101st Congress COMMITTEE PRINT

Ist Session I

LEGALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS:

IMPACT AND FEASIBILITY

(A Review of Recent Hearings)

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS

ABUSE AND CONTROL

ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

SCNAC-101-1-2

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Narcotics

Abuse and Control

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

96 475 WASHINGTON: 1989

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional

Sales Office

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

JACK BROOKS, Texas

FORTNEY H. (PETE) STARK, California

JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York

CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

FRANK J. GUARINI, New Jersey

DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida

WALTER E. FAUNTROY, District of Columbia

WILLIAM J. HUGHES. New Jersey

MEL LEVINE, California

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

LAWRENCE J. SMITH, Florida

EDOLPHUS "ED" TOWNS, New York

JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR., Ohio

KWEISI MFUME, Maryland

JOSEPH E. BRENNAN, Maine

NITA M. LOWEY, New York

SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

(101st Congress)

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman

LAWRENCE COUGHLIN, Pennsylvania

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

STAN PARRIS. Virginia

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin

ROBERT K. DORNAN, California

TOM LEWIS, Florida

JAMES M. INIIOFE, Oklahoma

WALLY HERGER, California

CHRISTOPT4FR L,HAYS, Connecticut

BILL PAXON, New York

BILL GRANT, Florida

Committee Staff

EDWARD H. JURITH, Staff Director

ELLioTT A. BROWN, Minority Staff Director

(11)

Introduction

The Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control held a

2day hearing in the 2d session of the 100th Congress to

examine the legalization of all illicit narcotics.

These informational hearings, entitled "Legalization of

Illicit Drugs: Impact and Feasibility," were held in

response to public debate that began in early 1988, after

the mayor of Baltimore told a Washington, DC meeting of

the U.S. Conference of Mayors that existing U.S. drug

policy had failed. The mayor suggested legalization and

decriminalization as possible approaches to solving the

problem.

The hearings were designed to consider the seriousness of

a variety of legalization proposals that had been offered

by drug policy observers who, after the Baltimore mayor's

call for a look at legalization, stepped up their own

criticisms of U.S. antidrug policy. In effect, they

pronounced the symbolic war on drugs lost.

Now that the hearings have been completed, and testimony

has been studied and restudied, the committee, led by

Chairman Charles B. Rangel and Ranking Member Benjamin

Gilman, has produced a list of findings resulting from the

many hours of testimony.

The findings are not for any specific legislative purpose.

Instead, they are intended solely as an advisory to any

Members of the U.S. Congress and the public as to what the

committee believes was established by the proceedings.

How the Hearings Evolved

In the spring of 1988, Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke was

speaking to his colleagues at the U.S. Conference of

Mayors annual meeting on crime and drugs. During the

speech, Mayor Schmoke surprised the gathering when he

suggested that elected officials should consider the

legalization or the decriminalization of illicit drugs in

response to America's escalating drug crisis.

In his speech, Mayor Schmoke criticized America's current

antidrug approach as a wasteful proposition bent too far

toward law enforcement and not far enough toward treatment

and rehabilitation of drug addicts. Recalling his days as

a prosecuting attorney, Mayor Schmoke cited what he viewed

as the miniscule impact of arrests and convictions of drug

traffickers and drug users on the overall drug problem.

Schmoke's comments were the proverbial "shots heard around

the world," as few, if any, public officials had treaded

into such politically explosive waters before on the

sensitive narcotics issue.

Select Committee Chairman Rangel (D-NY) responded almost

immediately to Mayor Schmoke's legalization calls.

Chairman Rangel decried the notion as stemming from

frustration and exhasperation with the Nation's

mushrooming drug crisis. Chairman Rangel contended in

interviews and opinion articles that legalization would be

a tactical error in the war on drugs that would quite

possibly lead to a nation full of drug addicts.

Throughout the ensuing months after the hearing was

announced, people on both sides of the issue began

tangling publicly over the question. An informal national

debate had begun, and many looked toward the hearings

scheduled by Chairman Rangel as a final commentary on the

subject at least for the time being.

in calling for the hearings, Chairman Rangel expressed a

desire to get to the heart of suggestions being proposed

by legalization proponents. Although pro-legalization

advocates claimed they were simply calling for a debate on

the issue, Chairman Rangel impressed upon them that they

should come forward with specific plans and proposals,

rather than just debate the subject. Chairman Rangel made

a special plea with public officials suggesting

legalization or decriminalization to come forward with

specifics to satisfy the burden of their responsibility to

the American public.

Throughout the debate, Chairman Rangel asked legalization

advocates a series of questions in order that they might

clarify their positions. Among them:

(1) has anybody ever considered which narcotic and

psychotropic drugs might be legalized?

(2) would we allow all drugs to become legally sold and

used, or would we select the most abused few, such as

cocaine, heroin, and marijuana?

(3) who would administer the dosages-the State or the

individual?

(4) what quantity of drugs would each individual be

allowed to get?

(5) what about addicts, would we not have to give them

more in order to satisfy their craving, or would we give

them enough just to whet their appetites?

(6) what do we do about those who are experimenting? Do

we sell them drugs, too, and encourage them to pick up the

habit? (7) furthermore, will the government establish tax-

supported facilities to sell these drugs?

(8) would we get the supply from the same foreign

countries that support our habit now, or would we create

our own internal sources?

(9) would there be an age limit on purchases, as is the

case with alcohol?

(10) how many people are projected to become addicts as a

result of legalization?

(11) what about pilots, railroad engineers, surgeons,

police, cross-country truckers and nuclear plant employees

who want to use marijuana and cocaine during off-duty

hours?

(12) what about crack cocaine as a legalized drug? Would

we want to legalize something as harmful and as

destructive to our youth as this?

Legalization: A Recurring Theme

The legalization debate seems to rise to the surface when

the drug crisis reaches alarming levels, as it has

recently. The drug issue eventually moved to the top of

the list of Americans' concerns during 1988, given the

spate of news stories on the growing influence of the

narcotics trade in everyday lives.

Throughout the year, there were revelations from the

Select Committee on Narcotics and other congressional

committees about the suspected involvement of some foreign

leaders in the drug trade. Americans were also bombarded

by reports of the increased prevalence of deadly,

addictive crack cocaine; growing gang involvement in the

narcotics trade; a tripling of cocaine imports to the

United States in the 1980's; a significant rise in drug-

related violence sparked by tension between warring

traffickers and by street dealers bent on attention-

getting retaliatory tactics.

At the time of the hearing, one major news poll revealed

that the American public was more concerned about the

crisis of illegal drugs than about any other issue-

including the budget deficit.

The ABC News polling data also indicated that Americans

were wary of legalization, Nine out of ten opposed

legalizing all drugs and about 50 percent of the

respondents feared drug use would rise under legalization.

In a Gallup survey released 2 months prior to the hearing,

about 75 percent of those surveyed were opposed and nearly

70 percent felt that legalization would aggravate the

Nation's drug problem.

Through the years, advocates of legalization have favored

an end to existing drug laws, often using the end of

Prohibition in the 1930's and the end of organized crime's

involvement in the illegal liquor trade as an example in

making their case.

Chairman Rangel, on the other hand, asked of legalization

advocates in 1988: What drugs would we legalize? Who

would manufacture and distribute them? In what

neighborhoods would they be sold and marketed? Would

crack cocaine be legalized in a legalization scheme?

Would there be age and quantity limits on purchases? How

much would we give addicts, enough to satisfy their

craving?

Other opponents of the legalization theory suggested that

in addition to a potential meteoric rise in addictions,

there is no guarantee that the black market for drugs

would close down, especially if restrictions are placed on

purchase quantity and on the quality of various narcotic

substances.

Overview of the Proceedings

Thursday and Friday, September 29 and 30, 1988, were 2

significant days in the 100th Congress regarding the drug

issue. In those 2 days, a total of 34 witnesses

representing Congress, law enforcement, government,

academia, and various drug-related interest groups

testified before the Select Committee on Narcotics on

legalization.

By the time the hearing commenced, the legalization issue

had gained such national exposure that the proceedings

were carried live over public television and public radio,

and was covered by a large contingent of print media. At

this point and time in 1988, legalization was a very

important topic to many Americans concerned about the

worsening drug crisis.

In addition to the announced lineup of witnesses, several

Members of Congress who do not serve on the Select

Committee on Narcotics offered testimony on the subject.

Representative Carroll Hubbard (D-KY) and Representative

Roy Dyson (D-MD) both told the panel that the Nation's

drug crisis had become more than just a problem in urban

America. In rural areas served by both those Members,

there has been a noticeable increase in narcotics-related

problems. Representative Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) warned

about the confused messages that would be sent to the

youth if drugs were legalized. Representative Kwesi Mfume

(D-MD) also outlined his opposition, but said that more

attention should be given to demand reduction.

Following is a summary of the statement of each witness.

The summary is intended to capture the essence of what the

witness presented to the panel in his or her opening

statement, and is not a verbatim translation of the actual

testimony.

Findings

1. The ideas and recommendations of pro-legalization

forces remain varied and wide ranging. There is no

commonly agreed upon approach that should be taken to

legalize illicit narcotics.

2. The American public remains largely opposed to the

notion of legalizing illicit drugs.

3. There is no data to support the theory that

legalizing illicit drugs would result in less crime, more

affordable narcotics or decreased drug experimentation,

abuse or addiction.

4. There is no agreement on the types of currently

illicit drugs that should be considered for

legalization.

5. No definitive information exists that would show how

America's youth would be affected by legalization, whether

positively or negatively.

6. There should be a stepped up effort to look at the

expansion of treatment and rehabilitation resources around

the country.

7. The Federal war on drugs must devote more resources

to curbing drug trafficking and abuse in major U.S.

cities.

8. Narcotics law enforcement efforts need to be

improved, especially in major U.S. cities)

9. Training for the staff of drug abuse treatment

centers needs to be expanded and improved.

10. Federal drug abuse policies need more input from

residents of major American cities and not just from

governmental leaders,police chiefs, and substance abuse

professionals.

11. The burden of proof regarding the benefits of drug

legalization must be placed on the advocates of such a

policy. Until the proponents of drug legalization can

demonstrate that the benefits of such a policy outweigh

the risks to health and drug-related violeiiee, drug

legalization should be rejected.

12. American schools should continue to convey the

message that drug abuse is against the law, harmful to

health, and a detriment to optimal academic performance.

13. Employee assistance programs [EAP's] in government

and industry must be strengthened to help employees and

their families deal effectively with drug abuse,

14. We have not yet begun to fight the war.

Consequently, legalization should not be considered an

alternative.

Summary of Statements by Members of Congress

CHAIRMAN CHARLES B. RANGEL (D-NY), SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROT.

Legalization has been widely discussed in academic

settings, and on radio and TV talk shows. But this is the

first time in a long time the issue has made its way to

the Congress.

Most of those who have been advocating legalization have

been calling for either a debate, a discussion or a

consideration. But after an advance reading of some of

the testimony, it does not appear that any of the

witnesses are truly'advocating legalization.

Some are saying legalization ought to be discussed because

the war on drugs is being lost with law enforcement. But

the Nation has yet to declare a real war on drugs.

For 8 years, the Congress has met resistance to antidrug

efforts. The Reagan administration has shied away from

providing funds to State and local governments so that

they can fight the war on drugs.

How can we say we have a war on drugs when a total of

2,800 DEA men and women are dedicated to fighting the war

on drugs at the Federal level?

Some legalization proponents are calling for a greater

educational and rehabilitative commitment, but we do not

even have a single federally run rehabilitation program.

Some say we must do more with drug education, but so far

we have only had slogans like "Just Say No" and "Zero

Tolerance."

No opium or coca leaves are grown in this country, yet the

Secretary of State never utters his contempt for the

nations where these poisons are grown.

Legalization proponents must be prepared to discuss their

ideas and recommendations in detail.

HON. LAWRENCE COUGHLIN (R-PA), RANKING MINORITY MEMBER,

SELECT COMMITTEE: ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

Having a hearing on legalization could send a wrong

message to America's young people that drugs are OK.

Having a discussion could be a copout in the war on drugs.

The hope is that the hearing will not be interpreted as an

indication that legalization is being suggested.

To quote the attorney general of Pennsylvania, Leroy

Zimmerman, "In Philadelphia, over 50 percent of the child

abuse fatalities involved parents who heavily used

cocaine. Cheaper, legal cocaine would result in more

children dying and more babies being born addicted."

HoN. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN (R-NY), SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

Drug kingpins are Continuing to cash in on America's

insatiable appetite for illicit drugs. These

multinational criminal syndicates have built evil empires

from the drug trade.

The power of the drug trade threatens the authority of

governments worldwide. Colombia, for example, is

virtually under siege from the traffickers,

When the narcotics trade recently offered the Colombian

people the money to pay off the nation's foreign debt, the

people refused, resisting the financial temptation and

opting to take the moral high ground.

Those calling for legalization in America are seeking to

compromise the same values and morals that remain at stake

in Colombia. They are looking to cut a deal with the drug

trade.

Legalization would not put an end to the international

cartels, who would figure out ways to adapt and penetrate

the U.S. market. It would not end drug-related crime, as

many addicts on the street would continue to commit

criminal acts because of impaired judgment and instability

from illicit drug use.

It is hoped that fresh, new ideas will emerge from the

hearings that will make the Nation more effective in the

war on drugs.

HON. FORTNEY H. (PETE) STARK (D-CA), SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

In New York and Oakland, only about 10 percent of the

cocaine and heroin addicts are able to be treated for

their addictions. In both cities, people seeking drug

treatment are required to wait at least 6 months for

treatment. Drug-related crime has skyrocketed as a result

of a lack of treatment slots.

Legalization is not the answer. We must find a way to

treat the drug abuser.

I am introducing a bill to provide treatment for addicts

seeking help. The bill would be financed through the

Social Security Programs' disability insurance provisions

and utilize a Medicare-like payment principal for

outpatient and inpatient services.

HoN. JAMES H. SCHEUER(D-NY), SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

The ultimate copout in the war on drugs is to stand pat

with the current ineffective drug control policy. Pumping

more resources into a transparently failed system would be

an admission of defeat in the war on drugs.

Our system has totally failed. If seizures, arrests, and

convictions are going up, then so is violence and

addiction. We must end the preoccupation with the

criminal justice aspect of the problem and focus more on

education and treatment.

A new system and a new strategy would involve changing

people's behavior. We have successfully changed attitudes

and behavior on alcohol and tobacco consumption.

The question is, How do we reduce the demand for drugs?

We need to examine the costs and benefits of police

crackdowns. We have to address a broad spectrum of

options and put substantially more resources into those

programs that really work.

HON. CARDISS COLLINS (D-IL), SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

Drugs have been a problem for many years. It is one of

the greatest public evils in the United States.

The present administration has demonstrated a profound

lack of understanding on the drug issue. The First Lady

has told us to "Just Say No," while the President has said

no to an effective policy to rapidly eradicate drug crops

from society.

It seems incontrovertible that the immediate effect of

legalization would be rampant drug use. This would occur

for at least a short period, as the lion that has been

held captive for many years would be let out of the den.

Even if legalization were to have the desired effect, it

would not work until the lion became accustomed to the new

liberties. That could be a very long time, and the Nation

could not afford to wait.

Legalization could lead to a legal and constitutional

quagmire, in which the newly legal rights of individuals

must be merged with the obligation to protect society.

HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA (D-HI), SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

The issue is not whether we ought to sanction the use of

drugs, but whether legalization can break the stranglehold

that drugs have had on our communities.

We have contended that drugs affect all of us, not just

users and pushers. That has never been more apparent than

it is today.

HON. FRANK J. GUARINI (D-NJ), SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

Legalization is not the cure for the Nation's drug

problems. It is the wrong policy, and it sends the wrong

signal. It sends the signal to the drug lords that the

Nation has lost, and they have won. It tells America's

youth that the U.S. Government says yes to drugs.

People should be motivated so that they don't need drugs.

They need to be given something to believe in. A sense of

purpose and a spirit of idealism need to be renewed in

America. Hope and dreams should replace despair and

hunger.

There should be a dialog on the issue, as it may in the

long run contribute to bringing an end to the drug crisis.

HoN. DANTE B. FASCELL (D-FL), SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

The fight against drugs must focus on interdiction,

education, and rehabilitation. We just passed an oninibus

drug bill in the House, but no matter how vigorously we

attack the problem, we must key on reducing demand.

The issue should be discussed, and all views should get a

fair hearing. But legalization and decriminalization are

not the solutions to the drug problem.

A clear connection has been established between crime and

drugs. While many individuals commit crimes to get drugs,

others who commit crimes are found to have used illicit

drugs just prior to the commission of the crime.

Legalization will compound the situation because drugs

will be easier to obtain. It sends a misguided and

contradictory signal.

If drugs were legalized, how would we be able to tell our

kids to stay off drugs? How can we urge other countries

to work with us in interdiction and eradication efforts?

We must increase aid to State and local law agencies.

Efforts must be concentrated on interdiction, demand

reduction, and on rehabilitation and education.

HON. WILLIAM J. HUGHES (D-NJ), SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS

ABUSE AND CONTROL

I am very much opposed to legalization. This view comes

after reflecting on 24 years as either a prosecutor or a

Member of Congress.

Where in the entire world has legalization worked?

Witnesses would do well to indicate this to the committee

in testimony. Also, indicate to the committee how the

profits are going to be removed from the drug trade under

legalization. The black market will not be eliminated.

Policies of recent years are workable if they are followed

with the proper commitment. To date, the commitment has

not been made in terms of effort and resources.

The Nation's strategy is good. Many of the provisions in

the omnibus drug bill advance us in the right direction.

Once the Nation gets serious about the problem, we will

begin to turn the corner.

HoN. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ (D-TX), SELECT COMMITTEE ON

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL

Drugs take away the God-given gift of human potential that

we all have. Illegal drugs are damaging our children, our

communities and our Nation as a whole. None of this would

change under legalization.

The question of legalization is not one of economics or

money or the black market.

The position of those who advocate legalization is

recognized. But when reasonable people discuss

unreasonable proposals, it is a sad commentary on the

impact that illegal drugs have had on society.

HoN. KWEISI MFUMF (D-MD), SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS

ABUSE AND CONTROL

I am extremely opposed to the concept of legalization.

However, it is important that the debate take place.

Both sides in the debate agree on one thing: Illicit drugs

are tearing our Nation apart. It is estimated that some

23 million Americans use illicit drugs once monthly. A

total of 6 million of these people use cocaine. Young

people in the United States use illicit drugs more than

their counterparts in any other nation of the world.

Proponents argue that legalization would remove the profit

motive. That may very well be, but drug use is driven by

demand and that's where more attention needs to be focused

nationally.

History shows that drugs made legal for adult consumption

cannot be kept out of the hands of children. Under

legalization, more children and young people would

experiment with drugs, as is the case with alcohol. It

has been estimated that about 75 percent of all drug users

become addicted.

Proponents often point to England and Holland as models

for a legalization proposal. But the concept has not

worked in either of those two countries. The policy of

legalized heroin had to be discontinued in England as the

number of heroin users increased and the black market

continued to thrive. In Amsterdam, Holland, where

marijuana is legal, crime and hard drug use remains a

problem.

An additional consideration is the threat of babies born

to drugaddicted mothers. That probably would be

exacerbated under legalization. So would other problems,

such as car and train accidents and corruption.

The U.S. focus on eliminating the drug problem should

expand beyond the one-dimensional effort to stop the

supply. More focus should be placed on demand reduction,

specifically treatment and rehabilitation.

If the United States is fighting a war on drugs, the

battlefields are not in Colombia and Bolivia, but rather

in our schools and our communities.

HON. MICHAEL OXLEY (R-OH), SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS

ABUSE AND CONTROL

The idea of legalization should not even be dignified with

a 2-day hearing by the committee.

Consideration of the notion of legalization sends a bad

message to the rest of the Nation and to the rest of the

world. America's teenagers who may be considering

experimenting with drugs may see that legalization is

being considered and think that it is now OK to use drugs.

Legalization is unacceptable in a civilized society.

My hope for an outcome to the hearings is that the book on

legalization will be closed once and for all.

HON. Tom LEWIS (R-FL), SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS

ABUSE

AND CONTROL

It is contradictory that those committed to fighting drugs

have agreed to give a hearing to the legalization issue.

Making drugs more affordable and more available could be

detrimental to society. Particularly objectionable is the

view of legalization advocates that the government itself

can make a profit from the drug trade.

Legalizing drug profits and making dealers out of the

government and private citizens is appalling.

HON. CARROLL HUBBARD, JR. (D-KY)

The urban drug problem is well known. But the war on

drugs needs to be fought in rural America, as well. The

drug problem is acute and serious in outlying areas.

In my own congressional district, in western Kentucky, the

U.S. Customs Service is aware of the severity of the drug

problem. They and the Drug Enforcement Administration

know of contraband-carrying flights from Colombia and

Mexico that arrive at our rural airports. These small

airports are safer for drug dealers than flying into

places like New Orleans and Miami.

I hope that the Congress will be able to lead the public

and our government away from legalization. I hope that

those who are proposing legalization would realize that

more people would experiment with drugs under Such a plan.

In my district, even the schools are not immune to the

drug trade. At a grand jury hearing last December in

Bowling Green, I testified that there were individuals

selling drugs to Western Kentucky University students. My

wife and I received death threats as a result of my

testimony, in which names were revealed.

Like others, I wonder what we can do to increase education

about drug abuse, and move as a nation toward a spiritual,

rather than chemical, dependence.

HON. ROBERT GARCIA (D-NY)

Legalization poses dangerous repercussions for the Nation.

It cannot be risked. It could not be sustained.

The legalization proposal comes at a time when public

opinion toward drug abuse is beginning to take a turn for

the positive, and after the House has just passed major

antidrug legislation to improve on the 1986 antidrug bill.

Given the problems we continue to experience with tobacco

and alcohol, the risks of legalization are just too great.

The biggest concern about legalization is the effect that

it would have on America's youth. Legalization would

result in the widespread use of drugs, especially among

youth. The greatest impact would be felt in minority

communities and in the inner city.

As long as there are drug users who cannot afford drugs

legally, there will be a black market. Unless we legalize

all drugs-including crack, PCP, LSD-and unless we make

them universally available, there will be crime.

Legalization fails to take into account whether special

restrictions would have to be placed on pilots, law

officers, truck drivers and others in hazardous

occupations. It also fails to consider the spread of AIDS

through intravenous drug use.

HON. Roy DYSON (D-MD)

Legalization is a foolhardy and reckless proposal that

would have a negative impact on the family.

The drug problem has filtered down to rural America. In

one of the counties located in my district, the number of

drug offenses rose 114 percent from 1986 to 1987.

Activists like Timothy Leary, Alan Ginsberg and Jerry

Rubin 20 years ago advocated that drug use was okay and

should be accepted as a form of escapism from the rough

times of the real world. But over the past 20 years, we

have seen the personal and financial ruin that drug use

brings about.

Under legalization, America would become enslaved to

drugs. Decriminalization is simply a backdoor way of

legalizing narcotics.

Legalization would send a bad message. It would increase

drug use and addiction. It would result in the

expenditure of billions of additional dollars in health

care costs and in lost productivity.

We must begin teaching our children at an early age about

the dangers of harmful drugs. Though education must play

a vital role in our antidrug efforts, we must still

initiate stiff sanctions against those who grow, use and

sell illicit narcotics.

HoN. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN (D-MD)

In a survey of my Third Congressional District (portions

of Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Howard County), 69

percent of the respondents oppose legalization and

decriminalization.

A war on drugs cannot be won unless the profit is taken

out of the drug trade. But decriminalization is not the

way to accomplish that.

Constituents are saying that our discussions on the

national drug debate should also take into account the

damage from other harmful substances, such as alcohol and

cigarettes.

More money should be focused on establishing effective

treatment and education programs if a real war on drugs is

going to be waged.

What is needed is a comprehensive approach combining

foreign and domestic policy sensitive to the urgency of

interdiction efforts, stricter enforcement, more resources

to educate our youth to the dangers of drugs and treatment

programs without waiting lists.

Summary of Testimony From Thursday, September 29, 1988

MAYOR KURT L, SCHMOKE, BALTIMORE

America needs to reexamine its current drug policy. The

Nation is spending about $10 billion annually to enforce

drug laws that are catching only a fraction of the

violators.

The drug problem in America is defined in two components:

addiction and crime. Law enforcement is unable to resolve

either of these two problems and actually has worsened the

crime problem. The black market is a result of the

manufacture and sale of cocaine being criminalized and

profits from drug sale-, are enormous because the

substances cannot be obtained legally.

Nationwide, there were 750,000 drug arrests in 1987 and

Baltimore had 12,000 drug arrests, yet both represent only

a fraction of the drug violators. Prisons and jails are

packed with drug offenders, One-third of all Federal

prisoners are incarcerated on drug offenses.

Cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands, but no move has

been made to make them illegal. Antismoking campaigns and

other

Neither PCP nor LSD should be legalized. But a

maintenance system involving designated hospitals should

be implemented for cocaine and heroin abusers, with the

opportunity for abusers to enroll in a treatment program

aimed at reducing the intake of either of these drugs down

to zero.

MAYOR EDWARD I. KOCH OF NEW YORK CITY

Mayor Schmoke's proposal to maintain heroin and cocaine

addicts is not new. The concept has been tried in Great

Britain, and it has failed. Addiction and crime both rose

as a result of doctorprescribed drug maintenance in that

country.

Legally received cocaine could be turned into the

derivative crack by mixing in baking soda or some other

base in the heating process. This would be a

surreptitious way for crack addicts to obtain their fix if

cocaine and heroin were legalized and prescribed.

Organized crime still, would play a role in drug

production and distribution for those who are either

underage or cannot get the amount and quality they desire.

In Great Britain, 84 percent of the government-registered

addicts during that country's heroin maintenance program

were discovered to be using other drugs illicitly.

With a population of 240 million people and about 6

million regular drug users in that group, drugs still

remain unacceptable and drug users remain a sizable

minority in the Nation. If legalization were to go into

effect, there would be a gradual acceptability that would

lead to an increase in users.

There is little distinction between decriminalization and

legalization, and both are bad ideas that should be

opposed.

MAYOR DENNIS CALLAHAN OF ANNAPOLIS, MD

The most compelling argument for not supporting the notion

of legalization comes from the problems our society

currently experiences with alcohol. According to the

Research Triangle Institute in North Carolina, alcohol

abuse costs America about $117 billion annually in

medical, property, productivity and other losses. Of this

amount, only about $2,5 billion related to law enforcement

costs while the rest concerned accidents and other

problems associated with the abuse of alcohol.

Even marijuana should not be legalized. Advocates for

legalizing only this drug claim an overdose of it would

only put the user to sleep, but they could be asleep while

at the controls of a locomotive or another vehicle.

In Alaska, marijuana can be grown legally on private plots

and it can be consumed on the premises. A survey of

250,000 high school students done by the Atlanta-based

organization, Parents' Resource Institute, indicates that

about one in five of those surveyed admitted to smoking

marijuana. About one in two of those surveyed in Alaska

admitted to smoking marijuana. It appears that the

sanctioning of marijuana use has contributed significantly

to the much higher usage figure in this State compared to

the rest of the Nation.

HoN. JACK LAWN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT

ADMINISTRATION

Drugs are not bad because they are illegal. Instead,

drugs are illegal because they are bad, and legalization

advocates are missing the point in blaming drug laws for

the crime and violence that has resulted from the Nation's

drug crisis.

The problems that we continue to experience with legalized

alcohol use provide strong evidence that legalization

would be a bad idea. Greater availability results in

greater use and greater abuse.

The National Council on Alcoholism reports that one of

every three American adults contends that alcohol has

brought them family trouble. About 100,000 10- and 11-

year-olds reported getting drunk once weekly in 1985, and

about 100,000 deaths a year in the United States can be

attributed to alcoholism. Of that number, 23,000 are

killed on highways and cirrhosis of the liver is the

sixthleading cause of death in America.

The United States is signatory to the Single Convention on

Drugs of 1961, and to the Convention of Psychotropic Drugs

of 1971. Both these treaties require the country to

establish and maintain effective controls on illicit

substances. The sanctity of these treaties and U.S.

credibility in the international right against drug abuse

would be severely damaged if these substances were

legalized.

Legalization would adversely affect.young people and the

crime rate. The American public has said in recent

opinion polls that it opposes legalization.

Legalization is a simple answer to a complex problem. The

answer in fighting the drug crisis comes from focusing

more on demand reduction efforts.

ARTHUR C. "CAPPY" EADS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 27TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, BELTON, TX

The whole notion of legalizing drugs ignores the reason

why drugs were made illegal in the first place. They are

bad for the user, the community and society as a whole.

Drug use often translates into child neglect and abuse,

runaways, molestation and other crimes and maladies that

result from individuals being under the influence of

drugs.

It is wrong to assume that funding for enforcement versus

funding for treatment and rehabilitation are distinctly

different, and that they are competing categories, as both

areas must be adequately funded for an effective antidrug

strategy. Effective treatment programs are essential in

sentencing drug offenders, while sanctions against drug

use are critical components of a treatment and prevention

strategy.

We have yet to implement in the United States, a full-

scale attack on the drug problem combining law

enforcement, treatment and prevention efforts into an

effective strategy.

HON. STERLING JOHNSON, JR., SPECIAL NARCOTICS PROSECUTOR,

NEW YORK CITY

Calls for legalization are borne from frustration with an

inadequate response from the executive branch of the

government. Unfortunately, not one single piece of

antidrug legislation has come from the executive branch of

the government. The only major antidrug legislation has

come from Congress.

It is improbable that heroin addicts could be

maintained, as Mayor Schmoke contends. If an addict's

habit is maintained at a certain level, over time the

level of that addict's habit will rise. The black market

would remain in existence under legalization. Further,

the matter of whether doctors, pilots and other people in

sensitive occupations would be allowed to use legal drugs

must be examined closely.

Legalized drugs will not stop crime, and the experience

with prescribed heroin in Great Britain provides evidence

that a downward trend in crime is not necessarily the case

of lessened restrictions on drug use.

Finally, the concept of free needles, which is supported

by Mayor Schmoke and also New York Citv Mayor Koch, is a

bad idea. It sends out erroneous signals that conflict

with any and all efforts to put an end to the use of

harmful illicit drugs.

JERALD VAUGHN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

The IACP represents more than 15,000 top-level law

enforcement executives in the United States. The group is

unequivocally opposed to drug legalization.

Overcrowded jails and prisons and loaded court dockets

indicate success, rather than failure, of law enforcement

in the battle against illicit drugs. Money is not being

wasted on law enforcement, as only 3 percent of all

expenditures at the Federal, State and local level involve

the civil and criminal justice system. A total of 1.4

percent of Government spending goes toward the provision

of law enforcement services, and less than 1 percent of

the Federal budget is earmarked for law enforcement.

Less than 500,000 law enforcement officers are assigned to

protect more than 245 million American citizens, and the

lead antidrug agency has just 3,000 officers.

The IACP, in conjunction with the Justice Department, the

Bureau of Justice Assistance and DEA, called together law

enforcement authorities from all levels for five drug

strategy sessions in 1987. A major finding from those

sessions was that crime could be reduced through

cooperative community strategies. This information was

produced in manual form.

The United States has seen fit to protect Americans from

substances that may be harmful through the regulation of

the sale and distribution of these products. There has

lieen little complaint about the infringement on

individual rights in the process. It is understood that

these products-meats, milk, prescription drugs, serums and

vaccines-are regulated because the manufacturer alone

cannot be depended upon to put the interests of the

consumer ahead of the interests of profit.

Legalization is not a realistic option. At best, it is a

last resort when all else has truly failed.

WILLIAM CHAMBLISS, PH.D., PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON

UNIVERSITY

The drug trade was estimated at about $1 billion a year 50

years ago in 1938. Today, it is valued at somewhere

around $130 billion, which is larger than the gross

national product of most nations in the world and many

multinational corporations,

Drug profits remain essential to the survival of organized

crime. Churning out these profits and protecting them

involves engendering corruption of law enforcement

authorities, and this remains an ongoing goal of organized

crime, which remains a hazard of trying to stop the flow

and use of drugs by criminalizing it.

Because of the level of poverty and other factors, it is

impossible to expect a complete end to the drug trade even

if police were able to arrest each and every drug pusher

tomorrow. The costs of enforcing drug laws outweighs the

benefits,

A new drug policy should first take into account that

marijuana should be considered separately from such

substances as cocaine and heroin. States that have

decriminalized marijuana have had positive experiences as

a result.

Although the experiment with prescribed heroin in Great

Britain has not been totally successful, it is more

successful than what the United States has experienced

with criminalized heroin. Both heroin and cocaine should

be legalized and dispensed by medical professionals.

DR. CHARLES R. SCHUSTER, PH.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

INSTITUTE

ON DRUG ABUSE

NIDA is strongly opposed to the legalization of illicit

narcotics.

First, there are a series of questions-including the many

posed by Chairman Rangel-that must be answered before we

can even begin to consider something as complicated as

legalization. For example, the pharmacological effects of

cocaine differ so that it is impossible to consider how

much would be considered enough, or a legal limit.

Second, there appears to be an attitude readjustment

occurring regarding drug abuse. According to the latest

national high school survey on drug abuse, drugs are being

seen by this group as more dangerous and there is a

reporting of more self-abstention from illicit drug use

than in other recent high school surveys.

In the 1980 survey, 11 percent of the respondents reported

daily marijuana use. The 1986-87 survey indicated that

figure had dropped to 3.3 percent.

As attitudes among adults and teenagers change, so will

behavior. What is also needed are more good treatment

programs, since we know that effective treatment works.

DR. ARNOLD TREBACH, PH.D., FOUNDER, DRUG POLICY INSTITUTE

America would be better off if all drug laws were removed

today. Americans are at their best when they negotiate

settlements, and at their worst when arguments are pushed

to the wall.

It is absolutely essential that we remove laws restricting

use of marijuana and heroin for medicinal purposes. It is

also important to begin viewing drug addicts from a

different perspective. We should be more concerned about

getting them treatment rather than branding them

criminals. This would include some form of maintenance,

which is admittedly controversial.

There should be limited experimentation with recreational

drugs. The 1973 Nixon Commission on Marijuana and Drug

Abuse as well as the 1982 report of the National Academy

of Sciences suggest an attempt at limited

decriminalization or legalization.

ADM. JAMES WATKINS, U.S. NAVV (RET.), CHAIRMAN,

PRESIDENT'S

AIDS COMMISSION

An emerging problem stemming from rampant drug abuse is

that of AIDS. One of the conduits of the deadly HIV virus

that leads to AIDS is contact with an individual who is an

abuser of drugs intravenously.

The IV drug abusers make up only 25 percent of all AIDS

victims, but about 70 percent of heterosexual native

citizens have contracted the disease from contact with an

intravenous drug abuser. About 70 percent of perinatal

AIDS cases involve a parent who is either an IV drug

abuser or who has a sexual partner who abuses drugs

intravenously.

More treatment is needed for IV drug abusers. There are

some 1.2 million IV drug abusers in the United States, but

only about 148,000 are in some form of treatment at any

given time.

What is needed is a full-scale effort that addresses both

supply and demand.

During its time as functioning body, the President's AIDS

Commission heard testimony regarding the use of needle

exchange programs. The overriding opinion of many black

leaders who testified at an inquiry held in New York City

is that IV drug abuse is killing the black community.

However, these same leaders were opposed to needle

exchange programs, and view them as a copout answer to a

very serious problem. They are considered the first step

to full-fledged legalization.

The most important thing that can be done to lick the drug

problem is to help young people avoid using drugs in the

first place.

DR. TOD MIKURIYA, M.D., PSYCHIATRIST, BERKELEY, CA

It is good to see an increase in public awareness about

the dangers of alcohol and tobacco and about the

increasing tendency to classify them as drugs of abuse.

While we focus heavily on the problems of drugs like

cocaine and crack, very little attention has been paid to

the problems caused by poisoning from alcohol and tobacco.

We need to move closer to acceptance of these substances

as dangerous drugs.

A comprehensive proposal regarding drug use in America

would encompass the following six points:

(1) The removal of product liability exemptions for

alcohol.

(2) The removal of price supports for tobacco.

(3) The establishment of a drug users' cooperative.

(4) The legalization of home cultivation of cannabis.

(5) The disallowance of searches of citizens' homes

without a warrant.

(6) A testing of those who test others for drug use.

JOHN GUSTAFSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NEW YORK DIVISION OF

SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES

Our agency oversees about 400 local treatment and

prevention programs, with a capacity to treat 46,000

people and to provide counseling services to another

17,000.

About 22 percent of New York's population has abused some

type of substance within the last 6 months. Half of this

number abuses drugs on a regular basis. More than 600,000

people art- considered non-narcotic substance abusers and

about 260,000 are narcotics addicts.

The social and health consequences of legalization would

be too great. Legalization advocates are ignoring the

seductive properties of drugs like cocaine, which

laboratory tests show leave the user craving for more.

While alcohol Prohibition may have been a law enforcement

failure, it was a success healthwise. During the 1920's,

alcohol-related mental illness declined significantly, but

shot back up after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

From 1917 until 1921, New York State made narcotics

available through clinics. But that practice was

discontinued after it was discovered that many people were

supplementing their legal supply with drugs purchased from

the black market. This is a lesson for those considering

legalization today.

We cannot overlook the impact that legalization would have

on health and health care systems. Many illicit drugs

lead to chronic health problems for users, and this

problem would be pronounced under legalization.

STEVEN WISOTSKY, PROFESSOR OF LAW, NOVA UNIVERSITY

An independent national commission should be set up to

take a fresh look at U.S. drug policy. Such a commission

should have two fundamental goals: To reduce drug abuse,

and to reduce the social problems stemming from the

existence of the black market illicit drug trade.

A clear definition should be reached and agreed upon in

terms of what "the drug problem" in America is. Is it

drug use in general? Is it drug use by children and

teenagers? Is it drug use that proves to be injurious to

others or to the drug users themselves? Is it the black

market and the events associated with that market in terms

of crime and violence?

Detailed studies and polls should be conducted to

determine how drugs should be legalized. This should be

along the lines of marketing surveys done to prepare for

the sale and distribution of other products.

For example, focus groups can be set up, and groups of

individuals-such as prison volunteers serving life

sentences-can be used for tracking the effects of certain

drugs and also for gauging the addictive qualities of

narcotics.

Among the priorities of drug control should be the

protection of children, the protection of the safety and

health of the public and the preservation of individual

liberties in the process.

The real moral high ground in finding a Solution to the

drug crisis is one that will allow responsible, competent

adults to have the freedom of choice so long as they do

not intrude on the rights and privileges of others. No

drug control policy should affront the Constitution.

DR. MITCHELL ROSENTHAL, M.D., PRESIDENT, PHOENIX HOUSE,

NEW YORK, NY

Drug legalization would increase drug use and would

further aggravate all the destabilizing influences that

plague societv today.

Addiction to illicit drugs has an enormous impact on the

character, behavior and values of the abuser. While just

as many cigarette smokers have become dependent on that

product, the number of cocaine users, the power of cocaine

addiction and the amounts that addicts would use if it

were readily available and less expensive is ignored by

those pushing legalization.

Illicit drug use rapidly diminishes one's ability to lead

a normal, productive life. Drug abuse causes self-

destructive behavior, lowering the self-esteem and

creating the potential for violent, antisocial behavior.

Projections that drug use would double or even triple

under legalization should be taken seriously. The

greatest increase would come from those between the ages

of 12 and 21 years old. Projections of drug-related

deaths post-legalization range from 100,000 to 500,000.

The social order will suffer. Drug users are generally

irresponsible people whose deviant behavior ranges from

destroying relationships to inability to lead productive

work lives to crime. All of these possibilities will be

raised with legalized drugs.

We can realistically expect to overcome the drug crisis

with a shifting public attitude and a stronger effort to

enforce drug laws on the street.

ETHAN NADELMANN, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, PRINCETON

UNIVERSITY

Neither legalization nor decriminalization should be

considered a surrender. They are the policies that drug

dealers fear most.

What is legalization? It is a model of analysis. It is a

cost benefit analysis of current policies. We have to

look at our policy and costs and compare to other systems

and figure out which has the most benefits for the money-

What is the drug problem? This must be defined before

going further. In the 1920's, people did not talk of "the

alcohol problem." Instead, they separated the problem into

one of crime--the Al Capone types and their influence on

the consumption of alcoholand into another category of

alcohol abuse. It was decided that Prohibition was not

worth the costs, even if it reduced abuse to a degree.

Nevertheless, today the drug problem is not separated as

such and "the drug problem" is defined as both crime and

abuse.

We will not be able to move forward until we make the

distinction as was made with alcohol in the 1920's.

Nearly 20 percent of all State and local resources go to

fighting drugs, In Washington, DC, more than half the

people in jail are there on drug-related charges, and the

figure in New York City is about 40 percent.

SUE RUSCHE, NATIONAL DRUG INFORMATION CENTER, FAMILIES IN

ACTION

It is important that the perspective of families be

included in the national debate on legalization.

In looking at both the alcohol and cigarette industries

they spent more on advertising in the previous year than

Congress appropriated to fight the drug crisis. We do not

need any more legal industries of this sort amassing large

profits in selling their products to our children and to

ourselves.

Some legalization proponents make the argument that

alcohol is legal and is not sold to young people. But

alcohol sales to minors are routine as sales clerks fail

to ask for identification or look the other way when

obviously underage young people make an alcohol purchase.

If we cannot expect the alcohol and tobacco industry to

prevent sales to minors, then how can we expect a cocaine

or opiate industry from doing the same?

At the very least, illicit drugs are as harmful as alcohol

and tobacco. Fewer people die from them than from alcohol

and tobacco because fewer people use them, and fewer

people use them because they are illegal. There are 18

million marijuana users compared to 116 million alcohol

users; and there are 6 million cocaine users compared to

60 million tobacco users.

Alcohol and tobacco are leading killers in the United

States. We do not live with alcohol and tobacco, we die

with them. It would take two walls like the Vietnam

Memorial shrine in Washington, DC to memorialize all those

killed by alcohol in a year. It would take 7 to 10 walls

to cover all those who die from tobacco.

Some say taxes from drugs sales could go toward treatment

and education, but no money from the sale of alcohol and

tobacco ever goes toward education and treatment for those

problems.

Legalization would not eliminate profits- They would

simply be shifted from the drug traffickers on the street

to the people who run legitimate businesses.

It is unreasonable to think that drug use would not

increase under legalization. A total of 11 States have

decriminalized marijuana. From 1972 to 1978, in those

States, marijuana use, as a result of the

decriminalization, rose 125 percent among young adults,

130 percent among high school seniors, 200 percent among

older adults and 240 percent among teenagers.

We are beginning to see drug use drop off in this country.

We would like to see the Congress create a National Drug

Corps similar to the Peace Corps, where parents and

children could be trained to give I or 2 years of service

fighting drug abuse in their communities.

Summary of Testimony From Friday, September 30,1988

DR. DAVID F. MUSTO, M.D., DRUG HISTORIAN, YALE UNIVERSiry

Around the turn of the century, drugs such as cocaine,

heroin and morphine were legally sold and consumed in the

United States, Consumption of these drugs reached a peak

around 1890 to 1900.

Because of the high rate of consumption and the effects

these then-legal narcotics were having on individuals and

families, America moved toward enacting laws and controls

that have led to today's drug laws.

We are currently experiencing our second epidemic with

cocaine. The first occurred around the mid 1880's, when

this drug was made available in 14 different forms. One

could smoke it, rub it on in a salve, inject it, or even

sniff it.

Cocaine's image as the "All-American tonic" ended around

1900, when it came to be known as the most dangerous drug

in the country. The first congressionally passed

legislation regulating cocaine was in 1914, and was called

the Harrison Narcotics Act.

A key to reducing the demand for drugs will be a changing

of the public's attitudes.

Those supporting a look-see at legalization must be

reminded that there are many things in our society that we

do not attempt a look-see because we know in advance it is

bad and would lead to worse problems. One of them, for

example, is racial discrimination. We ask for laws

restricting it because we know it is bad.

Ending the drug crisis will be a very gradual thing. It

cannot be done in just 2 or 3 years. Drug use in America

peaked around 1979, and at that time there was a call for

legalization.

The argument for legalizing cocaine in the 1970's was that

cocaine was a harmless drug unless misused. Today, the

argument is that legalizing it will remove the criminal

influence. We now see cocaine as bad in itself, and this

is a tremendous attitude turnaround that can be used as a

foundation for a further decline in cocaine usage.

DR. DALE MASI, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK AND

COMMUNITY PLANNING, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

The workplace cannot afford the legalization of illicit

drugs.

In previous testimony before the Select Committee on

Narcotics Abuse and Control, my position was that there

was a dramatic need for an increase in industry drug

programs in this country. That need is greater today:

(1) A majority of illicit drug users are in the

workplace.

(2) Alcohol is the primary drug of abuse in the

workplace.

(3) Prescription drugs are the second largest drug of

abuse in the workplace.

(4) The most recent surveys indicate that 19- to 25-year-

olds are the biggest abusers of cocaine, with 25- to 30-

year-olds being the second largest group. If cocaine is

legalized, it would outdistance both alcohol and

prescription drugs as the most abused drug in the

workplace.

Drug abuse in the workplace translates into escalating

health insurance bills. In addition, it contributes to

the problems of absenteeism, sick leave, accidents, other

rising health costs and more worker compensation claims.

More emphasis will have to be placed on companies

educating workers about the dangers of drug abuse, as has

been the case with tobacco. Few companies, a study by

Cook and Harrell shows, have drug education promotion

programs. The IBM Corp. stands out as a model for the

rest of the industry in the country.

Schools of medicine, social work and psychology today

rarely require that students take a course in alcohol or

drug addiction. Fewer schools of psychology require a

course in drug addiction than was the case in 1950. The

council on social work education, the accrediting arm for

such schools, does not even require that such courses be

taught for master's and social work candidates.

We need employee assistance programs that concentrate on

reaching employees early. New funds are needed for

meaningful programs, especially outpatient services.

DR. LAWRENCE BROWN, M.D., CLINICAL INSTRUCTOR, DEPARTMENT

OF MEDICINE, HARLEM HOSPITAL CENTER AND THE COLLEGE OF

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS

Legalization advocates seem to be motivated by two

arguments, One is that current response to the drug crisis

has been shamefully inadequate. Number two, legalization

appears to represent a reasonable alternative to the

current response.

Our current policy on drug abuse can be addressed from two

angles. We can look at it either from the perspective of

those who use drugs, or from the perspective of the

consequences of drug use.

A most common problem of those admitted to Harlem Hospital

for treatment of kidney failure and in need of dialysis is

prior drug abuse.

Our approach to drug abuse as a nation is that we continue

to view it as a stigma, rather than the public health

problem that it truly is.

It is ridiculous that so little of the educational

training involves the study of drug abuse, Professional

and health professional schools should be encouraged to

try to include drug abuse studies in their curriculums.

Existing drug treatment facilities must be improved as

well. The least attractive facilities are often allocated

for outpatient drug treatment services. An expansion of

treatment capability must focus on both quality and

quantity.

The legalization debate provides the country with an

excellent opportunity to reassess Federal drug policy.

These discussions will far exceed their potential if they

are used to chart a bold new course in responding to

America's drug crisis.

DAVID BOAZ, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY AFFAIRS, CATO

INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC

Alcohol did not cause high crime rates in the 1920's.

Prohibition of alcohol was the problem. With today's drug

crisis, it is not the drugs, but rather the prohibition of

these drugs that are causing problems with crime and

violence.

There are six ways in which drug laws impact negatively on

society:

(1) Drug laws drive up the price. Users are forced to

commit crimes to support their habits. Prohibition pushes

some prices as much as 100 times higher than normal. Some

experts say half the crime in major cities results from

drug prohibition and many policemen will say the same

thing if they were free to express themselves honestly.

(2) Drug laws cause corruption. The extraordinary

profits become an irresistible temptation to policemen.

(3) Buyers are forced to come in contact with criminals,

unlike those who purchase alcohol without the help of

criminal,q because it is no longer illegal.

(4) Intense law enforcement forces the creation of

stronger, more potent drugs. Crack, for example, is a

result of drug prohibition.

(5) Civil liberties are abused under drug prohibition.

(6) A final negative result of drug prohibition is that

it leads to futility. In the case of today's drug crisis,

the drug war simply is not working.

GLORIA WHITFIELD (RECOVERED DRUG ADDICT), VOCATIONAL

REHARILITATION SPECIALIST, REHABILITATION SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT,

WASHINGTON, DC

As a rehabilitation specialist in drug and alcohol abuse,

it is frightening to consider what the caseload would be

if drugs were legalized.

How can anyone with any insight or perception believe that

legalizing drugs would be the answer to the drug crisis?

If the main reason to legalize drugs is to remove the

profit from the criminals and drug traffickers, then it is

also saying that the U.S. Government "wants a piece of the

action." Uncle Sam would become the biggest dope pusher of

all time.

Generations of young Americans are dying from drug abuse.

Minds and motivation are being destroyed. Families are

being destroyed. America is being weakened.

Legalization could not be accomplished without having to

rely on imports. Small, drug-producing countries would

soon become superpowers and nations with gross national

products inflated by cocaine and heroin production would

have access to nuclear warheads.

Fraudulent prescriptions are already a big business in the

United States.

The future for America would be very dim under

legalization. Medical schools, laws schools and other

institutions of higher learning would not touch students

who use drugs, even if they were legal, because it is

known that drug users are a detriment to themselves.

Under legalization, there would not be enough hospitals to

take care of everybody. Doctors and nurses would be in

demand like never before. Long lines of dope fiends

waiting for a fix or a hit would replace the winos in the

streets.

Those favoring legalization are being insensitive.

Legalization is a further step toward the perpetuation of

evil influence over society, rather than a positive step

toward resolving some of the criminal problems in society

like poverty, insufficient health care, and insufficient

education.

America should wage a real war against drugs, using any

means necessary to prevent it from entering our ports and

coming across our borders.

RICHARD KAREL, JOURNALIST

Across the board legalization is not the answer to the

drug crisis that plagues the country today. More

dangerous drugs should continue to be prohibited, while

less dangerous narcotics be made legally available.

During the time that America was under alcohol

Prohibition, Great Britain was attacking the alcohol

problem through a combination of higher taxes, rationing

and limited hours of distribution. When the Volstead Act

was repealed, alcohol abuse rose in the United States

while Great Britain had already began experiencing a

leveling off of alcohol use. Alcohol abuse has remained

relatively low since.

Recent Studies indicate a decrease in cirrhosis of the

liver in the United States despite alcohol being a legal

substance. With tobacco, limited restrictions and

education have cut sales of this product to minors.

Prohibition is neither necessary nor advisable for either

of these products.

The focus should be on keeping dangerous drugs like crack

and PCP away from children, and on preventing clinically

controlled drugs from being diverted. This would provide

a moral justification for the antidrug activities of law

enforcement.

PAUL MOORE, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, THE SCOTT NEWMAN CENTER,

Los ANGELES, CA

The Newman Center unequivocally opposes drug legalization.

The more time spent debating the issue, the more

credibility it receives.

Time should be spent developing more sound policies

regarding treatment, rehabilitation and prevention.

Society seems to be hooked on hyped miracle solutions that

look good but would not work.

Drugs, drug abuse and the associated crime are all

symptoms of deeply rooted problems in our society. Drugs

did not invent poverty, broken homes, latchkey children,

greed or the human desire for a quick- 'ix. Drugs did not

contribute to the general breakdown of moral and ethical

values. Without drugs, these problems would not disappear

and with drugs they are pronounced.

There is a perception that the drug problem can be

sanitized through legalization, giving residents of

ghettos and barrios all they want so long as they refrain

from committing crimes against the rest of society.

The threat of legalization is that it stands to send a

whole new set of mixed messages to America's youth. Drugs

already have a glamorous image.

If drugs were legalized, the gains from national efforts

of the past decade-such as a decrease in consumption and a

change in attitude of the Nation's youth-would be lost.

MARVIN MILLER, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NORML,

WASHINGTON, DC

Drugs are a problem and they create a tremendous strain on

the Nation's financial resources.

It is commonly known that there are no funds available for

desperately needed educational and training programs. The

underground narcotics trade is being allowed to run

rampant and control the marketplace. It controls purity

as well. All iirugs are, being treated as if they are the

same.

A combined total of $10 billion is spent annually on State

and Federal antidrug efforts. Most of this expenditure

goes for enforcing marijuana possession laws. About 40

percent of all drug arrests relate to marijuana. Of the

40-percent figure, 9 of 10 cases involve simple

possession.

There are some 50 million marijuana smokers in the United

States. They are otherwise law-abiding citizens who pay

taxes and are productive.

The Nation's $10 billion antidrug budget allots only about

5 percent for education programs. No money exists for

national education or treatment programs.

NORML has put together a bill to make marijuana available

legally as a controlled and regulated substance.

An administrative law judge has ruled that marijuana is

the most benign substance known to man. It is not

addictive. It does not generate violence.

The Nation should look at new ways to battle the drug

crisis. Not every drug can be legalized, yet at the same

time, 50 million marijuana using Americans should not be

branded criminals.

RAY WHITFIELD (RECOVERED DRUG ADDICT), DRUG ABUSE

CONSULTANT, WASHINGTON, DC

Legalization is not a positive proposal. It is based on

what may be a false assumption, that legalization is a

proposal intended to reduce drug abuse.

Drug-related murders would not necessarily decrease as a

result of legalization. Drug-related murder should take

into account drug related death, which is less glamorous,

but also a tragic consequence of drug abuse.

Many in our society have turned to drug abuse simply

because they are hopeless and helpless. Drugs ease the

pain of their reality. Many people have lived lives much

worse than what the criminal justice system can mete out.

The Nation's Government has been duplicitous in dealing

with the drug crisis. While Government does not

officially sanction drug use, it has pushed policies that

contribute to it-such as the lack of antidrug education

and treatment centers in ghettos during the 1940's, 1950's

and 1960's, and the closing of the only two Federal

treatment centers in Lexington, KY and Texas.

Drugs generally have not been considered a national

problem so long as there was the perception that it was a

problem of minoritics and poor whites. Middle and upper

income individuals, meanwhile, generally have looked at

cocaine as a suitable, nonaddictive drug.

Now that cocaine and its negative consequences have

reached suburbia, it is a national problem. This is

duplicity.

Drug abuse is not the root problem. It is a very

destructive symptom of other maladies.

SENAT0R JOSEPH GALIBER, NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY

In the last 20 years or so, little or nothing has happened

in terms of solving the Nation's drug crisis.

I introduced a bill in the State assembly earlier this

year to set up a commission to study legalization and

decriminalization in the State of New York.

America has always been the noble experiment on freedom

that other nations around the world have looked to as an

example. But now, out of frustration, Americans are

beginning to espouse violations of freedoms and civil

liberties as the answer to this frustration.

Drug trafficking must be eliminated through the

legalization of narcotics.

Responsible officials are suggesting arming our police

with more powerful weapons. They have suggested shooting

down suspicious planes. They have called for a doubling

of agents and resources, martial law and the death penalty

for drug traffickers.

We fail to realize the coexistence of two separate

problems regarding the Nation's drug crisis. There is

drug abuse and there is drug trafficking. It is the

trafficking that causes shootouts, raids, deaths and

injuries. If all drugs were legalized right now and given

away free, then the traffickers would cease coming in

immediately. The profit would be gone.

Drug abuse would not be eliminated under legalization, but

the horrible problems associated with the drug trade would

be gone.

The questions posed by Chairman Rangel can be answered in

the context of the alcohol industry:

Question. What narcotics and drugs would be legalized?

Answer. All.

Question. Who would be allowed to buy these narcotics?

Would there be an age limit?

Answer. The same limitations as those for purchasing

alcohol.

Question. Would we sell drugs to people who just want to

experiment and encourage them to pick up the habit?

Answer. We would sell drugs in the same fashion and with

the same restrictions as the selling of alcohol.

Question. Where would these drugs be sold?

Answer. In the same places and under the same controls as

alcohol,

Question. Where would we obtain our supply of these legal

drugs?

Answer. In the same way that there are manufacturers of

alcohol.

Do you for one minute think the tobacco industry has not

put together long ago contingency plans to produce

marijuana cigarettes when legalization becomes a reality?

Question. Would private industry be allowed to

participate in this market?

Answer. Of course. In the same way as in alcohol.

Question. If drugs would become legal, would we allow

pilots, railroad workers and nuclear plant employees to

use them?

Answer. Do we permit them to use alcohol?

Question. If drugs were legalized, how would we back up

our argument with our children and youth that drugs are

harmful?

Answer. In the same way that we do with alcohol.

The Volstead Act, which made liquor illegal, created

violence, warfare, bloodshed, corruption, illicit dealers

and sellers on a sale that was unprecedented until now.

Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past by continuing

to escalate a war which is totally unnecessary.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. LARRY SMITH OF FLORIDA

Legalization will not alleviate the drug problem. Drugs

such as heroin and cocaine destroy both the mind and the

body. The new form of cocaine known as crack or rock is

highly addictive. Legalizing drugs would be the same as

admitting that we, as a people and society, cannot control

our actions and prefer self-destruction. Who among us

wants the U.S. Government to be in the business of

distributing cocaine, heroin, PCP or any other killing,

brutalizing substance?

Very few people believe that legalized drugs would reduce

the impact of drug abuse on society. Such a proposal

might eliminate some of the existing criminal element

involved in drug trafficking, but it would not stop

somebo4y (whether the government, tobacco companies, or

pharmaceutical companies) from profiting from the human

misery associated with drug use and abuse.

If we would not legalize drugs for juveniles (and we would

not), a flourishing market would still exist to sell to

them illegally. What about crime? If we distribute or

make legal drugs that cloud the mind or remove

inhibitions, does anyone believe that there will be less

crime? Does anyone believe that people who are on only a

fixed ration of free or legal drugs will not want more and

that someone will sell it to them illegally? And that to

pay for those extra" drugs the drug users will not commit

crimes?

Congress should do everything it can to eliminate drug

trafficking and drug abuse. The task will not be easy,

but that does not mean that we cannot try to alleviate

this devastating problem. Legalization would be the easy

way out, but it would not solve the underlying problem.

LARRY SMITH.