reason for remanding the matter back to the courts since this should be handled on a voluntary basis by the Surgeon General and the patient.

TITLE III-CIVIL COMMITMENT IN LIEU OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT

This section provides that when a defendant is convicted of violating federal narcotics laws and is believed by the court to be an addict, the court may, prior to sentence, appoint physicians to examine the defendant and have them report within ten days with respect to whether or not the defendant is an addict. Upon receipt by the court of the report, the court may (1) order a hearing to determine if the defendant is addicted or (2) sentence the defendant under the normal provisions of the law. If the court, after a hearing, determines that the defendant is an addict, it may commit to the custody of the Surgeon General for treatment in a hospital of the Service. The defendant shall be committed for a period of eighteen months except that he may be released at any time after three months if the Surgeon General has determined that the addict has been cured or that his continued confinement is no longer necessary for the reason that his treatment and rehabilitation could be more effectively accomplished by a post-hospital supervision program. If the addict is released from confinement pursuant to the above criteria, the Surgeon General shall return the defendant to court and the court shall replace him in the care and custody of the Surgeon General for three years aftercare supervision. If, during the three-year aftercare supervision period, the addict defendant fails to comply with directions or returns to the use of drugs, the Surgeon General shall so notify the court. The court may then order the defendant to be taken into custody and be sentenced under his conviction with credit for the time he was in the custody of the Surgeon General. The title further provides that any addict who has been committed to the custody of the Surgeon General for a period of eighteen months and who has not been released prior thereto, shall be examined by the Surgeon General thirty days before the expiration of the period but may be cured by further treatment in a hospital, the Surgeon General shall inform the addict of the advisability of submitting himself for further treatment.

The addict might then apply in writing for further treatment for a maximum period considered necessary by the Surgeon General to effect a cure. Any addict confined for further treatment as described above shall be released by the Surgeon General when he is cured of his addiction, when the Surgeon General determines that the addict's confinement is no longer necessary and that aftercare supervision is more desirable, or upon completion of the expiration of the maximum period previously set by the Surgeon General. If an addict refuses to apply for such additional treatment, the defendant shall be returned to the court after the eighteen-month initial period and shall be sentenced pursuant to his conviction giving the defendant credit for the time he was in the custody of the Surgeon General. The title further provides that the Surgeon General may return any addict committed to him for incorrigibility, non-cooperation, etc. to the court for sentence. Finally, the title provides that any addict who successfully completes the three-year post-hospitalization program shall have his conviction automatically set aside.

This title has many desirable features, particularly the sections which give the convicted addict an opportunity to involve himself in a meaningful rehabilitation program rather than merely to be sentenced to a penal institution. However, it seems to me to be unnecessarily cumbersome and complex, involving the holding of a sentence of abeyance and returning the defendant to court in any of a number of stages. The administration of criminal justice is not enhanced by having the court in effect deter sentence over prolonged periods of time. It seems to me more reasonable to provide for the compulsory commitment for such addict to the custody of both the Surgeon General and the Attorney General for a fixed period of time and to give them the discretion to treat him within a hospital, aftercare or correctional facility, and to give them the further discretion to shift the sentenced addict from one facility to another as the interests of the defendant and the interests of sociey dictate.

TITLE IV-POST-HOSPITALIZATION CARE PROGRAMS

This section authorizes the Surgeon General to establish out-patient units of the Public Health Service, which shall provide guidance to patients released from hospitals of the Service, and assists states and municipalities in develop

ing facilities for the treatment of addicts. It also authorizes sums to be appropriated to enable the Surgeon General to (1) make grants to states and political subdivisions thereof and (2) provide institutions and organizations for the development of demonstration programs, training programs, training personnel, conducting surveys and evaluations and (3) to enter into jointly financed cooperative arrangements with state and local governments and public and private organizations with a view towards the development and maintenance of treatment centers and facilities for narcotic addicts within the states. This is an excellent title and merits wholehearted support.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C.

THE CITY OF SEATTLE, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, Seattle, Wash., December 22, 1965.

DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: The opportunity to read the bills introduced into the Congress which would enable enforcement agencies to more effectively face the mounting crime problem is deeply appreciated. I had followed the Congressional Record concerning these and other similar matters with great interest. The approach and the scope of the legislation contained in these six bills is in my opinion a major advance.

Due to a great many conditions and circumstances, the City of Seattle has generally been free from organized crime of the type singled out in S. 2187. There have been to my positive knowledge attempts by the organizations mentioned to extend their activities into this area. There is no reason to believe that these attempts will not continue nor can anyone say that if a few conditions change, these attempts will not be successful. Senate Bill 2188 will be of a great deal of assistance when enacted in pointing out to the Legislature of the State of Washington the vital necessity of this type of legislation, particularly in the fields of more sophisticated crime. Indeed, a current situation under investigation would be aided greatly at either the federal or local level by this bill.

I have refrained from commenting on the wording or the scope of the individual bills because of the obvious care, knowledge and expertise used in their drafting. The attachment has my comments on the individual bills.

The increasing complexity of crime problems and the multiplicity of court decisions at both the original and appellate level which modifies or restricts the gathering or presentation of evidence should be a matter of deep concern to every individual in the United States. With the exception of an elected representative of the people, there is probably no group on the whole more aware of or appreciative of the rights which our form of government affords every human being in this nation. The imposition of procedural rules in such vague terms as "unreasonable", or, "undue delay", upon the gathering or presenting of evidence to a court have unquestionably made investigative and judicial processes artificially difficult. It is with some of these artificial difficulties which S. 2189 and S. 2578 address themselves. The safety of the person and property of every person in the United States can be improved by the enactment of this legislation. Respectfully submitted.

[Enclosure]

F. C. RAMON, Chief of Police.

S. 2187.-This measure seems long overdue. The official recognition by statute of the factual existence of groups of people allied for criminal purposes is a prerequisite in the effort to eliminate coordinated criminal activities. Had such a measure been the law, the notorious meeting of November 14, 1957 in Appalachian, New York, could not have been held or the arrests as a result of the meeting would have been a substantial blow to organized crime.

S. 2188.-This particular measure, though outside the direct experience of the Seattle Police Department, is one which will be vitally necessary in implementing the enforcement of S. 2187.

S. 2189.-Perhaps no legislation is as necessary, far reaching and long overdue as is this particular statute. The archaic laws dealing with the interception of information in criminal matters have created an area of immunity for criminal operations, which no reasonable person could ever believe was contemplated as a governmental function. It is especially gratifying that the Congress of the United States will consider the need of local agencies in this measure. The safe

guards written into the bill and the increasing professionalism of law enforce ment will make this measure, upon its enactment, an exceptionally effective tool in the prevention, as well as the repression, of crime.

S. 2190.-In the difficult area of measuring the rights of a human being in our society against the needs of government in protecting that society, this legislation is an examplar of striking the necessary balance. In the State of Washington, the Grand Jury system is not used routinely in criminal matters. If this bill is enacted, undoubtedly the states using the Grand Jury system will enact similar legislation. This will serve as a model or base for legislation in the non-Grand Jury states in the presently almost foreclosed areas of investigation.

S. 2191.-This approach to the problem of narcotic addiction is a realistic and humane one. However, this particular bill is the only one upon which I wish to comment as to the scope or wording. Your attention is respectfully called to the fact that throughout the nation, particularly around the college campuses, a new problem in the field of misuse of drugs has arisen. This problem deals with hallucinogenic drugs. The mention in the bill of "peyote" would indicate that this matter has come to the attention of the Congress of the United States. I would suggest that consideration be given to including the more frequently used drugs in this area. They are:

1. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (commonly known as "LSD-25").

2. Dimethyltriptamine (commonly known as "DMT").

Although it might be argued that these drugs are not of the addicting type as the opium base derivatives are, there is no question that their use is habit forming. The facilities available to the Surgeon-General could be a decisive factor in helping an individual overcome his use of these entirely contraband drugs.

8. 2578.-Every man and woman in the United States charged with a responsibility of protecting the public will support this proposed legislation with wholehearted acclaim. The clarification by the Congress of the United States as to the admissibility of statements against interest in view of the complex, confusing and contradictory rulings by courts of all levels has created a situation where a society is denied in many instances of criminal prosecution information about the crime from the person who knows most about it—that is, the one who committed it. No matter the amount of training used by police agencies, nor the dedication or skill of investigators can be of any benefit to society without clear guidelines. As meritorious as the bill in itself is and as necessary it, at least to me, has far greater significance in that the elected representatives of the people are taking the step designed to protect the public. The increasingly involved technicalities surrounding the investigation of crimes has caused too much loss of confidence in the judicial system and the enforcement system in this nation. Here again, I believe that if the Congress of the United States enacts this measure, the fifty states will follow.

CITY OF AKRON, OHIO,
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
December 28, 1965.

Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: Reference your letter of December 3, 1965, concerning the several Senate Bills introduced dealing with crime, it is heartening to law enforcement people throughout this country to learn that you and your colleagues, Senator Frank Lausche and Senator Sam Ervin, are making attempts to strengthen laws so vital to effective law enforcement. I certainly agree that we are in grave danger of a general breakdown of law and order unless we end the parade of criminals being released on minor technicalities regardless of the reliable proof that the criminal was guilty of the crime charged.

As to the specific Senate bills introduced, it would appear that they would have great value to all federal enforcement agencies; however, the direct benefit to local law enforcement agencies would be somewhat limited but of great value in establishing precedents to be followed by State Legislatures and Courts. As to the specific bills mentioned in your letter, I would comment briefly as follows:

S. 2187.-A bill to outlaw membership in professional criminal organizations.

effort. In blighted areas, improving the environment will reduce the number of individuals who would use drugs if they were available, but this, too, is a longterm effort.

Since most addicted persons have been introduced to narcotic drugs by someone who is himself addicted, or is heading toward addiction, the treatment and rehabilitation of addicted persons will help prevent the spread of addiction. But such treatment, of course, is difficult and costly.

Addiction can also be fought by reducing the availability of illegal drugs. A substantial reduction in the supply of such drugs in the United States has been accomplished at relatively little expense, and along with this decline has come a substantial decrease in the number of addicted persons. Reducing the supply of narcotic drugs is probably the most readily available means of preventing narcotic drug addiction.

DRUG ADDICTION: SUMMING UP

Some of the important things known

1. Addiction is usually a symptom of a personality maladjustment, though no typical addict personality has been identified. In recent times in this country addiction has been most prevalent among deprived groups in large cities. The illness itself—that is, the compulsion to take drugs once one has become addicted-is both physical and psychological.

2. Curing an addicted person's physical dependence on drugs can now be accomplished humanely and quickly. Curing his psychological dependence, or his tendency to use drugs to solve his problems, may take years-so far as we know-because it is rooted in his maladjustment.

3. Many addicted persons relapse frequently after treatment; some, not at all. It seems reasonable to view addiction as a chronic illness, with relapses to be expected but with the hope that the periods of abstinence will grow longer. 4. Hospitalization is not enough because, upon discharge, the patient often finds himself in the same painful environment that helped lead to his addiction. The return of a treated addict to an environment where drugs are available is almost a certain return to addiction. Some type of aftercare program extending for a long period, and perhaps indefinitely, seems needed to strengthen and train the addicted person for normal living. One problem: typically the addicted person has been treated as an outcast and even a criminal and he feels he will continue to be treated that way.

5. The addicted person does best when he has some type of authority to bolster him; like an adolescent, he wants limits set on him. Possibly this authority can be effectively exerted by an experienced worker in the field of addiction-physician, pastor, social worker-who is genuinely interested in the addicted person, has time and patience to help him, and wins his respect. Possibly it must have the force of the law behind it for best results.

6. Addiction can be prevented (a) through mental health programs to reduce the number of susceptible persons; (b) through continued efforts to reduce the availability of illegal drugs; (c) through treatment that reduces the number of addicted persons, since these bring the drug and the susceptible person together; (d) by improving the conditions in the deprived neighborhoods where addiction is most common.

Important points requiring further research

1. Why do some individuals with a personality maladjustment become addicted to drugs, the opiates in particular, while others-even some of those who experiment with drugs-do not?

2. How do drugs work on the cells of the brain and the body? Are certain people more likely than others, biochemically, to become addicted?

3. What are the most effective types of hospital and aftercare programs? And where, in relation to the addicted person's community, should they be located?

4. Why do some addicted persons seek out and accept help while others do not?

5. What measures are needed to keep an addicted person in a hospital long enough for him to get the maximum benefit? And how long is that? Also, what are the most effective ways of exposing an addicted person to an aftercare program, and keeping him exposed?

6. Are certain addicts incurable, on the basis of everything we now know? If they are, can they be maintained as useful members of society-and the profit taken out of the illicit market-by some arrangements for supplying drugs legally?

7. What happens to addicted persons over a period of years? In the case of those who relapse, what are the factors involved? What factors enable the others to remain abstinent?

INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT OF NARCOTIC ADDICTION BY THE U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

(By Robert W. Rasor and James F. Maddux)

Prior to the end of World War I there was little concern with the problems of narcotic drug addiction in the United States. After the war newspaper feature stories and editorial comments on drug addiction became common and alarming, and the public looked upon the drug addict as a mentally deranged "dope fiend." There were no recognized scientific data at the time.

In the early 1920's the U.S. Public Health Service assigned Dr. Lawrence Kolb to conduct field studies on the nature and extent of narcotic drug addiction in the United States and to carry out experiments on addiction in animals. Dr. Kolb estimated that there were in the United States 110,000 addicts, the majority of whom were nervous, unstable individuals. He pointed out that drug addiction was largely a psychiatric problem.

Basic 1929 act establishing “narcotic farms”

In January 1929 the 70th Congress approved an Act:

To establish two United States narcotic farms for the confinement and treatment of persons addicted to the use of habit-forming narcotic drugs who have been convicted of offenses against the United States and for other purposes. . . Any person, except an unconvicted alien, addicted to the use of habit-forming narcotic drugs, whether or not he shall have been convicted of an offense against the United States, may apply to the Secretary of the Treasury, or his authorized representative, for admission.

Any such addict shall be examined by the Surgeon General . . . of the Public Health Service, or his authorized agent, who shall report to the Secretary of the Treasury whether the applicant is an addict within the meaning of this Act; whether . . . he may by treatment in a United States narcotic farm be cured of his addiction and the estimated length of time necessary to effect a cure, and any further pertinent information bearing on the addiction, habits, or character of the applicant. The Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, admit the applicant.

No such addict shall be admitted unless he voluntarily submits to treatment for the maximum amount of time estimated by the Surgeon General . . . as necessary to effect a cure, and unless suitable accommodations are available after all eligible addicts convicted of offenses against the United States have been admitted. The Secretary of the Treasury may require any such addict voluntarily applying to pay the cost of his subsistence, care, and treatment. ... Any person who voluntarily submits himself for treatment . . . shall not forfeit or abridge thereby any of his rights as a citizen . . . nor shall such submission be used against him in any proceeding in any court, and . . . the record of his voluntary commitment shall be confidential.

...

Opening of Lexington and Fort Worth Hospitals in 1930's

In May 1935, in Lexington, Kentucky, the first U.S. Narcotic Farm was opened for the treatment of individuals addicted to narcotic drugs. The name "narcotie farm" represented the experimental nature of the institution; during the first year the name was changed to the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital. The second hospital was opened at Fort Worth, Texas, in November 1938. Since then both hospitals have been operated as psychiatric hospitals.

Of the 87,800 total admissions to both the Lexington and Fort Worth Hospitals from 1935 through 1964, some 23,700, or 27.0 percent, were Federal prisoners sent by Federal Courts for violation of Federal laws and who also were addicted to narcotic drugs. Of the remaining number, 63,600, or 72.5 percent, were voluntary admissions who applied for treatment.