Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

These persons became involved in other drug offenses. It may have been the abuse of methadone or it may have been the abuse of some other narcotic.

When you consider that we handle anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 narcotics and drug offenders per month in our department alone, 34 in a 10-month period reflects less than a major problem at this point. We support the language of Senate bill 3846 which calls for the strict supervision of medical and security standards for maintenance programs, and we submit that the program in the State of California. the regulations that have been established, the success that we have had minimizes the diversion of this drug into the illicit traffic and should set the pattern for the Nation as a whole and be given strong consideration when this bill comes out in final form.

Diversion of drug violators from the criminal justice system is advocated in many quarters and we believe that some of these programs have merit.

We do not oppose the diversion of the drug addict, drug abusers from the criminal justice system into other programs. But, we do have some concern about the method in which individuals will be diverted from the criminal justice system into these other programs, because we cannot ignore the citizens that we serve and the right that they have to feel secure from criminal activity.

So diversion must be carefully considered. We are concerned with the criminal records of the young people in this country that they are gaining through drugs and similar activities, and yet we must realistically recognize that there are millions of young people who are not getting involved in criminal activity.

We recognize that diversion requires the cooperation of many people. We are talking about diversion of addicts from the criminal justice system. This includes law enforcement, prosecutors, parole and probation and the judiciary.

We submit that some courts have been extremely lenient toward the criminal population in this country, and the sentencing of some of the judiciary has been in our view a significant factor in the rate of drug recidivism.

Law enforcement has borne the brunt of criticism, but others in the criminal justice system must assume their rightful share.

For example, we have long supported the concept and many judges have opposed the concept of establishing special drug and narcotics courts where judges, thoroughly trained, experienced, and aware of the total drug picture, can render objective decisions.

Where the total resources of the community can be utilized in the administration of justice. The judge would know what is available, court decisions would probably run the gamut from education to incarceration, but they would be consistent with the facts at hand and the welfare of the total community.

In the final analysis, we are firmly convinced that enforcement and treatment, no matter how massive the programs, will be ineffective without a realistic education program.

We believe drug education must begin when youngsters are exposed to learning things as basic as their ABC's, and parents must be educated at the same time. All efforts initiated after involvement in drug abuse are capable of only minimal success.

We must climb out of the rut of initiating adequate programs and committing adequate resources only after crisis develops.

Mr. BAYH: Thank you, Chief.

I think an important part of our overall study is the impact these programs have on crime rates. Do you have evidence that would lead you to believe that the methadone maintenance program has had a significant impact on the incidents of crime? One of the problems confronting each community is when a heroin addict gets hooked and he then has to use a number of means to support that very expensive habit.

Have you had any evidence to lead you to believe that there has been success at least as far as the Los Angeles County methadone treatment program in this area; has there been a relationship to the use of the methadone treatment and the decrease in criminal activity? Mr. BLOCK. Well, the methadone maintenance program came at a time when the crime which has increased the most throughout the United States has been the crime of burglary.

Most addict crimes are burglaries. The fact that we have only about 1,300 people currently involved in the methadone maintenance program in Los Angeles County is really not a significant enough number in the face of the other statistics, crime statistics, to draw any kind of meaningful conclusion.

If a single person who is on a methadone maintenance program, truly remaining on the program and availing himself of all it has to offer and is no longer committing crimes that he once committed, that becomes a statistic in itself.

But, nothing that we can read in the charts.

Mr. BAYH. Do you have any records relative to individual arrests records before and after entering the methadone maintenance program?

Mr. BLOCK. In resident addicts?

Mr. BAYH. Yes.

Of particular individuals; in other words, of the 1,200 in Los Angeles County who are on methadone.

Mr. BLOCK. We have arrested 34 people whom we have identified as being on the program so far this year for other drug offenses.

We assume that there are a number of people on the methadone maintenance program who have been arrested for nondrug related offenses, by other agencies

Mr. BAYH. Excuse me.

Is there any other way to get these other statistics?

Mr. BLOCK. We are talking about individuals.

Mr. BAYH. Yes.

Mr. BLOCK. In other words, if we take the names of individuals and run their criminal record from before they went on the program until after they went on the program, I don't think those records of who is on the methadone maintenance program is available to law enforce

ment.

Now, you are talking about a doctor-patient relationship.
Mr. BAYH. Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator Hruska.

Mr. HRUSKA. Just briefly, Mr. Block, I note with gratification your prominence on this advocacy by some people of diverting drug addicts from the criminal justice system.

We believe that we have in the Federal laws now on the books a pretty good combination of criminal sanctions and incarcertation for some types of addicts and then a good opportunity for rehabilitation extended to others that are carefully selected and are put on a probationary basis.

Of course, that is where the cost comes in. The cost will have to spring from the addicts themselves if they are going to get the benefit of that law.

It is a sore point with many people that there is that tendency on the part of the court to, too often, be too lenient in their enforcement penalties.

If there is going to be any change in that law, it is felt by many that the change should be made by the legislature and not by the judges in disregarding and abandoning the penalties that are provided in the law.

But, to have that type of thinking in the office that here in Los Angeles has such respect nationally is a heartening factor and I wanted to make mention of it for the record.

Mr. BLOCK. We have no quarrel with leniency. This is not our position. All we are stating is that when decisions are rendered, these decisions should be based upon all available information.

These decisions should be based upon the knowledge of what is available. Now, we have people who are sent to jail where if a particular judge were aware of the other avenues that were available to them, this individual would have been a more fit subject for some program other than incarceration.

We are not advocating that every drug user belongs in jail, but we are saying that these decisions should be based upon knowledge and objectivity, and not upon the whim of some

Mr. HRUSKA. But neither does the Federal statute as it exists today say that every violator should go to jail. There is a difference there. There is a discrimination between the pusher and the first offender, and the addict in his other stages, and so on, and also a discrimination and distinction between those who profess to have a desire to get out of the habit.

So, it is not a matter of being a hanging judge or hanging statute writer. It is a matter, really, of a combination of both the criminal justice system and also the rehabilitation and educational efforts.

Mr. BLOCK. It may be of interest to you, Senator, to know that in 1971 there were 2,681 convictions for felony sales of opiates and dangerous drugs.

Of this number, something under 16 percent were sentenced as felons, to the State prison. We think that this is a fallacy when people fail to draw the line that you refer to between the pusher and the abuser. There is a significant difference.

Mr. HRUSKA. Thank you very much.

Mr. BAYH. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your cooperation with us here.

(Sheriff Pitchess' prepared statement is as follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT FROM PETER J. PITCHESS, SHERIFF, LOS ANGELES COUNTY Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we welcome the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the abuse and illegal use of narcotics and dangerous drugs, which we view as a problem of major import in this country.

The social problems that emanate from the activities of the purveyors of narcotics involving the youth of this county, will in our opinion, go down in history as one of the greatest threats to the survivals of our great Nation.

For too long a time, drug abuse was treated as a purely local matter. That is, everyone assumed the local authorities were totally responsible for all of the enforcement efforts. As we all know, the drug traffic transcends and borders at the city, county, State and Federal levels. Finally, the Federal Government decided to accelerate their narcotics enforcement activities. In the last few years they have been much more active in the control of drug importation activities and they have spread their enforcement efforts into other aspects of drug control, embarking on programs of cooperation and coordination with local agencies.

A very visible element of this coordinated effort is the drug abuse law enforcement program (D.A.L.E.). Here we have a federally funded program made up of Federal, State, county and city narcotic enforcement personnel who are successfully attacking the street level heroin dealer. These dealers and their clientele are the primary infectors of society, who bring about the self-destruction of the weak and naive.

HEROIN-ADDICTION

Heroin addiction in this country is a national disaster. There is however, some hope. Never before has there been such a concentrated coordinated effort to deal with this social cancer. Law enforcement efforts have been somewhat effective in disrupting the distribution system of heroin in this country. In Los Angeles County we have mounted a co-operative, coordinated effort utilizing the combined resources of Federal, State, county, and local enforcement agencies who act as one force against the drug trafficker. The pusher-an evil parasite-can expect no relief in this jurisdiction.

It has been estimated, that there are from thirty to one hundred thousand addicts in this county, the number being dependent upon the source of the estimate. Of course, a complete count is not possible, as many addicts are not known to the official agencies but only to their family and perhaps their physician. Addiction represents millions of dollars of loss to the community as a result of those who engage in the complete spectrum of criminal activity from, petty theft and prostitution to robbery and murder. Crimes against property, primarily burglaries, appears to receive the greatest attack from the addict.

DRUG ABUSE PLAN

In Los Angeles County, we have knowledgeable experts in both the public and private sectors who concern themselves with treatment programs for the drug abuser. Proper treatment can reduce, to some degree, the demand for drugs. The Los Angeles County drug abuse plan involves almost 200 public and private agencies who concentrate their efforts in the treatment of addicts. Many of the private organizations are voluntary in nature and self-supporting financially. Others receive funding from the Government. State law provides financial support for public drug abuse programs and institutions as well as partial funding for similar programs in the private sector.

In the past, Government funding through grants was not always properly monitored to insure the most efficient use and programs were fragmented and uncoordinated. The Los Angeles County drug abuse plan has gone far in correcting this problem and grants are now being screened and evaluated by the interagency task force on drug abuse, and the county commission on narcotics and dangerous drugs. The plan provides for adequate control and requires proof of performance by those engaged in the treatment field; the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has an active membership in both of these groups.

There are two main treatment dimensions available to the heroin addict: One through the publicly administered methadone maintenance program, and the other through private organizations conducting programs requiring total abstinence from all drugs. Both approaches have had successes and failures.

METHADONE MAINTENANCE

The methadone maintenance program in Los Angeles County is conducted under Federal, State, and county guidelines. Although these regulations dictate strict adherence to the maintenance programs, some patients do not conform to the treatment program and dosages of methadone have appeared in the illegal drug market. Some of the patients continue to use heroin and other drugs. The effort in this area requires constant review and monitoring with close supervision given to the patient, to minimize his opportunity to abuse this treatment effort thereby depriving other applicants of the opportunity to benefiting from the program. Unfortunately in this county, we estimate that as many as 4,000 people desire to participate in the program, but only 1,300 can be accommodated at this time.

Methadone maintenance is expensive requiring staffing by experts, close adherence to guidelines and regulations, and bed space and other clinical resources for the optimum treatment effect. The nature of the program demands extensive follow-up patient care, including family, vocation, and social counselling. We cooperate with those who administer the programs by helping them continue treatment for those who are housed in our custodial system pending their release.

We believe that treatment responsibilites belong with those who have expertise in this field and we reject proposals that the sheriff should assume responsibility for total treatment of addiction in the county jail system. We do not have the facilities, staff, or the expertise to expand our role in this area. The medical faclities and staff within our jail system are taxed to capacity serving the medical needs of an inmate population, averaging more than 10,000 daily. However, we are not completely non-involved with treatment. For example when we assume custody of an opiate dependent person, we are, in effect, through our rehabilitation programs and diversion processes, carrying out first step treatment. We divert some arrested individuals into available treatment programs, prior to the issuance of criminal complaints and their formal entry into the criminal justice system. Hopefully, this concept will help reduce drug abuse recidivism. Unfortunately, illicit methadone is on our streets. Some is the result of the diversion of "take home" weekend dosages from local programs, and some is believed to originate from other States. Illegal methadone is not yet a significant problem in this community, but the methadone patient who continues the use of hard narcotics is. Some are arrested for drug related offenses and although not in large numbers, it does indicate some program deficiency. Statistically, during the year 1972 our narcotics bureau has processed 34 persons known to be in the methadone program. Conceivably, many methadone patients may have been arrested for non-drug related offenses and processed without detection as methadone patients.

We have a mandate for the strongest possible law enforcement efforts against the purveyors of illegal narcotics and drugs. We are continuing to exercise every legal means available to reduce this traffic and the public supports us. By the joining together in a common effort of all concerned people, we can effect new initiatives aimed at the heroin distribution system.

DIVERSION OF THE DRUG

Senate Bill 3846 amends the Control Substance Act to provide new require ments for physicians utilizing narcotic drugs for treatment purposes. We support the language calling for strict supervision of the medical and security standards for maintenance programs. The California system for the control of methadone maintenance when properly implemented should set the pattern for the Nation to follow in such programs.

The realistic controls imposed under the California system have minimized the diversion of methadone into the illegal market.

We have been pleased to see the increased effort of the Federal Government in controlling the manufacture and distribution of legal drugs. We have long pointed to these legal products as being a major source of supply for illegal drug traffic through theft and other means of diversion.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »