vention which require a much broader social and biological knowledge than is within their appropriate competence.

Mr. KYROS. Thank you.

Mr. ROGERS. Doctor, let me ask you this.

Is there any encouraging work being done on rehabilitation or treatment of drug addicts?

Then is there any promise in the offing?

Dr. KLINE. There are a few places where success is claimed with specialized groups, but the amount of support for these is, again, extremely limited.

Former addicts working with addicts seems to be useful. There are attempts with this in the urban areas, but they are very poorly funded, and I would again go back to the fact that I think this is a Federal responsibility. There are no provisions for 100-percent funding, for this kind of work at St. Elizabeths or elsewhere.

You have all the facilities here, all the expertise at the National Institutes of Health, but there is insufficient funding to make full use of them.

Mr. ROGERS. In other words, we are doing practically no research on how to medically treat narcotic addicts. Is that what you are telling me?

Dr. KLINE. That is correct. The emphasis is on the enforcement part, which I would be for, but I think it must be accompanied by a medical research effort in treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention. Mr. ROGERS. Are you doing any research yourself in this area? Dr. KLINE. Only the work we are currently doing in Iran with the treatment of narcotic addicts in their hospital there. They have a narcotics hospital on the outskirts of Teheran.

Mr. ROGERS. With the antidepressants?

Dr. KLINE. Yes. I don't think the antidepressants are a total solution, but certainly there appear to be a group of individuals turning to narcotics because of depression and if they could be identified and treated I think this approach would be equally successful here in the United States of America.

Mr. ROGERS. From your knowledge of the field, what is your impression as to the illegal traffic? Where is it coming from, why is it so difficult to stop?

Have you any briefs on that?

Dr. KLINE. In part it is the philosophical one. I think these are very difficult times, and people get turned over rather easily.

They look at things about them that are discouraging in terms or the world in which they live and hence they do one of two things. They either tend to turn inward, and drugs are of tremendous value if you want to cut out of reality.

The other thing they do is to become antiestablishment.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Let me ask you this. There is legislation before Congress now not to permit cigarette advertising on radio and TV. Should this also apply to these drugs, such an antidepressant drugs, or sleeping pills, tranquilizers, and should this be advertised in this manner?

Dr. KLINE. Most of these are not advertised to the general public. They are advertised within the medical profession itself.

Mr. ROGERS. I have seen Miltown, isn't it, Nytol, or something, Sleepeze

Dr. KLINE. Most of these are actually drugs that are in the antihistamine class, and what they have done is taken advantage of the side effects of antihistamines which make some people sleepy, and they are using the side effect for a therapeutic purpose.

Mr. ROGERS. Doesn't this encourage the approach, which you say is one of the problems? Should we ban this type of advertising?

Dr. KLINE. You will have your problems. About a hundred years ago Dr. Osler from Baltimore produced a wonderful quotation. He said, "The desire to take pills is the greatest feature which distinguished man from the animals."

We live in a society where, if you have a problem, or feel this way or that, you use pills. I think this would be difficult to counteract. I certainly would not be for advertising marihuana or narcotics. Mr. ROGERS. As a matter of fact, I think we do not permit the prescription drugs to be advertised.

Dr. KLINE. We do not. You are correct.

Mr. ROGERS. So this is somewhat in line with current practice. Dr. KLINE. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. If these drugs are classified as such-do we presently advertise the barbiturates and amphetamines then?

Dr. KLINE. No; none of these are available. None of these are advertised at present to the general public. The only legitimate advertising is to the medical profession itself.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Should we allow this TV advertising; in effect condition the public for taking these pills that do something that the pill is not really designed to do?

Dr. KLINE. I don't frankly think by legislation we are going to be able to do it.

Mr. ROGERS. I am talking about advertising for sleep when that goal really is not the function of the pill, it is a side effect.

Dr. KLINE. It is a side effect of an antihistamine that makes some people sleepy.

Mr. ROGERS. What is the basic use for an antihistamine?

Dr. KLINE. If you have an allergy.

Mr. ROGERS But not for sleep.

Dr. KLINE. No, but if it is a harmless drug and it does help people to get to sleep, then I don't see why an individual should not be allowed to make use of it.

Mr. ROGERS. I understand that, but should we advertise this sort of thing if it would encourage him to go into sleeping pills?

Which I think it might. It gives the impression that this is a sleeping pill, that it is not addictive. That is what they say.

Dr. KLINE. I must plead ignorance, really, as to how to deal with this sort of problem. Sociologists and physicians and psychologists and pharmacologists to name only a few should get together and attempt to make rhyme and reason.

I don't have the expertise myself, and I would be presumptuous to advise you. I think it would take a bit of study before we could give you the answer to the question you are asking.

Mr. ROGERS. But the Attorney General under this legislation might decide to classify this so that it could not be advertised.

Dr. KLINE. Yes, I think so.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you for being here.

We appreciate your excellent testimony. If it is agreeable with the witnesses who still have to testify, I think we will adjourn until 2 o'clock.

Is this inconvenient for any witness? If not, the committee will recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p.m., Hon. Paul G. Rogers, presiding.)

Mr. ROGERS. The committee will come to order.

We will continue our hearings dealing on drug abuse. Our next witness is Mr. William E. Woods, the Washington representative of the National Association of Retail Druggists.

We are delighted to have you here, Mr. Woods.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. WOODS, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RETAIL DRUGGISTS

Mr. Woods. It is a pleasure to appear before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to set forth the views of the National Association of Retail Druggists on H.R. 13743 (the Controlled Depressant and Stimulant Drug Act of 1969) and H.R. 11701 (the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Control Act of 1969). The National Association of Retail Druggists represents the owners of some 40,000 independent retail pharmacies in the United States. It is estimated that 75 percent of the Nation's prescriptions are filled in these pharmacies each year. The dangerous drug preparations covered by H.R. 13743 constitute a sizable portion of the prescription volume in NARD pharmacies.

NARD and its members have long recognized the increasingly serious problem of improper use of drugs which have a useful and legitimate medical purpose. We are certainly in accord with the efforts of this committee in dealing with abuse of dangeroeus drugs and assure you of our cooperation in every possible way.

We support the thrust of H.R. 13743. This proposed legislation represents a major step forward in bringing together into a single statute the scattered and fragmented laws relating to depressant, stimulant and hallucinogenic drugs. This legislative measure clearly points up the importance of the law enforcement aspect of the drug abuse problem.

To us the other side of the problem-the research, rehabilitation and education aspect-is just as important as the law enforcement aspect. In this connection, NARD is also pleased that the House approved last. November the drug abuse education bill-H.R. 14252-which is essentially designed to encourage the development of drug abuse education in elementary and secondary schools and in community education programs. The concept which this legislative measure reflects is a very simple one of emphasizing education as a real, positive factor in shaping attitudes and behavior. If, through the educational process we

can reach youth in other fields-that is, history, mathematics, science-then why can we not reach them in this area of drug abuse? Implicit in the drug abuse education bill is the recognition that if drug abuse education is going to work, it has to be comprehensive. If, through the resources of the Federal Government-in both the fields of education and health-some sound curriculum can be developed, both as to content and presentation, a great mission will have then been accomplished.

I should like to add here that the NARD was one of the pioneers in the area of drug abuse education. Even prior to the adoption of the Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965, the NARD was deeply concerned over the alarming increase in the use of dangerous drugs in this country. We felt that the problem should be a source of concern to every retail pharmacist in the Nation. It seemed to us that the local retail pharmacist should become actively involved for he is the most informed man in the community about the wide variety of drugs available to our citizens.

In 1967 NARD executive secretary Willard B. Simmons spearheaded a drug abuse educational campaign. The result was the development of two NARD kits on drug abuse. The first one, which was called "Never Abuse-Respect Drugs," was distributed early in 1968 to our members. An additional 75,000 were later distributed, with NARD underwriting the expense. I have this kit entitled "A Community Challenge and Opportunity for You-the Pharmacist", with me today and would be pleased to have you make it a part of the record of hearings of this subcommittee. It contains booklets provided by FDA and BNDD and clinical data reprints by AMA.

Mr. ROGERS. We will receive it for the committee file, but we will not include it in the record.

Mr. WOODS. Retail pharmacists, using the NARD kit, generated community education programs throughout the country. The response nationwide was overwhelming. Many millions of our fellow citizens were reached as the direct result of the NARD program.

We distributed 3,500 kits to physicians and many hundreds were also made available to the dental and legal professions. A great number of requests for the kits were also received from nurses, police officials, judges, and educators. It is also important to note that Kiwanis International, which announced several months ago its plans to launch a drug abuse program, has been using the NARD kit.

A second kit, "Drug Abuse Education Goes to School," was developed by the NARD in early 1969. We are also pleased to provide this kit today to the members of the committee for inclusion in the committee file. This second packet represented an attempt on our part to engage high schools in the drug abuse education campaign.

Our program is one of the most ambitious and widely acclaimed public service accomplishments ever undertaken by the pharmaceutical profession. We are gratified that the Congress, too, recognizes the important role that education can and should play in tackling the problem of drug abuse. We are pleased that H.R. 11701, as well as H.R. 14252, endeavors to come to grips with this critically important issue of drug abuse education.

Now I would like to discuss certain specific sections and provisions of H.R. 13743 introduced by the distinguished chairman of the House

Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. Although the members of the NARD are in accord with the aims and objectives of this proposed legislation, there are several features of the bill which we feel should be modified.

Section 102 (p) states that:

DEFINITIONS

Practitioner means a physician, dentist, veterinarian, scientific investigator, pharmacy, hospital or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled dangerous substance in the course of professional practice or research by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he practices or does research.

By listing certain "individuals," namely, physicians, dentists, et cetera, and then using the word "pharmacy," an establishment would seem to indicate the bill does not consider the individual pharmacist. as a practitioner. Yet it would appear that he could be deemed a practioner under other wording of 102 (p), "other persons licensed to dispense."

Section 302 (a), if studied along with the definition of practitioner in 102 (p), is not clear. It states that:

Every person who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled dangerous substance or who proposes to engage in the manufacture, distribution or dispensing of any controlled dangerous substance shall obtain annually a registration issued by the Attorney General in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by him.

The NARD understands that pharmacies and not pharmacists shall obtain a license or registration each year from the Attorney General. We support this approach.

In testimony presented last fall by Mr. John Ingersoll, Director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, before the Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he pointed out that the Bureau has no intention of licensing or registering individual pharmacists. Mr. Ingersoll has since made similar statements to this committee.

It is somewhat difficult, however, to reconcile these statements with the language of the bill. We would hope that the Congress would be more specific in this regard.

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS AND DENIAL, REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION

Section 301 provides that the Attorney General is "to charge reasonable fees relating to the registration and control of ***". The language of this section is extremely broad and would seemingly extend beyond charging fees for registration. Fees for control could conceivably include inspection and many other costs. The provision for charges for reasonable fees should be limited to registration procedures costs.

With regard to section 302 (a) pertaining to those who are subject. to registration, we assume the narcotics will be included in this one. registration. We, of course, would not favor two separate registrations. We recognize that the subject of narcotic legislation comes under the jurisdiction of the House Ways and Means Committee and is included in H.R. 13742, and we are confident this matter will be re