U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–346 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

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

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

DOUG OSE, California

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

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

(III)

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

(1)

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.

2

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 infact 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.

3

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.

4

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:]

5

6

7

8

9

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.

10

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:]

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

29

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 welltaken; 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.

30

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.

31

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

32

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:]

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

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

82

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

83

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-ow, 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.

84

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

85

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.

86

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 upfront answer is, it is still against Federal law to grow marijuana,

87

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.

88

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

89

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?

90

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.

91

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

92

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

93

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

94

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 fashVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:51 Aug 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 63346.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
95

ion, 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.

96

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?

97

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:]

98

99

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

100

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.

101

If, in fact, marijuana, the active ingredient in it, tetrahydrocannabinol, 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 wellthought-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.

102

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

103

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 31⁄2 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.

104

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.

105

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

106

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:]

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

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

117

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 drugrelated 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

118

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 pregVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:51 Aug 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 63346.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
119

nant 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:]

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

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 studVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:51 Aug 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 63346.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
141

ies 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.

142

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

143

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.

144

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

145

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

146

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

147

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 neurochemical 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

148

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.

149

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

150

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:]

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

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.

164

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.

165

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 disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:51 Aug 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 63346.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
166

enfranchisement, 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 AfricanAmerican. 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:]

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

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.

176

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:]

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

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.

199

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:]

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

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

221

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

222

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:]

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

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.

239

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.

240

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

241

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.

242

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, longterm—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?

243

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?

244

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

245

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 leVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:51 Aug 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 63346.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
246

galization 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

247

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?

248

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.

249

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 firsttime 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. Eightyfour 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.

250

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:]

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

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.

277

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

278

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

279

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

280

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——

281

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

282

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.

283

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 organiza- tion 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:]

284

285

286

287

288

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:]

289

290

291

292

Mr. MICA. Additional unanimous consent request to submit an

article entitled, ‘‘High on a Lie,’’ by Daniel Levine.

[The information referred to follows:]

293

294

295

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:]

296

297

298

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.]

Æ