Health Organization, the Social Commission of the United Nations, and other bodies concerned;

2. Notes the view expressed by the Commission on Narcotics Drugs that in the treatment of drug-addiction methods of ambulatory treatment and open clinics are not advisable;

3. Expresses its appreciation of the assistance given by the World Health Organization and requests the Organization to prepare

(a) an up-to-date study on appropriate methods for treating drug addicts: [(b) information on methods and precautions which could assist the medical profession to prevent the falsification of prescriptions for narcotic drugs;]

4. Recommends that Governments concerned take appropriate measures— (i) to establish, if they have not already done so, the necessary arrangements for collecting information on the extent and character of drug addiction in their countries; and

(ii) to submit such statistics on the lines of the form of annual reports as revised by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

Mr. ANSLINGER. That was just two months ago; and that question was examined by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and by the Opium Advisory Committee of the League of Nations for some 25 years now, and this is the result of the opinion of world experts, and this is world authority talking.

Now, I do not know whether this resolution has come to your attention from the National Research Council. That is one of the highest bodies in the United States dealing with medical problems. This is the National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Drug Addiction and Narcotics. This is dated October 1, 1954, and this was a unanimous resolution on the part of the great experts, not including myself—I am a member of the committee-but this was their unanimous decision:

The committee disapproves a policy of legalization of administration of narcotics to addicts by established clinics or suitably designated physicians because:

1. It is impossible to maintain addicts on a uniform level of dosage;

2. Ambulatory treatment of addiction is impossible and has been so judged

by the American Medical Association and other informed groups;

3. The clinics would facilitate the production of new addicts by increasing drug availability; and

4. The policy is contrary to international conventions and national legislation. I would like that to be made a part of the record.

Senator DANIEL. That resolution will be made a part of the record at this time, along with the names of the other committee members, if you have those to supply us.

Mr. ANSLINGER. Yes, I can give you those.

(The resolution and membership of the Committee on Drug Addiction and Narcotics, National Academy of Sciences, is as follows:)

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, DIVISION OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

COMMITTEE ON DRUG ADDICTION AND NARCOTICS

At the 14th meeting of this committee, held October 1-2, 1954, the following resolution was unanimously approved:

"The Committee disapproves a policy of legalization of administration of narcotics to addicts by established clinics or suitably designated physicians because:

"1. It is impossible to maintain addicts on a uniform level of dosage;

"2. Ambulatory treatment of addiction is impossible and has been so judged by the American Medical Association and other informed groups;

"3. The clinics would facilitate the production of new addicts by increasing drug availability; and

"4. The policy is contrary to international conventions and national legislation."

COMMITTEE ON DRUG ADDICTION AND NARCOTICS

(Staff officers: Dr. J. O. Cole and Mrs. L. G. Bowen)

Starr, Dr. Isaac, chairman, 854 Gates Memorial Pavilion, University of Pennsylvania Hospital, 36th and Spruce Streets, Philadelphia 4, Pa., (Hartzell research professor of therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania)

Anslinger, Hon. Harry J., room 8200, Coast Guard Building, 1300 E Street NW., Washington 25, D. C. (United States Commissioner of Narcotics; United States Representative, United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs)

Bieter, Dr. Raymond N., 132 Millard Hall, University of Minnesota, Medical School, Minneapolis 14, Minn., (professor and head of department of pharmacology)

Cameron, Dr. Dale C., Minnesota State Department of Welfare, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul 1, Minn., (medical director)

Eddy, Dr. Nathan B., secretary, National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases, room 9-N-313, building 10, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda 14, Md., (Chief, Section on Analgesics)

Hayman, Dr. Joseph M., Jr., Tufts University School of medicine, 136 Harrison Avenue, Boston 11, Mass. (dean and professor of medicine)

Nelson, Dr. Erwin E., 4 Harwood Lane, Kirkwood 22, Mo. (director, department of pharmacology, St. Louis University School of Medicine)

Seevers, Dr. Maurice H., department of pharmacology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Mich. (professor and chemist of department) Small, Dr. Lyndon F., National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases, room 222, building 4, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda 14, Md. (Chief, laboratory of chemistry)

Senator DANIEL. Doctor, on this last point here, before you leave the international picture, this last point says the policies "contrary to international conventions and national legislation.'

Is it your opinion that in order for this country to change its present policy and set up a clinic system of legalized narcotics for addicts to maintain their comfort, that we would have to revoke some of our treaty obligations?

Mr. ANSLINGER. You would have to have a completely new international system, completely new treaties, because the treaties from 1931, the treaties of 1936, 1946, 1948, and 1953 do not contemplate the nonmedical or quasi-medical needs or legitimate needs. The word "legitimate" does not appear in those treaties.

It did appear in 1912, but there the signatories agreed they would gradually and effectively suppress these opium clinics or this legalized addiction, which they have finally done.

In 1925, when the word "legitimate" crept into the 1925 convention, the American delegation walked out at the League of Nations because they refused to participate in any discussion which contemplated the legalized sale of poison to citizens.

It was, I think, around that time or before that, that this proposal was put up to the Chinese Emperor or the President at the time when they had a very, very severe condition there in relation to opium addiction, opium smokers, and he said, "Nothing would induce me to sell poison to my people.'

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Anslinger, on that subject, of course, all recognized yesterday that national legislation would be necessary, we would have to change the present national laws.

Mr. ANSLINGER. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Can you give us some ideas as to how many State laws would have to be changed in order for these clinics to operate? Mr. ANSLINGER. All of them, 48.

Senator DANIEL. 48?

Mr. ANSLINGER. Yes, sir; they do not contemplate that.

Senator BUTLER. Well, Mr. Anslinger, not to interject any constitutional questions that are not necessary, but wouldn't the treaties, if they were meant to take care of any State laws

Mr. ANSLINGER. Well, we are bound by the treaties, and the Federal-the State legislation follows the treaties article by article, so we would have to amend all the State laws.

Now, I think there were some statements made here yesterday about the disappearance of the black market in the United Kingdom. Well, Senator, here are press clippings of just 2 weeks of the illicit opium traffic, heroin, hashish in the United Kingdom.

I do not want these to go into the record, but according to the seizures made in the United Kingdom they have a larger opium traffic than we have in the United States. That is for smoking opium. Senator DANIEL. Yes; that is outside the isles themselves?

Mr. ANSLINGER. No, no; that is in the isles, in the United Kingdom; right in the British Isles.

Now, while they regard opium-smoking seriously, nevertheless they have this problem. We have just brought it under control in this country.

The British, of course, have quite a substantial Chinese population, and very likely this condition is due to very low sentences, although I noticed they are going up.

Senator DANIEL. We would like to have those clippings to look them over, if you will leave them with the committee. Mr. ANSLINGER. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. You may continue.

Mr. ANSLINGER. Senator Butler pinpointed a case yesterday I would like to discuss for a moment, and that is the case in Seattle of this doctor who administered, he administered 445,000 one-half grain tablets, I think in the course of a year, which was more than all the hospitals and doctors put together.

He was regarded-the statement was made that this was a brave man, this was the hero of the proponents because he took his case to the Supreme Court.

Well, they refused him a writ of certiorari. But I want to tell this He tried to get a writ from the district court to take him off of a physicians' registered list who should not-to whom narcotics should not be sold.

The court refused the writ. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for 8 years. His license has been revoked, and he has taken the medical board into court several times. I am sure he will not get his license back.

This is the case where the proponents think it is wonderful. He did not hand out drugs, but he injected drugs to all the hoodlums in Seattle. They stood outside his office every day, and then they augmented their supplies from the illicit traffic because he wouldn't stay open up to 12 o'clock midnight.

Now, in that case a company known as Direct Sales supplied him and many other doctors with narcotics on official order forms.

We took into court in Greenville, S. C., the Direct Sales Co. on conspiracy to sell on order forms. We did not regard that as an order form, even though it was a regular internal revenue order form on which these doctors, including this one, had ordered their narcotics. I want to bring you up to date on the latest Supreme Court decision on this, not the Linder case, which was referred to yesterday.

Well, most of that was obiter dictum. The decision of that did not affect Webb and Goldbaum v. The United States or Dr. Jin Fuey Moy, which is still the law of the land, and certainly we are operating under the Constitution, under the law here, in cooperation with the Department of Justice. Everything that we do is approved by that Department.

Now, the defense of Direct Sales was that they did have an order form.

This doctor had given them an order form. But they were convicted. They took their case to the Supreme Court, and the decision. was unanimous that because these doctors had given or administered or sold these drugs to addicts just to keep them comfortable, it was not an order form within the meaning of the law, and they took particular note Justice Burton wrote the decision of the entire Court. They were struck by the fact that 23 percent of the doctors who bought from Direct Sales had been convicted.

So that this famous case where he was called a brave man because he took it to the Supreme Court, 445,000 shots at a dollar a shot, he could afford to be brave.

Senator BUTLER. Mr. Anslinger, the decision that you are talking about was on the denial of certiorari?

Mr. ANSLINGER. No; this is

Senator BUTLER. You are talking about another case, other than the Ratigan case?

Mr. ANSLINGER. No; the certiorari was Dr. Ratigan; that was the Seattle case.

This case was decided June 1943 (319 U. S. 703).

Senator DANIEL. And the style of that case that you just referred to, the last case you referred to, is what?

Mr. ANSLINGER. Was Direct Sales v. United States (319 U. S. 703). Senator BUTLER. Direct Sales v. U. S.

Mr. ANSLINGER. One of the proponents referred to my statement that the Army, Navy, Narcotics Bureau, the FBI could not stop smuggling. That is true.

The fact is that smuggling would certainly triple if you had clinics. As I showed you when we had clinics, 75,000 ounces of morphine were seized as against only 6,000 today.

Now, the proponents talk very glibly about the situation in foreign countries, in certain foreign countries.

Well, certainly their conception of that is startlingly different from the reports we get from the enforcement officers of those countries. In a recent letter here, Judge Frank McLaughlin, of Hawaii-he has permitted me to quote from his personal letter, in which he said:

After seeing eye to eye with Judge Wigg, we handed out 10-year sentences to traffickers, and the traffic folded up in Hawaii. That just happened within the last 6 months.

I also want to point out this recent action by the State of Ohio. There was a committee of 64 citizens composed of doctors, lawyers,

judges, and it had a cross-section of the population, and they considered clinics, and they threw that suggestion out the window. Senator DANIEL, Where was that last?

Mr. ANSLINGER. In Ohio, and the law went into effect that was recommended by those 64 citizens, the law went into effect on September 15, which calls for a 20-year minimum sentence for trafficking. Senator DANIEL. Excuse me for just a moment.

Attorney General Javits, will you come up and sit with the committee?

Mr. ANSLINGER. So there certainly would not be any need for clinics in the State of Ohio or in the-I mean in Hawaii or in the State of Ohio, and I would just like to address a remark here to Senator Butler.

You could not find one member of the medical profession or the profession of pharmacy in the State of Maryland who would subscribe to a theory of this kind. With the doctors, the druggists, the police, the courts, and the Federal Government all working together in Maryland, that situation is under control.

The question of a clinic would certainly never arise in Baltimore even though it were permitted. There you have the ideal situation. of the medical profession, the profession of pharmacy, and everybody working to keep this problem down, and it is down.

Senator DANIEL. They did have quite a problem in Maryland several years back, did they not?

Mr. ANSLINGER. Oh, Maryland was one of the worst States here about 1950, 1951. You found teen-agers dead from an overdose of heroin, in the gutter.

You do not see that any more, not the way Maryland went right to work and whipped the problem.

Senator DANIEL. Commissioner Anslinger, over the Nation, while I have it on my mind, yesterday it was said by one witness there had been no improvement of the drug-addiction problem since we passed the Harrison Narcotic Act, and then since the Bureau was established. Of course, you heard me say that was not my understanding.

Could you give us briefly your ideas as to whether there has been improvement in the drug-addiction problem in the country under our Federal laws?

Mr. ANSLINGER. Well, before the Harrison Act we imported 600,000 pounds of opium for 60 million people, and about a quarter of a million. pounds of smoking opium for opium smokers; that was legal then; and 2 million pounds of cocoa leaves for cocaine.

Today, with 160 million people, we import about 350,000 pounds of opium, about 250,000 pounds of cocoa leaves and, of course, no one is smoking opium. So where are the opium dens and where are the opium smokers?

There are a few, but they are awfully hard to find.

Cocaine addiction just about disappeared. The legal sale of drugs across the counter-laudanum was a drug addiction in 1914; you don't see that any more.

So, on the whole, with surveys made by the Medical Association in Michigan, it showed 1 in 400; a drug addict, 1 in every 400.

Senator DANIEL. Back before the Harrison Act?

Mr. ANSLINGER. Yes, sir; before the Harrison Act. And today you would have, I think a good estimate is, 1 in every 3,000, which we have