« PreviousContinue »
Chairman KEFAUVER. Then is the same rule applicable to the Dis
Dr. SCHULZ. Yes. Actually police and narcotic squad there is more of a technical difference.
Chairman KEFAUVER. It does not mean the narcotics squad or police is supervising them for rehabilitation, only for the purpose of prosecution.
Dr. SCHULZ. That's right.
Presumably they are then prosecuted. Chairman KEFAUVER. So actually you have no followup after they are discharged?
Dr. SCHULZ. No; none whatsoever.
Chairman KEFAUVER. And that is an apparent weakness, one of the weaknesses of this act?
Dr. SCHULZ. I think so.
Chairman KEFAUVER. Well, sir, I assume that you and others who are interested and have charge of the administration of this act will make appropriate recommendations to the Congress for improvements in the light of your experience thus far.
Dr. SCHULZ. Yes; that has been very brief thus far. I think even as we had it given to us, we saw some possibilities for change. Perhaps our beginning experience is already sufficient to warrant some change.
Chairman KEFAUVER. I certainly hope you will as soon as possible, in the early part of the Congress, make such recommendations. It will be not only helpful to the treatment of victims here, but I think if there could be developed into a model treatment and followup law and procedure it would be very helpful to the many States that are also struggling, looking for some remedy.
Dr. SCHULZ. Yes, because there is very little of this so far. I would be very glad to get together with the other colleges working with this and initiate other recommendations as we now see it.
Chairman KEFAUVER. Who has the prime responsibility for the administration of this act?
Dr. SCHULZ. The District Commissioners, and through them the Health Department in the sense that they are the ones charged with the responsibility for initiating the action. Of course, in conjunction with the United States attorney who does the actual processing of the commitment.
Chairman KEFAUVER. I hope you will tell them of our great interest in this and solicit suggestions.
Mr. MITLER. Do you mean in these situations the United States attorney is declining to prosecute? What is the situation?
Chairman KEFAUVER. Planning not deliver, not to prosecute but
Dr. SCHULZ. We release them on information from the United States attorney. Obviously his decision is based in part on the medical findings. If we find the individual a drug user and so report, to my knowledge he has prosecuted all of these. If we are medically equivocal about it in the sense that we cannot say the person is a drug user within the meaning of the act, then it has to be a matter of his judgment as to whether what we do say is sufficient to warrant commitment proceedings or not.
In some instances we have had to say there is no medical evidence that the person is at this time a drug user. Most of the instances
where there has not been prosecution there has been a matter of no withdrawal symptoms, nothing showing at the time, either the person has been withdrawn or is using it in such small quantities that he does not show immediate signs even though he has a history of purchasing or taking it.
So he had nothing but that information to go on.
Chairman KEFAUVER. Where they are committed and turned back to the narcotics squad or to the police for prosecution, presumably some of these people are tried on criminal charges. Then what happens to them?
Dr. SCHULZ. I don't know. I haven't any followup information on that; we have only had them very recently.
Chairman KEFAUVER. I assume they might even be sentenced in a penal institution or sent to Lexington according to the judgment of the court.
Dr. SCHULZ. Yes. Title 3 definitely stiffens the statute. Someone with legal information would have to comment on that.
It gives them an opportunity to confine them, I think, up to a year. I am not sure.
Chairman KEFAUVER. What is the budget for the operation of this program?
Dr. SCHULZ. The Public Health Service has agreed to take up to 200,000-I am not sure of that exact figure-at one time at Lexington. So far as facilities are concerned it is adequate to accommodate what we anticipate what might be the maximum load.
Chairman KEFAUVER. I know. But I mean for the District of Columbia, what is the budgetary amount designated for this program? Dr. SCHULTZ. I don't have a figure. I break that down-moneys were made available in a limited amount for the team that does the actual processing, largely additional nursing personnel. As of the present I would not say that we require greater budgetary allocation for processing under the commitment phase.
My major recommendation would be for considerable expansion of the treatment phase, particularly the clinic aspect. I would question whether Dr. Griffin's clinic would absorb any large amount of treatment potentially. I would doubt it very much.
It would mean, in other words, expansion of clinic treatment facilities and local hospital treatment facilities if that should be desired. And the act implies this: This allows the District to use the facilities. at Lexington for 2 years at which time they are then presumably going to have facilities that will permit treatment locally. That is the hospital phase.
Chairman KEFAUVER. Who prepared the recommendation for this act; who worked up the procedure?
Dr. SCHULZ. Senator Daniels' committee largely.
Chairman KEFAUVER. I mean in the District of Columbia.
Who advised them?
Dr. SCHULZ, A great many persons were involved. The Health Department.
Chairman KEFAUVER. District attorney?
Dr. SCHULZ. Yes, United States attorney, narcotic people.
Chairman KEFAUVER. It is certainly a very wholesome step in the right direction. We certainly hope that that will be carried on and
improved and enlarged to be put into full operation and also to the most useful operation.
Dr. SCHULZ. Our impression is that it has no negative aspects that we should not be in. It perhaps lacks things that could be added as additions.
Chairman KEFAUVER. Senator Langer?
Senator LANGER. No questions.
I understand that our witness is here that we sent for about the Indians.
Chairman KEFAUVER. We thank you very much, Dr. Schulz.
I believe we had one witness before, we had Mr. Rosenfeld who has to get back to a radio program.
TESTIMONY OF JOE ROSENFELD, JR.
Mr. MITLER. Your name, sir?
Mr. ROSENFELD. Joe Rosenfeld, Jr.
Mr. MITLER. What is your occupation, Mr. Rosenfeld?
Mr. MITLER. Very briefly, Mr. Rosenfeld, you have
Chairman KEFAUVER. Let's get a little bit more about Mr. Rosenfeld. Big Joe's Happiness Exchange Foundation, Inc. Mr. ROSENFELD. Yes, sir.
Chairman KEFAUVER. Is that the sponsorship of your program? Mr. ROSENFELD. That is the title of the foundation. It is called on radio the Happiness Exchange.
Chairman KEFAUVER. This is a nonprofit tax-exempt foundation. Mr. ROSENFELD. Yes, sir.
Chairman KEFAUVER. Which collects money and gives information for rehabilitation of narcotic addicts and others?
Mr. ROSENFELD. Yes.
Chairman KEFAUVER. I believe you married a girl from Tennessee, is that correct?
Mr. ROSENFELD. Chattanooga. My home is in Tennessee. I was born in Clarksville, Montgomery County.
Chairman KEFAUVER. It is good to have a Tennessean testify here, Senator Langer.
Senator LANGER. Off the record.
Chairman KEFAUVER. All right, we are glad to have you here, Mr. Rosenfeld, particularly with your good Tennessee background. Mr. ROSENFELD. Thank you.
Chairman KEFAUVER. Will you proceed, Mr. Mitler?
Mr. MITLER. What we are particularly interested in is the fact that you have embarked in a personal way in helping many of the people who have been released from Lexington. Would you tell us about what you have done and what the results have been of this project of yours?
Mr. ROSENFELD. I think I can best explain how it happened as well as what has happened. It was through my own association with Alcoholics Anonymous that I felt that narcotic users could be kept free from drugs by the same identical 12 steps.
I have been a member of Alcoholics Anonymous successfully-it will soon be 12 years. We suggested that anyone who had a narcotic
problem come to see us; we might be able to help them. And, in the past 5 years, we have sent over 300 drug addicts to Lexington. We have some who have been free from drugs 2, 3, 4, and 5 years.
Mr. MITLER. Some of them were under 21 years of age? Mr. ROSENFELD. No. We have sent some who were well I have known many. We have not sent any under 21. They may have been 20 or 21.
Mr. MITLER. But you have had contact with those in the under 21. Mr. ROSENFELD. I am in contact with them because their parents bring them in to see me. We have been fairly successful only through a personal rehabilitation program.
I am sure that you gentlemen know the entire situation at Lexington. When you
Mr. MITLER. Would you tell us what happens? What is the work that you do when they leave Lexington?
Mr. ROSENFELD. The work we do first is that we sent them there. My listeners send in contributions to help us help them. We provide them with a railroad ticket. We give them bus fare from the station or taxi fare. We tell them that if they will let us hear from them we will send them $2 or $3 a week commissary. When they come home, if they will get off the train and come directly to my studio, we will provide them with a week's rent, we will provide them with food. We will provide them with clothing, and we will give them a job and give them something to hold on to, which no one else has been able to do.
I have found-and I don't mean-I have had contact with some 800 to a thousand drug addicts, and the only way that I have found is to give that person a confidence in themselves, something that they know you believe in them.
In my opinion it is only a personal thing. A narcotic user is different than an alcoholic. They are different than any other form of addiction or habit, and unless some personal interest is shown in that particular person, their chances are not one in a million, because when they come back many of them as you know get off the train in Cincinnati. They take their first fix in Cincinnati, immediately when they get out. Some of them have people waiting for them when they get off the train in New York, even though they have been there 3 or 4 months.
Chairman KEFAUVER. What do you mean "people"?
Mr. ROSENFELD. Pushers and their friends. They only have $3 when they come back from Lexington. That money is used on the train for food. If it is a woman, she has no place to sleep. Her life has been completely ruined by drugs. She has no friends except narcotic users. She doesn't have a place to go that night. She does not know where she will get money for supper. She is immediately forced either into prostitution or to find the man who had been supplying her with drugs, and she can't stay off drugs.
If it is a man, he has to start stealing immediately, because no one will give him a job. He hasn't worked in from 2 to 10 years. He has no recommendations. He doesn't have anybody to give him a helping hand or to put out a hand and say, "I'm willing to help you."
He doesn't know anyone that is worthwhile, and he just doesn't have the chance, and we have found that the only way that we can
help them—and we have, and I can produce approximately 40 addicts, and their term of using was from 5 to 20 years, but by giving them some decent clothes, giving them decent food, showing a personal interest in them, and giving them something to look forward to, you can help them.
But that in my opinion, and from what experience has been in 5 years and I do feel that I have had sufficient experience to know this; that is the only way that you can rehabilitate a drug addict. Mr. MITLER. In other words, you feel that only part of the job is done at the hospital and that the followup part is essential.
Mr. ROSENFELD. It is more than essential. It is an absolute necessity, and, if I might say, I don't want to fatten my part, but when a person goes to Lexington, if they have used drugs for a year or 2 or 5, 3 months is not sufficient time. It is from the standpoint of being through with the drugs physically, but not mentally. There should be at least 6 months, and the last 3 months should be a mental thing, giving the person a career, or teaching them typing or teaching them bookkeeping or teaching them selling, teaching them something that will be useful to them when they get out, and to have a job for them when they get out-and to have that, you could help instead of 2 percent, you could help 20 to 30 percent. If there were a positive means of that person not having to worry where their next meal is coming from.
Chairman KEFAUVER. What is the discharged addict from Fort Worth given in the way of money, transportation, et cetera ?
Mr. ROSENFELD. $3 and a ticket back to where they came from. Chairman KEFAUVER. And a ticket back to where they came from? Mr. ROSENFELD. Yes, sir.
Chairman KEFAUVER. As far as you know-and I think it is correct-there is no program for finding them employment or giving them supervision or trying to see that they have a new environment, operated by the Federal Government?
Mr. ROSENFELD. I have not heard of it, and no one has ever mentioned it to me, nor has it ever been suggested by any of the addicts that there would be a place for them to go.
Chairman KEFAUVER. Your studio is in New York, and you told what you do for the ones who are discharged from Lexington. Does that apply only to those who come to New York?
Mr. ROSENFELD. No, sir; we have sent addicts from Maine, Connecticut-our station is a 50,000-watt station, and it reaches even into Canada. We have helped one man from Canada. We have helped people in Massachusetts. And I also have sent approximately 150 persons to Riker's Island, which is a voluntary thing in New York, a prison, to which a person, a man-it is for men only-can go to the criminal courts building and admit that he is a narcotic user, and he is sentenced to 30 days cold turkey, without even an aspirin tablet.
I have found when a man, a person is willing to do this, he has a much greater desire-and this is the one thing that I have not heard touched on here nor have I read--unless there is a desire in the person's mind that they do not have it, the law, a penalty of death, nothing can keep an addict off drugs unless the desire to be free is implanted in that person's mind.