1 2 ----------------------------------------------X 3 THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF 4 NEW YORK PUBLIC HEARINGS COMMITTEE ON DRUGS AND THE LAW 5 6 ----------------------------------------------X 7 42 West 44th Street New York, New York 8 October 10, 1995 9 2:15 P.M. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 HARRIET BEIZER ASSOCIATES 22 "The Verbatim Reporting Service" 108-18 Queens Boulevard 23 Forest Hills, New York 11375-4252 (718) 544-4199 24 25 2 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S 3 LEO KAYSER, ESQ. CHESTER SALOMON, ESQ. 4 KEN BROWN, ESQ. DAN MARKOWICH, ESQ. 5 NANCY BRESLOW, ESQ. 6 7 8 ALSO PRESENT 9 DAVID CANDLIFF 10 DENICE M. LINNETTE DR. GABRIEL G. NAHAS 11 ROBERT JESSE RICK DOBLIN 12 FREDERICK GOLDSTEIN 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 MR. SALOMON: This is the 3 second session of the first day of 4 the hearings on Drug Policy 5 sponsored by the Bar Association. 6 My name is Chester Salomon. 7 Seated beside me are four other 8 members on the Committee of the Drug 9 and Law, Leo Kayser, Dan Markowich, 10 Nancy Breslow and Ken Brown. 11 This morning we had testimony 12 of several witnesses and we would 13 like to continue with the testimony 14 this afternoon, perhaps on a 15 slightly tighter time schedule, for 16 fear we may be thrown out of here. 17 The first speaker is David 18 Candliff from the Drug Policy 19 Foundation. 20 Before having Mr. Candliff 21 speak, I would like to simply 22 mention, one of the witnesses whom 23 we all expected to see today is not 24 going to appear. 25 We only recently learned that 4 1 2 Joycelyn Elders is unable to be here 3 today because of a family illness. 4 She has said that she may try to 5 return to testify at some later 6 time, but she will not be here this 7 afternoon. 8 Mr. Candliff, can you tell us 9 something about your personal 10 history and the message that you 11 want to convey? 12 MR. CANDLIFF: I want to let 13 you know I met with Dr. Elders on 14 Saturday about some other issues 15 that the Drug Policy Foundation is 16 working with her on, and she 17 indicated to me what you just said, 18 her mother is quite ill. 19 She called me this morning, 20 knowing at the last moment that I 21 would be testifying. 22 As you know, I was not 23 planning to testify. She wanted me 24 to convey to you her sincere 25 regrets, and if there should be a 5 1 2 second hearing, to indeed attend. 3 It is indeed a personal 4 situation and her commitment to this 5 issue and to the association will be 6 very sincere indeed. 7 MR. SALOMON: Thank you very 8 much. 9 I want to repeat what the 10 procedure shall be. The witness 11 will be given up to 15 minutes to 12 speak. There will then be Q and A 13 for a maximum of 15 minutes. 14 Some of the members of the 15 committee will ask questions first. 16 Not all members will be asking 17 questions to each witness, and then 18 we will take questions from the 19 floor. 20 I would like to acknowledge 21 the presence of the court reporter 22 who is here today on a pro bono 23 basis. The name of the court 24 reporting agency is Harriet Beizer 25 Associates in Forest Hills, New York 6 1 2 and the reporter is Sandy Eskenazi. 3 You may proceed, Mr. 4 Candliff. 5 MR. CANDLIFF: As was 6 indicated, my name is David 7 Candliff. 8 I think you asked me to 9 summarize my background and I will 10 actually do so in the context of the 11 jury that I have had in Drug 12 Policy. 13 My background is a lawyer. I 14 started in the Lindsey 15 Administration, wound up at the 16 Kennedy School, worked for Nick 17 Capetta. That experience actually 18 drove me to law school. 19 It was during the blackout I 20 was assigned to figure out so many 21 kids were arraigned during the 22 looting of the '77 blackout, and we 23 recommended to Mayor Beam that there 24 be restitution instead of 25 incarceration. 7 1 2 Mayor Beam felt he could not 3 be soft. He had to be tough on the 4 looters. I went to law school and I 5 got hooked on the practice of law. 6 I was practicing most of my career 7 in the securities corporate business 8 for one of the large firms in the 9 city. 10 I became vice president, 11 general counsel worrying about 12 children issues, and that is when I 13 entered the Drug Field Policy. I 14 worked on the Drug Fatality Review 15 Panel and I was stunned to learn, as 16 you have no doubt noted, that the 17 city had removed itself from 18 treatment prevention in 1978, when 19 they abolished the Addiction 20 Services Agency, and I discovered 21 how many children were at risk and 22 how many women were unable to get 23 treatment at that time of any kind 24 whatsoever. 25 I started a big fight with 8 1 2 Bill Cricker (phonetic) and Mayor 3 Kosh and they agreed they should 4 change the city policy. 5 They asked me to design 6 programs for the women, children and 7 homeless, which I did, and work with 8 whoever was the mayor. 9 I was asked to direct the 10 city's effort, Dinkin's 11 Administration. It was in that 12 period that my views began to change 13 quite dramatically. We did launch, 14 during that period, I think some 15 programs, which do need to be the 16 elements of any national policy, 17 programs which recognize that kids 18 don't have the opportunities they 19 need in the city right now. 20 We opened Beacon Schools, and 21 you can't talk about these policies 22 without realizing the economic 23 context in which they exist. We 24 need to recognize that. 25 However, I also quickly began 9 1 2 to learn about the harms of our 3 current policies and it was a truly 4 eye opening experience for me. 5 I was concerned I was not 6 getting from Phoenix House the 7 straight scoop on what the story was 8 and what the experience was of users 9 who maybe did not want treatment and 10 so forth. 11 I took my staff to a shooting 12 gallery in Bushwick, Brooklyn. We 13 spent three days there. It was 14 there, frankly, that my views were 15 dramatically transformed. 16 There was a woman. We did not 17 have a car. I walked from the 18 subway to the shooting gallery, and 19 will not forget this woman Brenda, 20 who came to me pregnant, saying she 21 wanted me to get her in treatment. 22 She said, "I will meet you 23 around the corner." She had some 24 crack on her. She had to get rid of 25 the crack or the dealers would give 10 1 2 her trouble. 3 We had it lined up she was 4 going to go into treatment, and she 5 was arrested in a bust operation 6 that was going on at the time. We 7 have her on video tape. If the 8 committee would like to see it, it 9 would be dramatic. 10 The video shows J.J. with 105 11 fever, HIV, pregnant. J.J. was 12 admitted to Woodhull Hospital. Then 13 she encounters a medical resident 14 who said I will not give you 15 Methadone. I am not going to be a 16 drug pusher, it was against his 17 religion. She went into with- 18 drawal. 19 I have her the next morning on 20 the video tape. She had to shoot in 21 her neck, on the video tape. That 22 medical resident could not see that 23 she was a heavy user and needed 24 Methadone for withdrawal. We got 25 her readmitted and she was 11 1 2 prescribed 10 milligrams of 3 Methadone, which is not enough. 4 The point I am trying to make 5 and want to make in this testimony 6 is we do need intermediate steps and 7 I am going to try to suggest some 8 starting places but, fundamentally, 9 this association must go firmly on 10 record in any step it does to see, 11 to make sure we are not - - that we 12 are not deaminizing addicts. 13 Not everybody who uses drugs 14 is an addict. My example of J.J. is 15 meant to illustrate that when she 16 was readmitted, the hospital simply 17 was not in shape to deal with her 18 and instead we wound up with huge 19 costs. 20 We had the Department of 21 Health come down. When I went to 22 the commissioner and the state 23 agency to say we ought to be in 24 there with a public health team, you 25 ought to see this with me, the 12 1 2 response was, was I wearing a mask 3 when I went into that shooting 4 gallery, and she would not go with 5 me under any circumstance. 6 Instead, what happened is, 7 I had to tell the Police Department 8 I was there. They wound up closing 9 that shooting gallery. Let me 10 mention a couple of thoughts. 11 I really do see myself as not 12 the expert like Dr. Cleber and 13 others who are giving full 14 testimony, which I feel needs to be 15 refuted very strongly, and I would 16 like to work with you in bringing in 17 the experts at the next hearing. 18 I don't consider myself that 19 expert. 20 What I do consider myself is a 21 citizen of the City of New York that 22 has made an inquiry and found the 23 policy very, very wrong and there 24 are some things I would like to 25 suggest to you that we ought to 13 1 2 focus on in the immediate future, 3 keeping in mind, the president of 4 our association will be testifying 5 this morning, and give you the big 6 picture of what it looked like 7 before prohibition so you can see 8 it's not what is being described 9 now. 10 However, first and most 11 obviously, the New York Times and 12 others may have talked about the 13 need to legalize needles. It will 14 put in context why the legalization 15 of drugs is so difficult in this 16 country. I want you to know the 17 story of what I feel is the real 18 story. 19 Philly is currently our 20 Assistant Secretary of Health. 21 He wanted to answer the very 22 important questions that, frankly, 23 the mayor that I worked for wanted 24 answers and must be answered, does 25 it increase drug use, number one, 14 1 2 and does it prevent the spread of 3 Aids. He was awarded that 4 contract. Clinton appointed him 5 Assistant Secretary of Health. 6 When they reported the results 7 which said there is no evidence 8 of increased drug use and it will 9 prevent the spread of Aids, that 10 report sat on Philly's desk and he 11 took it and sent it to a scientist. 12 I wanted to have a neutral 13 body of scientists look at this and 14 they looked at the findings and 15 unanimously the Public Health 16 Services, every one of these 17 scientists came back and said 18 immediately end the band of funding 19 New York and present the evidence 20 that's been researched. 21 Philly got a call from the 22 White House. He was told you may 23 not release those recommendations 24 from the scientists. A year went 25 by and they asked for an update. 15 1 2 The update to the Philly story was 3 that the scientist said now the 4 research is finished in New York 5 City and it confirms what California 6 found nationally. 7 Secondly, they said the 8 epidemic has changed and Gina Colado 9 reported in the New York Times. 10 The Gina story, she reported 30,000 11 out of 40,000 people have become 12 infected. Think about that. To 13 satisfy the defense, we are going to 14 let 30,000 people die in this 15 country. That is not sensible 16 policy. This association should be 17 firmly on record. 18 I want to make sure that we 19 are clear, let's be clear how hard 20 and how divided this country has 21 been. It is so hard to let the 22 doctors be in charge. The leader- 23 ship position the press should take 24 is this is not for lawyers, this is 25 not for politicians, this is not for 16 1 2 doctors, this is a deadly disease. 3 Instead, we don't have that result. 4 The American Public Health 5 Association has endorsed it and many 6 others, the National Research 7 Council. 8 The second area I would ask 9 you to focus on is the Rockefeller 10 Drug Laws. The Drug Policy 11 Foundation, in connection with the 12 Correctional Association, is going 13 to be working in the coming months 14 and we would invite the 15 association's committee to designate 16 a member to work with us. We are 17 going to be forming a coalition of 18 groups who want to have a 19 respectable dialogue that can be 20 heard. 21 I believe there is 22 receptivity to a responsible 23 dialogue and I invite you to join 24 us. This needs to have a medical 25 voice, a social voice, a community 17 1 2 voice. It needs to have the voice 3 that says our education budgets 4 are getting slashed, we need to look 5 at the budget and see where to get 6 those resources. 7 If you look at California, you 8 can see almost a direct correlation 9 between the reduction in higher 10 education and the increase in prison 11 budgets. We need to be clear in the 12 law being that relationship. 13 The parent group, that is 14 upset that their budgets are being 15 cut, recognize it's a direct result 16 of the kind of incarceration 17 policies we have in this state. 18 I would suggest a course of 19 action that such a coalition can 20 begin to explore. We have found in 21 some of the most conservative 22 western states that there is a true 23 opening of conservatives and 24 liberals that can get together. 25 For example, on western state 18 1 2 policies that would do the 3 following, that say no personal 4 possession shall warrant 5 incarceration, period. 6 You have the Probation 7 Department come in with appropriate 8 interventions. Those interventions 9 might include treatment if someone 10 really needs and wants treatment, 11 but it might not. It might be 12 something like community service or 13 house arrest. You can have a series 14 of things put in the Probation 15 Department in charge of personal 16 possession. 17 Second thing I would do with 18 that, to be clear, a lot of people 19 who are arrested as so-called 20 dealers are not dealers, and we need 21 to look carefully at what the 22 classification of the law is of 23 so-called dealers. 24 I sat next to in Little Rock 25 a young kid in high school and I 19 1 2 said to him, "How many kids in your 3 class use drugs?" He said, "Not 4 many, but a lot of them are using 5 crack." He was in the eighth 6 grade. 7 Third, I would emphasis, you 8 will hear from others more qualified 9 than me, I hope, tomorrow on the 10 marijuana issues. Right now you 11 have a tremendous Aids epidemic. 12 This state has cut off the 13 research done on marijuana. 14 That research demonstrated how 15 important it is with cancer and 16 other issues. It is urgent that New 17 York State finds ways to let, for 18 example, the model of the Marijuana 19 Buyer's Club where a doctor writes a 20 prescription and that literally gets 21 filled in the Marijuana Buyer's 22 Club. In San Francisco that is 23 being done with the collaboration of 24 the Police Department. 25 That concludes my testimony. 20 1 2 I would simply close by asking that 3 the association takes seriously the 4 invitation of the Drug Policy 5 Foundation, to work as closely as 6 you can, to serve as a funding 7 source, a poll research you might 8 want to do. 9 We have a grant program. We 10 think your work is important and we 11 think it is important that this 12 state, city and national government 13 has excluded itself from these 14 hearings and that over an issue as 15 significant as this and in the form 16 as responsible as this, that they 17 will not engage in a serious 18 dialogue with this committee. 19 I think that is truly outrageous. 20 MR. SALOMON: We will take two 21 questions from members of the 22 committee. 23 Do any members have questions 24 for Mr. Candliff? 25 MR. KAYSER: Hi, Mr. 21 1 2 Candliff. I am Leo Kayser. 3 Would you have an objection, 4 strong objection, to fashioning of a 5 drug policy that are being based 6 upon legalization, licensing 7 pharmacies to sell, collecting taxes 8 on those sales, keeping some kind of 9 formal record keeping, in terms of 10 the nature of the sales, and then 11 the use of paying those proceeds, 12 taxes, in some dedicated fund for 13 treatment purposes and for other 14 type of policies that you have 15 testified to? 16 MR. CANDLIFF: Yes. Certainly 17 in the long run, I think a model 18 like that is a sensible model. 19 I am not sure necessarily the 20 pharmacies need to be the only way 21 it would be done. 22 I would urge, however, that 23 this country get serious on 24 education and prevention before we 25 do it. That means, in my mind, we 22 1 2 did not do that with alcohol. 3 Instead, we let Hollywood glamorize 4 alcohol use. 5 I don't think increased usage 6 is automatic. I don't think we 7 should have police in charge of our 8 drug administration. We ought to 9 have teachers in charge of it. 10 I think there are things we 11 can do that would make that work. 12 MR. MARKOWICH: I must say, 13 what you just said does not bother 14 me in the least, but I want to 15 comment on what you said earlier, 16 and it seems to me that not only I, 17 but also Mr. Doyle would have no 18 quarral whatsoever with the 19 immediate steps that you propose. 20 They seem extremely sensible. 21 MR. SALOMON: You had adverted 22 to Dr. Cleber's testimony. 23 Do you have any information 24 that would refute or challenge his 25 estimate six percent of users 23 1 2 eventually become addicts? 3 MR. CANDLIFF: Here is the 4 issue. It seems to me, and I did 5 not comment in detail on his 6 testimony because I have not read it 7 and I was not there. 8 I simply have heard that it 9 was important testimony to be 10 answered and to be genuinely 11 discussed. I think we all want to 12 be responsible as we move forward. 13 The issue for me is this. 14 It's the same issue with New York 15 Exchange. We don't know the answer 16 I suspect is the right answer. Any 17 evidence I would bring you would, as 18 Dr. Cleber, be true guesses I 19 believe and I want to see what 20 Dr. Cleber has said today. 21 It is my conviction, however, 22 that the testimony I received, not 23 testimony, the comment I received 24 from a very responsible physician, 25 may be the governing factor for me, 24 1 2 and I will just repeat it briefly. 3 I would encourage the 4 committee to consult a woman named 5 Kathleen Foly. She is a woman who 6 heads the pain service at Sloan and 7 Kettering Cancer Hospital. I 8 mention her for the following 9 reason. 10 We have built our policy on 11 the notion if someone tries a drug, 12 they will become addicted 13 automatically, the addictive 14 qualities are that strong. 15 The argument that I am making 16 is this. Kathey Foly says she is a 17 neuro scientist. She says she has 18 found not everyone to be addicts, as 19 opposed to a more general 20 population, which is a question you 21 have to ask. 22 She said Sloan Keterring over 23 the last 20 years, more than most 24 medical centers, they have been very 25 aggressive in prescriptions of 25 1 2 controlled substances for the 3 treatment of cancer and although 4 there is a higher preponderance of 5 cigarette addicts among that 6 population, it parallels that 7 population. 8 You don't get the kind of 9 productive rates that most studies 10 of addiction suggest that you would, 11 in her clinical experience, but I 12 would urge you to talk with her 13 simply because she brings a very 14 different light on perspective that 15 I have ever heard on the subject. 16 MR. SALOMON: Thank you. I 17 will ask, for those who intend to 18 ask questions of the witness, that 19 they come up and take the microphone 20 and speak in the microphone and hand 21 the mike back to me. 22 Do we have any questions from 23 the floor? 24 MR. GODFRIED: Yes. My name 25 is Ted Godfried and I am un- 26 1 2 affiliated and my question to you, 3 it seems to me that most people who 4 have thought and read about 5 prohibition, as we know it today, 6 come up with the conclusion that it 7 should end but, as I noticed on the 8 list of speakers, there is no 9 politicians here, which you 10 mentioned. 11 So knowing that no politician 12 or elected official will even get 13 near this subject, how do you 14 propose changing the laws and 15 prohibition? 16 MR. CANLIFF: Let me let you 17 know the experience from which I 18 have drawn to reach the conclusion. 19 Mayor Dinkins ran against 20 needle exchange, as many people in 21 this room know. He changed 180 22 degrees on that subject and did so 23 in the face of Charlie Rango, being 24 very upset with him. 25 When we first went to him to 27 1 2 say that we wanted to discuss this, 3 he was extremely upset by it. His 4 thought was the African Community in 5 the city was disinvested in and it 6 would create a truly ambiguous 7 message. 8 He also had some less concern 9 than others might, that people would 10 be attacking him for not being 11 caring of crime, which is a 12 universal concern. What moved him 13 was the research. 14 When we were able to present 15 him with Yale's research, it truly 16 moved him. We said to him, Mr. 17 Mayor, you opposed the death penalty 18 all your life. That was a little 19 unusual. That is not usual that you 20 see a politician move 180 degrees on 21 it. 22 There are two things that need 23 to happen. Police need to have a 24 leadership rule. There were 378 25 chiefs in the room and they came as 28 1 2 true drug warriors, but they 3 answered a poll at the end of it. 4 Every one of them, except those who 5 are already with us, every one of 6 them had changed their mind by the 7 end of the meeting. They had 8 different views. Police need to 9 stand next to the politicians. 10 Mayor Schmoke, who is on our 11 board, told us we had to work with 12 the teachers. The truth is that I 13 think we need to work with the 14 morale leaders of the community as 15 well. It's not just enough to make 16 a recommendation. 17 MR. SALOMON: Any more 18 questions? 19 SPEAKER: Let me apologize. I 20 called the Bar Association and tried 21 to find out more details as to the 22 procedures here, but I could not get 23 any information. I hope I am not 24 coming down on a parachute in the 25 the middle of something. 29 1 2 Let me ask you people if I 3 can get some ball park figures from 4 you. As far as I know, the 5 statistics I have is that about 75 6 million Americans have used 7 marijuana, something like 18 years 8 of age and over, which would be 9 something like 30 percent of the 10 population. 11 The first question I would ask 12 is, what percentage of lawyers do 13 you think use marijuana? Is there 14 any? Is it 30 percent or less? 15 The second question is, is 16 there anybody in this room that 17 knows lawyers are any more wicked, 18 sinful, hostile than the other 19 lawyers and the third question is, 20 those that do not believe those 21 lawyers are criminals, number one, 22 why aren't they demanding their 23 freedom and, number two, why aren't 24 the rest of you demanding their 25 freedom? 30 1 2 MR. CANDLIFF: I hope you will 3 consider joining the Drug Policy 4 Foundation so you can learn what we 5 are doing in that regard. 6 We have a panel called War on 7 Lawyers who want to defend people. 8 I think you have a bigger point, 9 which is a very important point, 10 which is there are many, many people 11 in this city who actively have used 12 marijuana and continue to use 13 marijuana and lead active, 14 professional lives. 15 You will hear from speakers 16 today who will talk about the 17 benefits and harms of drugs, but the 18 benefits don't get talked about 19 because we have deaminized them so 20 much. 21 Our foundation is not in 22 favor of pople using drugs, but we 23 recognize that our policies have 24 deaminized people. The majority of 25 users in America are white and 31 1 2 employed. One out of three young 3 black Americans are incarcerated. 4 SPEAKER: I thought my 5 question was clear. 6 Why are the users who are 7 using drugs and their friends who 8 don't use drugs, why aren't they 9 getting up saying get off my case? 10 MR. CANDLIFF: I think the 11 answer is people need, as they did 12 with the movement on gay rights, to 13 come out of the closet. 14 MR. SALOMON: One last 15 question. 16 SPEAKER: I would like to ask 17 a question about needle exchanges as 18 a case history in changing policy. 19 I did a story for the 20 New Scientist on needle exchange 21 programs and the evidence is 22 overwhelming and the big question 23 is, why has not New York State 24 changed its law to permit drug 25 users to get clean needles the way 32 1 2 Connecticut did, given the fact that 3 New York City has the highest number 4 of HIV infected drug users probably 5 in the world, and there are several 6 proposals in the state legislature 7 to do that and it had gotten 8 nowhere? 9 I was calling a lot of people 10 to get an answer to this question. 11 Why has not New York State changed 12 its drug laws the way Connecticut 13 has, in view of this imminent danger 14 of many - - in view of the 15 overwhelming weight of evidence, to 16 say nothing of the National 17 Academy Science Study which gave 18 unequivocal evidence? What 19 happened? 20 MR. CANDLIFF: There are three 21 things that I would ask this 22 committee to consider on decrimina- 23 lization of needles. 24 The first is to appeal New 25 York State Penal Law 338. Second, 33 1 2 to enact legislation to proceed for 3 the expansion of existing syringe 4 exchange programs in New York State 5 and encourage the establishment of 6 syringe exchanges. 7 Third, and this is something I 8 think that needs to be thought about 9 seriously, that legislation be 10 enacted, they would require all 11 manufactures and distributors of 12 hypodermic needles to include in 13 syringe packaging educational 14 information about the safety and 15 safe use and disposal of syringe 16 needles. 17 SPEAKER: The question is 18 really, what is stopping this bill? 19 Basically this legislation has 20 already been written and it 21 disappears. What is the mechanism 22 going on? 23 MR. CANDLIFF: Why don't we 24 talk about it afterwards? I know 25 the chairman wants to move on. 34 1 2 MR. SALOMON: Thank you very 3 much. Our next speaker is Denice 4 Linnette. 5 MS. LINNETTE: Thank you very 6 much. Good afternoon, everyone, 7 panelists. 8 My name is Denise Linnette and 9 I am the Counsel to New York State 10 Senator Joseph L. Galiber. I am 11 here today to speak to you, not on 12 my behalf, but on his behalf, 13 because he is currently recovering 14 from major surgery, but he thought 15 it was imperative that I come down 16 and speak with you today because he 17 is one elected official that for 27 18 years has been very involved in drug 19 policy, in criminal justice and he 20 thought it was important that the 21 comments on this important hearing 22 be put on the record. 23 He commends the Association 24 of the Bar for its recognition of 25 the wide spread effects of drugs on 35 1 2 our nation and applauds the 3 committee for having the courage to 4 make the recommendations that it did 5 in the June 1994 record. He 6 believes a course of action based on 7 the report would yield positive 8 results. 9 As most of you or many of you 10 may be aware, the senator's district 11 is comprised of portions of Bronx 12 and Westchester counties. His area 13 of representation, like so many 14 other urban neighborhoods in New 15 York and throughout our country, has 16 been overwrought with drugs and 17 violence it produces. 18 Narcotics wreak havoc in 19 all walkways of our lives. He 20 believes, as most of you should, 21 that we are losing the war on drugs 22 for too many years and that for 23 these years we have seen countless 24 lives wasted. 25 To combat this ever worsening 36 1 2 situation, Senator Galiber advocates 3 that we redirect the vast amount of 4 resources that we currently spend in 5 law enforcement, criminal 6 prosecution and incarceration toward 7 regulation, education and 8 treatment. 9 There were some sobering 10 statistics that we found actually 11 last week that talked about the 12 increase in commitments in our state 13 prisons from 1980 to 1992. Over 49 14 percent of those commitments were 15 drug related offenses. 16 I don't want to go through the 17 various points that specifically 18 talk about the senator's bill 19 regarding legalization of drugs. I 20 think many of you are aware of the 21 provisions. 22 He just wanted to point out 23 that the committee was criticized, 24 it was our understanding that, for 25 its inability to provide a concrete 37 1 2 proposal pertaining to the 3 legalization of drugs, and the 4 senator did draft such a proposal. 5 He believes that his proposal 6 is rational, that while it may be 7 politically unpopular to some, that 8 spirited discourse and a rational 9 approach to policy making, maybe we 10 can enact legislation that is 11 rationally based. 12 His proposal clearly sets 13 forth how that system would work. 14 It does not allow solicitation and 15 advertising. It does have a 16 controlled substance abuse authority 17 and it also requires taxation and 18 funding treatments, funding 19 mechanism for prevention and 20 treatment. 21 He also proposes restrictions 22 on who may obtain licenses to 23 manufacture, distribute and sell the 24 substances and he does not allow any 25 sales based on credit would be 38 1 2 allowed, nor street sales or 3 house-to-house sales, et cetera. 4 While he realizes that this 5 concept, the concept or the policy 6 of legalization, is not an accepted 7 mainstream concept, he did want me 8 to make sure that I point out that 9 decrimialization certainly should 10 be. 11 The 1973 Rockefeller Drug 12 Laws, coupled with the Mandatory 13 Felony Laws, of which he has opposed 14 from enactment, attempted to 15 eradicate the drug epidemic with 16 tough mandatory sentences. 17 When the Rockefeller Drug Laws 18 and Second Felony Laws were passed 19 in 1973, the state prison population 20 stood at 12,500. By 1985, the 21 number of inmates had climbed to 22 31,000. Today, nearly 6,900 inmates 23 are incarcerated in state 24 correctional facilities, 130 percent 25 of the systems designated capacity. 39 1 2 These laws remain relatively 3 ineffective in combatting the 4 worsening drug crisis. 5 During this past budget 6 session, Governor Pataki and the 7 Legislature enacted sentencing 8 reform measures which substantially 9 increased the sentences of violent 10 offenders, while slightly modifying 11 sentences for nonviolent second 12 felony offenders who are 13 predominately low-level drug 14 offenders. 15 At a time when major criminal 16 justice reform was undertaken, the 17 governor and legislature could have 18 implemented meaningful sentencing 19 reform by dismantling both the 20 Rockefeller Drug Laws and the Second 21 Felony Offender Laws. 22 Both of these two laws serve 23 no justifiable penal objective and 24 do not adequately address the root 25 causes of drug-related crimes. 40 1 2 Instead, the governor and the 3 legislature decided to create a drug 4 treatment campus at the Willard 5 Psychiatric Facility for non violent 6 second felony D and E drug 7 offenders, which is a minuscule 8 fraction of the drug population, who 9 will be sentenced to patrol 10 supervision by the court. 11 Placement in this drug 12 treatment program is mandatory and 13 the length of this treatment is only 14 for a period of 90 days. 15 Drug offenders who are 16 currently under DOCS custody, who 17 were convicted of a D or E felony, 18 will also be eligible for 19 conditional release and a parole 20 supervision. These offenders will 21 only have to serve a period of 30 to 22 90 days at Willard, unless the 23 Division of Parole waives this 24 requirement on the grounds that the 25 inmate has satisfactorily completed 41 1 2 treatment in prison. 3 First, 90 days is considered 4 insufficient time to treat the 5 addictive elements of drug abuse and 6 to provide other critical services 7 for a person's complete 8 rehabilitation. 9 The senator is apprehensive 10 over the quality and substance of 11 the treatment services which will be 12 provided to this group. 13 The law does not offer any 14 specific details as to who will be 15 administering the drug treatment 16 program and the nature of the 17 treatment plan. 18 He believes it makes better 19 sense to expend the money 20 appropriated for Willard to support 21 proven drug treatment programs 22 located in or near the inner city 23 communities where most prisoners 24 come from and will return. 25 Community substance abuse 42 1 2 providers such as Phoenix House, 3 Incorporated and the Altamont 4 Program, provide effective treatment 5 services and other support services 6 which assist participants in 7 acquiring employment and an 8 appropriate residence. 9 Other support services include 10 guidance and direction in 11 maintaining family ties, parenting 12 skills, appropriate group and 13 individual behavior, employment and 14 counseling. 15 These community treatment 16 programs are intended to optimize 17 the likelihood of recovery and 18 overall have been successful. 19 The legislature and the 20 governor also failed to increase 21 funds for aftercare community 22 supervision programs for offenders 23 who complete the 90 day treatment at 24 Willard. 25 What is the purpose of 43 1 2 undergoing intensive treatment for 3 90 days when there is no continuity 4 of care and treatment once the 5 offender is released to the 6 community under parole supervision. 7 The end result will obviously be an 8 offender's relapse to drug abuse and 9 return to state prison for a longer 10 time. 11 The governor and the 12 legislature also managed to 13 significantly cut alcohol and 14 substance abuse treatment programs, 15 (ASAT) programs and other critical 16 programs in prisons which will 17 negatively affect an offender's 18 potential to reintegrate and succeed 19 in the community upon release. 20 ASAT services for incarcerated 21 drug offenders was cut six million 22 dollars, which reflects a reduction 23 of 91 positions. ASAT services will 24 currently be available only to 25 inmates who are near their release 44 1 2 date. 3 This means offenders who 4 desire treatment will not be 5 eligible until they are close to 6 patrol eligibility. 7 This is clearly illogical 8 reasoning, since inmates who enter 9 the system with a substance abuse 10 problem are prime candidates for 11 treatment and treatment must be 12 provided as soon as possible so that 13 rehabilitation can begin its 14 course. 15 The senator believes the 16 criminal justice measures enacted 17 this year were ill-conceived, will 18 continue to fuel the growth of our 19 prison population and will 20 necessitate more prison 21 construction. 22 He still remains hopeful that 23 the governor, legislature and the 24 public will soon come to realize 25 that punishing drug offenders for a 45 1 2 crime which stems from an addictive 3 condition is counterproductive. 4 He believes the best approach 5 is to legalize drugs, control their 6 distribution and treat the illness 7 while simultaneously eliminating the 8 crimes associated with the sale and 9 consumption of drugs. 10 The next best approach is to 11 decriminalize all types of non 12 violent drug crimes and provide 13 alternative sanctions to prison, 14 such as community supervision and 15 treatment which keeps the offender 16 close to his family while undergoing 17 intensive treatment and rehabilita- 18 tion. That is his testimony. 19 MR. SALOMON: Thank you very 20 much. 21 Are there any members of the 22 committee that would like to ask 23 questions at this point? 24 MR. KAYSER: Thank you for 25 your testimony. I just have a 46 1 2 couple of questions. 3 It relates to Senator 4 Galiber's bill. I was pleased to 5 hear that the bill calls for some 6 form of taxes to be collected 7 upon the sale of drugs. 8 Is there any estimate as to 9 what the tax collections would be if 10 we were to legalize, under some 11 controlled condition, the sale of 12 drugs, collect taxes which will be 13 commensurate with alcohol, tobacco? 14 MS. LINNETTE: I am sure that 15 it would be millions but, 16 unfortunately, I don't have the data 17 with me today and I will be more 18 than happy to provide that 19 information to you when I get back 20 to the office. 21 MR. SALOMON: If you have that 22 information, that would be helpful 23 to the committee. Thank you. 24 Any other members? How about 25 from the floor? Any questions? 47 1 2 SPEAKER: Earlier versions of 3 Senator Galiber's bill regarding 4 control substance authority 5 specified in the legislation the 6 list of controlled substances. 7 A more recent version I saw of 8 his a couple of years ago empowered 9 the control substance authority 10 itself to alter the list of 11 controlled substances. 12 Apparently, without any 13 criteria in the legislation, I 14 objected, that this could lead to 15 the possibility of controlled 16 substance authority making milk, 17 gasoline, cement a controlled 18 substance, possibly to derive the 19 additional benefit of certain 20 people. 21 Has there been any change in 22 this more recent version of the 23 bill? 24 MS. LINNETTE: It was the 25 creation of the new diary of drugs 48 1 2 and other legal addictive substances 3 and rather than put a list that 4 would require subsequent legislative 5 changes, which takes a considerable 6 length of time, he thought that it 7 was best to delegate that type of 8 authority to someone to help 9 professionals and others who would 10 be able to make those types of 11 determinations. 12 As far as a criteria to limit 13 them, I am not aware of any 14 subsequent changes that would limit 15 that authority. However, it's 16 something that I am sure that I will 17 bring back to him and discuss how it 18 could be done. 19 MR. SALOMON: Any further 20 questions? Thank you very much. 21 Our next speaker is Dr. 22 Gabriele Nahas. Dr. Nahas is a 23 research professor of anesthesiology 24 at N.Y.U. Medical Center. He was 25 educated at the University of Taluse 49 1 2 and the University of Rochester and 3 the University of Minnesota. 4 He has received the 5 presidential metal of freedom and a 6 number of other awards. His 7 expertise is in pathology and 8 pharmacology and with particular 9 reference to the biochemical 10 impairment of the brain as a result 11 of drugs. 12 Doctor, would you like to sit 13 or do you need to stand in order to 14 present your testimony? 15 DR. NAHAS: I am very honored 16 to present a view point of a 17 physician and of a scientist on this 18 very complex question of the control 19 of the drugs. 20 What I would like to stress 21 mostly is, I think that it's very 22 important to define what we are 23 speaking about. There seems to be a 24 real gap which is increasing between 25 the scientists and what is called 50 1 2 biological scientist and social 3 scientist and which the law is 4 included, because we don't seem to 5 speak of the same thing when you 6 speak of illicit drugs. 7 Indeed, I don't think that 8 anyone here that I have heard so far 9 realizes what drugs do to the body 10 and mainly to the brain. The 11 effects on the brain have been 12 studied over the past few years. 13 Scientists indicate that 14 illicit drugs of dependence impair 15 primarily in a persistent fashion 16 the most important organ of man, 17 which is his brain. 18 I would like to show you some 19 slides, because that is the only way 20 you can perceive the importance of 21 this. 22 The area of the brain which 23 controls pleasure reward, memory, 24 coordination, judgment, goal 25 oriented activities are 51 1 2 preferentially and persistently 3 targeted by drugs of dependence, 4 mainly cannabis, cocaine and 5 heroin. 6 You will see in the slides 7 changes in blood flow and glucose 8 utilization, and biochemical 9 pathways have been measured as long 10 as 100 days after cessation of 11 chronic use of cocaine along with 12 alterations in psychomotor 13 functions. 14 With marijuana, deficits in 15 memory storage are still present 16 more than six weeks following 17 cessation of habitual marijuana 18 smoking. 19 After a single marijuana 20 cigarette, trained pilots exhibit 21 for 24 hours measurable errors of 22 piloting and are unable to land in 23 the center of the landing strip. 24 Changes in cognitive function 25 can be measured in former chronic 52 1 2 marijuana smokers as long as three 3 months after they have stopped 4 taking the drug. 5 More recently in Houston, a 6 few weeks ago, there was a report 7 from a group of psychologists from 8 Sidney indicating that after 9 marijuana use there were persistent 10 alterations in psychomotor functions 11 which could be measured up to six 12 months. 13 They were small, but they 14 were clearly measurable with our 15 new techniques and this was a 16 definite study. 17 Every thousandth of a second, 18 the brian depends upon the capacity 19 of this extraordinary computer to 20 integrate messages arising from all 21 of its functional parts in a 22 coherent fashion. 23 Every thousandth of a second, 24 the brain marshals billions of 25 signals according to modalities that 53 1 2 adjust to the conditions of the 3 environment and to its own memory 4 banks. 5 These signals are chemically 6 transmitted through minute 7 quantities of substances called 8 neurotransmitters which are secreted 9 by billions of nerve cells. 10 Neurotransmitters regulate the 11 transmission of nerve impulses 12 racing through the cerebral network, 13 across a hundred billion relays or 14 chips or synapses. 15 Drugs impair the release of 16 these neurotransmitters and also 17 damage biochemical regulatigg 18 mechanisms which program their 19 constant physiological recycling. 20 Illicit drugs of dependence 21 in amounts of a few billionths of a 22 gram will not only target receptors 23 in the membrane of brain cells but 24 also the genes of the neuronal 25 cells. 54 1 2 You have heard a lot about the 3 cells. There are genes in the brain 4 also which program all the activity 5 of the brain. These genes are part 6 of the DNI molecule. 7 Drugs of dependence impair 8 persistently the basic mechanism of 9 the brain cell by altering the 10 expression of the DNA contained in 11 its nucleus. 12 As a result, new biochemical 13 patterns are established in brain 14 areas which control pleasure reward, 15 coordination, memory and goal 16 oriented behavior. 17 These new biochemical patterns 18 may become so deeply imprinted in 19 the brain as to prove virtualy 20 irreversible. 21 The addicted subject will then 22 display drug seeking and drug 23 consuming behavior and lose his will 24 power and freedom of choice. The 25 gene regulation of his brain has 55 1 2 been altered. 3 He is transformed into a drug 4 seeking robot, only able to function 5 inside the narrow context defined by 6 his habit. 7 Brain biochemical alteration 8 induced by drugs will also affect 9 hormonal regulation which control 10 male and female reproductive 11 function and maturation of germ 12 cells. 13 Drugs cross the placenta and 14 impair fetal development. Some 15 members of the future generation are 16 impaired even before they are 17 conceived, because now scientists 18 have found these drugs are attached 19 to receptors on the germ cell and 20 there is a risk for babies. Of 21 course, there is a chance of the 22 wrong signal being signaled to the 23 egg. It's all a matter of 24 transmission in the body. 25 All those signals have to 56 1 2 cycle in a very orderly fashion and 3 what drugs do is to disorganize this 4 organized transmission throughout 5 the body, in the brain, in the cells 6 and in the immune system. 7 All of this points to a great 8 risk related to an important part of 9 the population. I am concerned 10 about the kids 14 years old starting 11 to take drugs, marijuana smoking, 12 for instance, because he thinks it's 13 not harmful to him and yet there is 14 a risk for him. 15 I have drafted also a few 16 recommendations here, the message I 17 would like to give here, and I would 18 like to show you a few slides as to 19 what I have been saying. 20 MR. SALOMON: We only have 21 three minutes. 22 DR. NAHAS: I will just then 23 end up. I think you got the 24 biological message and you can find 25 out in hundreds of publications. 57 1 2 Tobacco, though addictive, 3 does not impair information 4 processing by the brain required for 5 proper intellectual and psychomotor 6 performance, attention and 7 judgement. The same may be said for 8 alcohol in small doses by adults. 9 The advocates of legaliza- 10 tion also overlook the specific 11 rapid and long lasting impairing 12 effect of illicit drugs on 13 the genes of the cerebral cells 14 which program the normal 15 biochemistry and physiology of the 16 brain. 17 They omit to state that while 18 a sociological failure in the United 19 States, alcohol prohibition was a 20 public health success, as documented 21 by the significant decrease of liver 22 cirrhosis and psychiatric admissions 23 during that period. 24 Second, they grossly over- 25 estimate the effectiveness of 58 1 2 treatment for drug addiction for 3 which there is no known cure. 4 The use of drugs spread 5 according to availability and 6 follows the social laws governing 7 the spread of epidemics. The drug 8 user is a proselyte person and 9 wishes to share the drug 10 experience with others. 11 In the middle of the last 12 century, legalization of opium trade 13 was forced upo China by British 14 armed intervention. 15 Fifty years later, 90 million 16 Chinese, a forth of the population, 17 had become addicted to the drug. 18 China had the support of 19 International community led by the 20 United States and Theodore 21 Roosevelt. 22 It took 50 years for the 23 Chinese to learn their lesson in 24 whatever regime they opted for, the 25 Peoples Republic, Republic of 59 1 2 Taiwan, or the Republic of 3 Singapore. 4 What are we to think of the 5 earlier actions of the British 6 Empire taken in the name of personal 7 freedom and free trade, which as 8 this history shows, in fact enslaved 9 an entire nation. 10 Using similar methods of 11 supply reduction after World War II 12 the Japanese were able to first 13 overcome a major epidemic of I.V. 14 amphetamine use and later an 15 epidemic of intravenous heroin use. 16 The Singapore Republic, at the 17 doorstep of the Golden Triangle 18 overcame in a few years an epidemic 19 of heroin smoking by strict law 20 enforcement to prevent heroin from 21 reaching the market and compulsory 22 drug free rehabilitation. 23 These victories did not come 24 easily or cheaply. They were 25 achieved at the cost of severe 60 1 2 repression of the major offenders 3 and of very costly rehabilitative 4 measures. 5 I must give an example. 6 It's an example of Sweden. 7 Sweden has stopped an epidemic of 8 heroin, marijuana use by applying a 9 strict policy of intervention and 10 also a policy of, very costly 11 policy, at least $40 billion a year 12 and this policy has worked. Sweden 13 has the lowest rate of drug 14 addiction. This country has the 15 highest rate of drug use. 16 So I think that the foregoing 17 facts are cited in order to clarify 18 the real situation as seen by a 19 pharmacologist who has devoted 20 nearly the whole of his professional 21 life to making the scientific 22 community more aware of the dangers 23 inherent in recreational use of 24 illicit drugs. 25 MR. BROWN: Good afternoon, 61 1 2 Dr. Nahas. How are you today? 3 Actually, I have a lot of 4 questions I would like to ask you, 5 but in the interest of time, I am 6 just going to try to focus on a 7 couple of matters I think I would 8 like you to address here today. 9 I read your paper very 10 carefully. You mentioned at the 11 outset there is a gap between the 12 scientists and social scientists. 13 I understand that you tried to 14 present here the gist of what you 15 had, only 15 minutes to present 16 here. 17 I was disappointed in the 18 level of detail that was presented 19 in this paper. I thought things 20 were said in sweeping manners 21 without any kind of support or 22 explanation about exactly what you 23 are saying. 24 Let me pin you down on one 25 specific point. I read this paper 62 1 2 carefully. Maybe I am wrong. It 3 seems to me that your thesis is that 4 drugs are bad because drugs impair 5 the brain and the way the drugs 6 impair the brain is that they affect 7 the brain by causing changes in the 8 way the brain functions. Is that 9 correct? 10 DR. NAHAS: Certainly, it's 11 correct. 12 MR. BROWN: Aren't there other 13 situation experiences in life in 14 addition to drug use that cause 15 permanent changes in the way that 16 the brain functions? 17 For example, isn't the whole 18 basis of psychotherapy that people 19 go to speak to a psychotherapist by 20 going through the process of 21 articulating their problems and they 22 are having some permanent changes to 23 their brains or don't you believe -- 24 DR. NAHAS: I think that you 25 make a fundamental error between 63 1 2 the psychotherapy and its effect on 3 the brain. 4 MR. BROWN: Let me give you 5 another analogy. I happened to 6 study marshal arts. Let me talk 7 about something. 8 DR. NAHAS: You see, these 9 drugs are attached to receptors in 10 the brain and the psychotherapist is 11 going to act in a very indirect 12 way. 13 But this effect of the drug is 14 immediate and it will be immediately 15 followed by a measurable biochemical 16 change, which will be prolonged, 17 which will outlast by several hours 18 or days acute reaction, pleasant 19 reaction of the brain. 20 The brain is going to 21 substitute with a normal neuro- 22 transmitter. In the case of 23 cocaine, it's going to substitute 24 with Dobermine. This is why it has 25 such a profound effect. It's going 64 1 2 to create in the brain within a few 3 days some very lasting biochemical 4 change. 5 MR. SALOMON: Do you have 6 another question? 7 MR. BROWN: I just want to 8 follow up on this question and to 9 say one more thing. 10 Obviously the reason that 11 drugs work in the brain is because 12 these chemicals are able to mimick 13 certain neurotransmitters that 14 naturally occur in the brain. 15 In fact, in the brain there is 16 a receptor site that is similar to, 17 it accepts the active ingredient 18 THC, and that must be because there 19 is a naturally occurring substance 20 in the brain for which this receptor 21 is designed. 22 I am having a hard time 23 understanding the idea, because 24 these substances act on neuro- 25 transmitters, I mean receptor sites 65 1 2 in the brain. 3 Therefore, in the long term, 4 this means drugs are bad. But we 5 have to have this whole elaborate 6 system of law enforcement and a 7 society built around the people who 8 do this to themselves that say they 9 are evil, they need to be 10 incarcerated, they need to be kept 11 away from any normal activities in 12 life, they are destroying 13 themselves, becoming robots. That 14 is what you told me in this paper 15 here. 16 DR. NAHAS: You see, sir, in 17 your question, you asked five 18 different subjects which are 19 overlapping to each other. 20 Nature has put in the 21 brain not more than 12 or 13 22 receptors for specific substances 23 which are produced, which was to 24 allow for a regular recycling of the 25 nerve transmitter and regular 66 1 2 programming of the brain. 3 What you are doing is 4 substituting to this 5 neurotransmitter. Marijuana is 6 going to produce some long lasting 7 impairment of this information. 8 MR. SALOMON: Dr. Nahas, we 9 are going to have two questions from 10 the floor. I hope we can ask these 11 questions briefly and they can be 12 answered briefly. 13 The first question is by the 14 gentleman back there in the third 15 row. 16 SPEAKER: High school students 17 today are taught that marijuana 18 physically damages, actually kills 19 brain cells. Is this true? 20 DR. NAHAS: There is no 21 evidence that the brain cell is 22 being killed, except that it's 23 altered. It is altered in its 24 branching of synapsis, as shown by a 25 number of experimental studies. 67 1 2 From the pictures that we see, 3 we see some abnormal aspect of the 4 cell, as far as nuclear construc- 5 tion. 6 MR. SALOMON: The gentleman 7 in the back has been here all day 8 and is asking his first question 9 now. 10 SPEAKER: First let me 11 give you my scientific background. 12 I am in the National Institute of 13 Study Section for Alcoholism and my 14 field of research is membranes. 15 I must confess, I am somewhat 16 embarrassed by this talk. I hope 17 you will forgive me by saying that, 18 but many of the statements, the 19 assumptions that are made or the 20 statements that are made, based 21 upon what is stated to be a fact, is 22 not a fact. 23 The billionth level of 24 concentration of drugs that affects 25 DNI is simply not correct. DNI 68 1 2 is not affected by billionth level 3 concentrations. Billionths of a 4 gram was the way you put it. 5 The billionth level barely 6 affects a hormone site on a 7 receptor. It is way below 8 concentration of what binds on 9 the surface of the cell. 10 So your levels of what you are 11 talking about are way off. There is 12 a whole series of statements made as 13 though they are facts. 14 I don't know of any citations 15 in the literature for many of them. 16 DR. NAHAS: Well, I can give 17 them to you. 18 SPEAKER: I would appreciate 19 them. I don't mean this to be a 20 nasty statement. This is presented 21 to a lay group and we are scientists 22 that should have a standard. 23 DR. NAHAS: I don't think that 24 you are aware of the work of - - 25 SPEAKER: Cannabis stays in 69 1 2 the brain and it stays in the brain 3 for eight days. 4 DR. NAHAS: What is the 5 concentration of THC in the neuron 6 cell after, let's say, five days? 7 SPEAKER: What is the 8 concentration? It's barely 9 detectable. It's barely detectable 10 and after eight days our best 11 instruments can't detect it. 12 MR. SALOMON: Thank you very 13 much for your testimony today. 14 Now our next speaker is 15 Robert Jesse. Mr. Jesse is a 16 graduate of John Hopkins School of 17 Engineering in 1981 and founded 18 C.S.P. in 1994. 19 MR. JESSE: Thank you very 20 much. I would like to thank the 21 members of the committee for taking 22 on a really huge problem, one that 23 we have seen throughout the 24 testimony today. There is not a lot 25 of agreement. 70 1 2 It's really inspiring to me to 3 see that you have devoted your time 4 and energies to doing something that 5 is so tough. 6 Having said that, what I have 7 to talk about today may seem a 8 little out of place. This testimony 9 is about the impact that the drug 10 laws inadvertantly have on the free 11 exercise of religion, affecting 12 people for whom certain prohibited 13 substances are an essential feature 14 of their spiritual practices. 15 That impact effectively 16 constitutes religious persecution, 17 even though most of the people 18 conducting it have no desire to 19 prosecute and don't even know they 20 are doing it. 21 The substances we are 22 considering here are those known in 23 the medical community as 24 hallucinogens and elsewhere as 25 psychedelics. These drugs are 71 1 2 sharply dissimilar from such drugs 3 as cocaine and heroin. 4 Several of them have been 5 shown to be very low in addiction 6 potential and overdose risk and to 7 be of very low organic toxicity. 8 Here is a chart that I would 9 like to spend just a minute on. One 10 researcher named Robert Gable was 11 approached by a son of his who 12 wanted to know about the dangers of 13 taking certain drugs and, to his 14 surprise, there was no information 15 available about the addictiveness or 16 acute toxicity of various drugs. 17 Let me just describe to you 18 what this chart is here, and I have 19 additional copies of it. He 20 conducted that computer research for 21 information and literature about 22 addiction potential and acute 23 toxicity of drug use. I actually 24 reviewed 700 and ended up making 25 this chart on the basis of 350 72 1 2 papers. 3 Acute toxicity means risk of 4 death from an acute overdose. The 5 up and down access is representation 6 of severe risk of fatality at the 7 top and bottom, negligible risk of 8 fatality. Over to the left we have 9 very low dependency and over to the 10 right very high dependency. 11 We have drugs such as L.S.D 12 and psilocybin, which is the active 13 component in mushrooms, rating very, 14 very low in toxicity. 15 I would like you to remember 16 that chart and notice how different 17 drug substances are. This only 18 shows two dimensions of risks. One 19 comment that I will leave for the 20 committee, it does not make 21 sense to try to develop public 22 policy that treats all these 23 substances similarly. 24 Given their widely varying 25 profiles, it would not give us more 73 1 2 control over the drug situation to 3 treat each individual substance or 4 their category of substances. 5 The risks of injurious 6 behavior and of psychological harm 7 from the altered consciousness 8 experience, which are not negligible 9 in unsupervised casual use, appear 10 to be minimized when they are used 11 in ritual settings. 12 It's the ability of the 13 substance to catalyze religious 14 spiritual practices. We use a new 15 word entheogens to describe the 16 substances when they are used for a 17 spiritual purpose. 18 For as long as we know of, 19 there have been at least a few 20 people in every culture, the mystics 21 and the saints, who were able 22 through prayer, meditation, or other 23 techniques to bring upon themselves 24 mystical states of consciousness. 25 In some cultures, this direct 74 1 2 experience of the sacred was 3 available to everyone, or to members 4 of special bodies of initiates, 5 through the sacramental use of 6 psychoactive plants and 7 preparations. 8 For example, we have very 9 good evidence now that the 10 Eleusinian Mystery rites, perfomed 11 annually near Athens for almost 2000 12 years, featured a mystical 13 revelation brought on by the 14 drinking of a hallucinogenic brew. 15 The Sanskrit Rg Veda, one of 16 the oldest religious texts known, 17 praises a mind-altering substance 18 called soma, now identified as the 19 psychoactive mushroom Amanita 20 muscaria. 21 As early as 300 B.C., the 22 Aztecs used the entheogenic cactus 23 peyote in their spiritual practices. 24 Continuing to this day, indigenous 25 peoples in Russia, Africa, Mexico, 75 1 2 South America and North America, 3 including an estimated 25,000 to 4 400,000 American Indians in the