munity level. One issue in particular, which first heralded the organization of the National Coordinating Council mentioned earlier, is considered to be one of the soundest guides for the profession in the area of drug abuse education. Under contract with this Bureau, the American Pharmaceutical Association developed a comprehensive slide resource kit which is a definite aid to speakers from BNDD and other law enforcement agencies. These slides have been reproduced by many other organizations who are seeking to educate their constituencies.

One of the most gratifying experiences this Bureau has had in its relations with the business community has been the development of the "Concerned Business Committees" which are currently taking shape in various parts of the country. The idea began in the nation's capital, not in Congress or the executive branch, but among the downtown businessmen. Concerned over the rising crime rate and its relationship to drug abuse, as well as for the plight of the drug dependent individual, a group of Washington business leaders heeded our call to become involved.

The committee was made up primarily of banks, department stores, utilities, and a local insurance company. They agreed they would use their monthly mailing as a means of alerting their customers to the dangers of drug abuse. An advertising agency produced a small mail insert which pointed out the drug problem and urged the recipients to send in the form to receive more information about narcotics and drugs. Over a million and a quarter flyers flooded the greater Washington area during October and November of last year. Over 40,000 coupons were returned and the four basic pamphlets produced by the National Institute of Mental Health received wide distribution right in "our own backyard."

In addition, the Concerned Business Community of Metropolitan Washington developed a special postage meter slug listing the address from which a consumer could receive drug abuse information. Banks and stores placed posters in prominent places. Business firms with customer or employe journals ran special articles devoted to this drug alert program. Some firms even donated their radio and TV advertising time for special spot an

nouncements.

In Phoenix, Ariz., the Concerned Business Community built upon the Washington experiment and added a few innovations of their own. There, the flyers were inserted in grocery bags at supermarkets, rather than in mailed invoices. A volunteer women's group or

dered the pamphlets in bulk and did their own mailing at their own expense. A poster contest was sponsored and the winning entry was enlarged, reproduced, and carried on delivery trucks as well as in stores and other public places. A bumper sticker was developed, using the poster theme, and a youth group distributed them all over the city.

Carnation Milk Company printed drug abuse messages on its milk cartons, many of which were seen by school children all over the state. The climax of the Phoenix drive was a statewide teachers' conference held at Arizona State University. Officials from BNDD and NIMH participated in the one-day conference.

In the township of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., a concerned businessman prevailed upon the city fathers to distribute the four NIMH pamphlets in each of the township's 11,000 water bills. Similar programs are taking shape in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago and Kansas City.

Early this spring a Washington newsletter ran a short item about business corporations aiding drug abuse prevention programs by sending information through their monthy billings. The BNDD was listed as the sponsor of the program. We received over 500 inquiries and as a result, distributed over a million mail inserts to industries of every description in just about every section of the country. NIMH reports that returns on the coupons requesting the drug pamphlets are running about 30 percent of the number of mail inserts sent out. The inquiries from the business community are still coming in.

Some other efforts on the part of individual corporations come to mind. Western Electric's Pacific Region turned out a masterful piece of information when its public relations department compiled and published "A Parent's Guide to Marihuana." Nine press runs have upped the total to one million copies, with another 800,000 reprinted by other organizations, and all distributed free for the asking on a nationwide basis. Some who have distributed the booklet in bulk included civic organizations, veterans organizations, telephone companies, and a large Canadian utility company.

The Cheapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, while participating with the Concerned Business Community of Metropolitan Washington, also ran anti-drug abuse messages in their monthly newsletters which accompany the subscribers' telephone bills, as well as carrying feature articles in their employe house organs.

The National Association of Broadcasters, responding to a plan from the White House, has encouraged and induced its member stations to develop unique approaches to reach the younger generation. The theory is that the young will listen to today's entertainers and hopefully their "cool" talk will override the "hot" lyrics which emanate from many of the rock-type entertainers who are feeding pro-drug progaganda to all too many of our unsuspecting youngsters.

We would be remiss if we did not mention some other notable programs carried on by business concerns. General Motors, for example, has produced and made available on a free-loan basis an impactive film entitled "Drugs and Driving." Southland Corporation, which administers the sprawling Seven Eleven Stores, assisted by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, is preparing a booklet on drug abuse which will reach millions of households before the year is out. Metropolitan Life, the Ford Foundation, and the Sears Foundation have each funded national and local drug abuse programs. There are other worthy programs, to be sure, but these are just a few of the more notable ones which come to mind.

In the initial article published in the May 18 issue of NAM Reports, we discussed the drug problem within the industrial complex. We tried to point out some basic facts about the abuse of drugs, how to recognize the symptoms of drug abuse among employes, and what to do about it. Here we have viewed the educational or preventive aspect of drug abuse on the national level and described how some businesses are cooperating with law enforcement agencies, schools, civic organizations, and the medical profession in seeking to spread the truth about the drug problem.

The experiences of the past few years which this Bureau has had with the business community has proven to us that we can count on the support of business and industry in our efforts to control and ultimately eliminate the drug problem. It also has proven that if drug abuse is "everybody's hang-up," surely it is "everybody's business." Upholding this premise is the business community itself.

diciary Committee will enable us to obtain sufficient data from the relevant government agencies, to formulate a realistic estimate of the additional funds that are obviously needed to make the 1966 act work properly.

With respect to improving the legal structure of the act of 1966, my bill is designed to accomplish several specific objectives.

First, a major feature of my proposal provides for maximum flexibility in the treatment of addicts. In this regard, it is important to note that under the bill, as well as under the original act of 1966, "commitment" does not necessarily mean "confinement." For example, an addict committed to the care of the surgeon general might be confined for only a short time in order to be detoxified. He could then be released from confinement and placed in treatment in a community treatment center or outpatient facility. In fact, there is considerable evidence that this kind of approach is desirable in a large number of cases.

A second major feature of H.R. 17269 is a provision which authorizes the surgeon general to initiate the civil commitment of a narcotic addict, either at the request of the addict himself or at the request of a person related to him. The bill also authorizes the surgeon general to commence, on his own initiative, civil commitment proceedings for any person he has reason to believe is addicted. Under the original act both the addict himself or related person must initiate civil commitment by first filing a petition with a United States attorney. In my view this procedure is undesirable because it tends to discourage both the addicts and their families from seeking civil commitment. For example, the mother of an addict is often reluctant to go to a law enforcement official to seek help. If she

does, this can result in serious damage to the psychological relationship between addict and parent.

Under my bill, the parent of an addicted child would seek help, not from a prosecutor, but from a public health official. In addition, since my bill allows public health officials to initiate civil commitment, in many cases compulsory treatment could be initiated without jeopardizing in any way the psychological relationship between the addict and his family. In short, for addicts who are not charged with any crime, my proposal would place the entire matter of compulsory treatment in the hands of medical personnel and not in the hands of prose

cutors.

Still another provision of my bill, H.R. 17269, permits a United States attorney, or a court on its own motion, to initiate the civil commitment of an addict who is charged with a Federal crime. Under the original act of 1966, except for a very small class of persons who are eligible to elect commitment in lieu of prosecution, no provision was made for addicts who are charged with crimes and are awaiting trial.

Since a large number of street crimes are now being committed by narcotic addicts, it seems to me to be illogical, and indeed irresponsible, for us to fail to provide for civil commitment of those addicts who are waiting trial. Under my proposal, an addict who is charged with a crime could be civilly committed-not to a prison, but to a medical facilitywhile he is awaiting trial. Such a commitment would not operate to suspend the criminal prosecution.

With respect to this problem in particular. I believe that it is significant that a recent report issued by Chief Judge Harold Green of the D.C. Court of General Sessions indicates that more than 50 percent of the persons arrested here in the District of Columbia and tested for narcotics use were, in fact, narcotics users. My proposal would afford a method of exercising medical supervision and control over these persons in a manner that is both humane and in accordance with our constitution. The addict himself would benefit from compulsory treatment while society would be protected from the danger of the addict committing further crimes while released on bail awaiting the disposition of his case.

Another feature of H.R. 17269 would allow for the commitment of any addict who "requires medical treatment." In the act of 1966, there appears language to the effect that addicts will not be committed unless they are "capable of rehabilitation." This language has apparently been construed-and perhaps misconstrued to deny treatment to almost

one-half of the addicts who have either sought help or for whom help was sought by a related person. It seems to me that, especially with respect to the most difficult cases, commitment is necessaryand that it is outrageous to turn back to the streets, without any medical supervision or control whatsoever, any addict on the grounds that he cannot be rehabilitated.

Additional features of H.R. 17269 also include a provision which makes it mandatory for patients who are treated on an outpatient basis to report regularly as required by the surgeon general. Under no circumstances could the patient avoid reporting less than once a week during the first year of hospitalization. Still another provision directs the surgeon general to certify various facilities for the treatment of narcotic addiction.

Still another major provision of H.R. 17269 authorizes the President to utilize any Federal facilities for the purpose of implementing an effective medical treatment program. I recognize that this provision delegates broad powers to the President, but nevertheless feel strongly that we are dealing with a critical situation and such powers are necessary.

If we are to deal effectively with the narcotic epidemic which is so seriously threatening our nation, each of the laws that I have described above should be enacted by Congress as soon as possible.

However, I believe that it is essential that we all recognize that laws alone will not solve the narcotic problem. Congress will also have to make major commitments in the form of adequate appropriations. In addition, state and local governments will also have to exert maximum efforts to control and rehabilitate narcotic addicts, to reduce the causes of narcotic addiction, and to educate our young people as to the dangers of narcotic drugs.

In the last analysis, a national commitment to the war against narcotics will be required of the major elements of our society, if any program is to succed.

Mr. Hammond

When we have a complex social problem in America that has no easy or simple solutions, we do two thingspass laws and dump the issue on our school system. Therefore, the problems of drug use seem doomed to these inevitable "solutions."

Approximately 100 bills have been introduced in the United States Congress and at least seven Congressional committees (one created especially to deal with drug abuse) have independently, and often simultaneously, conducted hearings on the drug abuse problems. The first bill to be passed into law as a result of this effort is the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970. This law provides for broadened wiretap powers, preventive detention and "no knock" entry when police officers feel that revealing their identity might result in destruction of evidence or endanger their lives.

It's tragic, and not irrelevant to the causes of drug abuse, that we select a disenfranchised group of citizens-with no recourse through the system-as guinea pigs for so-called "reform legislation." If it's not young people, it's exconvicts or some other group. This time it's the residents of the District of Columbia.

With insufficient evidence we have made drug abuse the scapegoat for crime and delinquency. Yet we know, as Dr. Helen Nowlis said before the Congress in her capacity as president of the National Coordinating Council on Drug Abuse Education and Information, “. merely increasing the number and variety of law enforcement programs will not put an end to the irrational and dangerous abuse of certain drugs. More arrests and more arresting officers, in and of themselves, offer no hope of a workable answer to the problem."

But Dr. Nowlis' testimony did not stop there; she continued by saying, "On the other hand, there is a danger from continued massive education programming without first taking the time to evaluate

8

what has been done, what needs to be done, and what can be done. Unexamined and unevaluated information and education programs are certainly no answer; and it is safe to say that in some instances, they may be as harmful in the big run as no programs at all."

We expect too much from our schools. We are still teaching kids what to think and not how to think. We are still compartmentalizing subject matter and discouraging interdisciplinary discovery and learning. We are still demanding diplomas instead of certificates of competence. We still close school at 3 p.m. and call education what takes place between 9 and 3.

Drug use education and drug abuse understanding just won't fit this traditional pattern. If we make it fit anyway, we've accomplished little else than soothe our "establishment" consciences.

There are encouraging signs of nonconformity. On March 11, President Nixon released $6.5 million for several new programs in drug abuse. He said, "There is no priority higher in this Administration than to see that children-and the public-learn the facts about drugs in the right way and for the right purpose through education." While this statement is open to some substantive criticism, the Federal Government has moved decisively toward preventive education in drug abuse.

The major points of the new effort are:

A $3.5 million program operated by the Office of Education to train school personnel, particularly teachers, in the fundamentals of drug abuse education.

• Creation of a National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information and Education, giving the public one central office to contact.

Publication of a book in which, for the first time, all of the concerned Federal departments and agencies have pooled their knowledge of the national drug problem.

Modification of a program of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to allow large cities to apply for

NAM Reports

funds to be used for drug education, as well as for law enforcement programs.

• Development by the Advertising Council of an expanded public service campaign on drug abuse in cooperation with the media and the Federal Government.

. Close cooperation of the Administration with concerned citizens/organizations.

Under the teacher training program, the United States Office of Education is directing a $3.5 million effort to train school personnel, particularly teachers, in the "fundamentals" of drug education. Grants ranging from $40,000 to $210,000 have been awarded to states based on their school age population. Each state is using the money as it sees fit. However, most states are participating in the programs of four National Training Institutes (Adelphi University, University of Wisconsin, San Francisco State, and University of Texas at San Antonio) established specifically for this purpose.

A National Action Committee has been formed to provide leadership, technical assistance, and aid in program planning, development, monitoring and evaluation. The committee includes representatives from the fields of education, medicine, law, social work, and the behavioral sciences. Young people are inIcluded as well as representatives from different ethnic groups.

This summer, those states that participate in the program will send teams of teachers, counselors, school administrators, students, and community leaders to be trained at selected university centers. The Office of Education estimates that 300 persons will get this intensive training. The universities will draw heavily upon regional resources in drug education and will utilize curriculum materials particularly suitable for their areas.

In the fall, these teams will tour their home states to train additional teachers, administrators, students, and community leaders drawn from every local school district in the state. In all, these

August 24, 1970

workshops will be attended by about 150,000 teachers and 75,000 students and community leaders. The people so trained will thus be capable of presenting the fundamental facts for a drug education program to every school district in the country.

Finally, in the spring of 1971, the National Action Committee will sponsor a series of regional conferences to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and plan additional programs.

The Federal training programs continue through the efforts of the National Institute for Mental Health designed to provide short term training courses for health and related professions at Yale University's Drug Dependence Institute, University of Oklahoma's Department of Health Studies and California State College's Center for Drug Information and Education in Hayward, California. The training sessions begin in September and will be repeated approximately every two weeks for 15 weeks. Tuition is free, registration is limited and applicants must pay their housing and transportation.

Another major Federal effort in education and information is the creation of the National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information to serve as a central clearinghouse for drug abuse information. The center is located at 5454 Wisconsin Ave., Chevy Chase, Md., 20015.

The clearinghouse will collect and disseminate materials and data taken not only from Federal programs but from appropriate private and state and local projects. For example, the clearinghouse will make available material on drug education curricula that are already being used in various cities and states around the country. The clearinghouse will also maintain a computer data bank on a wide variety of drug abuse programs that will enable the government to give much more detailed answers to queries than is possible under the present decentralized system....

The drug abuse education and information efforts of the private sector are seen most clearly in the program activities of the National Coordinating Council on Drug Abuse Education and Information.

The council, which now numbers more than 90 national, professional, educational, law enforcement, service, religious and youth organizations, is a nonprofit organization working to combat drug abuse through education.

The programs and activities of the council are based on a philosophy of evaluation. It makes little sense to launch new programs without first taking the time to see where we have been.

By the first week in September, the

council will have completed its film evaluation under contract to the National Institute of Mental Health. More than 80 films and filmstrips have been viewed for technical accuracy and communications impact.

The council has used the following procedure in its comprehensive evaluation. Films are first viewed by a scientific panel which decides upon scientific accuracy and factual presentation of material. The panel looks for such things as innuendoes, situational errors, factual mistakes or distortions. If they decide that a film is scientifically acceptable, it is then viewed by a communications panel which decides how effective a film will be, who the target audience is, if it makes an effective case for its central message and what its major strengths and weaknesses are.

We have just begun the evaluation process and will continue to expand our activity into literature, learning materials, training programs and community action programs. The risk of developing new programs based on whims and intuition is irresponsible.

In the second place, we view information as the beginning of the education process. For too long we have equated the distribution of flyers and posters as education. Efforts have been concentrated in less than honest and factual presentations of materials. We saturate the media because we dig McLuhan. And when the flyer is read, and the commercial is seen, and the poster is hung, and the questionnaire is completed, we have done little else than raise fear, suspicion, distrust and anxiety levels.

The council hopes to redirect that concern into community action programsprograms of communication, understanding, sharing and involvement-through Common Sense Lives Here.

Common Sense Lives Here is the first publication of the National Coordinating Council. It is designed to be a guide for thought and action of the most complex part of the drug abuse cycle-the human factor. It is intended for community groups, concerned individuals and neighborhood residents who want a way of approaching their neighbors and fellow townspeople on the subject of drug abuse. The handbook:

Begins with some basic facts about drugs and a discussion of several assumptions that are made about their use.

• Seeks to create an understanding of the predictable patterns of human behavior that lead to drug abuse.

• Channels this community resource into organizing and coordinating drug abuse prevention and control programs.

• Presents specific steps to be followed in mobilizing community efforts.

• Concludes with particular references to organizations and publications that are logical resources for support.

Dr. Thomas Price, our new council president, who testified before the Congressional committee, said, "I am also concerned about the tendency to talk about drug abuse programming from the "top down"-in terms of models and prepackaged information units which are to be adopted without question by towns and cities throughout the country. Such a one-way scheme for information exchange, reflecting an over-simplified view of solutions to social problems, is most disturbing. People, and their communities, differ widely from place to place, from region to region, and from week to week. Drug abuse is infinitely variable ranging from a housewife's overmedication to a ghetto mainliner. It is the product of a host of factors, none of which seems to be acknowledged by the proposal to create models of attack. To offer kits of information, and carefully prepared packages of material, is to imply that a common complaint grips American towns-a lack of drug abuse information. Perhaps some towns do suffer from this lack; but we know that Boston is not San Antonio is not Des Moines is not Los Angeles is not Newark."

Finally, we recognize that a "good" drug abuse education program is not one whose objective is to stop the use of drugs -period. Job placement, education. health care (including abortion counseling), and social orientation (including draft counseling) are all activities too many of us have considered unrelated to effective drug abuse programs. Structuring programs to camouflage surveillance efforts. stimulating programs to validate existing life styles, and standardizing programs to meet some preconceived definition of the problem in a given community is a strategy we will certainly improve on.

Drug abuse in industry as a topic of concern is relatively new. As a topic for discussion, it has restored some consulting jobs for some fading experts; it has emerged as a whipping post for tardiness, inefficiency and poor management; and it has promoted urinalysis to the high water mark of a job interview. As a topic for action, it has tantalized industry with a variety of options. They range from panic to indifference, from isolation to community involvement, from prevention to rehabilitation.

One point is clear. Where there are people using drugs, there are people abusing drugs. And the programs that are designed to deal with the use, the causes, or the effects of drugs must be based on