DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT LEGISLATION, 1975 MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1975 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ALCOHOLISM AND NARCOTICS OF THE, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:20 a.m., in room 4232, Dirksen Office Building, Senator William D. Hathaway (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Hathaway and Schweiker. Committee staff present: Angus S. King, counsel, and Jay B. Cutler, minority counsel and John Hunnicutt, minority professional staff member. Senator HATHAWAY. The subcommittee will be in order. Today is the first of 2 days of hearings on the future of the Federal drug abuse prevention and treatment effort being held by the Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. As most of you know, the present funding authorities of the National Institute on Drug Abuse expire on June 30 of this year. Also, the entire legislative authority for the Special Action Office on Drug Abuse Prevention in the White House expires on that same date. Faced with these deadlines, the subcommittee must make several decisions regarding future authorization levels, appropriate administrative structures, and, in general, the nature and scope of the Federal prevention and treatment effort. The context for these decisions must be the present drug abuse situation in the country. We have received information indicating that after a period of stability and even decline, drug abuse-involving heroin as well as polydrugs-is back on the upswing. If this is true, and we hope to get some information on this shortlythen earlier assumptions about proper Federal drug abuse structure and funding levels may be dangerously outmoded. It is to examine this factual context and its implications for policy that is the purpose of these hearings. Currently, the only bill actually pending before the subcommittee is S. 1203, introduced last week on behalf of the administration by our ranking minority member, Senator Schweiker, and Senator Javits, ranking minority member of the full committee. This bill would allow the Special Action Office to expire, continue NIDA's present formula grant authority for 3 years at a reduced level, $35 million per year rather than the $45 million presently authorized; and consolidate (1) under the Secretary grant and contract authority currently in NIDA with similar authorities for alcoholism, migrant health; neighborhood health centers, and family planning. In contrast to this proposal, several alternatives have been suggested which includes a continuation of NIDA authorities at somewhat higher authorization levels, tightening and refining program and priority language and continuing the Special Action Office with a limited mandate of drug policy development and coordination. It is my hope that our witnesses will address themselves to the issues raised by these proposals and will provide us with their views as to the best course to be followed. Finally, before proceeding to our first witness, I would like to simply read and offer for reflection the congressional findings enacted almost exactly 3 years ago in the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act: The Congress makes the following findings: (1) Drug abuse is rapidly increasing in the United States and now afflicts urban, suburban, and rural areas of the Nation. (2) Drug abuse seriously impairs individual, as well as societal, health, and well-being. (3) Drug abuse, especially heroin addiction, substantially contributes to crime. (4) The adverse impact of drug abuse inflicts increasing pain and hardship on individuals, families, and communities and undermines our institutions. (5) Too little is known about drug abuse, especially the causes, and ways to treat and prevent drug abuse. (6) The success of Federal drug abuse programs and activities requires a recognition that education, treatment, rehabilitation, research, training, and law enforcement efforts are interrelated. (7) The effectiveness of efforts by State and local governments and by the Federal Government to control and treat drug abuse in the United States has been hampered by a lack of coordination_among the States, between States and localities, among the Federal Government, States and localities, and throughout the Federal establishment. (8) Control of drug abuse requires the development of a comprehensive, coordinated long term Federal strategy that encompasses both effective law enforcement against illegal drug traffic and effective health programs to rehabilitate victims of drug abuse. (9) The increasing rate of drug abuse constitutes a serious and continuing threat to national health and welfare, requiring an immediate and effective response on the part of the Federal Government. It is our job now to examine the present validity of those findings, determine just how effective our response has been and decide what an appropriate future response should be. In the interests of time, all of our witnesses are encouraged to briefly summarize their prepared testimony, so we will have ample opportunity for questions. Of course, your entire prepared statement will be made part of the record of these proceedings. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Jerry N. Jenson, Acting Deputy Administrator, of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Mr. Jenson, I want to apologize to you that I have to attend a meeting that precedes the conference on the tax bill, but my counsel, Mr. King, will be here, and shortly we expect Senator Schweiker to arrive, but you may proceed with your statement. STATEMENT OF JERRY N. JENSON, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD E. MILLER, CHIEF COUNSEL Mr. JENSON. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Jerry N. Jenson, Acting Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. I appreciate this opportunity to review with you the current patterns of drug abuse in the United States. The gravest drug problem the United States has faced and continues to face, in terms of social costs, is heroin. In the past year, we have begun to see an increase in the availability and purity of heroin. Our removal statistics reflect this increased trafficking. In December, when the fiscal year was only half over, DEA removals of heroin were already 7 percent over removals during all of fiscal year 1974. White heroin from Europe or the Middle East is the preferred heroin among most abusers. But while white heroin has continued to be scarce, abusers have turned to brown heroin from Mexico and Southeast Asia. According to recent estimates based on DEA laboratory analyses, Mexican brown heroin now accounts for about 65 percent of all heroin smuggled into the United States. Brown heroin continues to dominate the illicit market except along the Eastern Seaboard, and even there, it is becoming more abundant. This type of heroin is reported to be increasingly available in Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore regions, and has already supplanted white heroin in the Miami region. White heroin remains dominant, although in limited quantities, only in the New York area. New York City continues to be the primary port of entry and distribution point for most white heroin originating in Europe. To a much lesser degree, Montreal supplies white heroin to New England, New York, and Chicago. Traffickers are also routing shipments into the United States indirectly via Latin America and our southern ports. The primary method for smuggling No. 3 heroin into the United States is through Chinese fishermen who call at U.S. ports. The Port of New York, San Francisco, and Vancouver, Canada are the major entry and transshipment points for heroin originating from Southeast Asia. Corresponding to the increased reliance on Mexico as a source of heroin, Mexicans have assumed an increasing importance among traffickers. Their role has varied depending on the location and size. of the ethnic community. Where there is a sizable ethnic base in an American city the movement of heroin remains generally in ethnic channels. In other situations Mexican involvement is confined to furnishing heroin supplies at the source in Mexico or at the Southwest border with transportation and distribution within the United States accomplished by non-Mexican traffickers. Both Chicago and Detroit report increased heroin activity on the part of Mexicans during the past year. One Chicago-based organization reportedly obtains most of its heroin from family connection at laboratories in Durango, Mexico. Michigan traffickers are also believed to obtain their heroin from either Durango, or through Mexican sources in Texas border towns. Traditionally, organized crime for the most part was involved with white European heroin. Mexican traffickers have, in effect, displaced organized crime along with white heroin in Chicago and Detroit. So far there are few indications of an extension of systematic trafficking eastward from Chicago and Detroit. Another potential source of white heroin supply is Turkey. Whether Turkey's return to the cultivation of opium poppies will mean an increased supply of illicit white heroin is a matter of conjecture at this time. The Government of Turkey has stated its intention to prevent any diversion into illicit channels, Nevertheless, DEA expects to see an increase in white heroin availability in the near future as illicit stockpiles of morphine base and heroin are released by Near Eastern and European traffickers in anticipation of resupply from the new Turkish crop. Another drug that is demanding an increasing amount of our attention is cocaine. Cocaine entering the United States originates from South America. Although a number of drug users first turned to cocaine as a substitute for heroin, cocaine's popularity far transcends the areas where heroin is least available. Cocaine seizures from fiscal year 1973 to fiscal year 1974 are up over 70 percent. Although cocaine is popularly regarded as a relatively safe drugsafer than heroin and barbiturates at least-there are signs that abuse of this drug is having adverse medical consequences, and we have even begun to see cocaine overdose deaths. Cocaine is now the apparent drug of choice in the Detroit and Seattle regions, and among young whites in the Kansas City region. Cocaine abuse, already established among middle class white youth, seems to be increasing among black youth in several large cities as well. Marihuana, hashish, and hashish oil are readily available throughout the country. Marihuana comes in from South America and the Caribbean to the Florida coastline, and other areas of the East Coast, and from Mexico to the Southwest. Hashish is coming in from Morocco, Afghanistan, and Lebanon in multikilo quantities on commercial and private ships, and in smaller quantities through the mails. Hashish oil, a highly concentrated form of hashish offering high potency in small bulk, once entering primarily from the Middle East, is now coming in from Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. Evidence indicates that marihuana trafficking is no longer the domain of the small time pusher, but is becoming a very sophisticated high profit business, managed by a new breed of entrepreneur traffickers who establish and direct fleets of vessels and aircraft in support of their trade. In summary, the individual human as well as social costs from drug abuse have been and remain high. The Drug Enforcement Administration is disrupting these newly emerging trafficking patterns by deploying resources to those locations closest to the origins of the illicit traffic. We have assigned more agents and opened more offices in the Southwest area of the country, and recently opened an intelligence center in El Paso We have close liaison with the Mexican attorney general, and are receiving the fullest cooperation from the Mexican authorities. |