I would like to share with you-Senator Eastham was the man who introduced this into the senate, and he says to me, "the Pharmaceutical Association came out in favor of this concept."

In other words, in New Mexico the Pharmaceutical Association, which represents pharmacies and drug manufacturers and distributors, feels that this is a reasonable application, and that they are willing to go along with it. It's a beautiful thing.

Now, I suggest that your bill include the forming of a new office: The Commissioner on Dangerous Drugs, and that the Commissioner appoint an advisory commission. That the Governors of all 50 States submit four names of persons who would sit on this advisory committee.

The Commissioner would select two from each State from interviews and evaluation, that this advisory committee meet 4 days quarterly, and that a quorum would be 75.

The Commissioner would have the total control over the program. Application for funds would be approved by the advisory committee with formal approval resting in the authority of the Commissioner. It would not be necessary for the advisory committee to actually meet to approve applications, but the Commissioner would send out the material, and so on. It would be evaluated and returned.

I think a lot of this could be done with computers. As a matter of fact, my background includes efficiency management, and I could design you a beautiful program any time you want it.

And you could speed it up, a beautiful approach, to funding these necessary organizations that need money.

The Commissioner would hire a staff of experts that would be approved by the advisory committee, and this staff would handle the details of supervising the program, including evaluation of the effectiveness.

I fear that if four agencies of the Federal Government get involved in this program, it is going to get involved to the point of nothing happening.

And I feel that vesting the authority for doing this in one agency, then you will have an effective approach. And I believe that you can do it.

As I said in my last paragraph, "the 91st Congress gets the job done."

Now, I didn't get through that as fast as I had hoped, and I think I have already missed my plane-I am going to miss a night's work. If you have any questions

Mr. BELL. Well, no; I am just happy to welcome you again, Mr. Dollarhide.

I might have one little question here: You mentioned that you worked some thoughts out about how to guide these people so they realize the drug abuse route is the wrong route.

Now, I am wondering, as an example, how would you approach that? This might be important from the standpoint of teaching it in an education class-teaching the subject.

Mr. DOLLARHIDE. Are you ready to go out in left field a little bit? Mr. BELL. Go ahead.

Mr. DOLLARHIDE. Because sometimes

Mr. BELL. Watch the time. Make it short.

Mr. DOLLARHIDE. I will make it short, because I think I have already missed my plane.

The one young man in particular-I will use an illustration.

This boy's name is Vern. He is 20 years old, and he is a boy that had a smile that would light up a room. But his mother thought she had a "fairy" on her hands, so all his life, from the time he was little, she convinced him that he was ugly.

This kid couldn't walk into a room unless he was surrounded by three people.

His drug abuse involvement was strictly an effort to belong. I found him when he was just to a point of self-destruction, and took him right in my home. One of the first things I did was take him to the Sebring shop down on Fairfax and have his hair styled.

Then we went down to Mitchell's on Hollywood Boulevard and I bought him a whole outfit of clothes. And the first thing he did when he looked at himself in the mirror was to say: "Man, I'm good looking."

I said: "Damned right you are."

Now, I discovered in just a matter of a short conversation what his problem was. And when we solved that problem, we had an inroad to the rest.

I spent $100 on him in a matter of 3 hours flat. And when that kid walked out of the house and walked into restaurant, he was proud to present himself, because suddenly he knew he was good looking-he was all along, but he didn't know it.

I have talked to so many young adults, and lots of them don't have that kind of a hangup. But a lot of times you put your money where your mouth is, and you solve that problem.

Then in the weeks that followed-he was with me for the whole summer, and he is in the second year of college now, and I am kind of proud of that, because he writes me occasionally and says: "I got an A in this, I got a B in that", and the way I was able to reach him following that is because I sold him on the fact that I was sincere, and I didn't have to do anything else.

Mr. BELL. You in fact got his confidence?

Mr. DOLLARHIDE. Absolutely. I think the program that Dr. Eichberg is doing is so fabulous, and what he had to say this morning was just so thrillingly exciting to me--I would like that to go on the record, because I think the fact of the matter, we see eye to eye in so much of this.

Mr. BELL. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

I enjoyed your testimony very much.

Mr. DOLLARHIDE. Thank you very much.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much.

We have Dr. Alfred Cannon with us, who is at UCLA, and there are two other witnesses here, Mr. Squire, whom I know, and Mr. Acevedois it?

Mr. HAWKINS. That's right.

Mr. MEEDS. Do you people have pressing appointments that would require your being out of the hearing at a certain time?

Would you mind deferring then to Dr. Cannon?

Dr. Cannon is assistant professor of Psychiatry at UCLA, and he will be testifying on teenage drug abuse with emphasis on the inner city problem.

I am very happy that you are going to touch on this, Dr. Cannon, because we had very, very little of it-and you might wonder why. Our traveling ability is somewhat limited, but we did have a whole day's hearings in New York City where we touched very heavily on the inner city problem, and we would be glad to get that problem from you in regard to Los Angeles.

Mr. HAWKINS. I would like to say that Dr. Cannon is a personal friend of mine. I am very pleased that he is testifying before the committee. He is doing an excellent job in the inner city.

He happens to be a constituent of mine and is the founder of the central city community health center, which is doing an excellent job.

I am pleased to have him at our committee hearing so he can testify, and I take this opportunity to commend him on the job that he is doing.

Mr. BELL. Dr. Cannon, it is a pleasure on my part to welcome you. I join with Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Meeds in their comments.

I also consider you a kind of a constituent, because you work in a school that is in my district.

Mr. HAWKINS. He is also somewhat related-I don't know what the exact relationship is to an old friend of ours on the committee-a former employee, Dr. Deborah Wolfe.

Mr. MEEDS. I share that regard.

Do you have any relatives in the Second District of Washington State?

Mr. HAWKINS. Who does?

Mr. MEEDS. Please proceed, Dr. Cannon.

STATEMENT OF J. ALFRED CANNON, M.D., UCLA NEURO PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE; FOUNDER, CENTRAL CITY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER

Dr. CANNON. I regret that I haven't any prepared statement, but I will try to be as brief as possible. I know the hour is late.

I won't concentrate on the inner-city situation, perhaps, as much as I would like to, but I will present something in kind of a broad perspective, and I shall try to rush through this.

I feel that the drug problem is one that has sociocultural contexts, and it is something that is not as well understood as it might be. Not that I understand it.

I would like to point out to you the great concern about the jazz festival at Bethlehem, N.Y. You know that there were 300,000-plus youth that gathered on the scene, and the whys of why they were there, and while they were there were not concentrated on so much as it was depicted as a place where drugs were being, you know, sort of a drug orgy and what have you.

And I think that this, in some ways, typifies the response of mass media and much of the adult population that is attempting to understand what youth are about.

I say "attempting," sometimes the attempts are very poor.

Today there was an article by Max Lerner, and he indicated that he felt that part of the difficulty in understanding of what the youth of today are about has to do with their confusion between the kind of "easy rider" ethos and the power ethos.

As you know, youth-some of the activist groups are involved in power acquisition so that they can change society.

And then there is the easy rider, or the kind of youths who are involved in a kind of retreat, and who are trying to develop their own ethos by isolating themselves.

I am not sure one can make the differentiation, but I think there is a lot of feedback from both. There is a lot of exchange, and to oversimplify is as dangerous and to do the kind of labeling that has been the way of handling some of the problems of youth.

I would like to suggest to you that we are in the midst of a tremendous humanistic revolution, and I think that our country really totally misunderstands this revolution.

The humanistic revolution really has its kind of traumatic and critical beginning with the civil rights revolution led by Dr. King. So that one has the emergence of black revolution joined by the youth revolution, and both really kind of interlock.

It seems to me that these revolutions are very poorly understood. I would further like to suggest to you that there is this emerging ethos, and it has to be understood. This humanistic revolution with its power and easy rider foci are something that must be understood if you are to deal with the drug abuse problem.

Now. I would like to just indicate some of the parts of the humanistic revolution, and in that ethos, so that we might have at least some brief beginning understanding of what this is about.

Many feel it is a revolution against the Protestant ethic, and, of course, you know that's one of the sacred ethics that our country has abided by for so many years. And that has to do with the hard work ethic, the nonbelief in anything that really doesn't-well, the belief in hard reality.

Anything that deals with the mystical is something that is suspect. The kind of emphasis on moderation as a way of life, et cetera, et cetera. Many of you know that.

It seems to me that the youth revolution and the humanistic revolution that it is a part of really is an attempt to break away from this kind of mode.

Some of the qualities of this and the reason why I am reviewing this, this has to do with the fact that I don't know about signs such as this or attempts to treat drug abuse or drug intake as a kind of isolated phenomenon.

One has to see what its effect it is and what the value in this youth culture is about.

Part of the I must apologize. I kind of feel pressured for time. I have canceled appointments and what have you, so I'm not as perhaps together as I might be.

A part of the aspects I would just like to briefly mention, you know, this humanistic revolution are as follows, and this is a very brief and a very minimal kind of description:

There is the emphasis upon the now. And of course in the previous years, especially that related to the Protestant ethic, it was a futuristic orientation, and that is, you know, "A penny saved is a penny earned," and, "Let's think of tomorrow," and the kind of delay in gratification that was something that was thought to be a very important thing.

Another part of this humanistic revolution is that that deals with irreverence, and irreverence is something that is most difficult to understand, because it challenges the very basic institutions of our societysuch as the church.

There is a direct challenge to the church, to government, to the schools, to educational systems, to our judiciary. And the challenge is to the point of really questioning their legitimacy.

Now, one can dismiss this as a kind of discontent of youth-one can say, "Well, you know, that's part of a fad or phrase," but it is this kind of questioning of the legitimacy of some of the sacrosanct societal institutions. It is a part-a very critical part-of this humanistic revolution-that of humanism.

And again, humanism is felt in terms of the deep respect that they have for human life and the kind of respect that the youth have for each other. The kind of human values, the kind of antimaterialism that they feel is very important to this humanistic revolution and their ethos. The idea of spontaneity is another very critical kind of issue, and that is, "It's all right to be freer," and the idea of moderation in movement and in all things might run counter to their feeling that spontaneity of expression is an awful important human value.

Tolerance is another value that feeds right into humanism—and that is a tolerance for deviancy.

And this is something that in our country, we've had some difficulties, because all those that don't conform--at least right in the postWorld War II era, conformity was a very important part of "making it," tying into the establishment, getting on board," the "organization man," et cetera, et cetera.

And tolerance is something that is a reaction to that. Tolerance of deviance.

Of course, one has revolution in dress, in clothing, and in a variety of ways that indicate a kind of breakaway from the kind of tried and traditional dress, and much of the dress emphasizes the beauty of the human body, which is something that very often in previous years we tended to deny.

Another important part of the humanistic revolution is that related to private property, and of course that is a very touchy issue in many quarters, but one reads and one hears of communes, and communes are developing in urban areas. In Life magazine, a couple of weeks ago, they had articles about rural communes. And communes really mean what the name says, and that is a sharing of property, a sharing of goods, services, et cetera.

And this sharing ethos is very important in this humanistic revolution. The idea of "love," and love has become a kind of commercial catch word, unfortunately, but that is something that again, in previous years I think of years and years ago that love was something that was mentioned almost in an embarrassed fashion.

But one begins to see in this day and age in the humanistic revolution the use of this word.

I guess the thing that ties in most with drug abuse, and that is something that is, you know, rather than seeing drugs as a kind of symptom of this humanistic revolution, it in many ways is syntonic with the youth revolution-the humanistic revolution, and that is drugs tend to give the kind of immediacy of experience. And drugs do