime, as I mentioned, we have these major narcotics
traffickers. We have the violence, we have the crime that is
associated with drug use, and we have to go after those
criminals. We have to punish those criminals.
What we do in the DEA and I think most law enforcement
agencies, we try to target the most violent of those criminals.
We try to target the ones who are moving the largest quantities
of drugs. And, frankly, law enforcement resources are limited
across this country. We can never arrest our way out of the
problem. I don't think any law enforcement professional would
say that we could. But it is a part of the equation that we
have to address because of the crime and the violence.
Mrs. Mink. Moving to the prevention end and addressing it
only to the teenager, the student in school, what is the most
effective thing that we can do to prevent our young people from
making that first mistake, in trying marijuana or some other
drug? What is the most effective thing that we can do here in
the Congress or in the relevant agencies to which this problem
is assigned?
Maybe Dr. Leshner can answer that.
Dr. Leshner. A great deal of research has been done on the
prevention of drug use; and, sadly, there is no simple solution
to the problem, of course. But we do know that comprehensive
programs that involve multiple parts of the community that are
all sending the same message and that are sending those
messages repeatedly are effective in preventing drug use.
General McCaffrey showed some very impressive graphs about
changes in drug attitudes and changes in drug use rates. We
have begun to see a change in attitudes, to see the beginning
of a change in use rates. Some of that, we believe, is a result
of very sophisticated prevention programming that gets
initiated very early. We have to get kids before they are in
middle school, and then we have to give them boosters, just
like any other vaccination program. And so this programming is
never simple, and it does have to be comprehensive.
One of the things that has happened in this country is the
evolution of antidrug coalitions around the country. A major
goal that they have had, and that I think they have done an
outstanding job of, is having integrated approaches that bring
in not just the schools, not just the parents, not just the
churches, but to mobilize an entire community in a single
strategy. As far as we can tell from the scientific research
that has been done, it is an effective strategy.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Marshall, as always, thank you and the
men and women of the DEA for the outstanding job that you do. I
and my constituents deeply appreciate it.
Put yourself, if you would for a moment, hypothetically, in
the position of a State prosecutor in a State in which there
are laws against pedophilia and rape. Would you take kindly to
somebody who comes out with a study and says that pedophilia is
OK; therefore, I'm going to go out there and spend huge sums of
money trying to make it legal and encourage people to engage in
it, or rape?
Mr. Marshall. No, sir.
Mr. Barr. Would you have any hesitancy in taking offense at
that, notwithstanding their claims that this is simply an
exercise of first amendment free speech?
Mr. Marshall. I would take great offense, and I think it
would be a ridiculous argument.
Mr. Barr. Do you see that much of a distinction between
those arguments and the arguments of the advocates of legalized
drug usage?
Mr. Marshall. Being a professional 30-year law enforcement
person, Congressman, I have to confess that I do not see much
difference in it.
Mr. Barr. Thank you.
One of the things that I look at, for example, is
consistency, and I think that is very important as a
professional law enforcement agent. Recently, it has come to
our attention that the U.S. Department of Defense is finalizing
regulations to allow for the use of peyote on military bases by
military personnel for so-called religious purposes. Is it your
understanding that peyote remains a Schedule I controlled
substance under the laws of the United States of America?
Mr. Marshall. Congressman, I believe that it is. However, I
believe there may be some religious exemptions for Native
Americans. I am not aware of the issue with the Department of
Defense. But I believe it does remain a Schedule I. If I could
verify that and get back to you.
Mr. Barr. Because, it is in the criminal code. If in fact,
the military allows this and if, thereafter, somebody in DEA
were to come to you and say, I believe as part of my religious
practice and my Native American heritage that I should be
allowed to smoke peyote, would you see that as inconsistent
with their duty as a sworn law enforcement officer with
jurisdiction to enforce the controlled substances laws of the
United States?
Mr. Marshall. I'm sorry, are you talking about military,
sir, or law enforcement?
Mr. Barr. No, if there were a DEA agent who came to you and
said, I believe that as part of my religious practice, what I
deem a religious practice, I'm going to start smoking peyote. I
understand that it is now allowed in the military. Would that
to you be consistent with or inconsistent with their sworn duty
as a law enforcement officer with jurisdiction over enforcing
our Federal drug laws?
Mr. Marshall. Congressman, I would be very, very troubled
by that. However, I think I would have to look at the religious
exemption and the origins of that law to make a final decision.
But I would be very, very troubled with that.
Mr. Barr. I would hope so, and I would certainly think so.
Dr. Leshner, I referred earlier to this volume, Marijuana
and Medicine, that you may or may not be familiar with. We have
inserted it into the record. There is quite a lengthy
discussion about a lot of the harmful effects of marijuana
usage, including several chapters here on its very serious
detrimental effect on reproduction, human reproductivity, and
in particular its effect on--and they have some very
interesting slides, similar to the scientific slides that you
presented here--on spermatozoa and the abnormalities that
result from particularly extended marijuana usage. Are you
familiar with those studies?
Dr. Leshner. I am somewhat familiar with them. I am not
sure I am familiar with all of the studies that have been done,
but a great deal of work has, of course, been done on the
metabolic consequences of marijuana use.
Mr. Barr. Are you familiar enough to give us your opinion
on whether or not there are detrimental effects on human
reproductivity by the extended use of marijuana?
Dr. Leshner. I think it is not clear, sir. There is a
substantial body of literature in animal subjects that suggests
that Delta-9 THC can decrease pituitary prolactin and can, in
fact, interfere with cycling in female rodents. I think some
studies have been done in humans that confirm that kind of
interpretation. But, as a scientist, I have to say that I am
not sure all of that research has actually been done.
Mr. Barr. I would recommend you, if you could, take a look
at some of the research in here. I am certainly not a medical
doctor or a scientist, but they present some compelling--both
textual material as well as some graphs and pictures showing
that there indeed seems to be a very clear link.
Could you just very briefly explain--I noticed the chart
that you have up here on methamphetamines. We have been
focusing particularly this morning on marijuana, maybe to the
detriment of some of these other drugs. Could you--and you may
have already done this. If you have, I apologize. But by the
same token I think that this bears repeating.
Could you just briefly explain for me and for anybody who
might be listening or read the record of this case what that
depiction of the four--they are not photographs but brain scans
regarding methamphetamine use represents?
Dr. Leshner. They are--and if you will indulge me, given
the comments earlier this morning about Ecstasy, I would also
like to take just a minute and tell you about the other poster
as well, which I did mention in my oral statement. The measure
here--bright colors are more, dull colors are less--is the
ability to use a substance in the brain called dopamine.
Dopamine is necessary for normal cognitive functioning and the
normal experience of pleasure. It is a very important
neurochemical substance.
What you see on the left is the ability to bind dopamine in
a control, in this case a normal individual. The second scan is
the brain of the methamphetamine abuser 3 years after that
individual stopped using methamphetamine. The third is a
methcathinone addict 3 years later. The fourth is a newly
diagnosed Parkinson's disease patient. As you know, Parkinson's
is a dopamine abnormality as well, although it affects a
different part of the brain.
What is significant here is that you are seeing a very
long-lasting effect of drug use that persists long after the
individual has stopped using the drugs. What is important about
the particular brain change is that it could account for some
of the mood alterations and certainly the psychotic-like
behavior that persists after methamphetamine use long after the
individual stops using it.
The other chart, which actually you may have seen a related
study reported in the press just yesterday, is the first
demonstration in humans--this is the first demonstration in
humans on methamphetamine, by the way--the first demonstration
in humans of the persistent effects of Ecstasy use. MDMA is
Ecstasy. What you are seeing here on the top is a control
individual, a normal individual. The measure here is the
ability to bind another neurochemical called serotonin.
Seratonin is critical to normal experiences of mood. As you may
know, antidepressants can modify serotonin binding.
So there is a normal individual on top. The bottom is an
Ecstasy user. In this case it is 3 weeks after that individual
has stopped using Ecstasy. What you are seeing here is a
persistent decrease in the ability of the brain to bind this
very important neuro-chemical substance.
The study published yesterday actually showed in primates--
I am not sure how you would do this in humans--but showed in
primates a virtually identical effect 7 years after the
primates were given MDMA. So that the point that I have been
making is that drug use has an effect not only acutely, not
only in the chronic use condition, but that it has persistent
effects that last long after the individual stops using drugs.
Mr. Barr. Would the same hold for extended marijuana usage?
Dr. Leshner. We don't know in detail.
We know in great detail--and the question was asked earlier
this morning, and I would be pleased to submit information on
that for the record--we know in great detail the mechanisms by
which marijuana exerts its acute effects in the brain, its
short-term effects. We do know that in long-term marijuana
users there are persistent behavioral effects that persist 48
to 72 hours after the individual stops using marijuana. But, as
far as I know, no studies have been done analogous to this that
are looking so far out after marijuana use.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Dr. Leshner. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Mica. I would like to thank both of you. We have
additional questions which we would like to submit to you for
the record. I would also like to leave the record open for at
least 2 weeks for you to submit additional information.
Someone commented that if we could get these charts to
every parent in America, we probably would have a lot less drug
use, when people could see the actual effects on their body and
on their brains.
Dr. Leshner. We are trying, sir. We are trying to do
exactly that.
Mr. Mica. It is very revealing. Quite shocking.
I would also be interested if you can supply us with any
similar information on the effects of marijuana, if you do come
across that. I think that would be interesting to have. Also,
these other drugs we will put in as part of the record.
Dr. Leshner. We will provide you with information on that.
Mr. Mica. I would like to thank both of you. We will submit
additional questions.
I would like to call our third panel at this time and
excuse the second panel.
Our third panel today consists of Mr. James McDonough, the
director of the Office of Drug Control Policy of the State of
Florida; Mr. Scott Ehlers, the senior policy analyst at the
Drug Policy Foundation; Mr. Robert L. Maginnis, a senior
director of the Family Research Council; Mr. David Boaz,
executive vice president of the Cato Institute; and Mr. Ira
Glasser, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties
Union.
I am pleased that all of you have joined us today. As I
indicated before, our subcommittee is an investigative and
oversight panel of Congress. We do swear in our witnesses. If
you wouldn't mind standing and raising your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. I thank the witnesses. They have all answered in
the affirmative.
I will also point out, most of you are new to the panel, we
do ask that any lengthy statements or additional information
you would like to submit to the record, we do so upon request,
and that we try to limit our oral presentations to 5 minutes.
You will see a little light there. We try to be a bit flexible.
With those comments in mind, I would like to first
recognize and welcome to our subcommittee Mr. James McDonough,
the director of the Office of Drug Control Policy created by
the new Governor of the State of Florida. Mr. McDonough,
welcome, and you are recognized, sir.
STATEMENTS OF JAMES MCDONOUGH, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF DRUG CONTROL
POLICY, STATE OF FLORIDA; SCOTT EHLERS, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST,
DRUG POLICY FOUNDATION; ROBERT L. MAGINNIS, SENIOR DIRECTOR,
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL; DAVID BOAZ, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
CATO INSTITUTE; AND IRA GLASSER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Mr. McDonough. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an
honor to be here.
I would like to submit my statement for the record and save
you the time not going through it.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, it will be made part of the
record.
Mr. McDonough. I just wanted to say a few things about my
observations of drug use in the United States and particularly
in the State of Florida where I now, as you have pointed out,
have been tasked to coordinate all drug efforts, to bring down
that abuse rate. Prior to that time I worked here in Washington
in the National Drug Control Office to see what I could do to
help the national concerns about drug abuse.
I will tell you that Florida has a bad problem with drugs.
It has enough of a problem right now that I feel any
legalization of drugs would only exacerbate drug abuse further.
I note that we have by my account some 8 percent of our people
in Florida currently using drugs. This does not fare well
compared to the national average, about 6 percent.
I have looked further. The last existing surveys in Florida
which date to 1995, show me that we are about 25 percent above
the national average with our youth use. So we have a problem
across the board, and we have a particular problem with youths.
I think one of the reasons why we have such a problem is
the vast supply of drugs coming through the State. I have taken
a look at that, over the first 90 days that I have been in
office down there, by going around the State. What I see, quite
frankly, is shocking. In this past year, we note that the
heroin death rate in Florida has gone up 51 percent in only 1
year. This is just an enormous rise in the statistics in only 1
year. It makes one shudder as to how it is going to look over
the long term.
The cocaine-related deaths in the State are also up a
horrific extent. We are talking about in the last 6 years, a 65
percent increase in the cocaine-related death rate. This now
means that with over 1,100 deaths a year, that statistic
exceeds the murder rate in Florida.
Having said that, indications are that a big part of this
is related to the amount of drugs flowing through the State. I
have a note that last year, Customs reported that some 60 to 65
percent of the cocaine it seized in total, nationally, was
seized in Florida. I am trying to point out that there are
several factors for the abnormal rate of drug use in the State.
But one of the factors I am certain is the supply of drugs.
I might add that I have spent most of my initial time in
the State going around the various areas meeting with the civic
leaders, the local leaders, the media, and a significant
portion of the time getting into the treatment centers to see
what the people who are addicted to drugs have to say. It is
remarkably revealing to me, something I also saw when I worked
at the national level.
When you go into a treatment center where you are seeing
people in their 20's, 30's or 40's, by the way some in their
teens who have really suffered a lot in their lives and brought
a lot of suffering on other people, who have committed the
majority of the crimes in the State, there is a couple of
messages that they give you.
The first message is, and I don't endorse this message, but
the first thing they tend to tell you as a group is, ``I'm a
wreck. I have hurt a lot of people in my life. I'm a failure.''
The next thing they tell you--they don't really tell you,
they ask you, they ask you for help. They say, unless you get
me the treatment, I'm a goner. I don't want to die. Please,
please, we need help, or I need help.
When I ask them what got them started on drugs, it
invariably goes back to their youth. Usually, it is their early
youth. They tell me, yeah, I smoked; yeah, I drank; marijuana
was my initial drug. They tell me they started this at 12, 13,
14.
When I ask them, well, would it have been any different if
these drugs were legal, they say, ``Absolutely not. The last
thing we need is the legalization of marijuana. It is marijuana
that got me here.'' Probably that phrase is the one I hear most
often. I will tell you I have yet to hear from any addict
talking to me saying, you know, if only drugs had been legal, I
wouldn't be in the shape I am today.
I might add, on a much more graphic note, when I listen to
parents, I have no parent of a child that has suffered from the
abuse of drugs, died from an overdose or caused untold grief on
the family say, ``if only the drugs had been legal, my child
would not have been caught up in this.''
So my observation is, the last thing Florida needs, and I
would extrapolate that, the last thing the country needs, is
the legalization of illicit drugs. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonough follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.111
Mr. Mica. We will withhold questions.
I would like to recognize next Mr. Ira Glasser, the
executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
You are recognized, sir. Welcome.
Mr. Glasser. Thank you.
I ask to have my testimony which I have delivered to the
committee be submitted for the record, and then I will
summarize.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, that entire statement will be
made a part of the record.
Mr. Glasser. Thank you.
Let me speak to the three named topics of this hearing, to
harm reduction, to criminalization and to legalization. These
terms are thrown around a lot by a lot of different people. It
is not always clear what they mean. So I want you to be clear
what I mean.
There are two kinds of harms associated with drugs. One set
is caused by the drugs themselves. That is mostly what we have
been talking about today. It is important to say, and we have
not heard much of that today, that those harms vary widely,
depending on the particular drug, depending on its potency,
depending on its purity, depending on its dosage, depending on
the circumstances and the frequency of its use.
There is no such thing as harms from drugs; there are only
harms from particular drugs used in particular ways, in
particular frequencies at particular dosages.
We have also not heard, but I think it is important when
you are making policy, distinctions between use and abuse. We
have heard just now, for example, that no parent would say,
``If only drugs were legal,'' if they had a child who overdosed
from drugs. I am the parent of four children who grew up in the
middle of Manhattan. I agree with that. I would be very
distraught if one of my kids had died from an overdose of
drugs.
But I tell you what I would say as a parent and what I have
heard many parents say when their kids are not drug abusers but
maybe smoked a marijuana joint when they were 16 in the same
way as they may have tried a beer. Both of them are illegal at
the age of 16. But these kids were under control, they used it
moderately once in a while, they did well in school, they did
well in sports, and they grew up to be stable, productive kids.
Those parents were not real happy about the law.
When my 15-year-old came to me, 20 years ago now, and said,
``I'm smoking marijuana, what should I do about it?'' I talked
to him as I would have if he told me he was drinking beer. And
then I told him one other thing. I said, you have two
additional dangers from marijuana that you don't have from
beer. One of them is you can get arrested for it, and the other
is you don't know what you're getting on the street because
it's totally unregulated. And it is only for those two reasons
and not for any other reasons, not for any pharmacological
reasons, that I was more concerned about his use of marijuana
than I was about his use of beer.
Kids can be destroyed in a lot of ways. Frankly, I don't
need the government's help in raising my children; and I don't
want the government's intervention, particularly with the
police power of the State.
I had real concerns about my kids drinking too much. But
that had nothing to do with legality or illegality. It had to
do with teaching children the responsible use of dangerous
substances.
And it is critical when you are making policy to make
distinctions, I think, between use and abuse. There are 70
million people, most of them adults, in this country who have
admitted to using marijuana; and virtually all of them have
done so while maintaining productive and stable lives. Most of
them you wouldn't even know they had smoked marijuana.
It used to be said, 15 years ago, that every family had
somebody gay in their family, only they didn't know it. That is
true of marijuana use today. We hear the stories of the abuse,
but we don't hear the stories of the use, we don't hear the
stories of controlled use, of moderate use, of long-term use,
within lives that are otherwise stable and productive.
One of the questions we have to ask ourselves is, do we
want to make those people criminals out of the concern for
people who are abusing drugs? Those are very important
differences.
The second kind of harm is the harm associated with the law
itself. Our laws, which are criminal prohibition laws for the
most part, create problems, just as they did during alcohol
prohibition, that the drugs themselves do not cause. Al Capone
did not shoot people because he was drunk, and most drug
dealers are not shooting people because they are high. There
are many studies which show that. It makes sense. Everybody
knows that Al Capone didn't shoot people because he was drunk.
He was settling commercial disputes with weapons in the streets
because that is what prohibition requires you to do because you
can't settle disputes through the law.
The random, escalating violence in our streets is not
caused by the drugs. It is certainly not caused by marijuana,
which if anything makes people less aggressive. It is caused by
making commercial transactions which we cannot prevent be
settled outside the law with violence in a way that endangers
all sorts of people, including innocent bystanders.
Now, criminalization and legalization. Criminalization
means the attempt by society to control the availability of
drugs in order to deal with drug abuse; to control the
availability through criminal prohibitions with heavy penalties
by interdiction and by deterring commercial transactions. That
is what criminal prohibition is. That is what criminalization
is.
We ought to be assessing whether criminal prohibition
works, not on the basis of moral fervor about drug use and
certainly not on the basis of a concern about drug abuse which
criminalizes drug users who have no problem. We ought to be
assessing whether, in fact, it reduces drug availability,
whether, in fact, it deters commercial transactions and whether
perhaps it doesn't create harms that didn't exist there before.
Legalization refers to an alternative system. I want to say
this very carefully. Legalization refers to an alternative
system of controlling the availability and safety of drugs. It
means that you have regulations of various kinds instead of
criminal prohibition.
You cannot regulate what you are trying to prohibit
because, by definition, when you prohibit, you are putting it
outside the law. Regulations can range from medical
prescriptions for things like Prozac and valium, and it can
range from more restrictive kinds of medical prescriptions like
the use of morphine over a 2-week period for pain relief in a
hospital setting; and it can be regulations that are milder
like those used for alcohol and tobacco.
We would never say that, because there are 15 million
alcoholics in this country, we should make criminals out of
people who drink a bottle of wine at night with dinner or have
a scotch after work. We would never say that, and this country
would never accept it. And we would not even say, even to those
15 million who are alcoholics, that the way to deter you from
being alcoholics and ruining your lives and the lives of the
people around you is to put you in jail and arrest you. We
don't say it with alcohol, we don't say it with tobacco, so why
do we say it with marijuana, for example? It has to be that
there is something much worse about marijuana use than there is
about alcohol use and tobacco use.
Part of the task, if you are going to really be objective
and impartial about this, is to find out what exactly that is.
And the science that we bring to bear on that has to be a
science that is contested, that is peer reviewed and that is
not the product of political conclusions drawn first with the
scientific evidence marshaled to support it.
There are books you have introduced today. There are other
books you ought to be introducing. I can tell you what some of
them are. I have read them all.
As a nonscientist, I can tell you when you read them all,
you find that the science is a lot more unsettled than we have
heard here today and that, in fact, marijuana may be one of the
mildest drugs and the least dangerous drugs and the least
capable of abuse of all the drugs we are talking about,
including those that are legal. So the question about why do
you want to criminalize even heavy use users and, above all,
why we want to criminalize productive users who are using it
the way you use alcohol, is a heavy burden for a free society
to bear. It is a burden I suggest you ought to take seriously.
One final point. The enforcement of drug laws in this
country has become an engine for the restoration of Jim Crow
justice. We have to talk about race when we are talking about
the enforcement of drug laws. Maybe this is not inevitable and
maybe it is not an inevitable consequence of prohibition, but
the racially disparate sentences between crack cocaine and
powdered cocaine, the racially disparate arrests for the same
offense, the racial profiling that goes on in drug interdiction
on our highways of which we have heard so much of recently, the
racial profiling in sentencing, the disproportionate number of
black and Latino people who are in prison for the same offenses
in the face of everybody telling us that most drug users and
most drug addicts are white. As long ago as the early 1980's,
William Bennett, one of General McCaffrey's predecessors, said
80 percent of the drug addicts and drug users are white males
in their 20's in the suburbs, but that isn't who we are
arresting and that isn't who we are sending to jail and that
isn't who we are pulling over in their cars.
The racial consequences of this experiment in criminal
prohibition are stunning in this country and have also led to
the disenfranchisement, the post-felony disenfranchisement of
14 percent of African American men. One in three men between 20
and 29, African American men, are now under the jurisdiction of
the criminal justice system, most of them for nonviolent
arrests, most of them for possession.
Thirteen percent of all monthly drug users are African
American, according to Federal Government statistics--but 34
percent of those arrested are African-American, 55 percent of
those convicted are African-American, 74 percent of those
imprisoned are African-American. That is a scandal that has to
be part of the burden you bear when you look at the
consequences of criminalization.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glasser follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.119
Mr. Mica. I would like to recognize next Mr. Scott Ehlers,
senior policy analyst with the Drug Policy Foundation.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I have a full statement that I would
like to introduce into the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, that will be made part of the
record. Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
Chairman Mica, Representative Mink and other distinguished
members of the subcommittee, once again my name is Scott
Ehlers, senior policy analyst for the Drug Policy Foundation.
Thank you for inviting me to testify about our Nation's
drug policies. I am proud to say that the Drug Policy
Foundation has been on the forefront of reform since 1986.
I am sorry to say that over the last two decades, the drug
war's strain on the justice system has gone up significantly.
Drug arrests are up from 580,000 in 1980 to nearly 1.6 million
in 1997. The number of drug offenders in prison is 22 times
larger today than in 1980. We are creating, in the words of
General Barry McCaffrey, a ``drug gulag.''
One of those prisoners is Dorothy Gaines, a mother of three
from Mobile, AL. Dorothy calls me every week to tell me how she
misses her children and how she would be willing to wear an
ankle bracelet for the rest of her life if she could just go
home. Dorothy is serving 19 years in Federal prison on a crack
cocaine conspiracy charge. No evidence of drugs were ever found
in her home. She has no previous arrests. She is an upstanding,
church-going citizen. There is so little evidence that the
State court threw the case out. But the Federal prosecutor took
it anyway.
She was convicted merely on the testimony of drug dealers
who lied so they could get a reduced sentence. The kingpin is
going to get out of prison 8 years before Dorothy because she
didn't know anyone to snitch on.
But it is not only Dorothy serving time. So is her son
Phillip who wrote the trial judge to strike a deal: ``Dear
Judge, would you help my mom? I don't have anyone to take care
of me and my sisters. My birthday is coming up in October, and
I need my mom to be here. I will cut your grass, I will wash
your car every day. Just don't send my mom off. Please, please,
don't send her off.''
Other families are being torn apart just like Dorothy's,
many of whom are in this book, ``Shattered Lives,'' which I am
sending to each of you. And if there have been other books
entered into the record, I am wondering if this is a
possibility as well.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, it will be noted and made part
of the record.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
[Note.--The information referred to may be found in
subcommittee files.]
Mr. Ehlers. Have the mass incarcerations made drugs less
available? Cocaine is half as expensive today as in 1981, and
heroin is five times as pure. In 1975, 87 percent of high
school seniors said it was easy to get marijuana. Today, that
figure is 90.4 percent. Clearly, our Nation's current drug
strategy is not achieving its intended goals.
We think there is a better way, based on the following
principles and reforms.
No. 1, drug use and addiction should be treated as public
health issues, not criminal justice problems. With the threat
of criminal sanctions gone, many more people with substance
abuse problems would seek medical assistance rather than hiding
out of fear of arrest.
No. 2, prevention should address the root causes of drug
use and abuse. Community development, job training programs,
and afterschool programs should receive more support.
No. 3, drug policy should be based on science and research,
not ideology. Research shows that treatment is more cost
effective than prison. Marijuana is an effective medicine, and
syringe exchange reduces the spread of HIV.
No. 4, drug policy should be based on a respect for the
Constitution, civil liberties and property rights.
Unfortunately, Representatives Barr and Cummings aren't here. I
was going to thank them for cosponsoring the Civil Asset
Forfeiture Reform Act, which we are supporting, that would
protect property owners.
No. 5, Federal drug policy should respect democracy and
States' rights. The Federal Government should respect State
initiatives that have supported drug policy reforms.
No. 6, mandatory minimums should be repealed, drug
sentences reduced and alternatives to incarceration
implemented. Congress should support Representative Waters in
passing her H.R. 1681 which would repeal mandatory minimums for
drug offenses. We also support General McCaffrey's call to
reduce drug prisoners by 250,000.
No. 7, the regulation and control of currently illicit
drugs must be included as one of the drug policy options that
is discussed. What would these regulations look like? Would the
government, doctors, or special drugstores dispense the drugs?
Would all currently illicit drugs be sold in the regulated
market or are some unacceptably dangerous? Would drugs be
regulated over 1 year or 20 years? All of these questions have
to be answered by the American public.
Why must regulation be considered? Because prohibition and
the resulting black market enrich criminals and terrorists
around the world, encourages the recruitment of youth to sell
drugs, provides youth with easier access to drugs, corrupts
government officials, and undermines the rule of law.
We must also acknowledge the potential benefits of
regulating the drug market, including taking the profit out of
the hands of criminals and putting it into government coffers
for expanding prevention and treatment efforts.
In conclusion, there are a wide variety of drug policy
innovations that would save tax dollars, protect children and
improve public health, but we must first realize that police
and prisons are not the solution to our social problems. As a
free society, we should seriously consider all the options to
determine the best drug policy for our country.
Thank you again for giving me this opportunity.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.140
Mr. Mica. I would like to recognize Mr. Robert Maginnis,
senior director of the Family Research Council.
You are recognized. Welcome, sir.
Mr. Maginnis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee.
Sir, I would ask to have my testimony submitted for the
record. I also have five exhibits, actually No.'s 1 through 5
and No. 7, that I would like to show as I go through my
testimony, if I may.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Without objection, we will make that
part of the record, and we would be glad to show your displays
here.
Mr. Maginnis. Legalizers will promote myths, and we will
probably hear some today. The truth is that drug legalization,
as the DEA indicated, will lead to more crime and violence,
significantly higher social costs and ruin millions of lives
from addiction and use. These tragic results promise severe
consequences for the nonusing public as well.
I also want to dismiss the spin given to the so-called
quasi-legalization, ``successes'' like those in the Netherlands
and Switzerland.
There are five slides here I would like to show to indicate
I visited these countries numerous times and have seen their
drug problems. I have discussed their bankrupt policies with
government officials, drug treatment specialists, addicts and
their families.
Now, they took these, the first five, if you can just run
through those, please, they took a very public embarrassment to
Switzerland, and these are only in Switzerland and not the
Netherlands today, and they put this underground, basically.
They hid it in shooting galleries, they hid it in heroin
giveaway clinics, they hid it across the country. It still
exists. It is just that it is not in a big forum right in the
middle of Platzpitz Park in downtown Zurich or in Bern or some
other countries, but they continue to have a real problem.
I think it is interesting and worthwhile, noting that slide
No. 7, if she would show that. You can't quite read this, but,
basically, it is an advertisement, a giant billboard in one of
the Swiss cities that says, Bill Clinton smoked pot, and he
didn't become a junkie. The message is clear. They are taking
our cultural, our political icons in this country and using it
to promote their liberal drug policy. Very disturbing.
Unfortunately, I have seen much the same in my two visits
here recently in the Netherlands.
I will continue with my statement, sir.
Unfortunately, in this country, I see a growing tolerance
for liberal drug policies such as medical use of marijuana and
free needles for junkies. These radical ideas are seldom about
compassion but mostly part of the legalization slippery slope.
The recent Institute of Medicine report makes mincemeat of
smoked pot as medicine, and recent peer reviewed medical
journal studies show the hollow ground under needle pushers.
Two ideas are key. First, drug intolerance does work; and,
second, Americans and especially those harmed by drug use
understand that legalization is a deadly path.
Our military's experience shows that drug intolerance does
work. In 1980, 37 percent of our service members reported using
drugs. Some units were nearly incapable of doing their mission
because of drug and alcohol abuse. Today, illegal use in the
military stands at 2.7 percent. That is a victory for our
country.
Now, the armed forces won the drug use war by enforcing
tough rules. Drug use came to mean either immediate discharge
or a single chance at treatment. Frequent and random drug
testing radically cut casual use as well.
I was an Army company commander in Europe during the early
1980's when the military cracked down on drug use. As a
commander, I supervised testing, ordered soldiers to treatment
and disciplined or discharged others. We cleaned the ranks.
Today's military remains just as tough on drugs and is much
better as a result.
The military's tough antidrug program offers valuable
lessons for American society. First, aggressive use of testing
ought to be employed where legal. Second, promotion of
intolerance with stiff sanctions must become the rule. Third,
treatment with the threat of sanctions like today's drug courts
works. And, most importantly, parents, friends and local
leaders must stay involved.
Americans approve of tough drug laws and oppose
legalization.
I would point out our survey that we do every year. We
found that when told about the high potency of modern
marijuana, 7 of 10 voters oppose legalization. Nearly two-
thirds of voters believe that legalizing cocaine and heroin
would increase violent crime.
Legalization would radically increase use, which would
impact the innocent as well. Users are known to terrorize their
families and neighbors with violent acts or to steal from them.
Too often, where children are involved with a drug-using adult,
abuse and neglect are common. Welfare recipients on drugs stay
on the public dole much longer. In some cities like Baltimore,
most felony suspects test positive for illicit drugs.
The bankrupt notion that this country would legalize drugs
is especially disconcerting to the average citizen who doesn't
want to make drugs easier for kids to get. This strongly held
view is supported by a May 1999 Gallup public opinion survey
that found that 9 of every 10 Americans believe increased
violence is linked with drug and alcohol use by school age
children.
In conclusion, I urge you to reject the mythology of
legalizers. The use of drugs like marijuana, cocaine,
methamphetamine and heroin cause widespread damage and death.
Making these substances legal would pave this country's path to
social catastrophe. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maginnis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.160
Mr. Mica. Now very patiently waiting is Mr. David Boaz,
executive vice president of Cato.
Thank you for being our last panelist. You are recognized,
sir.
Mr. Boaz. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you
today on the successes and failures of our current policy and
possible alternatives.
I, too, have a complete statement that I would like to
submit for the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Boaz. Ours is a Federal republic. The Federal
Government has only the powers granted to it by the
Constitution. The United States has a tradition of individual
liberty, vigorous civil society and limited government. Just
because a problem is identified does not mean that the
government ought to undertake to solve it, and just because a
problem is found in more than one State does not mean that it
is a proper subject for Federal policy.
Perhaps no area more clearly demonstrates the bad
consequences of not following such a policy than our experience
with drug prohibition. The long Federal experiment with
prohibition of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs has
given us unprecedented crime, corruption and incarceration,
combined with a manifest failure to stop the use of drugs or to
reduce their availability to children.
In the 1920's, Congress experimented with the prohibition
of alcohol. In 1933, Congress recognized that prohibition had
failed to stop drinking and had increased prison populations
and violent crime. By the end of 1933, national prohibition was
history, although in accordance with our Federal system, many
States continued to outlaw or severely restrict the sale of
liquor.
Today, Congress must confront a similarly failed
prohibition policy. Futile attempts to enforce prohibition have
been pursued even more vigorously in the 1980's and the 1990's
than they were in the 1920's. The Federal Government spent $16
billion on drug control in 1998 and has approved a budget of
$17.9 billion for 1999. State and local governments spend
another $15 billion or more every year.
These mind-boggling amounts have had some effect, as you
have heard earlier today. Total drug arrests are now more than
1.5 million a year. Over 80 percent of the increase in the
Federal prison population has been due to drug convictions.
Drug offenders now constitute 60 percent of all Federal
prisoners.
Yet, as was the case during prohibition, all the arrests
and incarcerations have not stopped the use and abuse of drugs,
or the drug trade, or the crime associated with black market
transactions. Cocaine and heroin supplies are up. The more our
Customs agents interdict, the more smugglers import. And, of
course, while crime rates have fallen in the past few years,
today's crime rates look good only by the standards of the
recent past. They remain much higher than the levels of the
1950's.
As for discouraging young people from using drugs, a theme
that has come up many times today, the massive Federal effort
has been largely a dud. Despite these soaring expenditures,
about half the students in the United States in 1995 tried an
illegal drug before they graduated from high school. Every year
for the past 20 years, at least 82 percent of high school
seniors have said they found marijuana fairly easy or very easy
to obtain. During that same period, according to Federal
statistics of dubious reliability, teenage marijuana use fell
dramatically and then rose significantly, suggesting that
cultural factors have more effect than the legal war on drugs.
I would remind you that all of the terrible and heart-
rending stories that we have heard today in this room have
happened under a policy of prohibition, under a policy of 1.5
million arrests a year. I would suggest that is not a sign of
success.
The manifest failure of drug prohibition explains why more
and more people--from Baltimore mayor Kurt Schmoke to William
F. Buckley, Jr., to former Secretary of State George Shultz--
have argued that drug prohibition actually causes more crime
and other harms than it prevents.
We care a lot about family values these days. We have heard
a lot about families today. But the drug laws often break up
families. Too many parents have been separated from their
children because they were convicted of marijuana possession or
some other nonviolent offense.
Will Foster used marijuana to control the pain and swelling
associated with his crippling rheumatoid arthritis. He was
arrested, convicted of marijuana cultivation and sentenced to
93 years in prison, later generously reduced to 20 years in
prison. Are his three children better off with a father who
uses marijuana medicinally or a father in jail for 20 years?
And going to jail for drug offenses isn't just for men
anymore. More than two-thirds of the 150,000 women behind bars
have children.
One of them is Brenda Pearson, a heroin addict who managed
to maintain a job at a securities firm in New York. She
supplied heroin to another addict, and a Michigan prosecutor
had her extradited, prosecuted and sentenced to 50 to 200
years. We can only hope that her elderly children will remember
her when she gets out.
Drug prohibition leads to civil liberties abuses. People
who compare the success of the military to the success we might
have in a free society suggest that a military model is
appropriate for a free society. In trying to win this
unwinnable war, we have already suffered under wiretapping,
entrapment, property seizures and other abuses of Americans'
traditional liberties. As we deliberate the costs and benefits
of drug policy, we should keep those problems in mind.
Students of American history will someday ponder the
question of how today's elected officials could readily admit
to the mistaken policy of alcohol prohibition in the 1920's but
continue the policy of prohibition of other drugs.
Intellectual history teaches us that people have a strong
incentive to maintain their faith in old paradigms even as the
facts become increasingly difficult to explain within that
paradigm. But when a paradigm has manifestly failed, we need to
think creatively and develop a new paradigm.
The paradigm of prohibition has failed. I urge Members of
Congress and all Americans to have the courage to let go of the
old paradigm, to think outside the box, and to develop a new
model for dealing with the very real risks of drug and alcohol
abuse. I believe that if this committee and the 106th Congress
will subject the Federal drug laws to that kind of new
thinking, it will recognize that the drug war is not the answer
to the very real problems associated with drug use.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boaz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.175
Mr. Mica. I would like to recognize first for the purpose
of questions Mr. Barr, the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Glasser, I just have a couple of quick questions for
you.
I would like to say that I really appreciate the work of
the ACLU in a lot of different areas--privacy rights, asset
forfeiture--and I know, Mr. Ehlers, you mentioned that earlier.
I appreciate your reference to that. It isn't that we disagree
on every issue. There are a lot of issues that we do agree on
and that we work for, and I appreciate very much the work that
the ACLU does in those and many other areas as well.
We do have, I think, a fundamental policy difference on
drugs. There were a couple of terms that you used--I note you
were very careful about defining certain terms, but a couple of
terms you used, Mr. Glasser, I wanted to ask your definition
of. What is drug abuse as opposed to drug use?
Mr. Glasser. Think of the difference between an alcoholic
who is always in a stupor and gets up in the morning and drinks
a quart of vodka every day and those of us who go home at night
and share a bottle of wine at dinner or have a scotch or two,
even if we do it every night, and go in to work and lead
productive and stable lives. That is the difference between use
and abuse.
Mr. Barr. So it would be the difference between----
Mr. Glasser. Compulsive dysfunctional use, a heavy use of a
substance as opposed to occasional, moderate, responsible use.
Mr. Barr. In terms of alcohol usage, we draw such a
distinction, for example, in not making it necessarily illegal
in every instance to convict somebody for driving after they
have had a drink of alcohol. However, we try, and I think we
have succeeded in large part over the years, in developing a
somewhat sound scientific basis for measuring whether or not
somebody's faculties and facilities to react and act to stimuli
around them, for example, in driving a car, where to react
improperly poses a danger to them and more importantly to other
people, and we draw a distinction. We say it is not illegal
unless it can be shown reasonably. We do draw some lines.
Mr. Glasser. And it is not illegal if they are not in a
car. It is not illegal if they are home.
Mr. Barr. I am just using the example of driving a car,
where you inherently would pose a danger to other people.
Is it your view, then, that mind-altering drugs can be used
in certain amounts without significantly impairing a person's
ability to act and react to the world around them in a safe
manner?
Mr. Glasser. First of all, I would apply exactly the same
standard to marijuana or any other drug that we apply to
alcohol in terms of driving a car. If you are impaired for any
reason while you are driving a car, you should not be driving a
car and you should be subject to sanctions for doing it.
But that is a different question than whether or not you
are impaired at home with two friends while you are sitting
around and having a little party on a Saturday night. There you
can get drunk, can't you? And as long as you don't go out and
drive a car and put someone else in danger, the government has
no authority to intervene in your life with its police power
and put you in jail.
That is the same standard that I am talking about. When we
come across the person who cannot control the use of alcohol
and whose life is in a shambles, we still do not consider it a
criminal problem. We don't exactly always know how to solve it,
and the tale of Darryl Strawberry and millions of other people
whose names are not as well known teaches us that this is not
an easy problem to solve, but we know that, with respect to
alcohol, we don't do it with prison, and we don't do it with
cops. That is what I am saying.
Mr. Barr. Thank you.
One other term that you used was a productive user. I am
not quite sure what you mean.
Mr. Glasser. I mean a person who is productive. I mean
that----
Mr. Barr. Who is productive yet also uses drugs? Not that
using drugs makes you productive.
Mr. Glasser. I mean the CEO of a major company who is on
the cover of Fortune magazine and the only reason he may not be
admitting that he smokes marijuana the way you and I drink red
wine is because it is stupid to admit to a crime.
Mr. Barr. You are not outing somebody, are you? You are not
outing a CEO?
Mr. Glasser. That is why I haven't used any names.
But that is what I mean by productive. I mean, when you
have 70 million people who have admitted to using marijuana,
you almost can conclude inevitably that most of those people
are people you would like your kids to grow up to be like and
that they are using marijuana in no way different than you use
wine.
Mr. Barr. We probably disagree on that as well.
Mr. Glasser. But then we have to find out why we disagree.
Mr. Barr. But you are, I am sure, being a very learned and
very, very well read gentleman, you are aware of the studies
that have been done over the years, not just recently but going
back many years, about the cost to the productivity of
individuals, corporations and companies, large and small, with
regard to drug usage?
Mr. Glasser. Actually, Mr. Barr, I think those studies are
less conclusive with respect to the conclusion you draw than
you think. The ACLU is about to put out a study on the utility
of urine testing in employment settings and the relationship of
drug use off the job to productivity, to absences. You would be
surprised.
Mr. Barr. I will agree with you to the extent that some of
the figures that I see from some of these studies, they are
sort of like this Y2K issue, we had some witnesses come in on
that and they said it would cost a trillion dollars.
To some extent, I don't want to argue over the exact
magnitude of it, but in talking even anecdotally with employers
of small businesses, for example, they are very forthcoming in
indicating the dropoff in productivity, the danger posed to
other people when people try and use machinery and so forth. So
there are costs.
Mr. Glasser. How do they know this?
Mr. Barr. I suspect that any good employer can tell if an
employee is dozing off on the job because of drug usage.
Sometimes you can smell it. Sometimes it is because of drug
tests.
Mr. Glasser. What about if they use marijuana on a Saturday
night and then it was Wednesday? What then?
Mr. Barr. I suppose if one could establish that you can
absolutely discretely say, OK, drug usage on day 1 will have no
effect whatsoever on day 2, 3, 4, 50, 100 or 125, your position
might have some merit.
Mr. Glasser. And so isn't that worth finding out?
Mr. Barr. I think to a large extent we probably have found
out an awful lot. Maybe not so conclusively that every
scientist and every doctor is willing to say with
definitiveness, yes, this is exactly how it is. We have some
studies up here that some scientists and doctors agree on.
Others say there is certainly room for more study.
But, from a practical standpoint, I think a lot of
employers would take exception to saying that people that use
marijuana and then come into the job are productive
individuals. There are some costs.
Mr. McDonough, with regard to the comparison as many draw,
or the distinction, as many draw between alcohol usage up to
the point where it does not demonstrably, measurably,
significantly interfere with a person's ability to react and
act to stimuli around them, do you think that alcohol usage is
the same as the usage of mind-altering drugs? In other words,
those on the Federal Schedule of Controlled Substances?
Mr. McDonough. Well, I think not. I would like to just take
a few minutes to say why I think that.
I have heard some figures bandied about rather freely. I
would like to just recap them. The fact that 70 some million
people in America used to use drugs is true. I think it is good
that drugs are illegal because over 60 million of them have
stopped using drugs, which I think is a very good outcome. The
casual use of drugs as a benign event, nonthreatening, I will
tell you, sir, with 120,000 dead in the decade of the 1990's
alone, I don't think so. I actually do think there is a
debilitation with a significant portion of drug users that
leads, in fact, to death and a lot of room before death, not
just to the people that suffer from it but their families as
well, as well as our neighborhoods.
In this regard, of the casual, do it in your home, it is
not a problem, I would ask that we take a look at the children
who end up in foster homes. The statistics that I have reviewed
several times show me that some 60 to 70 percent of the
children in the United States in foster homes are there because
within the nuclear family you had the instance of substance
abuse. So the idea that it is a harmless, benign pastime, I
just can't agree with.
That gets us into the analogy of Prohibition, which has
been mentioned at this table three times. I have heard it
often. It would have you think that Al Capone was the product
of Prohibition. With that came Tommy guns and with that came
murder rates.
I will tell you that in the United States I have looked at
the statistics and would like to submit them for the record.
Between 1900 and 1915 the murder rate in the United States per
100,000 went up 800 percent. It is true that during the period
of Prohibition, there was a marginal increase in the murder
rate, another 12 percent above that 800 percent. But I would
tell you today that the murder rate is below what it was both
before Prohibition and after Prohibition. So to draw the
analogy that Prohibition causes Tommy guns and Al Capone and
murder and we see that repeated with drugs just doesn't seem to
wash.
In regard to prisons, I would just like to make this
statement. I do believe we can do an awful lot in this country
with drug courts and coerced abstinence, meaning treatment for
those in the criminal justice system, but I have to say it is
an absolute myth that we have filled our prisons with the
casual smoker of a harmless bong. I did take a look at
Florida's prison statistics before I came here. I would like to
submit that for the record. I would tell you of the 65,000 plus
in prison in late 1997, there were 14 people there, that is 14,
not 1,400, there for the primary offense of the possession of
marijuana. In every one of those cases, it was at a degree, at
a level that made you believe that they, in fact, were
trafficking in marijuana.
So I will tell you that without any hesitation,
statistically I can report that there is no one in the Florida
prison with only one conviction of a marijuana possession
offense. Of the 14, all of them had prior records; and some had
other serious crimes along with that.
So when Mr. Maginnis talks about this series of myths, I
think he is exactly right. Not that we can't do better with our
laws in getting treatment, prevention and cutting supply, I
think we should do that, but to surrender, that it is hopeless,
that it is an abomination to abuse the rights of the individual
to continue as we are, I think is a far overblown case. Drugs
are serious, drugs do alter the mind. Dr. Leshner demonstrated
that.
Mr. Barr. Is that why they call them mind-altering drugs?
Mr. McDonough. That is why they call it that. It is a mess.
I think making them legal actually makes the mess worse.
One final thing, I listened to the story about talking to
children about the use of drugs. When I was at the national
level, we would survey again and again the 80 percent of our
children that don't use drugs.
By the way, that dispels a myth right there. Eighty percent
of our children between the ages of 12 and 17 don't use drugs.
At the worst of it, a senior in high school, about 25 percent
are current drug users. But to come to the point when you ask
the 80 percent why don't you use drugs, the overwhelming answer
is, ``My mother and my father told me not to.'' It is as simple
as that.
Mr. Barr. Do you find a corresponding statistic on the
other side that there is a disturbing correlation between
brothers, sisters, parents that use drugs and that is given as
a reason those teenagers in the 20 percent give for their use
of drugs?
Mr. McDonough. That is exactly right. I have done that as
well. I have gone to them and that 20 percent. I put it this
way: ``Have your parents ever talked to you about using
drugs?'' The overwhelming answer is no. The other thing I ask,
which is a very touchy one, ``is there drug use in your
family?'' A significant portion say yes. What they see is what
they do.
Mr. Barr. That comports with my experience as a U.S.
Attorney in dealing with this issue and communities in the
northern district of Georgia.
Mr. Ehlers, I would like to discuss very briefly the
concept of harm reduction which seems sort of a domestic
version I suppose of our Kosovo policy to some extent. Because
if you say that, well, we are going to let people use drugs so
that we reduce the harm, there is--and I know that no matter
how strong and how well-researched a medical study or a
scientific study there is, some people just won't believe it,
but there are, in fact, very, very sound scientific studies,
some of which we have already introduced into the record today,
that indicate that just marijuana, to say nothing of the other
much more serious drugs, marijuana usage does have direct,
serious negative effects on the human immune system, the
autoimmune system. It can hasten the onset of AIDS in HIV
patients.
We also know from studies that marijuana severely damages
various human organs over time. We have seen with regard to
some substances the effect on the brain. Another study was
referred to earlier with regard to the detrimental effect of
prolonged marijuana usage on the human reproductive system,
particularly in males. We know certainly about the effects,
well-documented, on the heart and the lungs of marijuana usage.
Dozens of studies show also that there is a psychiatric
component to both drug usage as well as withdrawal from drug
usage. Withdrawal from marijuana, for example, can create--does
create a propensity toward violent or aggressive behavior.
If, in fact, one says that, well, we look at drugs as harm
reduction; we let people use drugs because to not do drugs
would somehow create more harm; in light of these studies,
particularly those that show that marijuana does damage to the
immune systems of HIV and AIDS patients at a rate at least
twice as fast as those who do not use marijuana, how can you
really advocate the use of marijuana for HIV and AIDS patients
and say that this is harm reduction if in fact it demonstrably
and by scientific evidence hastens the onset of AIDS and
hastens death in these patients?
Mr. Ehlers. I haven't seen that research that you are
talking about. All I do know is I have met HIV and AIDS
patients who get relief from using medical marijuana. They are
all over the place, whether it be in California or here in DC.
The HIV/AIDS community has been some of the biggest advocates
on behalf of medical marijuana. It helps their wasting
syndrome.
If you are taking lots of pills in order to try to combat
your illness, then you need something to help keep those pills
down. You need something to help you eat. And so time and
again, we have seen AIDS patients who have used medical
marijuana to stimulate appetite and to end their nausea and
that helps them live.
Mr. Barr. But if you, in fact, read these studies and were,
in fact, convinced that there is some merit to it that shows
that, aside from those other results of marijuana usage, we
will leave that aside for the moment, if it could be shown, as
I believe it has been, that the use of marijuana does have very
serious detrimental, long-term--insofar as you can speak of
long term in somebody with terminal AIDS--results, would you
still maintain that it is a benefit to give them marijuana even
though it may hasten the onset of their death?
Mr. Ehlers. You would have to weigh the evidence against
using marijuana as a means to increase weight, to end nausea.
You would have to weigh that evidence against any potential
increase in the spread of the HIV virus.
Like I said, I haven't seen that evidence. The HIV patients
who use medical marijuana right now say it really benefits
them, so I have to take their word for it.
Mr. Barr. With regard to the increased propensity for
violence by marijuana users and other drug users, both during
the use of the drugs and, as has been shown in studies, in
withdrawal, would this also be something that, if you saw these
studies and they seemed to be scientifically based, would cause
you to rethink in any way your advocacy of marijuana in terms
of so-called harm reduction?
Mr. Ehlers. If I saw that evidence. But I noted when you
said that, I have some quotes from the Institute of Medicine
report. What they have to say is, ``a distinctive marijuana THC
withdrawal syndrome has been identified, but it is mild and
subtle compared to the profound physical syndrome of alcohol or
heroin withdrawal. Compared to most other drugs, dependence
among marijuana users is relatively rare.''
So the Institute of Medicine didn't find it. I don't know
where that evidence would come from.
Mr. Barr. In that case, drawing the analogy, should
alcoholics be given free alcohol? Would that be considered harm
reduction?
Mr. Ehlers. No. Because alcoholics, they can't function
properly on the use of alcohol.
Mr. Barr. Heavy marijuana users can?
Mr. Ehlers. That is not what I am advocating.
Mr. Barr. So you are not advocating marijuana usage?
Mr. Ehlers. No.
Mr. Barr. Are you opposed to marijuana usage?
Mr. Ehlers. No.
Mr. Barr. Is there some middle ground there that I am
missing?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes, there is. I don't think marijuana smokers
should be imprisoned. That is what it comes down to. I don't
think they should use, but I don't think they should be
imprisoned, either.
Mr. Barr. So your basis is really not so much a harm
reduction or medical but more, as Mr. Glasser's is, more of a
legal--or Mr. Boaz's is basically a legal one. These are not
the sort of things the government should be regulating?
Mr. Ehlers. Ultimately, I don't think the government should
be involved in arresting nonviolent marijuana users if they are
adults.
Mr. Barr. With regard to, I noticed in your testimony on
page 3----
Mr. Ehlers. The full testimony?
Mr. Barr. Yes, your paper here. On page 3, you say, other
maintenance therapies should be explored, including the use
of--I can't pronounce that, but it does go on, I can pronounce
heroin maintenance--based on the successful programs in England
and Switzerland.
How do you define successful programs in England and
Switzerland? How do you gauge? How do you determine their
success?
Because, like Dr. Maginnis, I have been over there.
Granted, my perspective in going over there was probably
different from yours, but I have seen, at least to some extent,
the methadone clinics over there. I have gone to the shooting
galleries they have in Switzerland. I have seen mothers go into
these, leave their babies out on the streets for hours on end,
with nobody watching them because it is more important for them
to go in and shoot up at a shooting gallery at government
expense than it is to pay attention to what is happening with
their children.
I don't measure that--I don't say, hey, that's a successful
program. We ought to emulate it. How do you measure the success
of the programs in England and Switzerland on heroin
maintenance?
Mr. Ehlers. I measure success by the reduction of crime in
Switzerland. They found a 60 percent reduction in crime among
people who were in the program.
There is also an increase----
Mr. Barr. Heroin use would be a form of crime prevention?
Mr. Ehlers. It wasn't about crime as far as the crime of
possessing heroin. It was the crime of going out to steal in
order to support a habit. So, yes, it is used as a crime
prevention program, as is methadone maintenance in a way. It
also increased employment, decreased homelessness, stabilized
people's lives, brought people into treatment. A lot of people
weren't interested in heroin maintenance after they tried it.
They wanted to go into treatment.
Mr. Barr. That is not my experience when I was over there
just a couple of years ago talking with some of the doctors at
the government-run clinics. They said, for example, that they
would find that once people got into the program and were able
to come by several times a day and get their drugs from the
government, they would lose their interest in maintaining a
job; they would lose their interest in their family; and the
most important thing every day was getting by the clinic at a
certain time so they could get shot up.
Here again, I am not quite sure whether that is a success
or whether you would measure success simply because that person
is no longer committing crimes. He or she doesn't have to. They
can just come to the clinic and get their drugs.
It seems almost a circular argument that, hey, this is a
successful program because we're giving them what they want so
they don't have to go out and take it from somebody else, but I
am not quite sure that it has an effect, as you say, on
unemployment, other than perhaps increasing it because they
feel they don't have to or can't maintain a job because they
are constantly going over to the clinic.
Mr. Ehlers. I just can tell you what I saw in the research.
The research showed that there was an increase in employment, a
decrease in unemployment. There is a stabilization of lives.
I can give you the research if you would like. I have it.
Mr. Boaz. Congressman, could I add one sentence in response
to that?
As a nonheroin user, I would consider a program successful
if it reduced the amount of crime that I and my family had to
be subjected to as we walk through a city like Washington, DC,
or Zurich. It would be better if people cured their heroin
addiction, but it is certainly a success for the rest of
society if crime went down 60 percent.
Mr. Barr. With regard to one other question that I posed
earlier, Mr. Ehlers, to an earlier panelist with regard to
studies documented in the Marijuana and Medicine book that we
have introduced into the record here that show demonstrably a
very negative effect on human reproductivity. If you see this
study and you conclude, as I think is pretty obvious, that it
does have an effect on the abnormal development and production
of spermatozoa in humans, would that be something that would be
a success if we say it is OK for people to smoke marijuana and
use other drugs, notwithstanding the possible effect or very
likely effect it would have on birth defects and so forth?
Would this also be harm reduction?
Mr. Ehlers. I don't think it is OK to smoke marijuana. That
is not really the point.
One, I think there is a lot of conflicting evidence on the
health effects of marijuana. I think Ira mentioned earlier
another book that we would like to introduce into the record,
``Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts.'' That looks at all the
scientific research, and overall it shows that the negative
health effects of marijuana are fairly benign. I don't think
the research is there.
Mr. Barr. I would respectfully say you are somewhat
selective in research.
On page 4 of your paper, you have as a footnote No. 8 to
the following statement: ``The Institute of Medicine found
marijuana to be an effective medicine.'' But if you look, as
you have properly done, at the quote in your footnote No. 8, it
simply says that the accumulated data indicates a potential
therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs. I don't think that is
quite the same thing as saying it is an effective medicine.
Would you agree with that? That you might have overstated the
case a little bit?
Mr. Ehlers. I should have used a better quote like from the
principal investigator, Dr. John Bentsen, who said, ``we
concluded there are some limited circumstances in which we
recommend smoking marijuana for medical uses.''
Mr. Barr. With regard to the Drug Policy Foundation, is the
money that you all receive from George Soros received directly
from him or does it come through other conduits?
Mr. Ehlers. We receive a grant from the Open Society
Institute to run our grant program.
Mr. Barr. So it doesn't come directly from Mr. Soros? It
comes from the Open Society Foundation of his?
Mr. Ehlers. That is a foundation that he established, yes.
Mr. Barr. How much do you receive? Is there a set amount
that you receive each year or does it vary?
Mr. Ehlers. This year the grant program received $1.75
million.
Mr. Barr. Is that consistent with prior years or has it
gone up or down?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes, I think that is fair. I am not exactly
sure, but I think that is about the same as what has happened
in the past.
Mr. Barr. Before I turn back to the chairman, Mr. Maginnis,
as you have indicated, I know you have done extensive research
and travel to Switzerland and the Netherlands and some of the
other countries where they have gone further down the road
toward legalization than we have at this point. Would you care
to take just a couple of minutes--and I appreciate the
chairman's indulgence--but just take a couple of minutes in
response, to reflect on some of the other material we have gone
over here in the last several minutes on the concept of harm
reduction and whether or not the programs whereby citizens of
Switzerland, for example, are allowed on a regular basis,
several times each day, to go shoot up with drugs, whether this
is indeed a benefit and a harm reduction.
Mr. Maginnis. Yes, sir, I have visited Switzerland six
times in the last 3 years specifically to look at the drug
issue. It is interesting with regard to what the Swiss
Government has been doing that even the Dutch Government, who
is known for its drug policy, has been very critical of the
outcome of the Swiss experiment.
The World Health Organization just a couple of months ago
really condemned the outcome. They said, this is not science.
They didn't use the word quackery, but if in fact you read
their study, they come to that conclusion.
And the INCB, the International Narcotics Control Board,
just in May released a finding that this study or this
experiment by Switzerland is misleading; it doesn't accomplish
what it set out to do. And it set out to supposedly show that
you could reduce harm, that you could help return people to
effective lifestyles, healthy lifestyles and so forth by giving
them heroin. Of course, that changed radically as they went
through. They added people and so forth.
Now, with regard to crime, I interviewed the doctor who ran
one of the clinics in Zurich, and they had an official from
Bern, and he put together this so-called crime part. They used
data that they picked up from the Bern Police Department on 40
of their addicts. Then, unfortunately they extrapolated those
facts across the entire experiment, and they have really--it
has been distorted in the press, the real facts, about the
crime reduction.
When you begin to ask addicts--and I did, I put together a
video with the assistance of the Swiss that oppose this. And it
is interesting, when we interviewed addicts coming out after
having received their heroin shots, many just openly
acknowledge, yeah, we take cocaine on the side. Where do you
get the money for that? They didn't really want to tell us. We
came to the conclusion after watching and discussing this with
them, quite frankly, they were probably engaging in illegal
activity to get their additional money.
A lot of what you hear about crime is more anecdotal than
factual. Employment, the government gives them jobs--
meaningless jobs for the most part. They are not putting
together BMWs and Mercedes over there, not these heroin
addicts. For the most part, they are sitting around waiting for
their next heroin shot, as you indicated, Congressman.
There are very few people, very few in this 3-year
experiment that ever went on to meaningful treatment. In fact,
they are closing treatment facilities in Switzerland because
they can't get enough of these heroin addicts. Because they are
getting free dope from the government, they are not going to
the treatment. So they are closing them down.
And as far as the overall effect, as I showed you in that
slide, there is a great tolerance in that country. It is a
great country, but the fact is that their drug policy--and they
have already gone through two constitutional referendums. They
are probably going to have another one before long, those
constitutional referendums. First, the people were confused,
quite frankly, the government was supporting their heroin
maintenance program. And the second one, of course, they came
out and said, no, we are not going to legalize drugs.
They are not really sure where they are going, but I can
tell you from talking to many teachers and public officials
that the effect is having a significant impact on the kids. The
kids are using marijuana at much higher rates than they ever
have before, and it continues to go up. Their view of heroin is
not what it was 20 years ago. It is much more tolerant.
I have seen the same thing in Holland. General McCaffrey
went to Holland last summer. There was quite a lot of media
play in that. He was very critical and rightfully so. Their
figures that were posted by Interpol aren't quite squaring with
what they want to accept by their country.
I can remember--and I will stop with this. At Rotterdam, I
went into the basement of a church where I talked with a heroin
and a cocaine dealer, and I saw his dealings there. They were
allowed to operate there, and anybody can come in and buy
heroin. Anybody can use it right there.
I watched this guy ``chasing the dragon'' which is
basically sniffing this stuff, heroin, up into his nose. Then
they go off, and they meander through the streets. They are not
very coherent, and they are going to significantly increase
certainly the public loitering problem. But they have really
pulled down that beautiful part of the city into a terrible
scourge on what otherwise is a pretty productive community.
Mr. Barr. Is Mr. Soros involved also in channeling money to
the Vienna foundation which supports these sorts of movements?
Mr. Maginnis. I understand Mr. Soros has contributed to
some organizations that promote liberal drug laws in
Switzerland. As far as the Netherlands, I can't say
specifically on that.
Mr. Barr. Are you familiar, Mr. Ehlers, whether the figure,
as I understand it, of $20 million that Mr. Soros has put into
the Vienna foundation to further the legalization and expand
the legalization effort is accurate or not?
Mr. Ehlers. I don't know anything about that foundation or
whether they have gotten any money.
Mr. Barr. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Boaz, you seemed to like the Baltimore model sort of
addiction as an alternative. Is that something that you
support? You said that crime went down and you cited Mayor
Schmoke, I guess it is, as someone who you said we should go to
a more liberal policy.
Mr. Boaz. I did cite Mayor Schmoke, yes.
Mr. Mica. Do you think that is a good model? He has
instituted that.
Mr. Boaz. No, I am not particularly excited about the
Baltimore model. I cited Mayor Schmoke as somebody who has come
to realize----
Mr. Mica. Would you say it would bring crime down?
Mr. Boaz. My policy would, yes. If we eliminated the
criminal penalties for the use and sale of these drugs, it
would significantly reduce crime. People would be able to buy
other mind-altering drugs in the same sorts of stores where
they buy alcohol today, and they would not have to commit
crimes in order to get those drugs, and the dealers would not
have to shoot each other when they have a dispute.
Mr. Mica. In Baltimore, they have adopted some of that
policy under his leadership. Through 1996, we saw almost 40,000
people as heroin addicts. Mr. Cummings, who sits right over
here, told me that the figure is closer to 60,000. That is 10
percent of the population.
Mr. Boaz. I find that implausible, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. He told me 60,000. He cited it in hearings, that
he estimates in Baltimore. This is 2 years old and an official
record given to me by the DEA. That would be about 10 percent
of the population. Now, if we took that great model and we
applied it on the United States, we have about 260 million, we
would have 26 million heroin addicts as an alternative. How is
that sounding?
Mr. Boaz. Mr. Chairman, nobody seriously believes that. If
you had mandatory heroin use in the United States you couldn't
get 26 million addicts.
If I could just make one suggestion----
Mr. Mica. This model seems to indicate that one city that
has tried a liberalized policy has an incredible percentage of
people that have become addicts. And I venture to say--I don't
have the statistics here on the decrease in crime, but it
certainly doesn't mirror New York, and it doesn't mirror the
Nation as a whole. There has to be some cost to 39,000 people
as heroin addicts. Wouldn't you say there is some cost
involved?
Mr. Boaz. There would be, if there were 39,000 heroin
addicts.
Mr. Chairman, I have not----
Mr. Mica. The information given to me by the DEA----
Mr. Boaz. I understand that. I have not studied the
Baltimore situation.
I would suggest the first problem with that chart is that
you show 1950 and 1996. A lot of change has happened between
1950 and 1996. A fair chart would at least show how many heroin
addicts there were in Baltimore when Kurt Schmoke was elected
mayor and then whether there has been a change; and then if you
can show that it doubled, and you have plausible figures, we
have something to discuss.
But the change from 1950 to 1996 cannot be attributed to
any single policy.
Mr. Mica. You say there are not 39,000----
Mr. Boaz. I am skeptical of that number, but I admit I have
not studied Baltimore.
Mr. Mica. Again, Mr. Cummings tells me the figure is much
higher. He just lives there, and that is his neighborhood, so
he probably wouldn't know.
I have heard repeated comments that we have first-time
marijuana users, just users of marijuana, behind bars. Mr.
McDonough, you testified that there were 14 folks in the State
of Florida.
Mr. McDonough. That is correct. In 1997.
Mr. Mica. In 1997. Some of those had other records.
Mr. McDonough. In every case they had some other records.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Glasser, are you from New York?
Mr. Glasser. I am. But I don't know how many heroin addicts
there are.
Mr. Mica. This is an interesting study of incarceration
that was just published in April that really debunks the theory
that first-time drug users or simple even first-time felons
involved with use of illegal drug substances are incarcerated.
It was completed by the State of New York--Director of Criminal
Justice completed in April 1999.
I would like to submit this for the record and just read
maybe one or two sentences from it. It is pretty comprehensive.
Let me just read the conclusion:
this report provides an accurate and objective insight into
the manner in which the New York State criminal justice system
adjudicates persons charged with drug offenses. Contrary to
images portrayed by the Rockefeller drug law reform advocates,
drug offenders serving time in our State prison system today
are committed to prison because of their repeated criminal
behavior, leaving judges with few options short of prison.
This is a very detailed report, basically mirroring what
they said in Florida.
Mr. Glasser. Is that violent behavior or is that repeated
criminal behavior? The repeated arrests, say, for a small
amount of personal marijuana?
Mr. Mica. Again, it is documented.
Mr. Glasser. What is documented?
Mr. Mica. These are felony convictions.
Mr. Glasser. I understand that. But the felony convictions
can be violent or they can be for possession of a small----
Mr. Mica. Possession is not, as I understand it, a felony
of marijuana.
Mr. Glasser. It can be. It depends on the amount.
Mr. Mica. Yes, and the amount.
Mr. Glasser. All I can tell you is that the U.S. Department
of Justice in 1993 produced a report, which I got from the U.S.
Government Printing Office in 1994, which, on page 3 of that
report, says that nearly 17 percent of the total Federal prison
population were drug offenders with no prior criminal----
Mr. Mica. Could you repeat the percent again?
Mr. Glasser. Seventeen percent of the total Federal prison
population were drug offenders with no prior criminal history.
Eighty-four percent of the increase in State and Federal prison
admissions since 1980 were accounted for by nonviolent
offenders, which generally means possession or buying or
selling. And in 1995, only 13 percent of all State prisoners
were violent offenders. What you are dealing with here is the
major proportion of the increase that has raised our prison
population up to 1.8 million is for nonviolent drug offenses.
If we were getting the kingpins and the violent people, we
wouldn't have any more drug market. You guys are not doing it.
Mr. Mica. This report, it just happens to deal with facts
and recent facts, disputes that.
Mr. Glasser. What about these facts?
Mr. Mica. Without objection, this report will be made part
of the record, and I would be glad to insert that statement
from 1993.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.200
Mr. Mica. This is a pretty comprehensive study of the New
York prison population. I think we have heard the same thing
from Mr. McDonough. There is a myth here.
Mr. Boaz, you look like you want to respond. But I want to
ask you a question.
Mr. Mica. Do you--I think you indicated--and I want to be
sure about this for the record--want to go beyond marijuana,
that any type of substance, what is it, category one--Schedule
1, be decriminalized, no criminal penalty for possession?
Mr. Boaz. Right. I wanted to say I don't think there is
necessarily a conflict between the facts you read and the facts
Mr. Glasser read. The report from New York says that most of
the prisoners in New York have had prior criminal records. The
report Mr. Glasser read said a large portion had not had a
violent conviction.
So the issue comes down to, should people who sell drugs be
in jail?
Mr. Mica. That leads to my next question. These people
dealing in quantities, are traffickers. Possession versus
trafficking and sales. How far did you want to go on
decriminalization? There is no penalty, as I understand your
position. How about trafficking?
Mr. Boaz. I would like to see drugs sold in licensed,
regulated stores, not on street corners and not on playgrounds.
You don't see very many liquor dealers offering liquor on
school yards and playgrounds. You see people selling drugs
there because it is a completely unregulated, unlicensed,
illegal business. So I would like to see the business treated
like alcohol, yes.
Mr. Mica. OK, so if people were dealing in the manufacture
and production and trafficking in an illegal, nonregulated
fashion, for example, producing moonshine you get arrested, and
you want the same for illegal drugs?
Mr. Boaz. I grew up in Kentucky and we had a lot of
bootlegging and moonshining, and my father used to be one of
those who tried to take people in, so, yes----
Mr. Mica. I am trying to develop a model. We talked about
Baltimore. Now, let's see how you want to distribute and what
types of stuff. You don't think we as a Congress or legislative
body have any responsibility in controlling substances. And we
have methamphetamine. You want that in the same category, even
with the medical factual information shown in the chart?
Mr. Boaz. I am not necessarily certain that there couldn't
be some drug that was so dangerous, so mind altering but----
Mr. Mica. Heroin?
Mr. Boaz. I would not put heroin in that category. I would
rather have marijuana, cocaine and heroin produced by Philip
Morris and distributed by licensed liquor stores, than to have
it manufactured and distributed by the Cali cartel and
distributed on street corners. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Mica. And meth is out of the category?
Mr. Boaz. I think meth is a good example of something that
we have seen throughout prohibition in the 1920's and 1990's,
which is the creation of stronger drugs. When you have these
huge profits available in an illegal business, as opposed to a
legal business, you get an incentive to try to supply more and
more powerful, smaller and smaller kinds of drugs.
I don't think you would see drugs like crack and meth if we
had a legal drug market. If we had licensed, regulated stores
where you could get marijuana and cocaine, you would not see
these other kinds of drugs being produced.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Ehlers, I would like to hear about your
model. Possession across the board?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes, I would say right now that is considered a
decriminalization model. Adults wouldn't be prosecuted only for
the possession of----
Mr. Mica. Marijuana, heroin, cocaine. Are you in the Boaz
model?
Mr. Ehlers. What we are attempting to do is treat drug use
and drug abuse as a health problem. The problem is if you
criminalize it, if you tell people they are going to get
arrested for being a drug user. You are going to push people
away from help.
So that right now I think you have a situation where people
are afraid to go in for treatment. Actually, there is no
treatment available; but if it were available, they are afraid
of criminal sanctions.
I think there is another--also the problem of heroin
overdoses among youth where you have kids who are afraid they
are going to be arrested and then not helping their friends get
to the hospital because they don't want to get into trouble.
Mr. Mica. I am trying to get to the model you would like to
see. We are a legislative body; we pass the laws for
determining what is legal and illegal, what is criminal and
not. The model is pretty clear, marijuana, yes. How about
heroin and cocaine?
Mr. Ehlers. What I would like you to do now is, I have a
full list in my testimony. I listed all those things that
should be done now, namely, the repeal of mandatory minimums,
much more treatment available, much more prevention available,
the reform of civil asset forfeiture, restoration of civil
liberties, all of those things can be done here and now. That
is what I want.
Mr. Mica. What about cocaine and heroin, sales,
legalization, regulation as described by Mr. Boaz? We operate
basically on--actually, this Congress operates on the will of
the people.
Mr. Ehlers. Right.
Mr. Mica. Believe it or not it does. When the people make
up their mind they want such and such----
Mr. Ehlers. I think the people should be offered--frankly,
we talk about a lot of different potential models, and we don't
advocate on behalf of any of those various models that would
come under regulation. Right now one thing that I think could
be tried--both of the fellow witnesses have said it hasn't
worked--I think there is evidence to support the possibility of
heroin maintenance. That is something that could be tried.
Medical marijuana, that is something that should be available.
Mr. Mica. Do you like the Baltimore model for heroin?
Mr. Ehlers. No. I am just not sure what the Baltimore model
is.
Mr. Mica. Liberalization and----
Mr. Ehlers. The only thing that I was aware of that Kurt
Schmoke was doing in Baltimore, was that he was expanding
needle exchange programs which I have seen studies that
indicate it works, and he has gotten a lot of addicts into
treatment, and he is expanding treatment.
I don't know what is he is doing on arrest policy. I do
know there has been a heroin use problem long before Kurt
Schmoke came on board. So it is not something we can blame on
Kurt. There is a long history here. He came into a situation.
Mr. Mica. What about continuing the regulation of
criminalization of trafficking in heroin and cocaine, and
methamphetamines?
Mr. Ehlers. I think we need to discuss the possibility of
regulation, mainly the problems of prohibition and the black
market which have been discussed before. A regulated market
would do good things in the sense that we would no longer have
criminals getting large amounts of money from the trade. We
would no longer have destabilization of governments in other
countries, undermining the rule of law, the huge prison system
we have now. There is also tax revenue, to talk about and using
that for prevention and treatment. That is a possibility. It is
not something we are advocating right here and now.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
I have tried to be open and fair in this process. In fact,
I think we are three to one on this panel. The government also
stated its position prior to this, the head of the drug policy
office and two others. But we conducted this hearing, as I said
in the beginning, to have an open and civil discussion. There
is obviously a difference of opinion.
I intend to have additional hearings to the point of
decriminalization looking at the Phoenix, AZ model, talking
about medical use of marijuana. Some points have come out in
this hearing that we need to look at, what is going on as far
as promotion of these different positions; the new element
raised here today about marketing on the Internet. The Internet
didn't exist just a few years ago, and we have a whole new
scope and range of activities. So that is the purpose of the
hearing, to open the discussion. I don't know that we will
reach any conclusions, and you can see there is a great
diversity of opinion among you and, I am sure, the people in
the audience and the members of this panel.
I did want to give Mr. McDonough some time to respond. He
did want to respond. If you would do that at this time.
Mr. McDonough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
make a comment on the notion put before you that the fact that
drugs are against the law deters people from getting treatment.
Having spent a number of years looking at drug courts, the
prison system and addicts, it is sad to say but what I find is
an addict almost never volunteers for treatment. It is only
when they are under great duress that you see them come
forward. This is for the rich as well as the poor. Usually with
the rich it is we know when the spouse has said that is enough,
we can't tolerate this anymore or the business is about to fail
or the profession is about to fail, they will quietly go and
get treatment.
The vast majority that come for treatment come for it
within the criminal justice system. That is to say, the law
picks them up after they committed about 20 crimes--and that is
what the law enforcement professionals tell me what happens--
and if they are given the option of going to drug court in lieu
of prison, they will accept drug treatment.
Now, interesting to note, the success rates on that in
bringing down addiction and recidivism rates are very, very
good. To be specific, in Florida, I have studied the data.
Since 1994 we have seen seven or eightfold improvement.
That is to say, you have seven or eight times as much
success in bringing the recidivism rates down when you have
coercion of the criminal justice system overhanging the
treatment. That is not an undignified process for the offender,
now the client. The client appears before the drug court judge,
has to go to treatment, has to take his drug or her drug test
on a monthly basis, often more often than that, and has to
successfully get through the program every month for 12 months.
After 12 months, they graduate. The ideal is they are free of
drugs, employed, and no longer have a criminal activity habit.
That is what we are seeing in successes. I will tell you my
experience--the statistics I have looked at it is not the
criminal justice system that deters people from getting
treatment. Actually, it seems to be an impetus to treatment. A
very good one. So I would like to dispel that myth.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. To be totally fair, the only one I
don't think I have asked a question of or given a chance to
respond is Mr. Maginnis. Did you want to comment, sir?
Mr. Maginnis. Mr. Mica, I have a chart and I won't have to
use it, but 70 percent of Americans oppose cocaine and heroin
legalization because they believe, as the DEA indicated, it
would lead to more violent crime in America. That is one of a
number of reasons, but if you look at the Chinese opium use at
the turn of the century, 100 million Chinese started using
opium.
If you consider what Dr. Herb Kleeber quoted earlier by the
DEA and saying how addictive cocaine is, can you imagine if
Madison Avenue was to market cocaine and heroin as they have
cigarettes in this country? We produce 600 billion cigarettes a
year; we market all over the world. We would certainly produce
a purer heroin and cocaine and package it with flavors, with
everything else and it would be pretty widely available but the
social consequences--the chart the drug czar showed you--would
have 110 billion social consequences that would go up
logarithmically if we did this.
So it is a deadly pathway. If we want catastrophe for this
country, go forward.
Otherwise, I think we should listen to the sanguine and
very common sense approach that the American people keep
telling us that drugs are--this is the wrong direction. We need
to turn off the spigots and hold these people pushing
legalization accountable for what they are doing whether it's
in California, Arizona, or up in Washington State. In fact,
they are confusing our kids; they are contributing to more drug
use and more of the problems that we have in this country, not
helping.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Barr, do you have any final
questions?
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We had asked, Mr. Chairman, I believe, Mr. Soros to come
here today and testify. I am sorry he didn't. Perhaps he will
in the near future. But we know, Mr. Chairman, that those
associated with the Drug Policy Foundation, Arnold Trebach, its
founder, is a legalizer advocate. We know Richard Dennis on the
Drug Policy Foundation Board of Directors likewise is an
advocate for legalization of all drugs, including heroin.
Ethan Nadelmann with the Lindesmith Center and Soros
conduits, organizations to which he channels money for
legalization efforts, is also an avowed legalizer. So that
really is, Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here. We are
talking about the funding of an effort in this country similar
to what we have seen overseas to legalize mind-altering drugs.
People can come up with all sorts of eloquent reasons why
that isn't really what they are saying and they really don't
want people to use drugs and see these awful things happen to
them, but that is what we are talking about here. We are
talking about legalizing drugs and saying it's OK for people in
the United States of America to rely on mind-altering drugs to
get by in their daily lives.
I don't know whether any panelists would relish the thought
of going into an operating room and having the doctor they see
before they are put under, probably for the last time, smoking
a toke or doing a line of cocaine. Maybe they would. I don't
know. I certainly wouldn't. But that is what we are talking
about here.
We are talking about legalization of mind-altering drugs.
They are called mind-altering drugs because they alter your
mind, and one can argue about the extent to which that happens,
but it's mind-altering drugs for that reason.
I am somewhat intrigued--and I know time is short--but I am
still very intrigued by the Drug Policy Foundation and the work
that it does, and perhaps we can get to that more later on if
Mr. Soros would be with us. But just a couple of quick
questions, Mr. Ehlers.
Does the Drug Policy Foundation--is it a 501(c)3
organization?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
Mr. Barr. Does the Foundation lobby in support of drug
legalization policies?
Mr. Ehlers. No. We don't lobby on behalf of drug
legalization policies. We do some lobbying, yes, as 501(c)3s
are allowed to do.
Mr. Barr. It is your view that it is permitted under
501(c)3 status.
Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
Mr. Barr. What sort of lobbying do you do? Is it like today
speaking with Members of Congress and the State legislature
yourself?
Mr. Ehlers. No. We do grass-roots lobbying, too. We put out
action alerts for members to respond to, and we write about
legislation, which isn't necessarily lobbying. I mean, action
alerts is the primary means of lobbying for us.
Mr. Barr. And you think that is not inconsistent with being
a 501(c)3 organization?
Mr. Ehlers. No.
Mr. Glasser. Mr. Barr, since I am the president of the Drug
Policy Foundation board and more familiar than Mr. Ehlers,
maybe I can answer----
Mr. Barr. Mr. Ehlers, maybe I can ask also, would that be
consistent with the position of the Christian coalition, which
recently came under fire for doing alerts and voter guides and
so forth?
Mr. Glasser. That is political partisan activity.
Mr. Ehlers. Yes, that is not----
Mr. Glasser. Mr. Barr, as you well know--I know you are
talking to him, but I am going to answer the question.
Mr. Barr. You are not appearing here as Mr. Ehlers'
attorney. I am asking him the questions.
Mr. Glasser. I am here as Mr. Ehlers' superior on the
board, and if you want to know about what the Drug Policy
Foundation does with respect to its tax exemption, I will tell
you. He doesn't know.
Mr. Barr. Well, if I wish to hear from you on that, Mr.
Glasser, I will ask you; and if I don't, I am sure in objective
style, Mr. Mica will give you additional time.
Mr. Glasser. If you wish to know the answers to the
questions, you will ask me; and if you wish to harass Mr.
Ehlers, you will ask him.
Mr. Barr. I really don't think that asking questions of
somebody who comes up here representing a foundation or a legal
entity about the work that that legal entity or organization is
doing and the legal basis on which it is operating without
getting into all the ins and outs of legalisms which I am not
doing is harassing. And if I do, then every single witness that
comes up here and is questioned about their work by any member
of any panel on either side of the aisle is harassing
witnesses, that's not----
Mr. Glasser. If you want to know the answer, you would
direct it to the person who knows the answer, wouldn't you? We
all know what you are doing.
Mr. Barr. With all due deference, you're a great man; but I
don't think you are the only one that can answer questions.
Mr. Glasser. I am the only one on this panel who can answer
those questions.
Mr. Barr. Well, we'll see.
Mr. Mica. We don't want to get into some kind of an
exchange at this point. Mr. Barr was yielded the time. Mr.
Barr, do you have further questions of the witness?
Mr. Barr. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, following onto,
again, some of the policies regarding the Drug Policy
Foundation.
Is the Drug Policy Foundation providing support to the drug
legalization efforts in various States, including Florida,
Maine, and Oregon?
Mr. Ehlers. No.
Mr. Barr. It is not engaging in any sort of activities in
terms of gathering of signatures and whatnot for referenda or
for petitions?
Mr. Ehlers. No.
Mr. Barr. Are you aware of any work by Mr. Soros currently
similar to what was engaged in in the California effort with
respect to signatures for petitions and referenda in other
States?
Mr. Ehlers. No.
Mr. Barr. Is the Drug Policy Foundation or George Soros, to
your knowledge, presently accepting any money from any foreign
entity which promotes drug usage, such as certain companies or
entities from Colombia or Mexico?
Mr. Ehlers. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Barr. Do you--does the Drug Policy Foundation receive
any money from any foreign sources?
Mr. Ehlers. We have members in other countries, yes.
Mr. Barr. That donate money?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
Mr. Barr. Provide money?
Mr. Ehlers. They are members, yes.
Mr. Barr. Is that just from individuals?
Mr. Ehlers. As far as I know.
Mr. Barr. Does the Drug Policy Foundation assist any
individuals or groups who are seeking to obtain drugs for
personal use?
Mr. Ehlers. Could you repeat that?
Mr. Barr. Does the Drug Policy Foundation assist any
individuals or groups seeking to obtain drugs for personal use?
Mr. Ehlers. No.
Mr. Barr. Mr. Glasser, I would be delighted to entertain
any information you would care to provide to supplement what
Mr. Ehlers provided in response to questions concerning the tax
exempt status and lobbying efforts of the Drug Policy
Foundation.
Mr. Glasser. Sure. 501(c)3 organizations are permitted to
do a certain amount of lobbying under 501(H) of the Internal
Revenue Code, which permits various percentages of your total
expenditures to be used for lobbying up to certain maximums.
So lobbying is permitted. That is different from activity
that is electoral, which is not permitted. The Drug Policy
Foundation does no such electoral activity. It does do
lobbying, both grass roots and direct within the limits of
501(H), and it has elected, under 501(H), as has the American
Civil Liberties Union Foundation and many other 501(c)3
organizations.
Mr. Barr. When you talk about electoral, does that include
seeking to influence the result of a ballot or referendum in
any way?
Mr. Glasser. No. I just mean elections of individuals to
public office. Referenda and initiatives are a form of
lobbying. It's just direct instead of legislative, but it's
lobbying.
Mr. Barr. Is that the sort of activity that is permitted,
in your view, for the Drug Policy Foundation in some states?
Mr. Glasser. Yes, it is permitted under 501(c)3 if you have
elected under 501(H).
Mr. Barr. If, for example, the Drug Policy Foundation were
asked to engage in activities in support of a particular
candidate and you were advising them on that, you would advise
them that that is not permissible?
Mr. Glasser. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Barr. If they came to you and asked if it was
permissible to lobby in support of a drug referendum or a
particular initiative or proposition concerning drug
legalization and to, I guess, indirectly support those who
favor it, that would be permissible?
Mr. Glasser. That's permissible within very restrictive
amounts, somewhat less than 20 percent of your total
expenditures. So unless your total expenditures are very high,
you don't get to spend very much; but you can spend within
those statutory amounts, yes.
Mr. Barr. But if the organization has a generous benefactor
and that person donates large amounts of money, in your view,
the amount of money that the organization would have to engage
in that sort of lobbying would increase. You say it is on a
percentage?
Mr. Glasser. Yes. It would, to a dollar limit. The limit in
the law is that no matter how much money you have and no matter
what the applicable percentages, you can't spend more than $1
million. In any case, the amount of money that Mr. Soros
provides the Drug Policy Foundation is entirely for a grant
program in which we make grants to other organizations. So none
of that money is used for any of those purposes.
Mr. Barr. When you use the figure $1 million, is that per
State or per issue or per----
Mr. Glasser. No, that is per organization. If a 501(c)3
organization elects under 501(H) of the code to do a certain
amount of lobbying, it is a percentage--graduated percentage of
amounts; but in no situation can you spend more than $1
million, no matter what the percentages are. So, say 20 percent
or $1 million, whichever is less.
Mr. Barr. Could you increase that if one established
subsidiaries under that parent organization, for example?
Mr. Glasser. No. Because the statute and the regulations
define affiliated organizations in ways that have to do with
whether you are controlling them or not. So you can't multiply
those limits by having subsidiaries that you control.
Mr. Barr. OK. Thank you very much. Maybe this is the sort
of thing we can get into later. I very much appreciate, Mr.
Glasser, your elucidation; and I appreciate the testimony of
the witnesses and appreciate the chairman for calling this very
important hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. I have a unanimous consent
request to include in the record an article entitled, ``Should
Safer Smoking Kits Be Distributed to Crack Users?''
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.204
Mr. Mica. Another unanimous consent request to insert
``Crack Smokers Directions,'' here from the Drug Treatment
Services of the Bridgeport Connecticut Health Department.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.207
Mr. Mica. Additional unanimous consent request to submit an
article entitled, ``High on a Lie,'' by Daniel Levine.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.209
Mr. Mica. And any other materials submitted without
objection will be made a part of the record.
[Note.--Substantial additional information referred to may
be found in subcommittee files.]
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3346.211
Mr. Mica. As I said, we will leave the record open for at
least 2 weeks if additional documentation and information is
wished to be submitted either by the public or other groups.
There being no further business to come before the
subcommittee, I would first like to thank each of the panelists
for their patience and participation and for their contribution
today.
It is a difficult subject, and there is a lot of
controversy surrounding it and difference of opinion. But we
hope to continue this discussion and again hear these topics
fairly and openly in future panels. Thank you.
This meeting of the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-