Page images
PDF
EPUB

to Senate 3562 in such a way that studies could be understaken so that the Surgeon General could make an intelligent report annually. Senator HUGHES. You think even if the report came back in 2 years and said they didn't have enough information even after the study, that that would lend credibility to the lost generatoin of adults? Dr. FINK. I think it might. I think we don't know enough.

Senator HUGHES. The annual review was because it should be an ongoing thing because of the broken bits of information we do have, the various research projects underway, and because of the obvious hazards of research that have been described here, and the difficulties of complying with all municipal, State, and Federal laws, trying to be in compliance with all of them.

I think Senator Dominick plans to bring this matter up, in addition to this bill, and that is the reason I am asking the questions about it. Dr. FINK. One of the problems with marihuana studies in the United States is that the quality of material is so varied, and the use of the drug is short- -a matter of a few years so that one might very well have to take these studies in other nations. This, of course, is a very delicate matter. Nevertheless, one should be willing to look into cultures other than our own where marihuana, cannabis, and hashish have been available for generations.

It may be more expensive to go to these places, but that perhaps is what should be considered. It sounds trivial to make such a recommendation.

Senator HUGHES. I think not, in light of the fact that we have seen in history where the influx of drugs has actually altered the course of a nation. Perhaps it might be well if we were sending teams to some other cultures to see the long-term effects in generation after generation of usage of some of these substances.

I think there are a couple of incidents in history where we can point to some rather radical changes as a result of this.

Thank you for coming to testify. I know your testimony will be helpful to us.

Dr. FINK. Thank you.

Senator HUGHES. The hearing is recessed until tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, March 17, 1970).

FEDERAL DRUG ABUSE AND DRUG DEPENDENCE PREVENTION, TREATMENT, AND REHABILITATION ACT OF 1970

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1970

U.S. SENATE,

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOLISM AND NARCOTICS OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Harold E. Hughes (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Hughes and Schweiker.

Staff members present: Robert O. Harris, staff director; Wade Clarke, majority counsel; Jay B. Cutler, minority counsel; and Richard J. Spelts, minority counsel.

Senator HUGHES. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair calls Dr. Helen Nowlis.

Dr. Nowlis is the president of the National Coordinating Council on Drug Abuse Education and Information. You have with you two persons?

STATEMENT OF HELEN NOWLIS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COORDI

NATING COUNCIL ON DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION AND INFORMATION; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS PRICE, VICE PRESIDENT; AND PETER HAMMOND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Dr. NowLIS. Yes; Dr. Price and Dr. Hammond. Dr. Price is our vice president and Dr. Hammond is executive director of our organization.

Senator HUGHES. If you will, proceed.

Dr. NowLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the board of trustees of the National Coordinating Council on Drug Abuse Education and Information, I want to express my appreciation for this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee this morning to comment on the education provisions of S. 3562, the Federal Drug Abuse and Drug Dependence Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act of 1970.

I am Dr. Helen H. Nowlis of the University of Rochester. I am a professor of psychology and have long been involved in youth and student programs at my home campus and other schools across the country. For the past 5 years I have been particularly concerned with drug programs.

Today I am appearing in my capacity as president of the National Coordinating Council. On my left is Dr. Thomas Price, our council

vice president, representing the National Council of Churches of Christ on the council and director of the Department of Alcohol and Drug Concerns for the United Methodist Board of Christian Social Concerns. On my right is Peter G. Hammond, executive director of the National Coordinating Council.

You and your hard-working committee and staff are to be congratulated for the serious concern you obviously hold for the growing abuse of a wide variety of drugs, including alcohol. This comprehensive bill is obviously a reflection of long hours of study and shows welcome commitment to the cause of better health for all the people-health which is threatened by increasing abuse of drugs in many segments of our population.

The rash of recent programs and proposals and task forces and strike forces and new initiatives on drug abuse has created a major problem, a glut of well-intentioned but often conflicting information which may or may not have done anything to curb drug abuse.

We are clearly on the horns of a dilemma. We know that 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. On the other hand, there is a danger from continued massive education programing without first taking the time to evaluate 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 long run as no programs at all.

This morning, you have invited us to comment on the ways this legislation might help the Government do a better job of drug abuse education. Our comments on education can be taken as representing the entire board of trustees of the council. Our other remarks should be heard in the personal and professional context from which they are offered. But on both counts we want to begin with the warning: More of the same- -more pamphlets, more movies, more posters, more handouts-will not guarantee more success in education campaigns against drug dependence.

Education is a name we too often give to a process we assume is happening to someone being exposed to a series of messages opinion or information-about any given topic: drugs, or corn flakes, or political parties. When students sit at desks and listen to a teacher saying words, we say that "education" is taking place. When viewers watch televised advertisements that warn of the dangers of forest fires, we say that education has taken place.

In fact, we are only speculating. The genuinely complex process we hope is taking place-learning-is an internal, private, inconsistent and very delicate kind of human behavior which has only marginally to do with the formal presentation of material. It is learning about drugs that should concern us today, rather than the formal mechanisms for presenting drug information. Information by itself is not education, education by itself is not learning.

How do people, particularly young people, learn about drugs and form their drug-related attitudes? We believe that a series of influences

help shape these attitudes: the atmosphere of the school, as well as the factual information presented there; the life style at home, and the attitudes of the parents; peer-group pressures; popular culture, including music, films, magazines, and nationally publicized events; personal experiences with drugs or drug-related substances; the availability of alternative mechanisms for carrying out certain kinds of behaviorsrisk taking, wish fulfillment, et cetera.

Therefore, any program of education about drugs and drug abuse must take into account the social framework of the learner. If, as the bill seems to indicate, Federal education efforts are to be concentrated in the schools, then we believe it is a step doomed to only partial success and perhaps failure-before it begins.

If, on the other hand, the resources of the Federal Government can be used to explore all the avenues of attitude formation among the young not to control them, but to understand them and supplement them with educational material-then the effort may succeed.

Dr. Price?

Senator HUGHES. Welcome, Dr. Price, to the subcommittee. We are grateful that you were able to be with us.

Dr. PRICE. Thank you.

As vice president of the National Coordinating Council, I am particularly concerned about the ways in which communities and individuals make decisions about drugs, and the ways in which their decision processes can be enhanced. I would like to comment briefly on that point.

Dr. Nowlis has warned that if all the Federal effort is to be channeled into and through the schools, we are likely to meet with little or no success in our drug abuse education programing. I am also concerned about the tendency to talk about drug abuse programing 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. This certainly seems to be the thrust of the administration's recent announcement-central repositories of information and materials which can be grafted unto communities-and it also seems to be the tone of this bill.

Such a one-way scheme for information exchange, reflecting an oversimplified 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 seem to be acknowledged by the proposal to create models of attack: age, level of education and social experience of individuals; economic background of families; environmental conditions; patterns of work and recreation and learning in the community. These and other forces affect the way a person decides, and lives and develops.

The situation is analogous to a man with a fever. The reflex action is to treat him with aspirin, but do we know that aspirin is what he really needs? Do we know what caused the fever? Isn't there the danger that while we are treating his symptom, his disease is growing out of control?

The answer is that of course we should tailor the treatment to fit the needs of the patient. So, too, should we tailor the drug abuse and drug

dependence program to fit the needs of the community. Such tailoring is more time consuming, more costly, and more perplexing than the aspirin treatment-but it promises infinitely greater benefit in the long run. It offers the hope that the individual, or the community, will live through the night of the fever and wake to a dawn completely cured of the ailment.

I am afraid that the administration's recently announced intention to create a national clearinghouse of drug-abuse information, and a national program of teacher training, suggests an easy panacea that doesn't exist. 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 Trenton.

The administration should be saluted for its desire to help the people fight drug abuse. But I suggest that there are better ways, more effective ways, to help people than to minister to them with a bottled dose of data or a measured mass of material. There is one more analogy we might draw: drugs, before they are put on the market, are subjected to intensive evaluation for safety and efficacy. Unfortunately, drug-abuse education materials, which also affect lives. are not given the same careful evaluation before they are offered to the public.

When we look closely at the community and the people who live there, we find that drugs themselves are not really the problem. The problem is people trying to use drugs to cope with the complexities of life. What is needed now is a major commitment from the Federal Government in cooperation with the private sector, to help people deal with their own problems, and to enable people to do this without harm to themselves, their neighbors, or their society. Why not provide alternatives to chemically induced escape-alternatives like fresher air, more meaningful work, more control over personal growth?

One of your colleagues from the House summed up this challenge during the debate on the Drug Abuse Education Act of 1969. Representative John Kyl of Iowa said:

It is one thing for a student to learn the answers to such questions as: What are drugs? What are the effects of drugs? That is the easiest part of this business of drug education. Much more difficult is the development of character and the value of things, the nature of which are so inherently a part of the drug problem.

Congressman Kyl rightly asks us to look deep into the structure of human values, the building blocks of society. I urge this subcommittee to consider ways to make this legislation address itself directly to the larger questions of human values.

Dr. NowLIS. Mr. Hammond?

Senator HUGHES. Welcome to the subcommittee hearings.

Mr. HAMMOND. Thank you.

Dr. Nowlis and Dr. Price have outlined the council's reaction to the intentions of this legislation, and they have suggested those areas where some adjustment may be necessary. As executive director of the National Coordinating Council, it is my job to integrate the energies

« PreviousContinue »