Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I will find out. Dr. Yolles will be here and he just made the statement that they only needed about two and a half million dollars more and they can give everybody answers as a result of their research. We will check him on that and see. This is what he has testified to before.

Now, what about reports I read that marihuana may be—may have medicinal uses? Are you aware of that?

Mr. INGERSOLL. Are you speaking about the report that came out in this morning's paper?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, we haven't had an opportunity to examine that report. Dr. Lewis has not looked at it and I don't think we are in a position to comment on it.

Mr. ROGERS. I just wondered whether you knew all of this.

Mr. INGERSOLL. We are not even aware of the qualifications of the man who did the research.

Mr. ROGERS. You are regulating it and I am surprised-how long has this research-way back when, 1938, 1949?

Mr. INGERSOLL. Apparently only NIMH has been privy to the research to date.

Mr. ROGERS. This is why I wonder whether you get it fed into things, and why we shouldn't leave this in the scientific community where they know this sort of thing.

Mr. INGERSOLL. This is a matter of research that we should have been made aware of but we were not, by another agency of the Government.

Mr. ROGERS. The point I am making is you don't have the capability. Mr. INGERSOLL. Oh, we can read, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. The capability of doing this. Well, no one read that report.

Mr. INGERSOLL. It was not provided to us. It was provided to the newspapers before it was provided to another agency of the Govern

ment.

Mr. ROGERS. There was no reason to provide it for you basically as an enforcement agency because it was geared for medicine. Mr. INGERSOLL. Mr. Chairman, we

Mr. ROGERS. This is what I am talking about.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Our enforcement policies are based on what is known about the hazards of marihuana. Now, it seems to me that an enforcement agency should be privileged to receive all of the information that is available concerning the substance on its

Mr. ROGERS. I am just saying the circumstances are such and why set up another scientific bureau?

Mr. INGERSOLL. Precisely for that reason, because we did not receive all the information.

Mr. ROGERS. When you already have it in HEW.

Mr. SONNENREICH. Can I give you an example? There was one drug on the market. We didn't know what it was, couldn't even identify it. Research could not be undertaken by the Department of HEW. We had a contract out to get that information. The drug later turned out to be STP which was placed under control by our Scientific Advisory Committee in 1968.

There are drugs that are on the market-there is a proliferation of hallucinogenic substances on the market that demand quick, immediate response.

That report in the newspaper is a 10-year-old report done by the U.S. Army Corps of Chemical Engineers that we have never seen. Mr. ROGERS. I understand.

Mr. SONNENREICH. It is quite interesting since we have been testifying before the Congress and certainly we would like to give the Congress the information that we have, that we should have known about it. But there are instances where we must respond with great speed and there is a real legitimate need, because of the fact that some substance that is unidentified is on that market and being abused, that we cannot contract out to a private person or a university, "Tell us what that substance is, what are its properties," because there is no question about it, it has an abuse potential that the kids-the kids are turning on and tripping with that substance, and we have got to get an answer immediately.

Mr. ROGERS. You don't think you could have gotten that answer from FDA?

Mr. SONNENREICH. They didn't have the capability to do it at that point. Their orientation is somewhat different in terms of looking at a specific problem such as that. At that stage it was simply a law enforcement problem. It wasn't a drug that was identified. It wasn't a drug that was introduced to the FDA for an investigational new drug application.

Mr. ROGERS. Couldn't you have given it to them and had that determination made?

Mr. SONNENREICH. They could not give it to us in the kind of time we needed.

Mr. ROGERS. I would be concerned about the inefficiency of FDA in that situation. I would like specifics on that as to time element so we can check out Food and Drug on that. I would be very much interested. But I think we have gotten, generally, an understanding of what you are proposing. There is information that if you could furnish to us, that we have asked for, that would be helpful.

Are there any other questions?

We appreciate your patience with the committee. You have been most kind and your testimony has been helpful to the committee. You have been most responsive and we appreciate your cooperation. Thank you.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. The committee stands adjourned until 10 a.m., tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, February 4, 1970.)

DRUG ABUSE CONTROL AMENDMENTS-1970

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Jarman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. JARMAN. The subcommittee will please be in order as we continue the hearings on H.R. 11701, H.R. 13743, and other bills pending before the committee dealing with the problem of drug abuse.

Our witnesses this morning are Dr. Roger O. Egeberg, Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and Dr. Stanley F. Yolles, Director, National Institute of Mental Health, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Gentlemen we appreciate your being here.

OF

STATEMENTS OF DR. ROGER 0. EGEBERG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, AND DR. STANLEY F.
YOLLES, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH;
ACCOMPANIED BY THEODORE ELLENBOGEN, ASSISTANT GEN-
ERAL COUNSEL FOR LEGISLATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEW; AND
DR. MORTON G. MILLER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR SPECIAL
AND COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMS, NIMH

Dr. EGEBERG. You know Mr. Ellenbogen, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, indeed.

Dr. EGEBERG. From our Legislation Division. And Dr. Mort Miller from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Mr. JARMAN. Good morning.

Doctor, we are pleased to have you gentlemen with us this morning. Proceed in any manner of testimony that you have in mind. Dr. EGEBERG. If I may, I will open with a little statement and then perhaps follow with Dr. Yolles, who has a broader statement than mine.

Mr. JARMAN. Yes, that will be fine.

Dr. EGEBERG. Mr. Chairman, I very much welcome this opportunity to appear before you in connection with the important drug abuse legislation under consideration by the subcommittee. The two bills, H.R. 11701 and H.R. 13743 deal with a subject of very deep concern

to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and certainly of immense importance to this Nation.

The increasingly serious problem of drug abuse, a problem that encompasses health issues, social issues, and legal issues at one and the same time, clearly requires effective action predicated on the best informed judgments of those who make law, those who enforce law, and those others, such as myself, who must look at drug abuse in a context broader than the law.

In this regard I should commend your committee, which at the close of the last session of Congress, reported out an extremely important bill amending the Community Mental Health Centers Act to provide, among other things, increased support for the construction and staffing of local treatment and rehabilitation facilities for narcotic addicts.

Additionally, that bill, H.R. 14086, provides for a vitally necessary program of training of specialized personnel to work in these facilities as well as authority to support surveys and field trials aimed at evaluating adequacy of prevention and treatment programs.

H.R. 11701 deals with a number of critically important issues relating to the narcotic addiction and drug abuse problem. In addition to the training and evaluation section, which has already been incorporated in the extension of the Community Mental Health Centers Act, it recognizes the importance of research to uncover new knowledge about the cause, prevention, and treatment of drug abuse and of scientifically based drug abuse prevention and education programs. In regard to prevention and education programs, this House has already passed the Drug Abuse Education Act of 1969, which affirms the importance of wide dissemination of the facts about drug use and abuse throughout the Nation.

Today, however, I would like to address my remarks principally to H.R. 13743, the bill introduced by your distinguished Chairman, Mr. Staggers, at the request of the administration, and its counterpart H.R. 13742. These bills which certain modifications which I shall mention later, represent a sound approach toward the vitally necessary recodification of existing Federal law for the control of narcotics and other dangerous drugs. These modifications have already been incorporated in the Senate-passed bill, S. 3246, which has also been sent to the House for consideration.

I am deeply troubled by our present ill-founded and inappropriate system of classifying dangerous drugs and punishing those who abuse them. I think I hold a view shared by the overwhelming majority of scientists and physicians when I say we need to replace the present patchwork of Federal drug laws with a new legal structure that is consistent with society's needs and with the scientific information at hand.

Read together, the two bills H.R. 13743 and H.R. 13742, provide a logical classification of drugs based on scientific knowledge and represent a needed forward step toward orderly and effective drug control.

By providing a system of regulatory control that is related to the proposed classification system, the bills aim toward controls that are based on a realistic appraisal of our various kinds of drug abuse problems rather than on emotion or unsupported opinion.

H.R. 13743 would give the Attorney General the authority to determine when a dangerous drug should be brought under Federal control. The bill would establish four categories or schedules of controlled substances on the basis of the liability for abuse and the legitimate medical value of each substance. As I have indicated, we believe that this provision represents a major and necessary step toward orderly and effective control of dangerous drugs.

The decision to place a potentially dangerous substance under Federal control involves both legal and scientific considerations. There are those in the Congress and elsewhere who advocate giving to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare the ultimate responsibility for deciding which substances are to be brought under Federal drug abuse control.

I would be less than candid if I did not acknowledge that there is merit in this suggestion. The hazard to society and to an individual posed by abuse of a drug must be assessed in the light of sound scientific information on the nature of a given drug, its physiological and psychological effects, trends in its use among various segments of the population, and other factors that are largely the province of the health sciences. But we must recognize that the determination as to which drugs are to be brought under Federal control, and in what manner, are an essential element of the regulatory process and thus should logically be made by the agency responsible for such control.

We think it is highly appropriate, indeed essential, that the Attorney General, in the exercise of his control authority, be guided by the best available scientific information, and we fully support the provision of the bill requiring him to seek in writing the advice of this Department and a committee of scientists. Attorney General Mitchell, in testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency on September 15, 1969, stated that he would exercise his authority to schedule controlled substances only "upon advice in writing of a Scientific Advisory Committee and of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare."

You have my assurance, Mr. Chairman, that this Department will promptly and fully meet its responsibility in this critically important area of control, so that the Attorney General will be able to base his determinations on the best possible scientific information that can be provided him.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn briefly to the subject of penalties for drug abuse.

Officials of the Department of Justice have developed and presented alternative penalty structures to replace the ones now included in H.R. 13743 and H.R. 13742. These alternatives reflect principles that I think are very important. First, because marihuana and similar hallucinogenic drugs are fundamentally different from addictive narcotics and, in our present state of knowledge, cannot be considered as hazardous as the "hard" drugs, penalties for possession and distribution of these drugs should be of a substantially lesser order. Secondly, the courts should have greater flexibility when imposing sentence on persons convicted of drug abuse. Except in the case of the professional criminal whose traffic in drugs poses a real threat to society, minimum mandatory sentences for drug abuse are inappropriate.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »