Page images

schools, have in many cases proven effective conduits for funds for diverse programs which include methadone maintenance and therapeutic communities. Truly model programs have been developed at Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago and other places. In most of these programs, local exaddict groups are funded by the mental health center for special tasks appropriate to the expertise of these groups. This has enlightened professionals with regard to the special problems of the community and broadened the outlook of community professionals with regard to the medical and psychiatric needs of addicted patients. It has also provided local quality control for these less formal programs. The Mental Health Center model is by no means ideal. It is overly restrictive with regard to specific kinds of service (not always appropriate to addiction) and it assumes that Federal money serves a seeding function with State support to assume the major role over a five year period. The States would prefer a longterm partnership with more generous funding. The Community Mental Health Center model is also overly restrictive with regard to catchment areas since there will usually be a need to consider larger population groups than 200,000 persons in dealing with addiction in most States and cities. Nevertheless, by calling for five years of funding and a commitment by health professionals to the treatment and public health needs of a population, this mechanism is the most sophisticated and tested instrument now available for dealing with this problem at the local level. The question you must ask is whether you should scrap this model or whether you can build on the cumulative experience of mental health professionals inside and outside of government to make this a viable approach. Needless to say the consultation and education programs required by the Community Mental Health Centers Act seems a potentially useful instrument in reaching the prospective school dropouts who constitute the highest risk group in this epidemic. To make this model work effectively, you need a staff large enough and mobile enough to work closely with existing programs on a continuing basis and to feed the information gained into new programs at the local level. Secondly, you should restructure Federal support of local programs so that you consider the reality that the staffing needs of a program are always smaller in the first year of operation than in subsequent years and that each local program should be encouraged to submit a grant which sets up services in order of need and alters and increases staffing requirements each year. The Federal government should therefore assume a continuing financial partnership at a high level of support for services developing over five to ten years of operation. Expansion of services should be eligible for Federal support on the same basis as new services where expansion of services makes sense in the context of the local program. S. 3562 takes this latter issue into account. The emphasis on support only of "new services" in existing legislation leads to deceit and to an undue emphasis on novelty and fads in applications. As at present, all programs should be encouraged to support multiple modalities of treatment, including some experimental approaches. For the most part this has been the case in the NIMH supported programs.

With regard to research support, there is no question that existing programs at NIMH need to be expanded in terms of personnel and grant and contract money. There is a need for programmed research on the marihuana problem which requires contract funds (usually unavailable at NIMH) and personnel to develop collaborative grant applications with research institutes. An expansion of NIMH intramural research in this area would be highly desirable. The precedent set by the Psychopharmacology Service Center in psychopharmacology research using these mechanisms bodes well for this approach with marihuana.

Research and training functions in other areas of drug abuse also need to be expanded. The drug distribution program for research requires additional personnel to facilitate research as well as information gathering. All of these functions need funds for outside appropriations and the end to the personnel freeze which would make certain that the money was spent most effectively.

Research and training can be most effectively expanded by keeping these functions at NIMH. The review committees and relationships with the scientific community, plus the tradition of research excellence at NIMH, all have fostered collaborative relationships that could be tapped to better program the research needs in this area. A new agency must start from scratch to build these relationships and this tradition. It will not be easy and will slow the research effort considerably.

The information obtained in this broad research program would be most effectively disseminated through NIMH and the Clearinghouse of Mental Health

Information. This Clearinghouse originally served this function in psychopharmacology and it worked extremely well. My feeling is that public health educational functions which consider research findings and the special problems of adolescent psychology are best served by a coordinated approach in HEW including NIMH and appropriate groups in the Office of Education.

Finally, the Mental Health Advisory Council, an organization of citizens and professionals whose role in reviewing NIMH activities has been important over the years, would seem to be a useful mechanism consistent with Title VIII of S. 3562. Additionally, the Division of Narcotic Addiction and Drug Abuse should have a separate Advisory Committee to facilitate the feedback essential to effective Federal action.

In summary, I am in agreement with the intent of S. 3562 and with many of its more enlightened proposals. On the other hand I feel that to create a new structure in HEW makes no sense and would seriously impede our efforts to stem the drug abuse epidemic while ignoring the experience of those Federal health professionals who have been learning something of the problems over the last four years. Given the reluctance of high HEW officials to speak out against the incursion of the Justice Department upon the research responsibilities of NIMH, I fear that they might use this legislation to further undermine public health efforts by taking the drug abuse program out of NIMH. This would be most unfortunate.

Legislation at this time should reflect the information accumulated thus far. To create visibility without visible change at the local level serves to frustrate those your programs intend to serve as well as those who are trying to serve them. Constant reorganization and new programming at the Federal level leads to delays and confusion at the local level. Don't be rushed into this legislation without changing the vague reorganizational proposals. The acquisition of longterm meaningful appropriations and sufficient personnel in established agencies is what is needed at this time; not the creation of a new structure. Health professionals and the community at large have been hearing a great deal about drug abuse over the last four years. They are demanding legislation to overcome the pervasive feeling of helplessness in the country. In the face of these feelings there is always a tendency to act precipitously and to assure novelty while sacrificing performance. There is no question that S. 3246 is a dangerous bill and should not be written into law. S. 3562 which seems benign in intent, is so vague as to be potentially harmful in action. Compromise legislation consisting of some mixture of both bills is not the answer. The enforcement provisions of S. 3246 do not really deal with the major problems of drug traffic and serve rather to control and inhibit medical practice and research. The vague reorganization presently proposed in S. 3562 may result in more confusion complicated by expectations for immediate changes at the local level because of the new visibility of a new organizational structure. Memories of OEO and HUD are too vivid and evoke despair that we have not learned from recent experience. We need truly model legislation which appreciates where we are at and where we have been, and does not simply promise a new beginning but offers to facilitate program development and research consistent with a public health approach.

Senator HUGHES. Thank you very much, Dr. Meyer.

Dr. MEYER. Thank you.

Senator HUGHES. The Chair calls Dr. Luria who is Sedgwick Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Nobel Laureate.

I hope this testimony this morning has been entertaining for you, if nothing else.


Dr. LURIA. I would not have missed this morning's experience. I realize some of the difficulties that people are working under. I must say I was a little distressed yesterday in reading in the current issue of Newsweek a statement, and I wrote it down, which I can hardly believe, that "An aura of fear is hanging over HEW."

I think if that is not just a journalistic statement, it is a very frightening matter. If there is fear, I'd call it fear of the devil, and I think this morning you may have changed it into the fear of God. Senator HUGHES. I hope so, a little bit.

Dr. LURIA. Let me read a very brief prepared statement.

I am glad to have this opportunity to testify in support of Senate bill S. 3562. At the outset let me say that I do not claim to speak as an expert in the field of narcotics research. I will mention later one connection in which I have been associated with it.

I was trained as a physician and have spent all my life as a teacher and researcher in basic biological sciences. I am speaking on this bill and on related matters in three capacities: as a scientist, as a teacher in an American university, and as a citizen.

As a scientist, I am greatly encouraged by the attitude that pervades bill S. 3562 in assigning responsibility for research and treatment on drugs and drug abuses to a special agency in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The proposed Drug Abuse Administration, working closely together with the National Institute of Mental Health and, as you have mentioned earlier this morning, possibly within the NIMH, should be able to foster effective progress and a sensible approach to these problems.

My only concern in this connection is that S. 3562, in its section 306, page 15, lines 20 following, appears to take for granted the registration provisions of the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969. If I understand it correctly, this is Senate bill S. 3246, which is now being considered by the House. That bill, in its present form, is in my opinion scientifically unsound. It places the whole emphasis in the drug control problem on criminal sanction. The criminal approach to drug abuse is one of the few instances in which a controlled experiment may be said to have been done in the social sciences. It was tried with alcohol and it not only failed but generated the most profound entrenchment of criminal activities in our society. If only for that reason, I am relieved to see at least some of the drug problems returned to the appropriate authorities in HEW, as proposed in S. 3562.

Let me say that I consider this an excellent first step in the direction of giving HEW ultimately the full control in this area, except for violations of the law.

Speaking as a teacher, my concern for the drug abuse problems is generated by the consequences I see in the university communities of the present attitude towards drug use and abuse. Emphasis on criminal legislation has bred, on the one hand, disrespect for preposterously punitive laws which deal on the same plane, if not equally, with innocent users and criminal peddlers and pushers. On the other hand, it breeds contempt for the law because of the obvious unenforceability of excessive sanctions. I do hope that the Drug Abuse Administration proposed in S. 3562 will undertake, among other things, a detailed study of the social and psychological implications of the criminal sanction approach to the drug abuse problem and will make it possible to devise more sensible approaches.

Speaking as a citizen, I see S. 3562 as a positive departure from the spirit that permeates S. 3246 which, in the name of drug abuse prevention, would bring upon us further erosions of our civil liberties.

The no-knock provision, as well as restrictions potentially placed on the freedom of research and investigation, are examples of a misapplied concept of law and order against which we must very carefully guard.

Let me conclude this statement by saying that I have had the privilege, as a non-resident member of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, to organize in the last year two workshops on the problems of drugs and drug addiction. These workshops were attended by experts in many fields both of science and public affairs, concluding Senator Javits at the first session, Senator Frank Moss at a more recent session, and legislative assistants of several Members of the Senate, plus, among other scientists, Dr. Sidney Cohen, who is head of the Narcotics and Drug Abuse Section at NIHM.

The participants, I believe, would almost unanimously concur in my criticisms of S. 3246 and in my approval of most features of S. 3562. It is my hope that the passage of S. 3562 will represent the first step in the direction of taking a more rational view of the drug abuse problem, one that will take into account past experience, will provide sensible discrimination between almost innocuous and extremely dangerous drugs, and will deal harshly with those who profit from drug commerce while removing penalties altogether for the use or possession of drugs.

May I add, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to give your committee staff also a copy of a letter that I have written to the New York Times on this subject in the past few days, as well as a statement that was circulated to the people who attended the recent workshop of the Salk Institute for their signatures. Almost every participant has signed that statement and the signatures will be sent to you this week by Professor Hamburg of Stanford Medical School.

Senator HUGHES. Thank you, Doctor. They will be made part of the record at this point.

(The information referred to follows:)

Cambridge, Mass., March 23, 1970.


The New York Times,

New York, N.Y.

DEAR SIR: While President Nixon speaks of the drug problem as an educational one (New York Times, March 12), his Department of Justice is rejecting all advice from educators, medical scientists and lawyers and insisting on an essentially criminal approach to the problem.

A subcommittee of the U.S. House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee has recently concluded hearings on the new omnibus drug bill, H.R. 13743, which would transfer to the Attorney General the sole authority to determine which drugs are subject to abuse and which researchers may study them.

This same bill includes the irrational and probably unconstitutional "noknock" provisions permitting police, upon warrant by a judge, to enter unannounced into private premises. This provision makes both police officers and private citizens potentially subject to blind murderous shooting.

According to a UPI dispatch of March 3, at the close of the hearings, Mr. John Ingersoll, head of the Narcotics Bureau of the Justice Department, opposed and derided the lengthy testimony by medical and legal experts, who had favored a major role for HEW Department in drug regulation and education. According to the Justice Department, "The ultimate decision to bring a drug under control has more legal implications than it does medical ones." One Congressman, Rep. Peter Kyros of Maine, stated that the Administration's unbending stand was "kind of stunning to me in the light of the testimony of so many doctors."

The straight criminal sanction aproach will not work for the drug problem just as it did not work when tried for alcohol. It breeds black market, organized crime, and contempt for the law-just as prohibition did. Meanwhile, this approach is being used by Mr. Mitchell's Department for further threats to our civil liberties: legalized violation of the home privacy and encroachment by the Justice Department over an area that demands enlightened educational and public health approach.

S. E. LURIA, M.D., Sedgwick Professor of Biology.

FEBRUARY 11, 1970.

We undersigned participants in a workshop on marijuana and amphetamines held at The Salk Institute on January 22-23, 1970, endorse the basic position in the statement submitted by the Study Section on Narcotic Abuse and Drug Addiction of the NIMH on January 30, 1970. The facts presented at The Salk Institute workshop and the ensuing discussion verify the basis on which the Study Section statement is founded.

We would re-emphasize what we understand to be the fundamental thrust of the Study Section statement, that it is undesireable to center social policy on criminal sanctions, an approach that has proved to be ineffective, most spectecularly when it was tried for alcohol. Such reliance on criminal law has itself created large scale social problems not unlike those associated with the prohibition era. In the spirit of the Study Section statement we recommend therefore the establishment of a system of regulation and control, based primarly on licensing and public education, which will take into account the actual problems that accompany the use and abuse of particular substances.




Dr. LURIA. May I add one point, Senator? I had opportunity by chance of reading on Sunday an article by Professor Norval Morris, head of the Center for the Study of Criminal Justice at the University of Chicago, on the topic, "Can Crime Be Cured?" It contains a numbers of statements relevant to the substance of the bill under consideration.

Senator HUGHES. We will make that part of the record, also, and are happy to have an opportunity to read it. (The information referred to follows:)

[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Mar. 22, 1970]



Morris and Hawkins are authors of the controversial book, "The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control," from which this article is excerpted. Morris is director of the Center for Studies of Criminal Justice at the University of Chicago and Hawkins is senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Sydney. Their book was recently published by the University of Chicago Press.

We offer a cure for crime-not a sudden portion or a lightning panacea but rather legislative and administrative approaches which would reduce the impact of crime.

A third of the people of America are afraid to walk alone at night in their communities. In cities of more than half a million, some 40 percent of the inhabitants confess to this fear.

Crime is not a natural thing nor is it impossible to foresee and guard against it. The history of the Volstead Act (which introduced Prohibition) demonstrates that crime on an unprecedented scale can be stimulated by legislative action. This process can be reversed.

« PreviousContinue »