Seized Assets Continued from page 3 Additional support for the concept has been received from law enforcement officials such as Maj. Nick Navarro, commanding officer of the Organized Crime Bureau, Broward County Sheriff's Office, who, on a local television interview show, gave his support for utilizing a portion of seized assets for drug programs. (5) at a The Miami Herald editorial board in January of this year also expressed its support for the idea. It said in its editorial, “Let drug traffickers help pay for treating drug addicts: that's the intriguing idea advances here National Convention of Drug Rehabilitation Professionals. Under this plan, some of the public funds derived from drug traffickers - through fines and through seizure of cash and property would be invested in substance abuse programs designed to reduce the demand for illicit drugs." While questioning the fiscal soundness of the program, the Herald stated, “... the need to bolster drug treatment programs is beyond dispute. Moreover, it's a crime fighting measure, too. Each $100-a-day addict who is cured means fewer drug related crimes. If drug money can help effect the cure, so much the better."(6) The extent of funds that would be available for drug education and treatment programs in Florida cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty. We do know that the potential is great to provide sufficient funds to help Florida, or any state for inat matter, maintain and even expand high quality prevention, education and treatment services. The recently opened Ft. Lauderdale minijail, costing more than $1 million, was built without spending a single tax dollar. The reason: South Florida drug dealers paid for the new jail with funds derived through seisure and forfeiture laws. Law enforcement agencies recently added a twin-engine Cessna 404 Titan to their command. The new 6-seater plane is valued at $300,000. They got it from South Florida drug dealers as a result of seizure and forfeiture laws. Between November 1980 and February 1983, Broward circuit courts have awarded Ft. Lauderdale about $3,896,667 in cash 4-STREET PHARMACOLOGIST VOX VI. NO 4, 1983 and assets – about 95% of which was seized during drug raids. Another $2.5 to $3 million is tied up in court, according to Jeff Hochman, Ft. Lauderdale's special counsel and administrator of the forfeiture program. On Oct. 8, 1982, a Ft. Lauderdale police drug raid resulted in the seizure of another $297,000 in cash that is also destined for the city's forfeiture fund. In Dade County, Metro police have a law enforcement trust fund that has been enriched with booty seized during raids. Between Oct. 1, 1980, and Sept. 31, 1981, almost $900,000 poured into the fund via assets seized during drug raids. The Criminal Investigation Division of the Florida Department of Law Enforce ment has in its special account, according to Robert Lassiter, in excess of $1 million in seized and forfeited cash and has earned more than $54,000 in interest since its inception in July 1982. About half of the money came from cash-filled suitcases seized by DEA agents during drug raids. In the past, state legislatures and the U.S. Congress have subjected the operating tools of criminals to seizure and forfeiture, but have left illegally accumulated profits intact. The civil forfeiture provisions of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, for example, authorizes the seizure and forfeiture of: (a) contraband drugs; (b) equipment and material used to make, deliver or import contraband drugs; (c) containers for contraband drugs; (d) cars, boats and planes that transport contraband drugs; and (e) books and records connected with drug trafficking. Neither the Uniform Act nor the original federal law on which it was based subjected drug money or illeg. ally accumulated drug profits to forfeiture. As previously stated, Congress amended the forfeiture provisions of federal law in 1978 to permit the civil seizure of all monies used in and all assets acquired from the illegal drug trade.(7) Federal drug agents were then given a powerful weapon to strike at organized crime. Depriving drug traffickers of their assets, including operat ing tools and illegally accumulated profits, will be an essential step in crippling those organizations. Florida drug rehabilitation programs, as well as those throughout the nation, are facing cutbacks which have been termed "critical" by drug treatment agencies. "Over the past year," said Gissen, "Village South and many other drug treatment agencies have been operating above funded resident capacity and have been continually forced to turn away people, including teenagers, because they do not have sufficient funds with which to operate. The demand for treatment services is at an all time high and long lists of those waiting to get into treatment are common." Support for the proposed legislation has also come from the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association, which has adopted the proposed legislation as part of its package for the upcoming legislative session. In its legislative package, the state association makes its recommendation: Given the fiscal pressures placed on the state, it is appropriate that a percentage of the contraband resources be allocated to drug abuse treatment and prevention programs. There is no doubt that forfeiture has already produced significant amounts of revenue and has the potential for producing even more. Although the federal law is in its infancy, in 1979-80 the DEA seized assets totaling nearly half its annual budget. Drug law enforcement has the potential, through forfeiture, of producing more income than it spends. With tax dollars becoming scarce, forfeiture holds the promise of improving drug law enforcement, aiding in the prevention of drug abuse and providing rehabilitation treatment. The long-range implications are enormous for applying the ancient doctrine of seizure and forfeiture to helping solve our modern day problems of substance abuse. (Ed. Note: Matthew Gissen, J.D., is president of Village South, a substance abuse treatment program in Miami FL, and past president of the Therapeutic Communities of America. For more information on this issue, contact Gissen at Village South, 5810 Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL 33137.) References (1) 18 U.S.C., 1962, 1963; 21 U.S.C. 848 (2) 21 U.S.C 881 (a) (6) (3) 21 U.S.C. 881 (a) (6) (4) Remarks by Janet Reno, addressing Therapeutic Communities of America, Jan. 10, 1983, Miami Beach, FL (5) WPLG-TV Channel 10, "Newsmakers," Feb. 6, 1983 (6) The Miami Herald, Jan. 17, 1983 (7) 21 U.S.C 881 (a) (6) Reducing the Demand: Florida's Partnership For Substance Abuse Prevention, Intervention & Treatment The Governor's Commission on Drug & Alcohol Concerns 1984-1985 Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Daigle, welcome. STATEMENT OF JOHN S. DAIGLE Mr. DAIGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Because I am the last speaker on the last panel, and also because Mr. Gissen has aptly described our position, I will be extremely brief. I am here today representing the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association which represents more than 65 alcohol, drug and treatment agencies throughout the State of Florida. For several years we have taken the position that a substantial portion of the revenue from forfeiture should be allocated for treatment and prevention efforts. I have testified before some of you before the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control under Chairman Rangel. Basically Mr. Gissen has stated our reasons for that. We feel it is an appropriate and logical use of those resources. He has already addressed the cost. A recent report developed for the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration estimated the cost to society in 1983 at over $176 billion, not only billions of dollars for health and medical costs, but billions of dollars in cost to private industry, in reduced employee productivity, motor vehicle accidents and also the crime-related costs that have been discussed here today. Clearly it makes sense to make the traffickers and smugglers pick up the cost to a great degree for the problems that they create in communities in Florida as well as throughout the country. It is my understanding that four States and the District of Columbia have already provided for such statutory changes. Recently the American Bar Association formally adopted a policy statement which includes the recommendations that State criminal forfeiture provisions should be strengthened as avenues for curtailing drug trafficking and that a significant portion of the revenues produced by Federal, State, civil and criminal forfeiture provisions should be specifically allocated to supplement alcohol and drug abuse enforcement, prevention, intervention, treatment and research, especially for adolescents. Here in Florida a number of groups have taken that position as well. It has been very refreshing over the last couple of years to also hear law enforcement officials at the national, State and local levels say that they by themselves are not being the answer to the problem. From our perspective it is inconsistent to take a position that law enforcement cannot solve the problem entirely, that you must deal with the demand as well as the supply side, and then say that the resources should not be allocated for that purpose. If we are to share the responsibility, then obviously we should share the resources. That concludes my statement, and I will be glad to take any questions that the subcommittee might have. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Daigle. I do not have any questions. I have some great concerns over the manner in which we have underfunded our education and drug rehabilitation/detoxification centers. My home State, that is New Jersey, and I assume that it is the same thing throughout the country, it costs us about $2,600 or $2,800 to put some individual through a rehab program, and it costs us $15,000 to $16,000 to house them in prison when we bust them for committing their next violations. The waiting lists are now 3 or 4 months long. We have something like 10,000 addicts in New Jersey that sought help that we cannot reach, a substantial portion of which are out committing crimes every day just to support their habit; so, obviously, there is a great deal that we must do in this area and even though my own bent has always been law enforcement oriented, I have come to realize over the years that we have got to spend more and more of our resources in education, demand reduction and rehabilitation; that enforcement, while important, is only part of an overall strategy. My concerns about opening the asset forfeitures fund to other than law enforcement I have already expressed. The revolving fund was to provide an incentive for law enforcement to pursue forfeiture as an incentive. Much of the forfeited assets are going into the Treasury. Basically the question is, isn't that really where we should look for the funding for these programs? They are important, and we should be funding them through the general appropriation process, not through a device that was set up to act as an incentive for law enforcement, to provide forfeitures as a policy question. Mr. DAIGLE. Mr. Chairman, I think that is one perspective, but the problem is that in looking at the Treasury, obviously we are competing with a considerable number of problems, all of which are very important. Just in the block grants in our area it is alcohol, drug and mental health funds that are looked at in one package. There again I think this decreases the priority of alcohol and drug abuse, and as a result of decreasing that priority the resources simply do not follow through. Mr. HUGHES. I understand, and I am sympathetic and I want to tell you I have an open mind on the issue. I am going to look very carefully at what we do in the next budget round in this whole area of rehabilitation and education. As part of this, we will have to look at what impact Gramm-Rudman will have or whatever we decide to do to ourselves and these programs. I have a totally open mind on the issue. I think I have spelled out clearly what I have felt very strongly about not bringing rehabilitation in initially, because we wanted to get the program underway and provide incentives for additional forfeitures, but I am ready to revisit that if, in fact, I see that we are not adequately funding those programs. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Shaw. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions but would like to congratulate these two gentlemen on what they are doing. You are trying to rehabilitate many of our citizens, which society has literally thrown away, even though these acts are self-induced. Still it is a drain on the total society, and there are some lives out there that are certainly worth rehabilitating as we all know. I congratulate you on a fine statement. Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Smith, is recognized. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. |