Senator DANIEL. While you were in prison? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. I never seen him on the streets. Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. Now, these drug addicts that you know, do most of them push and sell drugs or not? Mr. PARKER. Some of them do. Senator DANIEL. About how many would you say of the drug addicts themselves are also pushers of drugs? Mr. PARKER. Well, I know a couple. Senator DANIEL. Who sell, also? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. Are drugs a little bit harder to get here now in Washington since you got out of Lexington than they were before you went to Lexington? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. And do they cost more? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. What about the quality of them? Are they still just about the same in power? Mr. PARKER. No, sir. Senator DANIEL. What is the difference? Mr. PARKER. There is a whole lot of difference. It is weaker, and that means that there is more money to be made. Senator DANIEL. You mean the capsules you buy now are weaker than the ones you used to get? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. That means it takes more to support your habit. Senator DANIEL. They are weaker and it takes more of the capsules and therefore more money to support your habit? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. What was your habit costing you here up until, say, last week? Mr. PARKER. Well, to tell the truth, I don't even have a habit. I don't even get sick like I used to. That shows that the stuff ain't no good. Senator DANIEL. Do you still want it? Mr. PARKER. Well, if I wanted it, I wouldn't be trying to get no help. Senator DANIEL. If you wanted it, you wouldn't be trying to get no help? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. What do you mean by that? Mr. PARKER. Well, I mean I would be still looking for it. I wouldn't never have asked for help. What I mean, I wouldn't have never asked for the cure. Senator DANIEL. Have you asked for the cure over again? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. Do you want to go back to Lexington? Senator DANIEL. Do you want to go back to Lexington? Senator DANIEL. Lexington Hospital, in Kentucky? Mr. PARKER. That is right. Senator DANIEL. You say you do want to go back there? Senator DANIEL. Do you think you need to go back there for more treatment? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. You were there 120 days, Senator DANIEL. Why do you say that? and you say that did not break your habit? Mr. PARKER. No, sir; I wasn't there 120 days. Senator DANIEL. I thought you said you were. you there? Mr. PARKER. I was there 115 days. Senator DANIEL. 115 days. How long were Mr. PARKER. 115 days. I am sorry. Four months; 115 days. That is the cure, 115 days. Senator DANIEL. 115 days? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. Well, that is the District of Columbia commitment? Did the doctor talk to you about that you ought to stay longer? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. What did the doctor tell you? Mr. PARKER. Dr. Phelps told me that I should stay longer, because I wasn't cured. Senator DANIEL. Why didn't you stay longer at Lexington? Mr. PARKER. Because when them District of Columbia commitments come down, they have to send you back. Senator DANIEL. In other words, when you are there under District of Columbia commitment, it is so many days? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. And when that is up, you have to come back? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. If the train is not there at the time your time is up, you just stop work. You don't have to work. Senator DANIEL. And did the doctor tell you he could not keep you any longer? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. And you want to go back now and try to get some more treatments? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. Do you feel that if you do not get some more treatments, you might go back on heroin? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. You know the purpose of this hearing, do you not? We here in Congress want to do something to lick the traffic and cure this evil. What would you do if you had the job that Congressmen and law-enforcement officers have to get rid of the drugs here in Washington and over the country? Mr. PARKER. Well, maybe a stiffer penalty for the first offenders. Senator DANIEL. What? Mr. PARKER. Maybe stiffer penalties for the first offenders might help. Senator DANIEL. Why do you say that, "stiffer penalties for the first offenders"? Mr. PARKER. Well, because the majority of the fellows gets a small sentence the first time. Senator DANIEL. You mean you think more of them will take a chance on peddling until they are caught the first time because of the smaller sentence they might get? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. Is that your idea about it? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. Did you hear anyone at Lexington talking that way? Mr. PARKER. I didn't run around with any of the Washington boys at the time I was there. Senator DANIEL. Well, you ran around with boys from other places in the country. Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. Was there any discussion of that? Mr. PARKER. I ran around with some boys from New York. Mr. PARKER. Well, they get 6 months the first time. Senator Daniel. The first time? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. The first time they are caught possessing or selling? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. Well, what did they say about it? Did they talk about it being a pretty light penalty? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. They said they don't see how a man can sell narcotics in the District. Senator DANIEL. Why? Mr. PARKER. Because of the stiffer penalty that they give out. Senator DANIEL. Even for first offenders? Mr. PARKER. For the first offenders and second offenders. Senator DANIEL. Are there any other ideas that you have got? As I understand it, you want to go back and be treated to get off of this habit. Have you got any ideas about how we ought to treat these addicts out here? Do you think we ought to give them free drugs so as to get rid of the peddlers? Do you think that would help, if everybody who was an addict got free drugs and to go into a hospital and get them every day, and try to work? Do you think that would be a good plan? Mr. PARKER. Well, I say that might be a good plan. Senator DANIEL. What? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. You think that would be a good plan? Did I understand that you thought that would be a good plan? Mr. PARKER. You said if they would just let you go in the hospital and get it free? Senator DANIEL. Yes, or a clinic. Mr. PARKER. I don't think there would be as many addicts as there is. Senator DANIEL. There would not be as many addicts if you did that? Mr. PARKER. No. Senator DANIEL. Why? Mr. PARKER. Because it would be plentiful. It is just like a whisky store. They could go in and get it. Senator DANIEL. But we have more alcoholics now when whisky is plentiful than we did back there when it was less plentiful. If it was plentiful you could just walk in a clinic and get your shots without having to see Billy Douglas or anybody else and buy these narcotics; you think you would just keep on it all the time if you could go in and get it free every day? Mr. PARKER. I really think it would help. Senator DANIEL. You think you would keep on using it? Mr. PARKER. No, sir. Senator DANIEL. Why? Mr. PARKER. It is not my intention to use drugs. Mr. PARKER. No. Senator DANIEL. Do you think you would stay off of them if they were free and legal, when you could go and get them any time you wanted? Do you think you could stay off? Mr. PARKER. It was hard for me to start back this time, and I know I won't start back no more. Senator DANIEL. That is the way you feel about it? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator DANIEL. That is all. Thank you for appearing before this committee. I appreciate the cooperation of Captain Thoman and the officers of his squad and the other members of his department in the hearing today as well as throughout all the hearings of this committee. I will instruct the counsel of the committee to turn over today's testimony and the testimony received by this committee in executive session from other witnesses and all the testimony of William Douglas to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and also a copy to his attorney, Mr. Williams, who accompanied William Douglas to this hearing. The committee will stand adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned.) APPENDIX Contents: Exhibits 1-5, inclusive. EXHIBIT No. 1 [From the May 1953 issue of The American Journal of Medicine] CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ADDICTIONS 1 Harris Isbell, M. D., and Walter M. White, M. D., Lexington, Ky. The purpose of this paper is to outline the clinical symptomatology of acute and chronic intoxication with the addicting drugs (with the exception of alcohol) that are of importance in the United States, to compare the development of tolerance to certain of these substances, and to discuss and contrast the clinical manifestations which follow abrupt withdrawal of some of these drugs. The Expert Committee on Drugs Liable to Produce Addiction of the World Health Organization has adopted the following definition of addiction: "Drug addiction is a state of periodic or chronic intoxication detrimental to the individual and to society, produced by the repeated consumption of a drug (natural or synthetic). Its characteristics include: (1) an overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means; (2) a tendency to increase the dose; (3) a psychic (psychological) and sometimes a physical dependence on the effects of the drug." 2 Two of the features of this definition require some comment. Addiction always implies consumption of drugs in amounts that produce effects detrimental either to the individual or to society. In other words, addiction is always a matter of abuse, not of proper use. It is also important to note that physical dependence (a withdrawal illness) is not a necessary feature of all addictions. Under the terms of this definition the addicting drugs of importance in the United States are: (1) opiates and synthetic analgesics (opium, laudanum, paregoric, morphine and morphine derivatives, methadone and meperidine); (2) hypnotic and sedative drugs (barbiturates, chloral hydrate, paraldehyde and bromides); (3) alcohol (because of lack of space, addiction to alcohol will not be discussed in this paper); (4) cocaine; (5) certain sympathomimetic amines (amphetamine and methamphetamine); (6) mescaline (peyote) and (7) marihuana. ADDICTION TO OPIATES AND SYNTHETIC ANALGESICS 3 Characteristics of opiate addiction.-Addiction to opiates is usually described as having three important characteristics: (1) tolerance, (2) physical dependence and (3) emotional dependence. By tolerance is meant a decreasing effect on repetition of the same dose of a drug. This particular characteristic is very marked in addiction to the opiates and synthetic analgesics. Patients with well developed tolerance have injected as much as 5 grams (78 grains) of morphine sulfate intravenously in less than 24 hours without developing significant toxic symptoms. Tolerance to the various effects of morphine and related drugs develops, however, at different rates and in different degrees. For example, tolerance to the toxic, sedative, emetic, analgesic and respiratory-depressant effects of morphine develops very rapidly and becomes marked, whereas tolerance to the miotic effects and to the spasmogenic effects on gastrointestinal smooth muscle, if developed at all, is never complete. Physical dependence refers to the development of an altered physiologic state which requires continued administration of a drug to prevent the appearance of a characteristic illness, termed an "abstinence syndrome." Physical dependence is an extremely important characteristic of addiction to morphine and similar drugs, since it leads to continuity of intoxication with resultant subservience of all phases of the addict's life to the one aim of obtaining and maintaining a constant supply of the drug. 1 From the National Institute of Mental Health, Addiction Research Center and the Clinical Division, Public Health Service Hospital, Lexington, Ky. 2 World Health Organization Technical Report Series, No. 21, 7, 1950; No. 57, 9, 1952. Himmelsbach, C. K. and Small, L. F., Clinical Studies of drug addiction. II. "Rossium" treatment of drug addiction. Pub. Health Rep., Supp., 125: 1, 1937. 2308 |