Mr. Ross. Our Government, our hospitals, if they had to do it by the thousands, could not supply enough morphine for the demand of the addict. They would give them some for relief and they would still have to go to the peddler to get their heroin. They could not supply enough morphine for the addict.

However, I do say this. That addicts that have been repeaters and repeaters and repeaters for 20, 30, 40, and 50 different times, and there are so many of them, that are past the age of 50, should be given some consideration, because past that age, when you are going to, as we say, kick the habit, it keeps on tearing at your heartstrings and there could be sudden death. I would recommend that addicts past the age of 50 who have been confirmed addicts, admitted addicts, and who have been in and out probably of prisons or places like Lexington or Fort Worth, 15, 20, 30 times, past that age should be given consideration.

Senator DANIEL. You think then that some kind of hospitals for them would be better?

Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Do you think under any circumstances it would be best even for them to be given a free dose of narcotics and leave them out on the streets to associate with other people?

Mr. Ross. No; I do not believe in letting them out on the street, sir. I don't believe that the Government should give an addict treatment of that sort and let them out on the street, because though the addict under the influence of the drug is a very calm person, there is nothing rough about them, they are gentle, they are kind so long as they are under the drug. But what good can they do when they are out on the street when they are under the influence of the drug. They cannot navigate, they cannot think properly, they cannot see well, because your eyes are always tearing.

You can't read writing well, you can't think correctly. I don't believe that they should be out on the street. They should be put away some place and be kept there, but not to navigate among their communities because eventually they must at one time or another, those that have built up a resistance to the drug where they need so much more than they would ordinarily be given to buy the clinic would have to find some means of getting more at the time.

They may be far away from the clinic. They must go to a peddler and get the drug or do something to get it so they must go out and steal or do something to get it.

Senator DANIEL. Senator Butler?

Senator BUTLER. Barney, you have displayed extremely strong will and have abstained from the use of this drug now for over 8 years. Mr. Ross. Eight years.

Senator BUTLER. Don't you attribute in large measure your success in staying off of the drug to the kindly treatment of your employer and your family and your friends?

Mr. Ross. Oh, definitely.

Senator BUTLER. Do you believe that if an addict is to have any chance at all after he has been through the hospital, to stay off the drug, he must be put back into an environment that understands his condition and will be sympathetic with him and help him?

Mr. Ross. Definitely so, sir. You can check on the man's background first, and check back what he has done in the past, and if his

past has been 75 percent good, I think he has got a 95 percent chance of being cured and staying off.

Senator BUTLER. So you believe that one of the principal things to keep a man from becoming addicted again is to follow up and keep in touch with him and counsel him when he gets to need counsel and have people around him who understand him.

Mr. Ross. Positively, and since I have been released from Lexington, Ky., 8 years ago, I tried so hard all those years to this present day to find a medium, some way of forming an opinion as to how and what should be done that could keep them off of repeating again.

Senator BUTLER. Have you any recommendations to make to this committee?

Mr. Ross. Yes, sir, I do have.

Senator BUTLER. Will you please state them?

Mr. Ross. I believe, firmly so, that any addict, especially a committed one, let alone a voluntary one, when he is released from any detention of any kind should appear every 30 days for a checkup, and be allowed to go into any clinic or any hospital for this checkup. The only thing it necessitates 24 hours or just 1 blood test, 1 urinalysis. Let them stay and have the test expedited so as not to keep them because they might be working, they might be doing something, but at their given time within the 30 days, the 30th or the 29th or the 31st day, have them take this checkup. And then you are going to have a lot less headaches. You know that this man is clean and this man is unclean. It is very simple that way. I think a chart can be made out and every addict should report, including myself, every 30 days, and a form sent in to your department by the doctor who has taken the test, so and so, or give them numbers if you like, this is so and so. Then you can keep a line on everybody who has been addicted and you can never go wrong with that. That is my belief.

Senator BUTLER. Now you said that in Lexington on two occasions at least you wanted to go home before you really should have gone home.

Will you give this committee your opinion on whether or not a man who is addicted to a drug should be forcibly maintained in a hospital or should he go on a voluntary basis?

Mr. Ross. Well, I believe that any addict should be incarcerated for no less than 90 days, from 90 days to 4 or 5 months, should be, and it should be mandatory, not to allow him to leave when he pleases, but I say that the man must be there because I know now and I feel it, should I have gone out against medical advice, I felt that I would become addicted all over again, because I would have gone out before my time.

I would still have been a little weak and I would have been susceptible. But the time that I stayed was just perfect and I will say a prayer every night for Dr. Vogel that I am alive, I still do that.

Senator BUTLER. So at least a man that is addicted in your opinion should by law be required to go to a hospital and there stay for a period of not less than 90 days, and after he has been released from that hospital, the medical authorities should keep track of him by a follow up of having an examination at least every 30 days.

Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.

Senator BUTLER. Now do you think that clubs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, for instance, would be of any benefit to an addict who has been released from a hospital?

Mr. Ross. Oh, yes, I do. I think Alcoholics Anonymous is great. I think where they just recently started the Narcotic Anonymous, I think it is wonderful. Definitely I believe in it a thousand percent. It does something for you.

Senator BUTLER. Do you think that the authorities of the several States, maybe with the encouragement of the Federal Government, should set up such centers and support them?

Mr. Ross. I 1,000 percent agree that that should be done. You'd find less addicts.

Senator BUTLER. In other words you believe that an addict should not only be carefully and patiently treated, that society should recognize him to be what he is and after he has been discharged from his hospitalization, to be taken back into society and given a better chance through such organizations to stay off of the drug.

Mr. Ross. By all means. I was told when I was released, "Why did you do that and come out in the open"? I says, I never retreated or lied in my life. I don't want to walk any place like a sneak thief and stay in a place for weeks where they have these rest homes as they call them where a lot of these people who are addicts who go in for 2 weeks and think they are cured. They go off for a while and then go back a month later. I don't believe in it. I think all those places should all be closed up.

Senator BUTLER. Barney, during our hearings in New York it was unmistakably clear that it is not very hard to get heroin and other narcotic drugs in the city of New York. Is that true, Barney?

Mr. Ross. Senator, from what I have heard, it is available at any time you want it.

Senator BUTLER. Have you any suggestions that you could make to this committee that would stamp out the sources of the drug?

Mr. Ross. Well, the source, it must start from where the source originates, not after the boat comes in or the plane comes in from some foreign country, because we know that the big sources come from Italy, India, China, Japan, Hindustan. Now there is where it should be checked.

Senator BUTLER. Of course, you know we have treaties with all of those countries and there has been every effort made to stamp out the drug at the source, and I think some real headway has been made there. Do you think that the enforcement officers, either State or Federal, in the State of New York, could contribute materially to stamping out the traffic?

Mr. Ross. I think that our authorities here in New York, in our city of New York, have done a remarkable job in trying to stamp it out and trying to keep it away especially from the youngsters.

I know that they have been on the job. I've talked to quite a number of them, and I think personally that they are undermanned. And with what they have to operate with, I think they have been doing a remarkable job, especially in the past couple of years when the papers started to flaunt about the youngsters becoming addicts, and they really started to go out on a ball and went all out and I think they have done a remarkable job.

And I just think if they had more manpower, they could do a much better job in wiping it out almost completely.

Senator BUTLER. I said a moment ago that I thought the other nations of the world were working and truly trying to help stamp out

addiction in the world, and I am sorry that we cannot include in that Red China, who has in my opinion and is now using the drug as a means to break down the peoples of the free world.

Mr. Ross. Sir, I have been in China, Japan, India, lots of those countries a number of years ago. I've seen children 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 years of age chewing opium, chewing hashish, which is the ash of the opium just like one of our kids would be chewing a piece of gum all through those countries and you buy it as though you are buying a piece of candy. So I don't know whether they want to demoralize their own children or their own countries or what, but nevertheless I've seen it just as open as we see each other right now.

Senator DANIEL. You will be glad to know, Barney, that most of those countries recently have joined into agreements, treaties, and so forth to try to stamp that out, except Red China. I'm not saying it is stamped out yet. As a matter of fact some of them have set the dates in the future. But much has been done through international agreements, cooperation in all of the countries of the Far East. still have not licked it but they have made progress.

They

Mr. Ross. I've heard that too, sir, and I feel if it is stamped out there, the sooner it is stamped out in their countries there it will be stamped out here because they will get rid of that stuff and there will be no shipments to this country in any manner, shape, or form, not black-marketed, not bootlegged, and where it will not reach the hands of peddlers.

Senator DANIEL. Well, of course, there is also another front on which we need to fight. Even if you got out all of the smuggling, as long as you had some addicts who have enough money to pay for it. they might go in and fool doctors and nurses and get into the otherwise legitimate supply of narcotics, if we don't do something to treat our addicts and get them off of the streets, don't you think that is right? Mr. Ross. Well, I'd like to see all the addicts off the streets.

Senator DANIEL. In other words, where we must hit this problem is from several points.

Mr. Ross. It might be 4, 5, or 6 different points where you can hit them.

Senator DANIEL. In our work with countries we have representatives in other parts of the world working with their officials to stop narcotics at the source. I just spent some time with the head of European office in Rome, and we do not have near enough men in that work. But that is being tried to some extent. Now then, in the meantime we need better enforcement of the laws that we have against the peddlers here at home, and it would seem to this member of the committee that we need to do a better job in treating the addicts that are subject to treating, and getting all of them off the streets.

If we could get the addicts off the streets, there would not be much market left for the peddlers to peddle to, would there?

Mr. Ross. I go for that, and I think that every smuggler, any smuggler, any peddler, and every peddler that is caught and upon conviction should be hung immediately, except the peddler who was selling just to maintain a habit, not by trying to get anybody else on it but looking to sell the drug, he should be given a lesser term, but any smuggler, any peddler should be hung immediately upon conviction, not be given a second chance or be given 30 days or a year in prison.

Senator DANIEL. You have come up with one recommendation that the chairman of this committee intended to make. Some time ago I made up my mind that I was going to recommend to the rest of this committee that at least on smugglers the death sentence should be permissible. In other words, not that it is mandatory, but that you could give up to as high as the death sentence, a stiff mandatory sentence in prison, but having it go from say 5 or 10 years up to as high as death.

Mr. Ross. I also said that about the peddler, except for the peddler who is not looking to get anybody else on the narcotic but one who is selling to an addict just to maintain his habit, not for the profit but just to earn enough money, he should be given a lesser sentence but still a fairly stiff one.

Senator DANIEL. Yes; but I agree with you to this extent that there are many peddlers that certainly ought to be subject to the death. penalty because they have committed murder on the installment plan against these people to whom they have peddled the narcotics; is that right?

Mr. Ross. It is not only that they have committed murder to those who they peddle but to their families also, to these kids who have ruined their families, by robbing them, by disgrace they have caused their families. They have killed them too, so it is not the one addict alone that they are killing, it is the entire family.

Senator DANIEL. And then there are those families who are spreading the addiction on to others continuously.

Mr. Ross. Right. I can not give them the slightest bit of, I can not give them the slightest benefit of any kind, I can not give them the slightest bit. I would turn away from them as I would turn away from fire or water.

Senator DANIEL. Before someone leaves the room and says you and I have agreed the death sentence ought to be given to all smugglers and all peddlers, let us make the record clear. What we both have agreed is that as far as smugglers are concerned and as far as some types of peddlers are concerned, the maximum sentence ought to be death instead of like it is now, a few years confinement.

Mr. Ross. I agree wholly.

Senator DANIEL. In other words the jury in its judgment in certain types of cases could give the death penalty against smugglers and peddlers, is that what you think?

Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Now do you have any other recommendations concerning the hospital at Lexington as a person who was there 120 days? I just wonder if you have any observations to make to the Congress of the United States as to how our procedures there could be helped in any way or anything that you think you saw there that should be continued by all means?

Mr. Ross. Yes, sir; I have and I think it is very, very important. Lexington, as you know, can only hold a certain amount of addicts, I believe it is about a thousand or possibly 1,200 when it is crowded, and I do think that addicts who are committed, especially voluntary patients, should be segregated from the repeaters, where they don't get a chance to learn, as I did, about the various types of narcotics that are around in this country. Things I never heard of in all my

71515-56-pt. 6