Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. ROGERS. This is under the-I think this is the same as the Senate bill. I am looking at H.R. 14774.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. You mean the criteria or the list?

Mr. ROGERS. I believe this is the same bill.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Do you mean the criteria?

Dr. EGEBERG. Do you mean, for instance, a high potential for abuse, that list of schedule II?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. The drugs there. Is it opiate?

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. That is in the Senate-passed bill.

Mr. ROGERS. The schedule II. I believe on page 18, is it?

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Now, what did you want to know about that? Mr. ROGERS. What is the present requirement as to refill? Can you get a refill on any prescription there or not? Does it only

Dr. EGEBERG. You certainly cannot on opium, cocoa leaves. Mr. ROGERS. On none of the schedule II would you be allowed a refill?

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. So far as the narcotic opiates are concerned.

Dr. EGEBERG. Perhaps Dr. Miller can say more specifically, but I believe that you would have to have a narcotic prescription for every one of them.

Mr. ROGERS. I would think so. For each time; is this not true?
Dr. EGEBERG. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. But on the others we can go up to five times as we wrote in the law the last time, or 6 months, as I recall.

Dr. MILLER. Yes.

Dr. EGEBERG. You swamp me with some of these names.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I have just one question. It is a little bit out of context. Mr. Rogers asked a question a few minutes ago with respect to schedules I, II, and III, as to who was the proper party to make the findings required in each. We received some testimony yesterday that seemed to indicate that all of these findings could be made by any layman or at least a lawyer simply by reading written reports. Do you agree with that?

Dr. EGEBERG. Well, I find that being done plenty in the Government [Laughter.]

But, yes, I feel strongly about this subject. Perhaps I should not express it here, but I think that the literature on those drugs that are well established, would allow a lawyer to make a good decision. But it is my understanding that this decision will be based on and related very much to the recommendation by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. You feel, then, that there is additional expertise that should be brought to bear over and above just the written word. Dr. EGEBERG. I think it is very helpful to have the assistance of an expert in the field to provide the most current scientific data. By reading a little narrowly, one can come to wrong decisions, and I think that is why the Secretary of HEW has to be involved in making recommendations to the Department of Justice.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Well, in your opinion, where a new abuse seems to be emerging, would not this be even more so?

42-121 ()---70-pt. 1--14

Dr. EGEBERG. The ability to evaluate it?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes, sir.

Dr. EGEBERG. Well, we get some of them from the papers, for instance, when they were sniffing glue and eating nasturtium seeds.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I do not mean evaluating abuse but the other factors that must be determined. Would it not be more proper for HEW to make these findings where a new drug is involved.

Dr. EGEBERG. This is a medical determination in my estimation be- . cause, well, several things, like a fad, enter into such things and I think can be misinterpreted at times. I think that the old attitude towards marijuana is a good example of one of them. I do not believe doctors have ever felt about marijuana as the Treasury Department did. Mr. SATTERFIELD. Thank you, sir. I yield.

Mr. ROGERS. Nor as Justice Department did when they submitted their bill. Would you not agree? I will not ask you to answer that. (Laughter.)

Dr. EGEBERG. Thank you. No, but they

Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you this

Dr. EGEBERG. They are wholeheartedly in agreement on the bill that the Senate passed.

Mr. ROGERS. I understood that. Does marijuana have any medicinal uses, Dr. Yolles or Dr. Egeberg, either one?

Dr. EGEBERG. I think I will let Dr. Yolles answer that one because there is a real hooker in it.

Mr. ROGERS. I did not mean to ask it as a hooker.

Dr. EGEBERG. No, but there is some new evidence.

Dr. YOLLES. At the present time if one follows the accepted bibles in the field, the Pharmacopeia, et cetera, there is no accepted medical use for marihuana. I think you know the story about it. The 1940 version for the first time deleted marihuana as a drug. It had appeared year after year before that and this was a result of the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

Research has been continuing over the years from time to time, on marihuana to determine whether it as a substance or its derivatives will have some medical usage. We have recently had some very fragmentary reports about the effect of some of the tetrahydrocannabinol consitituents of marihuana which indicate that they have a very definite effect on blood pressure and on body temperature.

Now, these are very fragmentary reports. The actual report itself has not been published as yet and we have no way of evaluating the research to see whether it is significant or not or whether it is replicable or not. This fragmentary material was reported in a volume which just came out.

Mr. ROGERS. What about the report in the newspaper the day before yesterday, I believe? What is that claim?

Dr. YOLLES. The report in the newspaper was based on the publication of a book which constitutes the report of a scientific conference supported in part by the National Institute of Mental Health about a year ago and in which representatives from the entire scientific community were present. Some of our people were present. One of the researchers and responsible officials from the Department of Justice was

also present. During the discussion one of the researchers from the Department of Defense mentioned that he had been working on marihuana for some time and that the research had recently been declassified and that report would be out in the near future and he gave some fragmentary reports on this work. Since this was published privately it was released some time ago. This was picked up by the press. We certainly are interested in the results of that work.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Well, this is interesting to me, that you are familiar with it, because the Department of Justice was not and they said no one had furnished them that report and, therefore, they could not be expected to know about it and this gets at the issue that I am concerned with, that they are not oriented to have vast knowledge in this area, and they should be expected to. They were not created that way. And this causes a great deal of concern.

What is your research budget that you could say would be related to drugs, marihuana and so forth, approximately?

Dr. YOLLES. The entire budget for the whole area of narcotics and drug abuse treatment, recovery, rehabilitation, and research would amount to-in 1969, about $37 million. For research alone, it is about $15 million.

Mr. ROGERS. Dr. Egeberg, do you know what the Department of Justice's budget is for research in this area? Do you have any idea? I just wondered if you had discussed that with them. There is no reason for you to know.

Dr. EGEBERG. No. We have not discussed this with them at all. And I do not know.

Mr. ROGERS. One million dollars. I do not think this effort nor the personnel they have would be very significant.

Dr. EGEBERG. Is that going to be spent in the same area or is it going to be spent on more effective ways of handling their part of this? Mr. ROGERS. I presume they are going to have to do a great deal of different kinds of research under the authority that the Senate bill would give them and I doubt if they are mounted to do this type of research nor oriented, and particularly when we already have research going on. Now, they told us they were doing LSD research and marihuana which is a duplication, I presume, of what we have been doing.

Dr. EGEBERG. I think this was some of what they inherited, was it not?

Dr. YOLLES. Much of it was.

Mr. ROGERS. So if they are doing that, which has already been started in HEW, and I am sure it is duplicative, this would be an added expense for the taxpayer.

I would hope the Department would go over this bill again and let us have your thinking as to-and perhaps some suggestions as to whether where the expertise of the Department can be brought in more effectively and assured in language rather than leave it in this hazy area of advice, and I would hope you would do it and let the committee have the benefit of your thinking on this.

Dr. EGEBERG. Thank you, sir; we will.

(The following letter was received for the record :)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Hon. PAUL G. ROGERS,
House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washngton, D.C., March 30, 1970.

DEAR MR. ROGERS: In accord with your request of February 4, 1970, we have very carefully reconsidered provisions of HR 13743, the proposed "Controlled Depressant and Stimulant Drugs Act," pertaining to the responsibilities of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Attorney General concerning the classification of dangerous drugs and the enforcement of measures intended to regulate their production, distribution, and use. We do not recommend changes in these provisions.

While we recognize, as you do, that the classification and control of substances liable to abuse involve medical as well as other determinations, we believe that the legislation, in its present form, embodies a logical and workable procedure for collaboration by this Department and the Department of Justice. The legislation specifically provides that the Attorney General, before he takes any action with respect to the scheduling of dangerous substances, shall request in writing the advice of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, as well as that of a committee of scientific advisors. In this way, the Attorney General will have available to him the guidance of medical authorities, which we think is essential to the proper and effective control of dangerous drugs. However, we do not believe that the control function would be strengthened or improved by separating the classification function from the other drug abuse control responsibilities that are clearly and appropriately the province of the Department of Justice.

Decisions with respect to the control of dangerous substances must involve more than scientific determinations of the kind that this Department is increasingly well qualified to provide. They must also involve determinations based on the day-to-day experience of law enforcement personnel who are intimately familiar with changing patterns of drug abuse and with the illicit movement of drugs. We believe, therefore, that the legislation, by directing the Attorney General to obtain scientific guidance and to pursue the regulatory and enforcement responsibilities that are essential to the control of drug abuse, offers a balanced and effective approach toward solution of this serious problem.

Sincerely yours.

ROGER O. EGEBERG, M.D., Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs. Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield on that? Mr. ROGERS. Certainly.

Mr. CARTER. I think the distinguished gentleman from Florida is quite right on this. I feel like research as to the drugs particularly, should be done at NIMH as it is at the present time. I cannot see any reason why the Justice Department should take up this field. Of course, research as they mentioned on diversion of different drugs from the manufacturer, I can see how they would be interested in that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. I hate to impose on the committee like this. Let me just read you this testimony from the hearing yesterday. I asked Mr. Ingersoll about research.

"How much money are you spending on research?"

"We have a budget of $1 million for research of which $300,000"— out of a million-"is specifically allocated for the research necessary to bring drugs under control."

And I asked: "$300,000."

"Yes, to do the necessary work preliminary to bringing a new drug under control."

[blocks in formation]

"In some cases it is and we do the work through our laboratories and agents on the street."

Do
you know what their laboratories consist of?
Dr. EGEBERG. The street.

Mr. ROGERS. Just about.

Dr. EGEBERG. Well, I think that is exactly where I think that they have a point. That is where the control probably has to be exerted if you cannot do it at the very highly financed level of narcotics distribution.

Mr. ROGERS. No. This is research. $300,000 to bring it under control. Now, but the rest of the million dollars, there are no pharmacologists in their labs, no, sir, there are some chemists, they are mainly chemists. I went into what the lab has. I think they have 10 chemists and a clerk. He gave us that example in San Francisco. And it simply is to find out if a drug has certain parts of narcotics in it, et cetera.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, would the distinguished gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. Certainly.

Mr. CARTER. I believe those laboratories, the five laboratories throughout the country are for identifying drugs principally and not for research. I believe most of the research is here and they do have pharmacologists here as well as chemists and a physician. In thinking over the amount of money for the research, I believe most of it is done, to find out where the other drugs get from the manufacturer out in the field and perhaps to check areas to see how much drug use is going on. This is and this is exactly, I think, where their research should go.

Thank you.

Mr. ROGERS. I would agree with that but it appears of the million dollars, only $300,000 is going for that and the rest, like LSD research, which is certainly a function of HEW, marihuana which you are doing, I think you told me it would take about $212 million to wind up your research which you felt would give us the necessary answers. Dr. EGEBERG. Yes. I just think this is part of what they inherited and in my conversation with Mr. Ingersoll, this is something that they are not going to continue.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, they are continuing it and this is what causes me concern and the fact that we are transferring so many other functions in this proposed Senate bill.

Thank you. You have been very kind.

Dr. EGEBERG. We thank you.

Mr. JARMAN. Are there additional questions?

Gentlemen, we appreciate your being with us to help make the record on this subject.

Dr. EGEBERG. Thank you, sir.

Mr. JARMAN. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock, Tuesday morning, February 17, 1970.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 17, 1970.)

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »