ASSOCATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 42 West 44th Street New York, New York 10036 COMMITTEE ON DRUGS AND THE LAW PUBLIC HEARING ON DRUG POLICY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1995 A.M. SESSION BARBARA PAUL ROBINSON, ESQ. President Association of the Bar of the City of New York KATHY H. ROCKLEN, ESQ. Chair 2 1 2 3 P R O C E E D I N G S 4 5 MS. ROBINSON: Good morning everybody 6 and welcome, I am so glad to see you all here, it's 7 really important, important beginning of these 8 hearings on our drug policies and the future of our 9 drug policies. 10 For those of you who don't know me, my 11 name is Barbara Paul Robinson, I am President of 12 this wonderful association and I am delighted to see 13 you here and I know you will be joined today, 14 tomorrow and the next day by many others who will 15 come together to talk about this compelling issue, 16 really one of the most challenging issues of our 17 day. 18 I think it's tremendously appropriate 19 that these hearings are being held here at the house 20 of this association of the bar of the City of New 21 York. 22 It is as a result of a very 23 thoughtful, thorough report that has been published 24 by the association and was written over really a 25 long period of thought and work and really 3 1 2 wonderful, wonderful work by our committee on Drugs 3 and the Law and of course Kathy Rocklen, our chair 4 is here to conduct these hearings. 5 She has been really instrumental in 6 making this happen. 7 As you know, I am sure, that report 8 calls for the decriminalization of drugs. 9 But it more importantly calls for a 10 public dialog as to how to get there from here. How 11 to shape the right kind of policy for our country. 12 Today is a result of just that call 13 and you are really making it happen, so thank you 14 very much. 15 I think many of you know that this 16 year is our association's 125th anniversary year, we 17 are very proud of that, part of the reason we are 18 proud of that is because when the association 19 started, it started because lawyers had the courage 20 to come together to try to reform the problems of 21 their time and in 1870 that was Boss Tweed and 22 Tamany Hall and if you have a chance when you leave 23 this room right across the hall you will see some 24 historical references to that time. 25 Well those lawyers had that courage 4 1 2 and they tackled a very difficult problem of their 3 time and today we are here to try to tackle a really 4 compelling problem of our time. 5 I don't care what your views are about 6 the drug policy, we must all agree that drugs are a 7 major problem of our day. 8 I think that people describe it 9 differently but there really is no disagreement 10 about that. 11 Some call it an academic, they treat 12 it as a public health issue, others call for war 13 against drugs. 14 This is an association of lawyers and 15 so we have called for reason, for analysis, for 16 dialogue. 17 Without hyperbole, without politics, 18 it is the perfect place to have this discussion. 19 Because we really have no axe to grind, we want to 20 find solutions. And you are going to help us to 21 just that. 22 Now, whether you favor 23 decriminalization or not, I think everyone who has 24 thought about this question agrees, that prevention 25 and rehabilitation can work and should work. 5 1 2 I think I mentioned to Kathy that just 3 last week I hope you all saw that statistic that 4 came out in The New York Times, that terrible 5 statistic that one out of every three young black 6 men in this country are either in jail or under 7 police supervision. 8 That is a staggering statistic. We 9 are losing an entire population. 10 It is devastating not only for our 11 current cities and our country but for the future of 12 our culture. 13 So if we all agree that rehabilitation 14 and prevention are key and by the way if you think 15 about what we have achieved on smoking, I would 16 never have believed this house would be a smoke free 17 house. 18 When I first came to meetings here 19 they passed out cigars, of course there weren't too 20 many women at that point, but now there is no 21 smoking in this house. 22 So just think if we can do that with 23 cigarettes, why can't we do it with drugs? 24 And what Kathy's committee's report 25 says is that you need to commit the kind of 6 1 2 resources to that battle, you cannot succeed without 3 those resources. 4 I just want to introduce the program 5 can I just finish then I will turn it over to Kathy 6 because I just wanted to conclude but I thought you 7 you couldn't hear me. 8 Anyway let me just say that without 9 getting into smoking I hope that today's committee's 10 hearings will bring this group together to seek 11 solutions, to build the partnerships that are 12 necessary to achieve them and I would like to 13 especially thank Kathy because really she has been 14 indefatigable in bringing these reports out in 15 making these hearings happen and I know that thanks 16 to all of you we will find some solutions so thank 17 you very much. 18 Thank you, Kathy. 19 MS. ROCKLEN: Thank you, President 20 Robinson. 21 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and 22 honored guests. 23 Thank you for joining us at this 24 public forum organized to explore the subject of 25 drug policy reform. 7 1 2 For the next two and a half days, 3 prosecutors, government representatives, members 4 members of the judiciary and experts on drug policy 5 from the academic world, private foundations and 6 other interested organizations will give us their 7 views on the future direction of our nation's drug 8 policy. 9 As you know, last year the 10 association's committee on drugs and the law 11 published a report entitled a wiser course ending 12 drug prohibition. 13 After ten years of study, the 14 committee concluded that the costs of prohibition 15 are simply too high, and it's benefits too dubious 16 to warrant staying the current course. 17 The consequences of this country's 18 policy of drug prohibition are everywhere. 19 State and Federal Courts are jammed. 20 The principal population is burgeoning and violent 21 turf wars threaten our safety. 22 Civil liberties are being eroded and 23 respect for the law is waning. 24 Quality of urban life has declined and 25 public health is threatened. 8 1 2 There appears to be no basis for the 3 claim that a greater emphasis on enforcement makes a 4 difference. 5 Despite the billions of dollars spent 6 on law enforcement, criminal prosecution and 7 incarcerations, the drug problem rages on. 8 The association believes that patching 9 the current system won't work. 10 Increased attention to treatment and 11 education alone will not be enough to control this 12 country's and indeed the world's drug problem. 13 We must start from scratch with a 14 different perspective and a whole new attitude. 15 Prohibition must go and a new drug 16 policy premised on legalization and regulation must 17 take its place. 18 Failure to recognize this imperative 19 will mean a continuing plunge into violence. 20 The committee's 1994 report concluded 21 with a recall for wider public dialogue on new 22 approaches to drug policy. Including legalization 23 and regulation. 24 These hearings are designed to further 25 that dialogue. 9 1 2 Witnesses have been asked to comment 3 on the committee's report, as well as giving us 4 their views on the effectiveness of present drug 5 enforcement efforts, anti-drug educational programs, 6 drug treatment programs, arm reduction efforts and 7 legalization and decriminilazation proposals. 8 The committee is very pleased with the 9 broad spectrum of views represented at these 10 hearings, as well as the level of public interest in 11 this topic. 12 We are disappointed, however, by the 13 refusal of federal policy makers to participate in 14 this debate. 15 We believe their testimony is 16 absolutely critical to a balanced examination of the 17 competing concerns underlying this nation's drug 18 policy. 19 For that reason, we invite federal 20 policy makers to reconsider our invitation and join 21 us at this week's hearings or at further hearings to 22 be scheduled. 23 The format for these hearings are 24 straightforward. 25 Each witness will have an opportunity 10 1 2 to speak for fifteen minutes following which there 3 will be a question and answer period of equal 4 length. 5 Questions will be taken first from the 6 committee members and then from the audience. 7 The committee member acting as session 8 chair will introduce each speaker, keep track of the 9 time and recognize people with questions. 10 As you can imagine, we have a tight 11 schedule and we will appreciate everyone's 12 cooperation in maintaining that schedule. 13 Copies of the hearing scheduled, the 14 committee report and various papers that have been 15 submitted for these hearings are available right 16 outside the front door. 17 Again, we want to thank you all for 18 participating in these hearings, I also want to give 19 my special thanks to all of the Committee members 20 who have worked so hard to put these hearings 21 together, as well as my secretary, Lawrence Scott, 22 who has been instrumental in making this happen. 23 I am now going to turn the hearings 24 over to this morning's session chair, Ken Brown. 25 Ken. 11 1 2 MR. BROWN: Thank you very much, 3 Kathy. 4 Good morning everyone, thank you for 5 coming, 6 First, before we get started I would 7 like to thank the Court reporting service that's 8 here today, Rayvid Reportinging Service, we have 9 Stephen J. Moore who is reporting. 10 They are doing this pro bono for the 11 association. 12 Our first witness today is Eric 13 Sterling, he is the President of the criminal 14 justice policy foundation, a private not for profit 15 educational organization. 16 Mr. Sterling received his bachelor's 17 of arts in 1973 from Haverford College, majoring in 18 religion and his juris doctorate from from Villanova 19 University school of law in 1976. 20 Mr. Sterling has counsel to the U.S. 21 house of representatives committee on the judiciary 22 from 1979 until 1989. 23 In the 96th Congress he worked on 24 Congress rewriting federal criminal code for the 25 Chairman of the subcommittee my on criminal justice. 12 1 2 Mr. Sterling's opinion is regularly 3 sought by top federal officials, frequently reported 4 in national news media and he has served as an 5 expert witness in federal trials. 6 He frequently lectures in colleges and 7 universities has appeared on many national news 8 shows such as Donahue, Nightline, ABC 20/20, Eye to 9 Eye with Connie Chung, and so forth. 10 He is editor and chief of news brief 11 and the national drug strategy network. 12 Please, everyone welcome Mr. Eric 13 Sterling. 14 MR. STERLING: Ladies and gentlemen, 15 thank you very much for inviting me to address you 16 today. 17 I have brought my prepared statement 18 and there are copies outside for -- and for the 19 committee and as Thomas Jefferson said I'm sorry my 20 letter is so long, if I had more time it would have 21 been shorter. 22 It is lengthy and I apologize for not 23 making it shorter. 24 President Robinson began by discussing 25 the question of this committee's call for a 13 1 2 dialogue. 3 On October 3, U.S. Senator Chuck 4 Grassly in the Desmoine Register said that this 5 discussion of drug legalization is leading to more 6 juvenile drug abuse. 7 That is a red baiting of the worst 8 possible kind. 9 He of course cited the recent data 10 from the monitoring of future survey that shows that 11 marijuana use among teenagers is up, but so is 12 alcohol use and so is tobacco use. 13 And we are talking about tighter 14 controls on those drugs. 15 It is absurd to think that this 16 discussion is leading to a greater drug abuse 17 problem. 18 Prohibition is a failure and we have 19 to discuss ways to replace it, and it's a failure on 20 its own terms. 21 In February 1995, the Peter Heart 22 survey found that the American people would give the 23 federal government a grade of D or F for its work in 24 dealing with the drug problem at a ratio of fifty 25 percent. 14 1 2 Fifty percent of the public would 3 flunk the Federal Government or give them a D. 4 Only six percent of the American 5 public thought the drug abuse problem had gotten 6 better in the last five years. 7 In 1994, in July, the Lew Harris 8 survey for the national treatment consortium, found 9 that seventy-five percent of the American people 10 think that there will be more drug addiction over 11 the next ten years. 12 Prohibition is a failure on its own 13 terms. 14 Prohibition also cannot work as your 15 report points out in many respects. 16 Just briefly, and I traveled to Peru, 17 Columbia, Jamaica, Mexico and Bolivia in 1983 with 18 the house narcotics committee, I saw our efforts at 19 eradication of coke aand marijuana with my own eyes 20 and I can assure you that there isn't any way that I 21 believe that we can stop these very valuable 22 contraband crops from being cultivated by impvovered 23 camacinos in those countries. 24 Interdiction effort cannot succeed. 25 As I point out in my paper the drugs 15 1 2 become much more valuable when they come into the 3 United States and only tiny quantities of drugs 4 given the enormous amount of legitimate 5 international trade are necessary to supply the 6 American public's drug use. 7 On the order of several hundred tons 8 if is the quantity of cocaine or heroin that comes 9 into the country compared to billions of tons. 10 We are simply not going to be able to 11 stop the importation of cocaine, for example which 12 is twice the value of platinium on a dollar per 13 ounce basis. 14 Well can we enforce our way out of 15 that? 16 That's not going to be possible in any 17 realistic manner. 18 As the sentencing project made clear 19 last week, now one in three young blackmails is 20 under the control of the justice system. 21 Ninety percent of those in prison for 22 just possession are African American or Hispanic. 23 This is an effort that is going to if 24 we continue in the direction we are going, to 25 continue to lock up more and more people at an 16 1 2 enormous cost. 3 In the crime bill the President signed 4 last September, $7.9 billion has been authorized for 5 additional principal funding with no sense that 6 that's going to be an adequate amount to fully 7 imprison all of those involved in the use of drugs. 8 And then, of course, we have former 9 drug csar Irving Kaufman's recommendation, let's 10 take the profit out of it through asset forfeiture. 11 The asset forfeiture program of the 12 Federal Government brings in about $700 million a 13 year through Treasury and the Department of Justice 14 at a cost of several hundred million dollars a year 15 to operate. 16 If we are taking $1 billion from the 17 drug traffic customers in a year and if they 18 conservatively are making $20 billion a year, well 19 that five percent of their profits is not going to 20 put them out of business. 21 What we have to do is to replace 22 prohibition with a system of regulation and control. 23 Now, I am going to say that I believe 24 that drug use can be harmful. 25 Sitting here as an advocate of its 17 1 2 what is called legalization, I will concede that 3 drug use can be harmful and that we see the harmful 4 effects of drug use thought our society. 5 But I challenge those who would say we 6 must maintain prohibition, to concede that drug use 7 can be beneficial. 8 It certainly -- drugs are beneficial 9 as medicine, the government's cowardly and 10 scandalous refusal to make marijuana available for 11 people who are sick and dying is a moral abomination 12 in the name of politics. 13 But we should also recognize that drug 14 use is valuable for its recreational and it's 15 religious purposes. 16 I was fortunate in working with the 17 native American people in the passage of the 18 American Indian religious freedom act amendments of 19 1994 and the religious freedom restoration act of 20 1993. 21 Your report talked about the right to 22 alter consciousness and I discuss in your paper the 23 dissenters critique arguing that drug abuse is not a 24 right. 25 In this debate we have to begin to 18 1 2 stop using terms like drug abuse as the only way to 3 characterize drug use. 4 One must -- to say that there is no 5 such thing as drug use but all drug use is drug 6 abuse is to say that the term drug abuse itself is a 7 meaningless term. 8 It strips it of meaning if we apply it 9 to all circumstances and I think that that kind of 10 abusive language is inappropriate in a report of the 11 Bar Association. 12 There are principles that I think we 13 need to hold as we think about how to replace 14 business with a controlled regulated system. 15 Let me just highlight those 16 principles. 17 The first is to remember that drug 18 laws and drug policy should help people not hurt 19 them. 20 That's the whole purpose, is to help 21 people. 22 If our laws are hurting more people 23 than they are helping, that's a sign that they are 24 not working well. 25 The relief of pain is one of the 19 1 2 oldest of our medical traditions and heroin can be 3 used as effective pain relief by people who do not 4 get relief from Dilotive and other drugs. 5 That is not to say that heroin is a 6 good drug or that it's better than another drug, 7 it's to recognize the idiosyncratic nature of pain 8 relief and analgesic. 9 Canada joined the United Kingdom in 10 the 1980's to allow heroin to be used in pain relief 11 and it's scandalous for political reasons the 12 Congress in 1984 rejected legislation that the house 13 commerce committee sent forward to correct that 14 problem here on an experimental basis. 15 Second, we should adopt a public 16 health approach toward all drugs and drug users. 17 A public health approach is a way to 18 deal with the problems of drug abuse, rather than 19 simply criminalizing issues. 20 That recognizes then that alcohol and 21 tobacco are intrinsic parts of what our drug 22 discussion ought to be about. 23 I think as a point that we must be 24 comprehensive. 25 That treatment professionals recognize 20 1 2 there is cross addiction between tobacco, alcohol, 3 heroin, marijuana and other drugs. 4 That there is a relationship, there is 5 polydrug use and that the legal lines that we have 6 defined on such a political and arbitrary basis 7 don't make sense in medicine or in public health. 8 This requires that we look at our drug 9 abuse prevention programs on a more comprehensive 10 basis. 11 Prevention programs are critically 12 important, but for political reasons we should not 13 pour our treasury into programs that don't work 14 because we like the police. 15 The drug abuse resistance education 16 program at $700 million a year, $400 million of that 17 being federal money, is a waste when the evaluators 18 from the research trial institute and the national 19 institute of justice contract find it does not work, 20 it is ineffective. 21 That the students who complete the 22 DARE program are no more likely to be drug free 23 afterwards than controls who did not use the 24 program. 25 Third, we must insist upon drug and 21 1 2 alcohol user accountability and responsibility. 3 People who use drugs must be 4 responsible for what they do. 5 There is nothing controversial about 6 that. 7 So, drug and alchohol use should not 8 be an excuse for criminal conduct or for negligent 9 conduct. 10 People who are convicted of predatory 11 crimes, robbers and rapists, assaulters and burglers 12 they should be drug and alcohol abstinent while on 13 probation and parole. 14 Those are not radical ideas but there 15 is a system of regulation and control and those who 16 would suggest that legalizers are thought concerned 17 about that are engaged I think simply in name 18 calling. 19 Fourth of course we should insist that 20 vendors are responsible and accountable. 21 So that violence, corruption, product 22 adulteration, tax evasion, antitrust evasion, 23 antitrust violations by drug and alcohol and tobacco 24 companies should be investigated and punished and 25 the distribution of these compounds should be 22 1 2 policed in a way to protect the public health. 3 Convicted criminals cannot sell 4 alcohol now under Federal Law, they shouldn't be 5 allowed to sell drugs as well. 6 Fifth, we want to maximize the reach 7 of law and respect for the law. 8 We want to maximize the power of the 9 law in our society, and prohibition does the 10 opposite. 11 It guarantees that one of the largest 12 industries in America operates completely outside 13 law. 14 Our current law, somebody who wants to 15 stay out of the criminal subculture that supplies 16 drugs, for example, marijuana, who wants to grow 17 their own marijuana, becomes a felon, moving up to 18 the misdemeanor status of simply being a possesor. 19 It makes no sense to penalize more 20 harshly people who want to withdraw from the 21 criminal traffic that now exists. 22 Marijuana cultivation should be for 23 personal use should be a misdemeanor or a non 24 offense all together. 25 That's something we can do under 23 1 2 current law. 3 Sixth, as we think about all of this 4 in thinking about our priorities, we should set 5 achievable social goals. 6 This is 1995, in 1988 Congress passed 7 a law saying America was going to be drug free in 8 1995. 9 I helped write that law and like many 10 of the things I helped write, it's absurd it's based 11 on politics and it's not based upon achievable 12 social goals. 13 So, an achievable social goal would be 14 reducing the spread of HIV. 15 Cutting down the number of cases of 16 AIDS and hepatitis and other diseases. 17 So needles ought to be available for 18 adicts, that is common sense. 19 So we need to take the political 20 aspect that prevents us from looking at realistic 21 goals. 22 I have in my paper a number of 23 discussion suggestions for what we ought to do in 24 focusing domestic law enforcement in other areas to 25 deal with the question of how to achieve realizable 24 1 2 social goals. 3 In the short term, until we have an 4 effective and regulated system in place, I think the 5 U.S. treasury and U.S. justice's departments need to 6 increase their emphasis on international law 7 enforcement. 8 Probably the largest least corrupt law 9 enforcement agency in the world is the Federal Law 10 enforcement establishment. 11 And yet we know that there are 12 billions of dollars in illegal funds being moved 13 around the world and that is an appropriate area for 14 law enforcement. 15 Yet when you look at the outcomes of 16 the federal criminal establishment, fifty-five 17 percent of those going to prison for federal 18 offenses are street level dealers, body guides, 19 mules and couriers and only 11.2 percent are high 20 level traffic customers, that is a mistake, it is a 21 waste of our resources, even if we keep the current 22 approach. 23 Of course we need to raise revenue and 24 that's an important social goal. 25 Alcohol taxation generates at the 25 1 2 federal, state and local level $12 billion in 1989, 3 federal and state tobacco taxes raised $11 billion 4 in fiscal year 1992. 5 My estimate is that marijuana taxation 6 could generate $10 to $20 billion a year federal, 7 state and local if we were to do that. 8 I have a proposal in the back of my 9 paper which is on Page 51 which is a mock U.S. 10 treasury marijuana license. 11 The idea is that we have to develop a 12 policed and regulated form of dealing with these 13 drugs. 14 So let me move then quickly to some of 15 the specifics. 16 Like Doctor Mark Kleinman at the 17 Kennedy School I suggest that we use drug use 18 licenses as an interim measure. 19 He proposes alcohol use licenses and I 20 think that that has some merit as well. 21 Because I think in part what we want 22 to do is to change our cultural attitude to become 23 more sober about drug use all together. 24 I part company with the ACLU and argue 25 that we ought to stop the advertising of alcohol and 26 1 2 tobacco. 3 When six year olds recognize Joe Camel 4 as readily as they recognize Micky Mouse, that 5 testifies to the way in which tobacco advertising 6 more than $5 billion per year has penetrated the 7 young. 8 In a drug use license situation if you 9 think about alcohol use licenses -- am I out of 10 time? 11 MR. BROWN: Getting close. 12 MR. STERLING: Can I have two minutes? 13 MR. BROWN: Two minutes. 14 MR. STERLING: With alcohol use 15 license, ask yourself where do people learn how much 16 alcohol they can consume before it affects their 17 ability to drive. 18 The answer is they learn that behind 19 the wheel of their car. 20 What I would suggest is that people 21 who want to consume alcohol as part of it would be 22 that they would sit in a automobile simulator and 23 have measured amounts of alcohol and learn with 24 computer printouts and so on exactly how it affects 25 them, because people have different ideosyncratic 27 1 2 effects, to simply effect blood alcohol level and 3 talk about rough guidelines of so many so many 4 drinks per hour is an inadequate way. 5 I suggest we begin to look at 6 impairment from a measured sense I propose what I 7 call vehicle operating impairment levels in my 8 paper. 9 That standard levels for impairment be 10 established for individuals. 11 That if you are stopped and suspected 12 of being impaired you would be measured against your 13 own base line measure of impairment. 14 I think that we need to have what are 15 called wet shelters, that we have to recognize, I 16 will conclude in this sense, that in looking at 17 addiction and drug use, whatever we do there is 18 going to be a drug problem. 19 There is a scope and a range of self 20 control and behavior about addicts that our thinking 21 about drug addiction is highly stereotyped. 22 In the book Shooting Dope by Charles 23 Falpo he points out the different kinds of careers 24 that addicts have and he points out the different 25 ways in which they are involved in their drug use. 28 1 2 We have to tailor a system of 3 regulated drug distribution that is coupled with 4 interventions in order to deal with the different 5 classes of addiction use so I would suggest even 6 while we have many shelters that require you to be 7 drug free or to be abstinent run by churches, for 8 example that we also recognize inebriates need a 9 place they can pass out and not be at risk of being 10 mugged and preyed upon and not be disorderly in the 11 public streets the way James Q. Wilson talked about 12 in Broken Windows. 13 So, just to simply say there are a 14 whole range of approaches that we have to begin to 15 talk about to replace prohibition and that is the 16 challenge that it has. 17 There is no simple answer and we are 18 going to be proposing ideas which are going to be 19 very radical and challenging and offensive and 20 people are going to take offense at these ideas. 21 Yet we have to overcome that offense 22 if we are going to come up with effective solutions 23 to this problem. 24 Thank you very much. 25 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Sterling. 29 1 2 First I would like to take some 3 questions from the panel. 4 Does anyone have questions for Mr. 5 Sterling. 6 Starting with Eleanor Jackson *Peale. 7 MS. PEALE: Yes, I have a question. I 8 was impressed with what you had to say, however how 9 do you deal with the perception, particularly in the 10 black community, that drugs are wrong and laws are 11 made to enforce public perception of what is wrong? 12 How do you deal with that? 13 MR. STERLING: Mrs. Peale, when you 14 say drugs are wrong, you mean drug use is wrong, 15 drug use is immoral? 16 MS. PEALE: Yes, thank you for 17 defining what I meant. 18 MR. STERLING: I just wanted to 19 clarify. 20 It is perfectly legitimate for a 21 person to believe that drug use is immoral. 22 Many seventh day adventists and many 23 mormons believe that to use drugs is to profane the 24 body which is a temple of the holy spirit. 25 However to begin to pass laws to carry 30 1 2 out that religious dogma constitutes in some sense 3 an establishment of religion. 4 It also undermines religion. 5 For a church to say our teaching is so 6 we can, our doctrine is so flabby we have to rely 7 upon the policemen to enforce our doctrine is to say 8 we have a rather pale religion and our belief is not 9 very strong. 10 It is not the job of the state to 11 enforce the broad range of religious beliefs that we 12 have in 1965 there were laws in many states, 13 Connecticut, Massachusetts among them that said that 14 it's illegal to sell contraceptives to anyone, even 15 to a married couple. 16 In Griswald versus Connecticut, the 17 Supreme Court decided quite strongly even though 18 there is a strong moral sense that we would want to 19 prevent -- we want to enforce a kind of church 20 related doctrine concerning conception or we don't 21 want unmarried persons to engage in sex and we might 22 want them to be punished by disease or by unwanted 23 pregnancy in some sense, the Court recognized that 24 was not a sufficient basis for barring individuals 25 from making choices in this area. 31 1 2 The Court even talked about a penumbra 3 of First Amendment rights that include privacy in 4 that kind of situation. 5 What one has to say I think to the 6 African American community is that it is perfectly 7 okay for a mother and father to tell their children 8 that drug use is wrong and immoral and that it's 9 appropriate for churchs to teach that, but it's also 10 appropriate to point out that prohibition is 11 immoral. 12 That prohibition is immoral by 13 offering to African America youth who have 14 inadequate economic opportunities the opportunity of 15 selling drugs. 16 William Adler in his excellent book 17 about the Chambers crack cocaine gang a book called 18 Land of Opportunity which I commend to the 19 committee, Land of Opportunity was the story of poor 20 black share croppers from Arkansas who moved to 21 Detroit to the land of opportunity just at the time 22 the American auto industry goes down the toilet. 23 The Chambers brothers built a crack 24 cocaine organization involving hundreds of crack 25 houses and they only lasted for a couple of years. 32 1 2 But in their eyes and in the eyes of 3 the children they went to school with in Arkansas, 4 this was the glorious opportunity. 5 Prohibition is immoral. Prohibition, 6 if I can just conclude on the one point about this, 7 the essence of prohibition enforcement is that I 8 will, as a government agent, unbeknownst to you, 9 seek your trust in order to betray it. 10 The essence of prohibition enforcement 11 is to win the trust of citizens in order to betray 12 that trust. 13 That is immoral. 14 And prohibition is immoral in its 15 application and in its effects. 16 MR. BROWN: Another question, Mr. 17 Doyle? 18 MR. DOYLE: One question, Mr. Sterling 19 MR. BROWN: I would just ask to try to 20 make the questions and the answers as brief as 21 possible. 22 MR. STERLING: I'm sorry, Mr. Brown. 23 MR. DOYLE: Give us as specifically as 24 you can your model for regulation and whether it 25 would cover sale to minors and sale of crack. 33 1 2 THE WITNESS: I would not allow sale 3 to minors just as as I think enforcement and I 4 propose, for example, how I think juvenile drug 5 enforcement needs to be stepped up in the juvenile 6 section in the back of my paper. 7 We don't have to answer the question 8 of crack now. I am not in favor of it at this time. 9 It's important as we think about this 10 that we do not have to put forward a complete model 11 that handles all particulars. 12 That, it's in fact critically 13 important that we experiment. 14 Daniel Benjamin and Roger Leroy Miller 15 in their book Undoing Drugs, suggest the value of 16 state experimentation in different ways of looking 17 at this. 18 Fortunately what's happening in 19 Switzerland and in Europe begins to allow us some 20 insight into what some of these experiments might 21 show. 22 That's my answer. 23 MR. BROWN: All right, thank you, 24 thank you Mr. Doyle. 25 Kathy? 34 1 2 MS. ROCKLEN: I would like to follow 3 up on John's question, because this is an issue that 4 the committee has struggle with quite a bit, which 5 is to say the subject of drug ingestion by minors 6 and by pregnant women. 7 I think it's fair to say the committee 8 is unanimous in its view that it cannot countenance 9 that kind of use. 10 The problem that that brings up for us 11 is that it still leaves an opportunity for illegal 12 sale of drugs which is one of the principal focuses 13 of our recommendations for decriminalization. 14 We recognize that there is no approach 15 for managing the drug problem that is a panacea, but 16 my question is do you have any ideas on how we would 17 deal with the minor problem and pregnant women as 18 well? 19 THE WITNESS: The first thing to sort 20 of recognize is that the objection is a bit of a red 21 herring. 22 To say that your approach is not going 23 to end the evils of prohibition because minors are 24 still going to get drugs misstates the approach, 25 which is to minimize harm and minimize the size of 35 1 2 criminal organizations. 3 Minors are a tiny fraction of the 4 total consumption of drugs at the current time. 5 If we are effective in eliminating 6 the -- by substituting -- if adult consumption 7 becomes legal and regulated, that becomes a 8 tremendous shrinking of the criminal organization, 9 that is progress. 10 If we cut the criminal market in half, 11 that is progress. 12 I mean it is not -- we don't have to 13 come up with one hundred percent elimination of 14 organized crime in order to satisfy somebody that 15 this is an improvement. 16 Minors involve a tiny, tiny fraction 17 of consumption. 18 In terms of how does one enforce 19 against minors and I suggest that when you have 20 instances of -- two things, A, I think that we think 21 about how dosage controls would have bar codes and 22 codes that would be assigned to consumers. 23 That you become responsible for the 24 drugs that are issued to you. 25 That that becomes a part of user 36 1 2 accountability and if drugs that are issued to you 3 get into the hands of minors, you are responsible 4 for explaining how that might have happened. 5 That we need to investigate these 6 kinds of matters much more effectively and I suggest 7 that in the juvenile portion of my paper. 8 MS. ROCKLEN: I just add one other 9 thought, which doesn't answer the question but maybe 10 helps answer our own question, I think that one of 11 the things we have emphasized is that by removing or 12 reallocating resources away from enforcement and 13 toward education and treatment, that that hopefully 14 will go a long way toward helping giving useful 15 guidance to minors. 16 I just have one housekeeping thing 17 before we turn back which is would every speaker see 18 me just for a moment after they are through. 19 I'm sorry, Ken. 20 MR. BROWN: We may have time for a 21 couple of more questions. Let me check with the 22 panel first. 23 Mr. Knapp, do you have a question? 24 MR. KNAPP: Just one, I will make it 25 brief. 37 1 2 Thank you. 3 Mr. Sterling, you were involved as you 4 said in federal regulations and legislation which 5 sought to declare by 1995 America would be drug 6 free, as you testified. 7 As a practical matter, I take it, that 8 one of the things you are suggesting is to remove 9 the Federal Government from the criminal law 10 process, set it back on to the states for state 11 experimentation, each state could be free to go its 12 own way. 13 What, if you would comment, as a 14 practical matter, how would you go about removing 15 the Federal Government from the criminal law aspects 16 of drug policy, other than, perhaps, following the 17 admonition of the former Vermont Senator who said 18 about the Vietnam war, let's declare victory and get 19 out, 1995 we said we would have a drug free America 20 so it's 1995, short of that, how do you recommend or 21 what would you do to remove the Federal Government's 22 arm? 23 MR. STERLING: To remove the Federal 24 Government is a suggestion of Benjamin and Miller, 25 that's not my suggestion, I don't think that that's 38 1 2 what we ought to do. 3 There is a -- I think there will 4 continue to be an urgent need for drug enforcement 5 in order to enforce the regulatory scheme, we have a 6 Securities and Exchange Commission, we have a whole 7 host of appropriate federal regulation of legal 8 kinds of industries and this is one where I think 9 there is an appropriate federal {roll|role} as well. 10 There will certainly be controls that 11 the customs service will have to bring concerning 12 importation. 13 My proposed mock license is a federal 14 license at the back of my paper. 15 MR. KNAPP: Thank you. 16 MR. BROWN: One question from the 17 panel by Mr. Salamon. 18 MR. SALOMON: Good morning. 19 MR. STERLING: Good morning. 20 MR. SALOMON: My question is simply 21 this, it addresses the last point that you made in 22 your testimony, which is to advance the dialogue on 23 the alternatives to prohibition. 24 How in the federal arena do you 25 propose to do so? 39 1 2 Other than by exercising your first 3 amendment rights to speak at forums such as this? 4 MR. STERLING: Mr. Salomon, is this 5 something that we can start debating on the floor of 6 the House of Representatives, is that the question? 7 MR. SALOMON: To eventually get there. 8 MR. STERLING: You are asking me then 9 a political question and the answer is the political 10 strategy is both for distinguished and responsible 11 groups like this association to continue the kind of 12 work that it's doing. 13 For groups like the drug policy 14 foundation and the Lindesman Center to do the work 15 that they do for NORML and for other groups that 16 they do, to do the work that they do. 17 It is a matter of continuing the 18 debate. 19 Congress listens to what's going on. 20 They don't like the debate because 21 they don't -- they don't like the debate, but the 22 point is that the public -- they are aware of it, 23 they are keenly aware of it. 24 The federal government has spent a lot 25 of money now to try to stop the legalization debate 40 1 2 by having a conference condemning legalization last 3 May in Atlanta and publishing booklets on how to 4 debate the legalizers. 5 From this state, Congress Jerry 6 Solomon the Chairman of the rules committee has 7 proposed that the tax exempt status of educational 8 organizations such as the drug policy foundation be 9 eliminated because they foster this kind of debate, 10 that's an unconstitutional proposal, but it gives 11 you a sense of how afraid they are. 12 In 1988 aside from declaring the 13 United States would be drug free in 1995, Congress 14 in two different places passed laws saying that the 15 discussion of legalization should be rejected. 16 This was in the anti-drug abuse act of 17 1988. 18 If Congress was passing the Navy 19 appropriation, they did not include language that 20 said it shall be forbidden to discuss or consider 21 the idea the earth is flat. 22 In the NASA appropriation they don't 23 say nobody shall discuss whether or not there are 24 UFO's or the moon is made of green cheese, because 25 those are not seriously powerful ideas. 41 1 2 The reason that Congress is 3 legislating against this is because it is a very 4 powerful idea and members of Congress are still very 5 afraid of this. 6 This is perhaps one of those third 7 rails of the political discussion right now, and it 8 will change, it will change as this kind of debate 9 takes place and I appreciate the opportunity to be 10 able to participate in it in this august forum. 11 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Sterling. 12 I would like to take a couple of 13 questions from the audience, the lady in the back 14 please if you could come to where the microphone is 15 and have it handed back to you. 16 THE AUDIENCE: I have two questions, I 17 am just a member of the general public. 18 Has anyone tried to get approval for 19 having heroin tested through the FDA or marijuana 20 tested through the FDA that it can be approved as a 21 drug for distribution on the same basis as any other 22 drug and the second question is alcohol can be 23 abused. 24 Why are we allowing the tax 25 deductability of alcohol for business if people want 42 1 2 to use it they can use it, but I don't think that it 3 should be tax deductible and I think that should be 4 retroactive for the last ten years. 5 MR. STERLING: Perhaps the way I could 6 respond to those questions is first I am not aware 7 of particular manufacturers attempting to bring 8 marijuana or heroin to the FDA. 9 There are research efforts underway to 10 test the efficacy and safety of marijuana in 11 different ways. 12 The multi disciplinary association for 13 psychadelic studies has financed some of those 14 research efforts and there may be discussion of that 15 later in the hearing. 16 With respect to your idea about 17 alcohol taxation, I think having suggested that to 18 this committee is worthwhile. 19 I don't know that I could be the best 20 person to comment on it. 21 MR. BROWN: One more question from the 22 audience the gentleman here in the front row. 23 THE AUDIENCE: Eric, you suggested 24 that for legal purposes driving impairment should be 25 measured with respect to one's unimpaired base line 43 1 2 performance. 3 Given that there are great disparities 4 in driving ability ordinarily and that there are 5 some people who can drive drunk better than some 6 other people driving sober, would it not be better 7 to measure absolute driving ability rather than 8 impairment? 9 THE WITNESS: That's a very good point 10 and I in my paper raise both of those as 11 hypotheticals and one of the questions that I had 12 was -- that everything not everything is good for 13 debate, rather than addressing everything 14 specifically and take a lot of time on it, you have 15 raised a very good question and it's one that this 16 committee and the public should continue to study 17 about how impairment testing should, in fact, be 18 set. 19 Whether on an individual base line or 20 on a kind of lowest common denominator basis. 21 MR. BROWN: Thank you very much. 22 We have no more time for questions 23 from audiences, thank you very much for coming today 24 Mr. Sterling, we appreciate your testimony. 25 MR. STERLING: Thank you, I have left 44 1 2 a few copies of my newsletter, news briefs outside 3 and I believe I have given copies to the committee. 4 And of a copy of my paper to the 5 Colorado Bar Association on the Bill of Rights. 6 Thank you very much. 7 MS. ROCKLEN: For those of you 8 standing in the back there are chairs available in 9 the front if you will like to see. 10 MR. BROWN: This morning there is 11 going to be a change in the program. 12 We had scheduled Robert Morgenthau to 13 be the first witness this morning, he was unable to 14 attend so Mr. Sterling who was the last speaker in 15 this morning's session was substituted and I 16 appreciate Mr. Sterling's willingness to do that. 17 We have now Mr. Mark Dwyer who is 18 appearing on behalf of Mr. Morgenthau, so all the 19 witnesses that were scheduled for certain time slips 20 we are just going to move you one-half hour forward 21 so that the 10:00 person will be at 10:30 and so 22 forth. 23 Does anybody have a problem with that 24 who is here now as a witness? 25 I hope not because we will just try to 45 1 2 be flexible with this and go with the next witness. 3 I would like to introduce Mr. Mark 4 Dwyer, he is the chief appeals bureau Assistant 5 District Attorney of the District Attorney's office 6 of Manhattan. 7 He's a long time member of the 8 District Attorney's office he went to Yale Law 9 School and clerked for now chief Judge Platt of the 10 Eastern District of New York. 11 Let's have a warm welcome for Mr. 12 Dwyer. 13 MR. DWYER: Thank you very much, first 14 of all Mr. Morgenthau apologizes for not being here, 15 I am sure you would -- I am sure you would much 16 rather hear from him in person I will ask if you 17 could to suspend imagination and imagine a silver 18 haired patrician respectable looking gentleman 19 reading their remarks, they are first person remarks 20 and I can guarantee you they do represent his views. 21 Thank you for the opportunity to share 22 my views with this morning on the future of our 23 nation's drug policy. 24 In particular the suggestion that 25 drugs should be legalized. 46 1 2 Let me begin by stating the obvious. 3 The illegal drug trade is wreaking 4 havoc in our city. 5 Each day's headlines write news of 6 gratuitous violence and unspeakable depravity. 7 For many citizens, domestic 8 tranquility has become a forgotten ideal. 9 I am convinced that legalizing drugs 10 will only aggravate these ills. 11 The answer to the drug problem is not 12 to legalize drugs but to enforce the laws that our 13 legislature has enacted against them. 14 Making narcotics cheaper and more 15 accessible, for that is what legalization 16 necessarily means, is a blueprint for social 17 catastrophe, it is a solution that promises more 18 malformed babies, more abused children, more 19 homeless persons wandering our streets and more 20 human misery. 21 Simply stated, it is no solution at 22 all. 23 When I became district attorney of New 24 York County in 1985, it was fashionable to consider 25 drug abuse a victimless crime. 47 1 2 The past twenty years have taught us 3 the folly of that view. 4 Drugs are not a victimless crime, but 5 a national pestilence. 6 Illegal drug use is a major cause of 7 infant fatalities and birth defects. 8 A 1991 study projects that more than 9 72,000 crack exposed babies will be born in New York 10 City by the end of this decade, requiring almost $2 11 billion in neonatal, special education and foster 12 care expenditures. 13 Drugs are also a prime cause of crime. 14 In Manhattan for the first six months 15 of 1995, eighty-four percent of the male and 16 eighty-seven percent of the female booked arrestees 17 tested positive for illegal drug use. 18 Seventy-three percent of the males and 19 seventy-four percent of the females tested positive 20 for cocaine. 21 These statistics debunk the notion 22 that anti-drug laws spawn more violence and crime 23 than drugs themselves. 24 Obviously some users commit crimes to 25 support their habits and while drug gangs do fight 48 1 2 over turf those crimes tell only a small part of the 3 story. 4 A far greater percentage of drug 5 crimes are caused by the effect of drugs on users. 6 It is drug use that fuels anti-social 7 behavior, not drug laws. 8 And drugs are a major contributing 9 factor in child abuse cases. 10 In three-quarters of such cases in our 11 city, one or both parents is addicted to drugs. 12 It is also shocking that the primary 13 cause of death for infants up to one year old is 14 homicide. Mostly by care givers. 15 Each week assistance in my family 16 crimes bureau receive reports of attacks on children 17 by their parents, child abuse and drugs go hand in 18 hand. 19 I am sure everyone here remembers the 20 case of Joel Steinberg and the atrocities he 21 inflicted upon his six year old girl Lisa. 22 A search of Steinberg's arrest 23 uncovered, cocaine, heroin and marijuana, as well as 24 a ether, a substance used in free basing cocaine, 25 not long after the Steinberg case my office 49 1 2 prosecuted an eighteen year old man who had raped 3 his one month old daughter after smoking crack 4 cocaine. 5 More recently a three year old baby 6 fell from its death from the window of a fifth floor 7 apartment, the parents rushing to make a midnight 8 crack purchase left the toddler alone in the 9 apartment with the window open. 10 The message from these and thousands 11 of cases like them are clear, drug addicts are 12 slaves to their next high, everything but the next 13 score is meaningless. 14 As Plato observed, far too great 15 liberty seems to change into nothing else than too 16 great slavery. 17 As for those who bemoan the cost of 18 fighting drugs in our country, look at the numbers. 19 Only $14 million has been requested in 20 the administration's budget to battle illegal drugs 21 next year, this is not a meaningful commitment. 22 Those who disagree fail to consider 23 the very real economic and social cost of drug use 24 in this country, costs that could be avoided with 25 the reduction of drug use. 50 1 2 Health care costs directly 3 attributable to illegal drugs exceed $30 billion 4 annually. 5 Given that each year roughly 500,000 6 newborns are expose exposed to illegal drugs in the 7 womb, this should come as no surprise. 8 Additionally, seventy percent of drug 9 users who work full or part-time and they experience 10 300 percent higher medical and benefits costs than 11 do drug free workers. 12 In 1991, lost productivity due to 13 illegal drugs totaled $50 billion. 14 Given these alarming statistics, how 15 can it possibly be said that we cannot afford to 16 wage war on illegal drugs? 17 The truth is just the opposite, we 18 cannot afford not to. 19 In the long run, I have no doubt that 20 the answer to the drug epidemic lies in educating 21 our children to the ills of illegal drugs and 22 offering them a future more promising and less 23 ephemoral than the euphoria of a crack high. 24 Education, however, is a slow process. 25 In the meantime, we require resources. 51 1 2 Resources for more police officers, 3 prosecutors and judges, more work camps and 4 treatment facilities. 5 The explosion of the prison population 6 is directly related to the lack of treatment 7 facilities, technically in prison. 8 Although sixty percent of all state 9 inmates have used illegal drugs regularly and thirty 10 percent were under the influence of drugs at the 11 time they committed the crime, fewer than twenty 12 percent of inmates with drug problems received any 13 treatment. 14 The solution to this problem, however, 15 is not to legalize drugs to achieve a short term 16 respite, rather we should use the criminal justice 17 system to force users into treatment. 18 I applaud the new sentencing 19 legislation in New York State that offers drug 20 treatment as an alternative to incarceration for 21 certain eligible Defendants. 22 Because of the nature of drug 23 addiction, few drug abusers seek treatment 24 themselves but many respond to the threat of jail. 25 When the criminal justice system is 52 1 2 used to encourage participation in treatment, 3 addicts are more likely to complete treatment and 4 stay off drugs. 5 I have addressed some of the tangible 6 consequences of decriminalization in my remarks 7 today, but I would like to end my remarks by 8 emphasizing one intangible but critical consequence, 9 decriminalization would send the message to our poor 10 and underprivileged, those most affected by our drug 11 epidemic that we don't care about you, your 12 communities or your children. 13 My experience in speaking with the 14 residents of various neighborhoods in New York have 15 underscored this point. 16 In fact, not too long ago, during an 17 East Harlem community meeting, a mother from the 18 neighborhood echoed this sentiment precisely. 19 When the subject of drug 20 decriminilazation arose, the mother asked, how can 21 you talk about making drugs legal? 22 How am I supposed to keep telling my 23 kids to study in school and stay away from drugs if 24 you go ahead and legalize them? 25 Why should my kids listen me when I 53 1 2 tell them drugs are bad if the government is saying 3 don't listen to your mother, drugs are okay. 4 That woman hit the nail on the head. 5 Law in a democratic society is 6 supposed to have a moral authority to send a message 7 that certain behavior is deserving of societal 8 punishment. 9 In the 1960's we passed civil rights 10 legislation, not only to affect legal change but 11 also to give notice that certain conduct is morally 12 unacceptable. 13 Recently we have been delivering the 14 same message through sexual harassment and hate 15 crime laws, likewise the law should support, not 16 undermine this mother and the millions of parents 17 like her. 18 It should help her send the right 19 message to her children, drugs are bad, they kill 20 and destroy lives. 21 At its core the legalization debate 22 raises critical questions about who we are as a 23 people, what values we embody and to what extent the 24 decisions we make today will reflect the needs of 25 our children. 54 1 2 Like racism, poverty, environmental 3 pollution and other intransigent social tragedies, 4 we have co-existed with rampant drug abuse without a 5 ready cure in sight yet we have never given up, nor 6 now with so much at stake should we resign ourselves 7 to passively accepting the chemical enslavement of a 8 generation of our people. 9 Such a posture would be heartless, 10 tantamount to consigning millions of parents and 11 children, scores of neighborhoods and communities to 12 a life of despair and disease. 13 Legalization would abandon whole 14 classes of Americans who suffer most from addiction, 15 specifically the young and the underprivileged. 16 We are all affected by the 17 consequences of drug abuse and addiction. 18 Because the costs are so high, the 19 problems so great and the damage so oftentimes self 20 inflicted the temptation to wash our hands of it is 21 tremendous, but because we live in a compassionate 22 and humane society our resolve to debate and defeat 23 drugs must be greater. 24 Still the solution to the drug problem 25 is not to stop fighting but instead to fight harder 55 1 2 and more creatively, there is too much at stake for 3 us to turn and walk away. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Dwyer. 6 I am sure we have lots of questions 7 from the audience and from the panel for you. 8 I have one question from myself before 9 we go forward with any questions from the panel. 10 Do you know what percentages of the 11 drug cases that your office prosecutes are either 12 sale of marijuana cases or possession of marijuana 13 cases? 14 MR. DWYER: I don't have the 15 statistics on that. 16 MR. BROWN: Do you know the gross 17 numbers? 18 MR. DWYER: It's very small. 19 The percentage of cases, certainly 20 felony cases that involve marijuana. 21 MR. DWYER: Are you talking 22 prosecutions or arrests? 23 MR. DWYER: Prosecutions. 24 MR. BROWN: Do you know the number of 25 arrests? 56 1 2 MR. DWYER: No, I'm sorry, I do not. 3 Let me emphasize I am standing in at 4 the last minute for Mr. Morgenthau and therefore a 5 number of these questions questions involving 6 statistics I am just not going to be able to handle 7 for you, I apologize. 8 MR. BROWN: With that in mind and not 9 pressing you on that subject, let me see if I can 10 get some questions from the panel. 11 Eleanor? 12 MS. PEALE: I was overwhelmed by your 13 description of the horrors -- I was overwhelmed by 14 your description of the statistics of what drugs do 15 to crack babies, what they do to people and the 16 horrors of drug addiction. 17 My concern is since we have, as I 18 understand it, spent something like $100 billion in 19 the drug war since the twenties in trying to stop 20 drug abuse and all we have gotten is an increase in 21 the use, how does making drugs illegal help these 22 people who you have described are in such terrible 23 trouble and in our society? 24 MR. DWYER: Obviously those people who 25 have been addicted despite our efforts have not been 57 1 2 helped. 3 It's the people who are not able to 4 become addicted because the enforcement measures 5 have had some success that are being helped. 6 And it's the people who will become 7 addicted if we aren't more creative and spend enough 8 resources to make sure addiction decreases in the 9 future, it is the people who will become addicted 10 and their children who will suffer in the future. 11 Legalization would result in no 12 efforts to stop addiction and obviously no help at 13 all to anyone who might and their children, who 14 might become addicted. 15 MS. PEALE: This doesn't answer the 16 problem that I keep hearing that many addicts in 17 order to maintain their habit go out and solicit 18 more candidates for the use of the drugs. 19 I fail to see how we are being 20 creative when we create more prisons and have 21 prisons and have more prosecutions. 22 MR. DWYER: I think as Mr. Morgenthau 23 emphasizes in his remarks, we have to be creative in 24 not just sending people to prison, but in addition 25 to treating them and in educating children so the 58 1 2 future addicts decide not to become addicted. 3 MS. PEALE: Thank you. 4 MR. BROWN: Mr. Doyle. 5 MR. DOYLE: Mr. Dwyer, the committee 6 has been very concerned about resources and we all 7 agree I think there is a common ground of concern 8 about violence in the City cities. 9 The other concern is static or 10 diminishing resources to attack the problem and 11 specifically where is the funding going to come from 12 to increase both prisons, police, prosecutors, 13 judges and also to increase treatment facilities at 14 a time when the funds available for the entire 15 criminal justice system seem to be lessening rather 16 than increasing? 17 MR. DWYER: Obviously everywhere in 18 the criminal justice system we have difficulty 19 addressing the different sources for the funds that 20 will allow us to do the job. 21 It is shortsighted in the extreme not 22 to make those resources available when our society 23 loses so much more from drug abuse, in financial 24 terms, in moral terms, in purely human terms than 25 the amount we are spending on it. 59 1 2 It would only seem to me silly that 3 the Internal Revenue Service didn't higher more tax 4 enforcers, at least when I am in a public spirited 5 frame of mind, because every dollar spent on tax 6 enforcers produces $4 of revenue, $10 of revenue, 7 whatever the amount. 8 It seems to me similarly from a social 9 point of view it's ridiculous not to find the 10 resources to combat drugs when the cost of not 11 combating drugs is so much greater than the amount 12 of extra resources that we would funnel into the 13 fight. 14 MR. BROWN: Mr. Dwyer, could you try 15 speaking into the mike a little more for the 16 remainder of your answers to the questions. 17 Kathy? 18 MS. ROCKLEN: Yes, following up on I 19 think John Doyle's comments, our research suggests 20 that treatment and education are a dwindling part of 21 the drug program which is to say that what used to 22 get something like twenty-five percent of the total 23 available resources now gets fourteen percent of the 24 resources or less. 25 And one of your statements I found 60 1 2 pretty interesting, two sentences that you 3 juxtaposed which were illegal drug use costs infant 4 mortality and drug use causes crime. 5 Well, I don't think the legality or 6 illegality of drug use has anything to do with 7 infant mortality but I do think it's pretty clear 8 that prohibition has something to do with crime. 9 I think it's fair to say that this 10 committee would suggest that greater emphasis on 11 education and treatment would go a long way toward 12 helping addicted mothers and therefore alleviating 13 the problem of infant mortality as a result 14 mortality as it relates to infants and their 15 mother's and reducing illegal drug use as a result 16 of crime. 17 Do you have a comment on that? 18 MR. DWYER: It seems to me reducing 19 drug use is the answer, making drugs legal is not to 20 reduce drug use. 21 I certainly agree with you the amounts 22 of money available now for treatment and education 23 are inadequate in the extreme and that far more 24 resources should be put into education and 25 treatment. 61 1 2 But that is certainly not to say that 3 legalizing drug use would decrease drug use, far 4 from it, and to the extent drug use increases, to 5 that extent we have more addicts and we have more 6 crack babies. 7 MR. BROWN: All right, Mr. Knapp. 8 MR. KNAPP: Thank you. 9 Mr. Dwyer, I appreciate your standing 10 in for Mr. Morgenthau, so the questions I may be 11 asking you are somewhat unfair. 12 MR. DWYER: I would by the way make 13 note of all the questions that call for expertise 14 well beyond mine and we will see if we can get the 15 commission some answers from the people with that 16 expertise. 17 MR. KNAPP: I appreciate that. 18 One of the statements that Mr. 19 Morgenthau made in his remarks which you delivered 20 was linking the percentages of males and females who 21 test positive for illegal substances and those who 22 commit felonies who tested positively, particularly 23 for cocaine. 24 I would just and this is going to be 25 one of the questions which will require a subsequent 62 1 2 response, I don't know if right off the bat you will 3 be able to field it. 4 In our report at footnote 90, there is 5 a statement from researchers working with the New 6 York City Police Department who analyzed 7 approximately one quarter of the 1988 homocides in 8 our city, it was by Zelakin & Alexander and it was 9 published in new frontiers in drug policy. 10 They distinguish five different types 11 of relationships between drug and murder, the psycho 12 pharmocological refers to people who are actually on 13 drugs committing in this case murder and what they 14 call the economic compulsives are people who would 15 go out, commit violate crimes to get the money to 16 purchase drugs. 17 Systemic referred to in their words, 18 instances in which a dealer or user became violent 19 in order to compete within a violent black market. 20 Then there were two other categories. 21 Their conclusion was that the 22 overwhelming number of murders did not fit the 23 pharmocological model and did not fit the economic 24 compulsive model but indeed fit the systemic model, 25 namely that the link was not between being on drugs 63 1 2 and committing a crime, but I suppose what could be 3 more generally called the turf war to establish 4 outlets and those kinds of things, and that seems to 5 be in contradiction to the survey that Mr. 6 Morgenthau was relying on, though this deals solely 7 with homicide. 8 MR. DWYER: We have made a major 9 priority in our office to attack drug gangs in 10 Manhattan, I know that's not the focus of this 11 commission's work so I won't talk about the efforts 12 we have made with our homicide division to do that. 13 I think quite succesfully, if you are 14 talking homicide that's true or I will take your 15 word that's true, that drug gangs kill, but the drug 16 gangs kill and people who are on drugs do not 17 necessarily go crazy in homocidal rampages, but I 18 think we are not talking about just homocides which 19 are a very unique category of crime. 20 We are talking about the burglaries 21 and the robberies, we are talking about the 22 assaults, we are talking about the lesser grade 23 felonies where homocide -- where drug use seems to 24 be hand in hand with criminal conduct and again the 25 percentages of the arresting individuals in New York 64 1 2 City who are on narcotics at the time is amazingly 3 high. 4 I gave you the numbers, they were in 5 the seventy and eighty percent range, those numbers 6 are amazingly high and I think they show a definite 7 link between drug use and the commission of the 8 crimes, if not homocides. 9 MR. KNAPP: One final question and I 10 will turn it over to Mr. Salomon. 11 The -- as I recall the rule at common 12 law was that intoxication was no defense to specific 13 intent, that was changed at some point by our 14 legislature. 15 Would and again this might be an 16 unfair question because I am asking you to speak on 17 behalf of the District Attorney's office, would the 18 office be in favor of going back to a rule more 19 consistent with the common law where being under the 20 influence of either alcohol or drugs would not be a 21 defense to specific intent crimes? 22 I will just have you ponder that. 23 MR. DWYER: Let me say that's at least 24 one question where my experience in the District 25 Attorney's office has some relevance at least 65 1 2 because I see the appeals over the last eighteen 3 years from those who are convicted. 4 My impression is there are very few 5 Defendants who escape punishment on the theory that 6 they are so intoxicated or so much under the 7 influence of drugs that they cannot form a criminal 8 intent. 9 That by the way is the standard in New 10 York, you have to be so intoxicated that you can't 11 intend to tie your shoes and then when you kill 12 someone it will be said that you can't be said to 13 intend to commit murder or when you rob someone you 14 can't intend to rob, then again it's pretty hard to 15 pull off a robbery when you are so intoxicated. 16 I don't think that's been a major 17 factor in our efforts to combat these kind of 18 crimes, whether that -- that would be outside my 19 expertise and I would not state a position for the 20 District Attorney's office on that. 21 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Chester. 22 MR. SALOMON: Good morning, Mr. Dwyer. 23 MR. DWYER: Good morning. 24 MR. SALOMON: Just a couple of 25 questions. 66 1 2 You said that drugs are a major cause 3 of crime, but I would ask you to comment on whether 4 you believe that perhaps the drug laws, the 5 restrictive quality, the prohibitive quality of the 6 drug laws are themselves a major cause of crime? 7 MR. DWYER: If you mean if we 8 decrminilize drugs would we have fewer crimes 9 committed in New York City, I think the answer is 10 obvious. 11 I assume you have something beyond 12 that? 13 MR. SALOMON: You had also mentioned 14 that legalization would result in no efforts to 15 advance education and reduce addicts. 16 I am wondering if that just assumes 17 that there would be no effort done. 18 Is your idea of a world so polarized 19 it would be the current system as opposed to 20 absolute laissez fare, or is there a possibility 21 that there might be treatment and education 22 available with the resources that would not be used 23 on criminal enforcement? 24 MR. DWYER: Obviously again we think 25 devoting more resources to treatment and to 67 1 2 education is a wonderful idea. 3 It doesn't seem to me to make sense to 4 decrminilize drugs on the theory that law 5 enforcement budgets will fall and that money will be 6 allocated to education and treatment and that the 7 people who do not voluntarily seek treatment now 8 will suddenly voluntarily seek treatment because 9 it's not criminal to use drugs any more. 10 It seems to me more education and 11 treatment is definitely the answer, but that seems 12 to me also to be independent of the question of 13 whether you decrminilize narcotics. 14 In fact, as Mr. Morgenthau suggested, 15 the one thing that does seem to have an impact on 16 someone who is facing state prison time, the one 17 thing that does seem to have an impact on whether he 18 will get treatment or not is the ability to tell him 19 if you successfully go through a treatment program 20 you won't have to do the state prison time. 21 That's quite an incentive and 22 obviously by decriminilizing drugs you eliminate 23 that incentive. 24 MR. SALOMON: One last question, are 25 you familiar with the legislation that has been 68 1 2 proposed by Senator Galliber concerning the 3 controlled substance authority? 4 MR. DWYER: I can't say that I am. 5 MR. SALOMON: Thank you. 6 MR. BROWN: I think we have time for 7 maybe two questions from the audience, the gentleman 8 over here. 9 MR. BROWN: I would ask everyone not 10 to make speeches, just brief questions and brief 11 answers. 12 THE AUDIENCE: I will shorten this as 13 much as possible, I have a lot of questions about 14 what you said. 15 Would you agree first of all that if 16 you substitute alcohol for drugs in your numbers in 17 terms of use rates among people who commit crimes 18 and so forth that your numbers would come up very 19 similar and do you therefore -- does Mr. Morgenthau 20 therefore suggest that prohibition of alcohol may be 21 a way we can eliminate a lot of the problems of 22 society that are directly related to alcohol abuse? 23 My second is you talked a lot about 24 crack or a little about crack this morning and would 25 you agree or would Mr. Morgenthau agree that crack 69 1 2 is a product itself of prohibition, much as 3 moonshine whiskey or corn liquor was a product of 4 alcohol prohibition. 5 Once those prohibitions are lifted, 6 people will inherently look for a safer way to 7 selfmedicate or to intoxicate themselves, or do you 8 believe that drug users are so self destructive even 9 given a range of safe options they will absolutely 10 decide to destroy their lives and their futures and 11 their families and in which case if you agree with 12 that do prisons make a difference anyway? 13 MR. DWYER: I guess the short answer 14 is it I would probably disagree substantially on a 15 lot of the aspects of your question. 16 Certainly the question of alcohol 17 abuse and what should be done know about it is a 18 question independent of the crack problem. 19 I am not here to take a position on 20 whether alcohol abuse should or should not be legal 21 or illegal. 22 I am simply here to talk about crack 23 abuse, heroin abuse, other cocaine abuse where we 24 know the devastating impacts it has now on society, 25 impacts that we think would be increased if there 70 1 2 were legalization. 3 As to whether crack is a product of 4 prohibition, it seems to me that we are dealing in a 5 world now where crack is a reality, where people 6 have choices in the type of drug they take and where 7 people take crack. 8 I don't see how making all narcotics 9 legal would suddenly cause people who have some 10 choices now to say well no more crack for me, and by 11 the way if everybody then shifted to heroin or 12 simple cocaine use, I am not sure that's much of a 13 solution to the economic, moral and human problems 14 that drug abuse causes. 15 MR. BROWN: Because I know the 16 gentleman would like to follow up I would like to 17 try to clarify maybe a point that you would like to 18 make, would you give him the microphone one second. 19 THE AUDIENCE: I would very briefly 20 disagree in terms of the fact that crack is the 21 cheap and available substance, especially if you are 22 talking about poor communities in this country and 23 that it's creation was directly related to the fact 24 it's easy to sneak around, it's potent and it is 25 cheap. 71 1 2 So therefore between my analogy to the 3 moonshine alcohol problem, do you then believe that 4 crack is a choice of people, that people have 5 decided to destroy their lives regardless of the 6 consequences and have chosen to do the substance 7 which is inherently harmful? 8 If that's the case, then if that's 9 people's choice, what good is prison to do or the 10 threat of prison if these people have already 11 disregarded the consequences or any future they 12 might have? 13 MR. DWYER: Again, we face a reality 14 in which there are many crack addicts it may or may 15 not be that prison or treatment will help some crack 16 addicts, hopefully education and treatment will 17 prevent future crack addicts, not necessarily those 18 who are now in the habit. 19 I am interested in your notion that 20 crack use would disappear if all drugs were legal. 21 I certainly have no basis for thinking 22 that that's anything but a wish. 23 MR. BROWN: Okay, maybe one more 24 question from the audience. 25 How about the lady in the back. 72 1 2 THE AUDIENCE: Hi, my name is Dawn 3 Day, I am interested in prosecutorial discretion. 4 Here is an example an adult places a 5 loaded gun on the television set in the presence of 6 an eight year old and a two year old, the adult 7 leaves the room and the eight year old shoots and 8 kills the two year old. 9 If the adult who put the gun on the 10 television set was -- can you tell me now whether 11 you would prosecutor the adult as a murderer? 12 MR. DWYER: Certainly not as a 13 murderer, and there is no particular reason for me 14 to tell the details of the criminal statutes but 15 there are homocide statutes that might cover that 16 situation and I suppose depending on all the 17 circumstances of the case there is a real 18 possibility that at least a criminally negligent 19 homocide charge would stand against that result. 20 THE AUDIENCE: Would there be a 21 difference whether that person was someone who was 22 alleged to have been selling crack versus a woman of 23 virtue who was defending herself and her family by 24 having a gun and keeping out intruders. 25 MR. DWYER: I am not quite sure but 73 1 2 you mean if someone sells crack and it ends up -- 3 THE AUDIENCE: It is alleged the 4 person sells crack, there is no crack in the house 5 but the prosecutor is given the information by the 6 police that the police think he's on crack, versus a 7 woman who says I am afraid I might be raped? 8 MR. DWYER: I'm sorry, I still don't 9 understand. 10 In your crack example are we assuming 11 a crack dealer? 12 MR. KNAPP: If I might, I think the 13 issue is an exercise in your discretion the reason 14 the gun happens to be in the house scenario A is the 15 person is a crack dealer and that's why the loaded 16 gun is there, scenario B it's a woman who lives in a 17 dangerous neighborhood who has purchased a hand gun 18 to defend the house. 19 MR. DWYER: Obviously that's what I 20 meant when I said the facts of the particular case 21 which will be certainly unique in a situation like 22 the example you posit would all be taken into 23 account in deciding what the charge was. 24 I have to think the individual who is 25 protecting his crack stash would face much less 74 1 2 sympathy from prosecutors, grand jurors and jurors 3 than the woman of virtue who is merely protecting 4 her household. 5 MR. BROWN: We have time for one more 6 question. 7 I will take the gentleman in the 8 front. 9 THE AUDIENCE: One of the reasons you 10 gave for your problems with cocaine was the problem 11 of crack babies. 12 You said that cocaine is producing 13 these crack babies who have medical problems which 14 are of great harm total child and great expense. 15 I was at the American psychological 16 association meeting about a month ago and I spoke to 17 a researcher from I believe he was the from the 18 centers for disease control and he said that he had 19 researched the literature on the effect of cocaine 20 and fetuses and he couldn't find anything. 21 So he did research with rhesus monkies 22 and he gave rhesus monkies levels of cocaine equal 23 to that which would be found among the crack users 24 and he found out that the monkies which were exposed 25 prenataly to cocaine were about as healthy as the 75 1 2 monkies who were not. 3 He found in the first animal study 4 that cocaine didn't apparently harm fetuses. 5 MR. DWYER: Has he ever been to a 6 hospital ward in New York City and looked at crack 7 babies? 8 THE AUDIENCE: Well, that's all 9 anecdotal evidence and you can look at the medical 10 literature, it's been examined. 11 I spoke to prosecutors who told me 12 that yes, well maybe it's not cocaine but women who 13 use cocaine are going to take less care of their 14 children, that's the argument that prosecutors have 15 told me. 16 MR. DWYER: That he is not the 17 argument I have made. 18 THE AUDIENCE: The question for you is 19 is there any good scientific evidence that cocaine 20 absent the social context in which people have to 21 obtain and use cocaine, does any harm to fetuses? 22 The answer from the centers for 23 disease control researcher was according to the 24 medical researcher no. 25 MR. DWYER: We will certainly get you 76 1 2 information or get the commission information about 3 that. 4 I am a new father, I had a baby about 5 ten days ago and if my wife had wanted to take crack 6 during her pregnancy I would have knocked the vial 7 out of her hand. 8 I am certainly willing to keep an open 9 mind in the face of scientific research, but I think 10 it's silly to think that drug use does not affect 11 babies. 12 THE AUDIENCE: You could not know -- 13 MR. BROWN: Excuse me, in the interest 14 of time let's move on. 15 Thank you very much, sir. 16 Mr. Dwyer, thank you very much for 17 coming today and we appreciate your presence. 18 The next person on our program is Mr. 19 Ethan Nadelmann. 20 Mr. Ethan Nadelmann is a doctor here 21 in New York which is a project of the Saurus 22 Foundation. 23 Mr. Nadelmann has written extensively 24 on drug policy and appeared in a wide range of 25 interest including science foreign policy the public 77 1 2 interest, headlines in the Washington Post, Los 3 Angeles Times and International Herald Tribune. 4 He wrote an article with Joan Warner 5 called Drugs in America, it was in Rolling Stone, he 6 is a coeditor of psychoactive drugs and harm 7 reduction from faith to science from 1987 to 1994 8 Mr. Nadelmann was Assistant Professor of Politics 9 and Public Policy in the Woodrow Wilson School at 10 Princeton University. 11 He was born in New York, attended 12 Magill University, received his BA from Harvard 13 University has a JD and PhD in political science 14 from Harvard and received his masters from the 15 Lonton School of Economics. 16 Everyone please give a warm welcome to 17 Mr. Ethan Nadelmann. 18 MR. NADELMANN: I want to thank the 19 committee for inviting me and also for having the 20 courage to hold hearings on this controversial 21 subject and to invite a number of witnesses who are 22 not defenders but critics of current drug control 23 policies. 24 Now I think in my presentation what 25 would be most useful is to talk about the lessons of 78 1 2 foreign countries, a subject which Eric Sterling 3 alluded briefly and to talk about what we might 4 learn from them and to talk as well about what 5 middle ground options exist in New York City and in 6 the country. 7 It is important, of course, to 8 understand that the alternative defenses are not 9 simply between a free market libertarian 10 legalization scheme on the one hand and a harsh war 11 on drugs approach, take no prisoners on the other 12 hand. 13 In fact there are a range of options 14 and those options are oftentimes labeled as the harm 15 reduction approach to drug legalization policy. 16 Now having heard the statement by Mr. 17 Morgenthau, it's important to say a few words about 18 that. 19 Mr. Morgenthau is obviously a very, 20 very distinguished New Yorker and American in his 21 position as a chief federal prosecutor and District 22 Attorney in New York. 23 He should be credited with the 24 dramatic improvements in crime rates in New York in 25 recent years, together with the Mayor and the police 79 1 2 chief. 3 He is right to speak about the horrors 4 that attend drug addiction, both legal and illegal; 5 the harms that result. 6 But what is so sad is to present to 7 this committee in 1995 a statement containing such 8 worn over, undated, unsubstantiated rhetoric as we 9 just heard here. 10 To speak about drug use as the cause 11 of all the drug related problems in New York City as 12 opposed to looking at the drug prohibition system, 13 the war on drugs, the inadequacy of alternatives to 14 incarceration, to fail to look at the social 15 conditions and the draining of resources into war on 16 drugs as opposed to the implementation of resources 17 into more productive areas, to offer facile comments 18 concerning more education and treatment while his 19 office no doubt demands more and more law 20 enforcement resources, to speak about child abuse 21 and the Steinberg case and a few other sensational 22 cases, tremendous tragedies no doubt as are many 23 hundreds like them, but to ignore the role that 24 alcohol, a legal drug has placed in far greater ways 25 in this city, in this country. 80 1 2 To talk about drug addicts as slaves 3 and therefore to deamonize hundreds and hundreds of 4 thousands of New Yorkers who use drugs but also do 5 try to take care of their children, do try to manage 6 their lives, to talk about them as slaves and user 7 rhetoric that only aids and abets the deamonization 8 of drug users and opposition to productive public 9 health policies. 10 These are all things that in some 11 respects the committee should regard as an insult. 12 To speak about the crack baby issue 13 when the most recent issue overwhelmingly shows that 14 it is almost impossible to distinguish children born 15 in the poverty the dreadful poverty of New York City 16 who have been exposed to crack from those who have 17 not been exposed to crack and therefore justify a 18 punitive public that incarcerates tens of thousands 19 is once again a farce. 20 To talk about drug related homocides 21 and violence but to ignore all the evidence, whether 22 it's the evidence of Paul Goldstein studies in the 23 late 1980's or the more recent study in The New York 24 Times about the relationship between gun ownership, 25 gun use and drug use and drug dealing is a farce. 81 1 2 There is tremendous evidence, 3 tremendous evidence yes to be sure there is no 4 absolutely certain evidence that shows that if we 5 legalize drugs whether as we legalize the way Milton 6 Freeman would like it with a free market or in a 7 much more regulated controlled way there is no 8 overwhelming evidence that drug abuse will not rise 9 in some significant way subsequent to today. 10 But there is also substantial to tout 11 that, evidence from our own historical expense, 12 evidence from looking at the experience of 13 decriminilazation in the United States and 14 elsewhere, evidence from looking at the ways people 15 respond to other drugs and other substances that 16 lend themselves to addiction. 17 To advocate no more than treatment in 18 prisons, something on which the evidence for 19 efficacy is remarkably flimsy, something which is 20 remarkably more expensive than treatment outside of 21 prison because prisons cost so much more money, 22 something which entirely ignores the recommendations 23 of the national Academy of Sciences, its institute 24 of medicine, of most of the leading social 25 scientists that are there are more cost effective 82 1 2 and more humane approaches to dealing with drug 3 abuse. 4 This is not the type of statements 5 that should come from the District Attorney of New 6 York City. 7 I was not aware of the extent to which 8 Mr. Morgenthau played a role in New York City's 9 dreadful drug policy. 10 When one goes to Europe, one sees in 11 some cities at least alternative models. 12 One sees a recognition, for example, 13 that drugs are here to stay, that drugs have always 14 been here and always will be here and that the 15 objective of government policy should not be to 16 eradicate drugs, because that cannot be done, that 17 the objective of government policy should not be 18 solely to reduce drug use no matter what the 19 consequences come hell or high water. 20 But that in fact the objectives of 21 government policy should be to reduce the negative 22 consequences of drug use and the negative 23 consequences of our drug policies. 24 That whether one is dealing with 25 marijuana users, alcohol users, heroin users, 83 1 2 cocaine users or what have you, the objectives 3 should be to reduce the death, the disease and the 4 crime associated with drug use. 5 That when one proposes incarceration 6 of drug users or minor drug dealers, that one needs 7 to understand that these come with dramatic costs, 8 they come with a dollar cost of putting people in 9 prison for one, five, ten, twenty years or lifetime, 10 they come with a dollar and humane cost of ripping 11 families apart so that family members can be sent to 12 prison while their children are sent into the social 13 welfare system or social care system are left 14 without parents. 15 They ignore the fact demonstrated in 16 the research of Peter Reuter and of the Rand 17 Commission that many small drug dealers also hold 18 legitimate jobs and moonlight. 19 They ignore the evidence that many 20 drug dealers would prefer not to be drug dealers and 21 they regard this as a means of earning income than 22 is reprehensible than engaging in predatory crime. 23 One sees at least in some cities an 24 alternative model. 25 I don't want to idealize it because 84 1 2 all European cities also have significant drug 3 problems, although virtually none have problems of 4 the magnitude of New York City. 5 In fact, let me correct that and say 6 none have drug problems of the magnitude of New York 7 City. 8 But there is a notion of cooperation 9 between the head of the Public Health Department, 10 the head of the police, the prosecutor, the mayor 11 that they should cooperate. 12 Let me give you an example. 13 We have known for a long time that 14 making sterile syringes available to drug addicts 15 rereduces the transmission of AIDS and also provides 16 some lure into drug treatment. 17 Some means of maintaining contact with 18 very down and out drug addicts. 19 In the early 1980's the Dutch 20 confronted not with AIDS but with a hepatitis 21 epidemic started making sterile syringes available 22 to drug addicts when they realized the connection 23 between drug aducks and HIV they made syringes as 24 available as possible to their injecting drug 25 addicts. 85 1 2 Virtually every other advanced 3 industrialized democracy followed quickly with the 4 exception of the United States. 5 Now last month the National Academy of 6 Sciences comes out with a comprehensive report 7 saying that needle exchange reduces the transmission 8 of HIV and it saves lives. 9 That confirms the conclusions of a 10 previous report sponsored by the center of disease 11 control, it confirms dozens of other social 12 scientific studies in other countries and it 13 confirms common sense. 14 It is so crucially important that law 15 enforcement officials be they prosecutors or police 16 be the ones to step forward and say our interest is 17 not only enforcing the laws mindlessly without 18 regard to consequence, but that our obligation is