The critical increase in the Bragg area drug traffic was pointed out to me by military police who told me that in 1968 in one six block area of Fayetteville, the military narcotic squad purchased three bindles (small containers) of heroin. In 1971, in the same area, they were offered a total of 10 pounds of the drug by pushers which ran as high as 7% pure. Drugs are sold right on the base. Enforcement officials claimed it is too profitable to stop the trade and frankly admitted it was beyond their control. The problem cannot be entirely blamed on the Vietnam war. 60% of the patients have never been to Vietnam. 80% of the patients are enlistees, not draftees. Many of the records of these addicts indictae that they joined the Army to get away from problems they faced in civilian life. Their medical records indicate that the reasons for volunteering for the Army ranged from a desire to get away from a bad home situation to making a choice between a prison sentence or going into the service. I am convinced that we cannot let Army discipline and morale and perhaps the Army itself-be destroyed by thousands of drug using dissidents. Those that did get to Vietnam told me some harrowing stories of the drug abuser in combat. Five addicts told me of widespread Nam and Stateside drug use. One trooper (Lee Oswald) claimed he was "smashed on heroin for 365 days" in Nam in a combat unit (rifleman). He said he did not seek to engage the enemy, on the contrary, he avoided contact with the Viet Cong. One shakedown by officers in his unit turned up 16 kilos of pot, two satchel charge bags full of "jays" (marihuana cigarettes), obesitol, and maxitone forte, (speed) BTS (G.I. slang for bionctal, a barbiturate) and opium and heroin. Two Puerto Rican addicts talked freely of "fragging officers who cracked down-or "hassled"-them over drug use. A trooper named "Speedy" Gonzales told me that he and his buddy fragged two captains in a grass hut-and a second Puerto Rican trooper told me his best friend fragged and killed his N.C.O. with a grenade over drugs. Speedy died once from an overdose and was brought back to life. All five agreed if you don't want to get off drugs "in your head" no one can make you-they laughed at the Nixon program of urinalysis and 7 days of withdrawal followed by 21 days of stateside treatment. I was told by the medical officer in charge of the program of one combat rifleman-an addict-who described how his entire unit in Nam was hooked on heroin. When the dope "supply wagon" failed to show up at one period of time, the entire unit went into withdrawal. I have described some of the effects of drugs on Ft. Bragg-stolen property, reduced efficiency, lowered morale, etc. One of the problems I am certain is that there has been no effort to crack down on the users for two years. The men know they have nothing to fear from military or civilian law. One E-5 told me he could stand on "Skag" Street in Fayetteville and buy all sorts of drugs in three minutes. Drugs are frequently used in off base “pads" where EMS live, and because there is no extra pay for off-base living, Bragg officers assume the money comes from dope. But it isn't too much different on the base. One jag officer (Captain H. A. Beale) told a member of my staff he could take him into any barracks and in one hour buy heroin, pot, LSD, pills, etc. This situation was confirmed by Counselor Wingblade from the addict intake house. Mr. Chairman, the more I study the drug problem in the Armed Forces, the more I am convinced there is no room for addicts in a military setting. Drug abusers at home and abroad should be tested over a thirty day period by qualified medical personnel and if they are determined to be heroin addicts or seriously habituated to other drugs, they should be immediately removed from the Armed Services via a physical disability discharge and turned over to the existing Federal programs for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug dependent persons under programs already established by the Department of HEW. These ex-servicemen should be in a civil commitment rehabilitation program run by the Department of HEW, strictly controlled by the Attorney General so that they would remain under treatment for up to 42 months. This is the only reasonable approach to the G.I. drug addict. After a thorough briefing and study of the program at Ft. Bragg, I am convinced that the Army is not equipped organizationally or psychologically to handle the problem-nor do I think it is even desirable that it should be. Mr. Roy. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York, and I am pleased to find out that even if HEW has not been thinking about some of these problems that appear to be of great importance to me, that you have. And, that you have brought forth some answers for us. I have been greatly disturbed about what I felt was the military dumping addicts into our society without any provisions or any adequate provisions for treatment and continuing observations. Thank you very much. Mr. MURPHY. You can ask Dr. Jaffe about the new figures which are considerably higher than the original figures on the urinanalysis machines. My experiences with the men already in the Air Force, Army, and Navy facilities raised questions like: "Where are the others who were positive on the machine like we were and did not go into the program?" and, "How about the ones that abstained for 5 days from drugs, beat the machine, and went right back on drugs afterwards?" Those are some interesting questions for Dr. Jaffe. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you so much. The committee stands adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.) SPECIAL ACTION OFFICE FOR DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul G. Rogers (chairman) presiding. Mr. ROGERS. The subcommittee will come to order, please. We are continuing our hearings on legislation to establish a Special Action Office of Drug Abuse Prevention and other measures proposed to handle the drug problem in our Nation. We are very pleased today to have as our witness this morning Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, who has returned to the committee after a trip to South Vietnam. Dr. Jaffe is the Special Consultant to the President for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. He is accompanied by Arthur F. Konopka, acting general counsel of the Office. STATEMENT OF DR. JEROME H. JAFFE, SPECIAL CONSULTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NARCOTICS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; ACCOMPANIED BY ARTHUR F. KONOPKA, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL Dr. JAFFE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee again to testify on the Special Action Office which has been proposed by the President. It has been nearly 5 weeks since I came before you to testify on the administration's proposed bill, H.R. 9264. During this time I have been engaged in the development of a number of programs and objectives pursuant to the Executive order establishing the Special Action Office on an interim basis pending statutory authorization. This is a time for assessment and intensive planning. We are engaged in an in-depth study of existing resources and relationships, both within and among the concerned Federal agencies. Our concern is that programmatic and policy decisions be made on the basis of complete knowledge of the possibilities. Since I last appeared there, I have also visited South Vietnam to look into the situation there with respect to the problem of drug dependence within the military. While in Vietnam, and following my return, I have been working directly with representatives of the Department of Defense and the component services to make necessary adjustment to the screening, detoxification, and treatment system established there and now being implemented for the military in Europe and the United States. I will speak to you of those developments in more detail in a few moments. In our last meeting questions were raised as to how the new office might operate. Perhaps I can be more elaborate in response to that question now. The Special Action Officer, under section 5(a) of S. 2097, will have policy control over all agencies operating research. education, training, treatment and rehabilitation programs. This policy control includes some programs in such agencies as the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Labor, though under sections 5(b) and 5(c), those programs will not be funded directly by the SAO. My office has already been in contact with all the appropriate agencies and is developing working relationships with them to insure a uniform coherent national policy on the programs for research, prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. My office is developing close working relationships with the Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice. We have already talked extensively with officials of the Department of Justice and have the feeling with all of these Departments that we are gaining a mutual understanding of our problems and policies. In addition to acquiring the policy control discussed immediately above, the Director, pursuant to section 5(b), would acquire the authority for budgetary and management control over 10 statutorily specified Federal activities. These activities are, generally speaking, the most important in the Federal drug abuse prevention program. They, therefore, represent the priority efforts over which the Special Action Offiice must exert its authority for direct management control. An interesting aspect of this style of management is that there will be many smaller and more specific drug abuse programs which will remain under the budgetary and management control of their agencies. SAO will not have the resources to attempt to control these activities, and in fact it may not be desirable to do so. These programs will represent a valuable potential for testing new concepts which may develop into important new ventures for the future. The major programs over which SAO will assume management responsibility represent our largest and most important current drug abuse effort. The SAO authority is specifically intended to face up to the need for continuous evaluation of success or failure, and to make the difficult recommendations to the President on the best means of deploying our resources to achieve success. Unless we are willing to face this kind of hard choice, we will never be able to say we are fully meeting our responsibilities. Thet Special Action Office is still in the earliest stages of its development and, thus, has not formulated the precise mechanisms by which budget and management control could be exercised. We can, however, discuss generally the ways in which the legislation authorizes the Director to do business. 1. POLICY DIRECTION The Office of the Director will formulate and communicate policy for the drug abuse prevention programs of the Federal Government. I intend to formulate these policies in each separate sphere-treat |