HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1 / HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso / drugs / hearings.1.2 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 248.0 KB | 7,737 lines

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 5 U.S., use a variety of psychoactive 6 sacraments classied as Schedule I 7 controlled substances in the United 8 States. 9 Many of these substances, 10 which are used around the world, are 11 classified by the U.S. Government as 12 controlled substances. 13 Over the last century, as 14 Western ethnobotanists rediscovered 15 some of the traditional sacramental 16 substances and as chemists isolated 17 their essences, this knowledge 18 slowly circulated among the 19 intelligentsia. 20 Aldous Huxley took mescaline, 21 the principal psychoactive component 22 of peyote, in 1953 and described his 23 enlightening experience in The Doors 24 of Perception. By that time, 25 another wave had been set in motion. 76 1 2 In 1943, Albert Hofmann 3 discovred the psychoactivity of LSD 4 and within a few decades, potent 5 chemical means for facilitating 6 primary religious experience were 7 within easy reach of people. 8 It must be acknowledged that 9 probably most contemporary users of 10 hallucinogens take them with no 11 explicit ritual surround or 12 spiritual intention, though even 13 then, the fire from heaven has 14 sometimes been known to descend 15 unbidden. 16 The religious import of the 17 entheogens is confirmed in accounts 18 by and of religious leaders and 19 members of traditional 20 entheogen-using cultures. 21 This spiritual significance is 22 corroborated by the personal 23 accounts of scores of Western 24 authorities, Metzner, Roberts and 25 Hruby, including physician and 77 1 2 church founder John Aiken, Walter 3 Houston Clark, professor of 4 psychology of religion at Andover 5 Newton Theological Seminary, Harvard 6 theologian Harvey Cox, MIT 7 philosopher and theologian Huston 8 Smith and Jesuit scholar David 9 Toolan. 10 A landmark scientific study, 11 the "Good Friday Experiment" 12 conducted under the spnsorship of 13 Harvard University by physician and 14 minister Walter Pahnke in 1962, also 15 strongly supports the thesis that 16 the entheogens facilitate mystical 17 consciousness and are compatible 18 with Christian workship. 19 I have given to the 20 committee a bibliography of 220 21 books from scholars, physicians, and 22 so on, with excerpts describing 23 their intake of entheogens. 24 How about religious liberty in 25 the United States? European early 78 1 2 modern age, whether the struggle was 3 Catholic versus Lutheran, Calvinist 4 against Anabaptist, or Anglican 5 versus Unitarian, the central issues 6 tended to concern the efficacy of 7 various sacraments. 8 The same issue has resurfaced 9 in the supression of etheogenic 10 practices. It's not surprising that 11 people take very seriously arguments 12 about what can actually bring them 13 closer to divine. 14 But we decided two centuries 15 ago that those arguments were too 16 important to be decided by force or 17 by majority vote. They are best 18 left to the decisions of 19 congregations or to the individual 20 soul. 21 The First Amendment and a 22 variety of statutes, administrative 23 practices, and judicial decisions 24 all protect religious freedom in 25 this country. 79 1 2 The general principles of that 3 corpus law are that the state may 4 not treat any particular religion 5 preferentially and that you can live 6 your religious life pretty much as 7 you choose so long as you don't 8 infringe the rights of others or 9 interfere too much with state 10 interests. 11 The entheogens present a 12 complex problem for those who want 13 to make good on our nation's promise 14 of religious liberty. The classical 15 form of religious persecution 16 involves banning certain activities 17 expressly becuase of their religious 18 intent and content. This kind of 19 persecution is relatively easy to 20 identify and remedy. 21 With entheogens, the present 22 burden on religion comes in the form 23 of a general ban on substances that 24 are sometimes used spiritually and 25 sometimes not. To relieve the 80 1 2 burden, an exemption must be granted 3 from the law of general 4 applicability that imposes the 5 burden. 6 Native American use of peyote, 7 this complex problem has been 8 thoroughly explored in the instance 9 of the Native American sacramental 10 use of peyote. 11 As the peyote religion spread 12 among tribes in the U.S. in the late 13 1800's, it was met with explicit 14 government persecution in the form 15 of rules forbidding Indian use of 16 peyote and, for example, "old 17 heathenish dances." 18 Since then, numerous 19 contradictory federal and state 20 legislative, regulatory, 21 enforcement, and court actions have 22 variously supported Indian use of 23 peyote. 24 The most prominent failure to 25 accommodate peyotism was the 1990 81 1 2 Supreme Court Smith decision, which 3 ruled that the First Amendment does 4 not protect the religious use of 5 peyote by Indians. 6 The court reached its decision 7 by changing prior standards to make 8 it much harder to get relief from 9 laws of general applicability that 10 burden religious activity. 11 A broad coalition of religious 12 bodies responded swiftly by 13 advocating new federal legislation, 14 leading to the enactment of the 15 Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 16 1993. 17 Finally, in 1994, the Federal 18 government enacted the American 19 Indian Religious Freedom Act 20 Amendments, providing consistent 21 protection across all 50 states for 22 the traditional, ceremonial use of 23 peyote by American Indians. 24 What price, if any, does 25 society pay for the granting of this 82 1 2 religious liberty? 3 The House of Representatives 4 Committee on Natural Resources 5 reported recently that medical 6 evidence, based on the opinion of 7 scientists and other experts, 8 including medical doctors and 9 anthropologists, is that peyote is 10 not injurious. 11 Indeed, with a long history of 12 use and several hundred thousand 13 people currently active in the 14 Native American Church, there are no 15 known reports of peyote related 16 harm. 17 What is more, the Committee 18 also reported that spiritual and 19 social support provided by the 20 Native American Church has been 21 effective in combating the tragic 22 effects of alcoholism among the 23 Native American population. 24 So the law now accommodates 25 one racial group practicing one 83 1 2 religion using one controlled 3 substance. Yet there are also 4 non-Indian religious groups and 5 individuals in this country for whom 6 entheogens play a central 7 sacramental role. 8 They are less well-known at 9 least in part because, in the 10 absence of protections, their 11 worship potentially subjects them to 12 fines, forfeitures, and 13 imprisonment. 14 How could we respond to a 15 non-Indian group that wishes to use 16 peyote in its religious practices, 17 or to a group that wants to use some 18 other plant or chemical for similar 19 purpose? 20 It is possible to hold the 21 view that people ought to be 22 permitted to use some controlled 23 substances for religious purposes 24 without holding the libertarian view 25 that everyone ought to be able to 84 1 2 use any drug for any purpose. 3 On a more practical level, you 4 can believe that it's safe for 5 people to take peyote and therefore 6 that it's safe to permit peyote 7 taking, without also believing that 8 another drug is safe and should be 9 available. 10 Thus, the right to free 11 exercise of religion could be 12 honored by granting narrow 13 exemptions for the use of only some 14 substances in carefully 15 circumscribed religious contexts. 16 Such exemptions would support 17 the anti-drug abuse objectives of 18 the current drug laws. If a 19 religious group without a 20 demonstrated safety record were to 21 seek such an exemption, Government 22 might reasonably ask a number of 23 questions, for example: 24 Are they working with a 25 substance of reasonable safety? Do 85 1 2 they draw a reasonably sharp line 3 between ritual and recreational use? 4 How is informed consent obtained? 5 What safeguards do they incorporate 6 in their practices to protect 7 participants? What is their policy 8 regarding minors? 9 One accommodation mechanism 10 would be to allow applicants to 11 document the details of their 12 proposed entheogen use and, if they 13 satisfy reasonable safety 14 requirements, receive an exemption. 15 This could be done at the 16 denominational level or by licensing 17 qualified entheogen practitioners, 18 who would then serve congregations 19 or spiritual communities. 20 Licensees would grow or 21 obtain, store, and be accountable 22 for the supervised use of the 23 authorized substances. Simple 24 reporting requirements would allow 25 government to monitor the prevalence 86 1 2 and safety of entheogen use and make 3 policy adjustments as necessary. 4 These are very important 5 details, ones that CSP is 6 addressing, but they are details. 7 The main question we ask you 8 to consider is whether current laws, 9 which forbid all Americans, except 10 Indians, to use scheduled 11 psychoactive sacraments, are 12 justifiable in light of 13 constitutional traditions and a 14 realistic assessment of the risks 15 associated with the entheogens. 16 MR. KAYSER: Would you have 17 any objection that would interfere 18 with your scheme of things, if we 19 were to have a regulated legislation 20 of drugs where drugs were sold 21 through, say, licensed pharmacies, 22 taxes commensurate with the tax on 23 alcohol and tobacco and the tax 24 funds were put into some kind of 25 dedicated fund for treatment of the 87 1 2 types of uses associated with the 3 down side of drug use? 4 MR. JESSE: I think that would 5 be a huge advance, but let me also 6 say that there are long series of 7 cases in this country deciding when 8 religious drugs may be taxed. 9 Costs are not generally 10 supportive with respect to taxation 11 if they are to head back to the 12 general funds so, with that proviso, 13 I would say that would be a step in 14 your direction and would end 15 religious persecution for a group of 16 people. 17 MR. SALOMON: Thank you. We 18 are going to take a few questions 19 from the floor. 20 This gentleman? 21 SPEAKER: Have the boundaries 22 of the Religious Freedom Act of 1993 23 been determined by a case to assess 24 its applicability? 25 Has such a case occurred or 88 1 2 are there any impending? 3 MR. JESSE: It's difficult to 4 get a judge to allow a religious 5 defense. 6 My understanding, there are 7 cases that come up where that will 8 be permitted. 9 I would also like to add one 10 or two other things, if I could. 11 I realize for some of you what I 12 just said will make a lot of sense 13 and others it will not. 14 To further add to your 15 confusion, I would like to make a 16 another distinction between the 17 entheogens and so-called drugs for 18 abuse, high addiction. 19 That has to do with the 20 relationship between addiction and 21 spirituality. One of the things 22 that drives people in our culture to 23 excessive drug use or of sex or 24 material acquisition is some kind of 25 a deep thirst that is not satisfied 89 1 2 by our culture. A number of 3 philosophers wrote about this. 4 It is just now coming within 5 the review of scientists 6 apparently. 7 MR. SALOMON: Our next speaker 8 is Rick Doblin, the president of 9 MultiDisciplinary Association for 10 Psychedelic Studies, Inc., otherwise 11 known as M.A.P.S. Maps is involved 12 in research and educational 13 organizations. Welcome. 14 MR. DOBLIN: In addition to my 15 work as the founder and director of 16 M.A.P.S., I am a Public Policy Ph.D 17 student at Harvard's Kennedy School 18 of Government. 19 My area of concentration is 20 the analysis of policies concerning 21 Schedule I and II drugs, in 22 particular psychedelics and 23 marijuana. 24 What I am trying to do is 25 basically, with the non profit 90 1 2 organization, support research that 3 government and pharmaceutical 4 companies and foundations are not 5 supporting. 6 I am trying to find ways to 7 regulate the beneficial uses of 8 these drugs. I would like to offer 9 the committee something that I 10 think should be something easy to 11 add to your list of agenda items. 12 In reading your report, I 13 realized that I had one main comment 14 to offer. There is another major 15 category of costs of the War on 16 Drugs that was not even mentioned in 17 your intial report. This cost may 18 possibly even dwarf all the other 19 costs. 20 I am speaking about the 21 opportunity cost of forgone benefits 22 from the drugs against which the war 23 on drugs is being waged. 24 I think over the next 5 or 10, 25 15 years, we will find these drugs 91 1 2 have enormous benefits and we will 3 look back with some great regret, 4 whereas Bob was talking about 5 religious freedom, that is a really 6 strong and deep case and yet it's 7 very hard to make, particularly in 8 terms of a policy prescription, 9 because in a way everyone is their 10 own, has their rights to have their 11 own spiritual insights, to try to 12 create a situation where you approve 13 the religious use of a drug for 14 some, to try to figure out how to 15 limit that. It's a complex problem. 16 What I am doing is one step 17 easier to try to talk about 18 scientific freedom when it comes to 19 research with these drugs. 20 To give you an example, there 21 was a classic study that was done in 22 1962 and it was called Good Friday. 23 It was an experiment conducted that 24 scientifically studied the potential 25 of psychedelic drugs to catalyze 92 1 2 religious experiences. 3 The man who did an experiment 4 was a doctor and minister and he was 5 working on his P.h.D. and he took 20 6 students into church on Good Friday 7 and he gave them all a pill and half 8 of them had a placebo and what he 9 wanted to do is test them afterward 10 and have them describe what their 11 experience was and test them after 12 six months, if their experience had 13 any kind of impact on their lives. 14 What he found was remarkable. 15 He found 9 out of the 20 16 people had what he considered to 17 be a mystical experience and he 18 defined that as a deep sense of 19 unity with creation, being in the 20 presence of something holy and 21 sacred and deeply felt positive 22 mood. 23 When he looked six months 24 later, they described a series of 25 positive changes in their lives. 93 1 2 From my undergraduate work, I 3 did a thesis where I tracked these 4 people down after 25 years. It took 5 me about five years to do this study 6 and I identified 19 out of the 20 7 and I flew all over the country to 8 interview them. 9 Many of them are now ministers 10 and I said, "What was this 11 experience? How would you describe 12 this experience now?" What impact 13 has it had on your life? 14 Every single one that I spoke 15 to said he considered it to be a 16 mystical experience to this day. 17 Many of them said it opened a 18 doorway to their religious life. 19 They had dreams praying. They 20 described a series of changes which 21 I will just read to you from my 22 paper. 23 "Each of the participants felt 24 the experience in a positive way and 25 expressed appreciation for having 94 1 2 participated in the experience. 3 Most of the effects discussed, 4 in long term followed interviews, 5 enhanced the appreciation of life 6 and nature, deep in sense and joy, 7 ministry or what other locations 8 the subject chose, enhanced, 9 increased tolerance of other 10 religious life crises, 11 identification with foreign people, 12 minorities, woman and nature. 13 Now, it's not all roses. One 14 of the persons who would not talk to 15 me had a difficult experience. I 16 later found out this researcher had 17 admitted to the fact one person was 18 tranquilized during the experience 19 and I think it traumatized that 20 person. He is now successful, but 21 to think back on it, gives him some 22 pain. 23 It turns out that this 24 experiment was done in 1962. Now we 25 are all concerned about religious 95 1 2 life. You would think that in a 3 society where there was freedom of 4 scientific inquiry this would not 5 have been the last study looking at 6 this phenomena. 7 This has been replicated 8 and today this cannot be 9 replicated. There is some question 10 as far as whether the F.D.A. will 11 accept such a study. No one has had 12 the courage to try to request that. 13 The scientific chill that's 14 been produced by the war on drugs 15 has been awesome. 16 This research is begging to be 17 undertaken again and yet it has not 18 been and I think it's a great 19 tragedy. That is talking about the 20 religious use. 21 When we want to talk about the 22 medical use of these drugs, I would 23 like to give you a little bit of 24 history of what my organization and 25 I have been through just to get 96 1 2 permission to study the medical use 3 of marijuana. 4 Picture high school 5 adolescents. They will have little 6 arrows to all his parts of his body. 7 How do you know signs of drug abuse, 8 their socks don't match, they can't 9 dress themselves, they are dirty. 10 There is a line to this kid's mouth 11 that says increases appetite. 12 It's generally true marijuana 13 increases appetite. There is very 14 little medication that is available 15 to the Aids people who have little 16 appetite. There is a capsule. 17 There is a lot of evidence 18 that the smoked marijuana works 19 better than the pill. I have been 20 trying with some of the very best 21 Aids researchers in the world, we 22 have the epidemic, we have been 23 trying for three and a half years to 24 get permission for this study and we 25 have been unable to do so. 97 1 2 The F.D.A. has been our main 3 allie. After quite a lot of work 4 they did permit the study. I ran 5 into an obstacle. It was shocking. 6 In America, where you can walk 7 probably within two or three blocks 8 from here and buy marijuana, this 9 study cannot take place because we 10 cannot get a legal supply of 11 marijuana. 12 So far, every person who has 13 gotten approved by the F.D.A. to do 14 marijuana research has gotten a 15 supply of marijuana. This study is 16 approved by the F.D.A. California 17 is the only state that has its 18 review body to look at Schedule I 19 and Schedule II research. 20 The National Institute of 21 Health, they only review grant 22 applications. We were willing to 23 fund this ourselves. They said you 24 have now got to get money from the 25 government and then if you get money 98 1 2 from the government, maybe we will 3 give you the marijuana. 4 I think it's an undue burden 5 on the medical researchers. It 6 should not come as any surprise, in 7 the last ten years there has been 8 only one person that has tried to 9 get permission to do Aids research 10 with marijuana. And it took me a 11 year before that to find somebody 12 who was willing to try to go through 13 this process. 14 Now again it's hard to make a 15 case, for people who have not had 16 personal experiences, that these 17 drugs may have beneficial uses. I 18 would like to talk briefly about one 19 use of psychedelics, which is the 20 use of psychedelics as a tool to 21 prepare for dying, and this is 22 something that's been used in 23 religious context for thousands of 24 years. 25 I would like to start you with 99 1 2 a brief, very moving discussion by 3 Laura Huxley, and this was a 4 discussion in a book she wrote 5 called This Timeless Moment, and it 6 was about the death of her husband 7 in 1963, and so she is describing 8 what his dying days, last few hours 9 were like, and he had asked her to 10 give him some LSD so he would die 11 while he was under the influence of 12 LSD, which he felt it would help him 13 open up and let go. 14 And then Laura says, "Then we 15 were quite. I just sat there 16 without speaking for a while. He 17 seemed, somehow I felt he knew, we 18 both knew, what we were doing, and 19 that has been always a great 20 relief to Aldous. A decision has 21 been made. 22 Suddenly, he accepted the fact 23 of death. Now he had taken this 24 moksha medicine in which he 25 believed. Once again he was doing 100 1 2 what he had written in Island. 3 And I had the feeling he was 4 interested and relieved and quiet. 5 Now the expression on his face was 6 beginning to look as it did when he 7 had taken the moksha medicine, when 8 this immense expression of complete 9 bliss and love would overcome him. 10 This was not the case now, but 11 there was a change in comparison to 12 what his face had been two hours 13 before. He was very quiet now. He 14 was very quiet and his legs were 15 getting colder, higher and higher. 16 I could see purple areas of 17 cyanosis. Then I began to talk to 18 him saying light and free, you let 19 go, darling, forward and up. You 20 are going forward and up toward the 21 light. 22 You are going toward a greater 23 love. It is easy, it is so easy, 24 and you are doing it beautifully. 25 From 2:00 until the time he died, 101 1 2 which was 5:20 P.M., there was 3 complete peace, except for once. 4 That must have been about 3:30 5 or 4:00, when I saw the beginning of 6 struggle in his lower lip, as if it 7 were going to struggle for air. 8 Then I gave the direction more 9 forcefully. It is easy and you are 10 doing this beautifully and 11 consciously, in full awareness. 12 Darling, you are going toward the 13 light. 14 The twitching stopped. The 15 breathing became slower and slower 16 and there was absolutely not the 17 slightest indication of contraction 18 of struggle. It was just that the 19 breathing became slower and 20 slower. 21 The ceasing of life was not a 22 drama at all, but like a piece of 23 music just finishing so gently. At 24 5:20 the breathing stopped. 25 And now, after I have been 102 1 2 alone these few days, and less 3 bombarded by other people's 4 feelings, the meaning of this last 5 day becomes clearer and clearer to 6 me and more and more important. 7 Aldous asking for the moksha 8 medicine while dying is not only a 9 confirmation of his open-mindness 10 and courage, but as such a last 11 gesture of continuing importance. 12 Now, is his way of dying to 13 remain for us, and only for us, a 14 relief and consolation, or should 15 others also benefit from it? 16 Aren't we all nobly born and 17 entitled to nobly dying?" 18 This is now against the law 19 today. It would be considered a 20 crime. What I would like to point 21 out and to let you know is that in 22 1990 there was a change in terms of 23 the F.D.A.'s attitude. 24 They had completely repressed 25 all efforts to do research of 103 1 2 psychedelics. David Kesler was 3 appointed the head of the F.D.A. and 4 he made a policy decision that 5 science should take precedence over 6 drug war politics, which was 7 extremely courageous, and research 8 has very cautiously started 9 reentering into the laboratory, so 10 there has been a few studies since 11 1990 and all of them have been 12 generally safety studies where we 13 are trying to describe, with the new 14 modern techniques, what these drugs 15 do to the body and whether they are 16 safe to use. 17 All government funding has 18 fallen off. Some of the early 19 studies were funded by the 20 government. We are looking for 21 risks. It's the same thing. We are 22 identifying areas of a concern. 23 As we now see to it, the 24 marijuana research we are trying to 25 do, the agencies directed by the 104 1 2 Clinton Administration are refusing 3 to permit research. 4 There has been an incredible 5 exaggeration of the use of 6 marijuana. The concern is that we 7 will now show that it can be used. 8 We have heard that marijuana is 9 damaging to the immune system. It 10 may be the Aids patients are 11 benefited by marijuana. 12 It should be an easy case to 13 make that scientific freedom should 14 take precedence over the propaganda 15 needs over the war on drugs. I 16 hope that is something you can make 17 explicit. 18 As we are now entering this 19 attempt to do the second phase of 20 studies into the medical use and 21 benefit of these drugs, we are going 22 to need a lot of support. Just to 23 let you hear one last thing, this is 24 now MDMA. 25 It's known on the Street 105 1 2 as extody. It produces an easy flow 3 of emotions. It's been used with 4 post traumatic stress, rape victims, 5 people who have been in war 6 situations. 7 There is a story here. This 8 is about a woman who helped her 9 husband die. But this now was 10 administered well before the actual 11 day of death. 12 "My husband felt he was really 13 making progress with his liver 14 cancer. The pain had diminished and 15 the swelling had gone down. The 16 oncologist showed Dick his tumor was 17 not better at all. 18 Once Dick was home, he began 19 to map out ways to kill himself. He 20 knew about electricity, so he talked 21 of ways to connect wires. I thought 22 it sounded horrible. I knew that he 23 very much feared loss of control- 24 pain that he couldn't cope with. 25 He was a very proud man and he 106 1 2 could not bear the thought of lying 3 there, stripped of control and 4 dignity. 5 Because I had read about what 6 happens to livers out of control, I 7 was also afraid of swelling, pain 8 and jaundice for Dick. 9 In his despair, he consented 10 to doing what he feared most in 11 life, losing control with a 12 drug, MDMA, but he was at the end of 13 the line. 14 Taking the drug let him 15 understand himself, so he was more 16 accepting of what was happening. It 17 was a healing. Not the way people 18 usually talk of healing, either. It 19 was a soul healing. 20 On a practical level, MDMA 21 gave me a tool, because I learned to 22 hypnotize Dick easily. While he was 23 in this suggestible state, he was 24 conditioned to a simple wrist 25 signal. After this grew familiar, I 107 1 2 dispensed with even that. A simple 3 suggestion was enough. 4 Dick had amazingly little pain 5 with his cancer. Most pain came 6 from his stomach ulcers, which 7 possibly had emerged from acute 8 anxiety. 9 A helpful friend brought over 10 some marijuana and Dick was able to 11 eat, once his stomach was soothed. 12 It was almost magical to see him get 13 the munchies, which I had only read 14 about. 15 When Dick lay dying in his own 16 bed, he complained of a pain in his 17 liver. All I did to help him was 18 say that I was injecting Demoral 19 (imaginary). His arm grew rosy, his 20 body relaxed. He was in peace. 21 I feel that priming him with 22 MDMA made pain contol and relief 23 very easy. What makes non-narcotic 24 help so appealing is that the 25 patient is conscious and 108 1 2 communicating with those he loves. 3 Dick had a beautiful death of 4 acceptance and serenity. He died 5 with the loving support of me and my 6 son. It made a bond between us that 7 sustained me through the heavy 8 months that followed. Now that four 9 years have passed, the pain is less, 10 but my gratitude for giving Dick 11 MDMA is as strong as ever." 12 In order for these no longer 13 to be crimes, we need to do 14 scientific research and we need 15 support from reports such as yours. 16 MR. SALOMON: Thank you. Do 17 we have any questions? 18 MR. KAYSER: Would you have 19 any objection, if a regulatory 20 screen of drugs were licensed, to 21 the sale of such to pharmacies where 22 you had labeling and counter- 23 indications and warning labels and 24 so forth and they were taxed and tax 25 revenues were put into a dedicated 109 1 2 fund and a portion of that dedicated 3 fund, the revenues be used for the 4 research? 5 MR. DOBLIN: I am glad you 6 asked that question. I would agree 7 in general that would be a good 8 idea. 9 I would presume what you will 10 have would be a prescription against 11 the use by minors and - - 12 MR. KAYSER: And that would be 13 to enhance the enforcement - - 14 MR. DOBLIN: If we look at 15 the cultures, all of them have - - 16 when you look at the native American 17 Church, they don't like to publicize 18 it, but three year olds, five year 19 olds, they eat small amounts of 20 peyote. 21 When at home, in ritual 22 contexts, the use of alcohol is 23 given to children. The family does 24 it together. They see there is a 25 place and time for it, so that when 110 1 2 you keep it strictly restricted, I 3 think you create more problems, so 4 that what I would very much like to 5 see is a situation where the drugs 6 were restricted to children but 7 there was an exception granted for 8 parental override of those rules and 9 to further point out something, I 10 would like to say that historically, 11 drugs have been used in these 12 cultures as rights of passage, to 13 aide and right of passage. 14 I know one of the things that 15 I tell my parents was the fact that 16 it was my barmitzvah and I had 17 expected this ritual. I thought 18 these rituals still carried 19 power the way I hoped they really 20 did. 21 During my barmitzvah, I felt 22 for the days and weeks after somehow 23 God must have been busy. There were 24 a lot of people bar mitzvahed on 25 that day, and it made me realize the 111 1 2 rituals that we have today, high 3 school graduation, these things they 4 don't do the way they used to. 5 I think there is a hunger for 6 these challenges. Drug use is a 7 very safe and successful way of 8 doing that. One of the ultimate 9 long term solutions to the problem 10 of adolescent drug use is provide 11 safe context for those who want it, 12 to experience the drugs. 13 MR. SALOMON: We have a 14 question. 15 SPEAKER: In the 25 year 16 follow up story, the Good Friday 17 story, had the people become 18 unblinded at that time, and the 19 second thing regarding the 20 researcher, has he tried applying 21 with modified protocol? 22 MR. DOBLIN: It's very 23 difficult to do double blind 24 research. It's hard to fool 25 people. 112 1 2 In this particular study, one 3 of the question items was, which 4 group do you think you were in, and 5 everybody was 100 percent right, so 6 whenever I asked them, did you think 7 back, were you in this group, 8 everybody was correct. 9 Instead of comparing the 10 treatment with no drug, you are 11 comparing the treatment with a 12 slight amount of the drug which 13 still can have an impact. 14 If you have just a little bit 15 of LSD, people have mystical 16 experiences without LSD. In the 17 future, keep in mind that the 18 research we are doing is now 19 handicapped in a way. 20 The researcher Donald Abrams 21 is so overwhelmed by trying to do 22 this study, he is not in a position 23 to grow marijuana. 24 SPEAKER: All you have to do 25 is label the material. 113 1 2 MR. DOBLIN: I am working with 3 a group. 4 MR. SALOMON: Any other 5 questions? Thank you. 6 Our last speaker today is 7 Frederick Goldstein, general counsel 8 of Phoenix House. Welcome, 9 Mr. Goldstein. 10 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you. I 11 too would like to thank the 12 committee for this opportunity to 13 present Phoenix House's position 14 on the legalization issue. 15 Phoenix House brings to this 16 question nearly 30 years of 17 experience in the treatment and 18 prevention of drug abuse. 19 During this time, we have 20 become the nation's largest 21 substance abuse agency with 20 22 facilities in four states and more 23 than 3,000 clients in treatment, 24 most of them in long-term 25 residential treatment. 114 1 2 The drug abusers we treat have 3 been, in the main, heavy, high risk 4 users of the most disabling 5 substances. 6 These men and woman come from 7 what is called the "hard core" of 8 the nation's drug abusing 9 population. Many of them can be 10 found in the criminal justice 11 system, and that where we now treat 12 close to 1300 prison inmates. 13 From our earliest days, we 14 have worked with and within the 15 criminal justice system. The very 16 first treatment program in a 17 correctional setting was developed 18 by Phoenix House on Rikers Island at 19 the end of the sixties. 20 A number of studies have since 21 demonstrated the effectiveness of 22 this treatment model in reducing 23 recidivism and it is now widely 24 employed throughout the country. 25 Phoenix House itself operates 115 1 2 programs in New York State's Marcy 3 and Taconic facilities and at two 4 prisons in Texas. We developed a 5 treatment program for juvenile 6 offenders in California and are 7 working now on programming for 8 prisons in Great Britain. 9 Here in New York, we also run 10 a large community reintegration 11 program for former prison program 12 participants. In addition to 13 programs for inmates and released 14 prisoners, Phoenix House has worked 15 with judges, prosecutors and defense 16 counsel in the Bronx, Manhattan, 17 Brooklyn and Queens to provide 18 treatment as an alternative to 19 incarceration for adolescents and 20 adults, including youthful offenders 21 and predicate felons. 22 This experience gives us a 23 perspective on drug use and on 24 legalization that we believe is 25 substantially different from the 116 1 2 perspective of those who advocate 3 the curtailment, revision or 4 abandonment of present drug laws. 5 From where we stand and where 6 we work, we can appreciate the 7 seductiveness of the legalization 8 argument. But we see, perhaps too 9 clearly, the fundamental 10 misconceptions on which it rests. 11 These reflect a flawed or 12 limited understanding of the nature 13 of addiction, the relationship 14 between crime and drug abuse, the 15 true costs of drug abuse, the nature 16 of treatment and exactly how 17 legalization would work, but before 18 examining these issues, let's take a 19 moment first to consider what 20 appears to me to be the primary 21 rationale for a proposal as extreme 22 as legalization. 23 And it is an extreme proposal, 24 a radical departure from present 25 policy and one that comes with no 117 1 2 details and absolutely no assurance 3 that it will improve in any way an 4 admittedly dreadful situation. 5 The rationale for this 6 proposal is that, at bottom line, 7 nothing works. This "sound bite" 8 summarizes the conviction that the 9 various government initiatives we 10 have pursued, with more or less 11 fervor over the past 25 to 30 years, 12 have all been ineffective and 13 wasteful. 14 And what's more, the argument 15 goes, drug laws now cause more 16 problems than drugs do themselves. 17 How can it be said that 18 "nothing works" when evidence is now 19 piling up showing that a great deal 20 of what we have been doing to combat 21 drug abuse is demonstrably 22 effective. 23 Treatment works, and more and 24 more studies confirm this, 25 prevention works, and the national 118 1 2 campaign to de-normalize drug use 3 in this country has been an 4 enormous success. 5 Since 1979, the number of 6 Americans who use illicit drugs has 7 been cut just about in half, from 25 8 million to 13 million. That is 9 success, by any standard. 10 True, the number of "hardcore" 11 drug abusers has diminished hardly 12 at all during this period and this 13 may be influenced by a pattern of 14 decline that parallels the last 15 substantial drop in illicit drug 16 use, that which occurred between 17 1920 and 1950. 18 Decreasing drug use at that 19 time began with the middle class and 20 although drugs did not disappear 21 from the scene, they were 22 increasingly found near the margins 23 of society where hardcore use tends 24 to be most prevalent. 25 What is perhaps most 119 1 2 disturbing today is the resurgence 3 in adolescent use, paralleling a 4 shift in teen attitudes about drugs 5 and drug dangers. 6 It is generally believed that 7 this shift reflects a softening of 8 overall societal attitudes, a 9 growing tolerance for drug use that 10 can been seen in diminished public 11 concern, in limited media attention 12 and in various proposals to curb 13 anti-drug initiatives. 14 If we want youthful drug use 15 to continue to rise, there is no 16 better way to do it than by 17 legalization. Illegality is the 18 ultimate means of stigmatizing 19 behavior. 20 And there is powerful evidence 21 that drug laws and the fear of 22 getting in trouble are the most 23 potent means we have to influence 24 adolescent behavior. 25 It is because so much of what 120 1 2 is being done to curb drug abuse is 3 working, and working well, that we 4 find the rationale for legalization, 5 the notion that "nothing works" 6 plainly flawed. So too, are other 7 perceptions that go to make the case 8 for legalization. 9 One is the nature of 10 addiction. For there is an 11 assumption within the legalization 12 camp that drug abusers are 13 otherwise normal people who just 14 happen to use drugs. And, on this 15 point, is pinned the presumption 16 that drug prohibitions exist 17 primarily to clamp moral constraints 18 on their free choice. 19 But there is a far more 20 practical basis for prohibitions. 21 They exist not so much to protect 22 otherwise normal folks from the 23 consequences of their own actions, 24 but to protect society from folks 25 who can easily lose the ability to 121 1 2 function normally. 3 This does not mean that 4 society is endangered by the 5 behavior of all drug abusers or even 6 the great majority of them. Yet, a 7 substantial number cross the line 8 from permissible self destruction to 9 become out of control and put others 10 in danger of their risk-taking, 11 their violence and their 12 criminality. 13 Let's examine the nature of 14 this criminality and recognize that 15 the drug-crime connection is far 16 more complex than most legalizers 17 allow. The majority of drug abusers 18 in prison today are not there for 19 violating drug laws. Nor are they 20 necessarily in prison because they 21 must rob or steal to pay inflated 22 prices for illicit drugs. 23 Even when provided with free 24 drugs, we cannot assume that drug 25 abusing criminals will cease their 122 1 2 lawless ways. 3 A British study of addicts in 4 a heroin maintenance clinic during 5 the seventies found that fully half 6 were convicted of a crime while 7 enrolled in the program and 8 receiving enormous amounts of free 9 heroin. 10 The criminality of hardcore 11 drug abusers is less a result of 12 drug laws or drug prices than a 13 manifestation of their generally 14 disordered behavior and criminality 15 is just one such manifestation. Add 16 to it, a broad range of anti-social 17 behaviors, violence of all kinds, 18 domestic violation, child abuse and 19 the kind of risk-taking and 20 irresponsibility that spreads HIV 21 infection and tuberculosis. 22 Social disorder deriving from 23 drug abuse shows up everywhere, and 24 we pay an enormous price for it, not 25 only in the costs of crime and 123 1 2 punishment, but in the costs of 3 health care, foster care, welfare 4 and care for the homeless, in 5 accidents on the road and in the 6 workplace, plus $50 billion or more 7 in lost productivity. 8 Will legalization limit this 9 pathology or reduce these costs? It 10 is hard to see how it can fail to 11 increase both. 12 Making drugs universally 13 available, as they are not available 14 today, and providing them at 15 moderate prices, cannot but result 16 in significantly higher levels of 17 use. 18 When we increase access and 19 remove disincentives, we are 20 sanctioning or normalizing drug use, 21 eliminating all the impediments that 22 now, no matter how imperfectly, 23 limit its spread. 24 We should anticipate, after 25 legalization, not only more users, 124 1 2 but more heavy, high-risk use. 3 Absent disincentives and high 4 prices, few regular users find it 5 easy to control their consumption. 6 This was a lesson British physicians 7 learned when heroin prescription 8 there was common. 9 Even when the clinics were 10 prescribing huge doses, 20 to 30 11 times what U.S. street addicts 12 consum, patients always wanted more, 13 and former cocaine users in 14 treatment at Phoenix House almost 15 uniformly report that economic 16 constraints alone limited their 17 intake. 18 Legalization would also 19 produce more disorder and higher 20 social costs. And we should not 21 look for a reduction in crime. 22 Lower drug prices might reduce the 23 number of property crimes committed 24 by individual addicts, but this 25 would be more than offset by growth 125 1 2 of the addict population, and with 3 the ensuing increase in disordered 4 behavior, we should expect many more 5 crimes of violence, child abuse, 6 rape and assault. 7 So, under legalization, we 8 would anticipate more drug users, 9 heavier use, and an enormous 10 increase in drug-related social 11 disorder. 12 We would also expect drug 13 abuse treatment to become 14 significantly less effective, 15 particularly treatment for the most 16 disordered or hardcore. 17 These are the drug abusers who 18 most need treatment, benefit most 19 from treatment, and hardly ever 20 enter treatment, except under 21 pressure. 22 Before pursuing this thought, 23 let me clear up some misconceptions 24 about treatment. 25 Not all drug users need 126 1 2 treatment. Many require only a 3 compelling reason to quit, 4 and most can be helped by 5 interventions that are only 6 moderately intrusive. 7 But the most profoundly drug 8 involved do require treatment and 9 the most demanding kind of 10 treatment. And since denial is a 11 universal characteristic of drug 12 abuse, few of these disordered drug 13 abusers seek the treatment they need 14 voluntarily. 15 It is true that motivation is 16 essential to successful treatment, 17 and drug abusers must be active 18 participants in their own recovery. 19 But few seriously impaired abusers 20 enter treatment with this kind of 21 motivation. Recognizing the need 22 for treatment, and generating the 23 desire to recover, are the initial 24 achievements of effective treatment, 25 not it's prerequisites. 127 1 2 It is external pressure that 3 brings most disordered drug abusers 4 into treatment, particularly into 5 the comprehensive and demanding 6 regimens they require. And this 7 pressure tends to reflect societal 8 attitudes. 9 When there is widespread 10 tolerance for drug use, the 11 pressure on drug abusers is low. 12 When tolerance declines, pressure 13 rises. 14 It is families, lovers, 15 friends and employers who most often 16 exert this pressure, but so does the 17 criminal justice system. We do not 18 believe that anyone should have to 19 serve time solely for buying or 20 using drugs. But the enforcement 21 of drug laws, that make it more 22 difficult or dangerous to buy or 23 sell drugs, prompts a good many 24 abusers to seek help. 25 When the courts allow drug 128 1 2 abusing offenders the option 3 treatment, they open a door many 4 would never open for themselves. 5 Indeed, the most dysfunctional drug 6 abusers are unlikely to enter 7 treatment any other way. 8 So drug laws serve as a potent 9 adjunct to treatment, bringing into 10 treatment the most reluctant and 11 recalcitrant drug abusers, where 12 research shows them to be just as 13 successful as those who enter 14 voluntarily. 15 Under legalization, judicial 16 pressure would be gone and societal 17 pressures would diminish. Addicts 18 would be off the hook, with cheap 19 and legal drugs, and no one on their 20 case. To most of the treatment 21 community, this is a truly 22 terrifying scenario. 23 But what scenario do the 24 proponents of legalization envisage? 25 They have none. What they offer is a 129 1 2 broad range of options and an 3 absolute absence of details. To 4 some extent, this insulates their 5 position from attack. 6 But despite a reluctance to 7 spell out the specifics of drug 8 distribution in a post-legalized 9 era, it is clear that only pan- 10 legalization, the elimination of all 11 restrictions, would bring an end to 12 illicit drug traffic. 13 Unless heroin, crack, PCP and 14 the latest in designer hallucinogens 15 were legally and widely available 16 and at bargain prices, some illegal 17 trade would survive. And since no 18 legalization plan anticipates sales 19 to minors, that is anyone under 21, 20 this major consumer group would 21 likely continue to secure drugs as 22 they now do. 23 Moreover, anything but totally 24 unrestricted pan-legalization, would 25 give government a far more difficult 130 1 2 mandate than it has today. Rather 3 than curbing traffic in illegal 4 drugs, government would be required 5 to regulate it. 6 In conclusion, what we are 7 saying is this: much of what we are 8 doing today to arrest drug abuse is 9 working. It is being compromised by 10 softening public attitudes and, in 11 particular, by those who make the 12 case for legalization, and 13 legalization itself would not 14 eliminate the need for drug laws, 15 but would result most likely in more 16 drug users, more drug related 17 disorder, higher social costs and 18 more crime. Thank you. 19 MR. SALOMON: Thank you. Are 20 there any questions? 21 SPEAKER: I am wondering about 22 your claim that drug use would rise 23 among legalization. 24 I am concerned with your idea 25 that drugs are not universally 131 1 2 available today. I am wondering if 3 the clients of Phoenix House seem to 4 have any problem in obtaining 5 illegal drugs. 6 MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, I don't 7 think I would personally become an 8 addict if drugs were legalized 9 today. 10 I know many people who would 11 use drugs and abuse drugs to far 12 greater degrees, if drugs were 13 available at lower prices, which as 14 I understand it, one of the 15 principal arguments of legalization 16 is to eliminate the incentive for 17 crime by reducing the price of drugs 18 in an illegal market by creating a 19 legal market. 20 I have spoken to many people 21 in treatment, who clearly would have 22 abused drugs even far more than they 23 did, had drugs been available at 24 more reasonable prices than they 25 already were. 132 1 2 I also know that when forms of 3 cocaine were developed, namely 4 crack, that was sold at $3.00 for a 5 hit rather than the high price 6 cocaine was commanding on the 7 market. There was an epidemic of 8 crack use. 9 Could you repeat the second 10 part of your question? 11 SPEAKER: I am wondering about 12 the basis for your statement that 13 drugs are not universally available 14 today. 15 It seems to me, anyone who 16 wants drugs can get them. Everyone 17 is using illegal drugs of which you 18 know there is a giant volume in our 19 country. 20 MR. GOLDSTEIN: People are 21 getting them at greater exposure, 22 with consequences to them and their 23 families than if they were legal. 24 Those things make them more trouble- 25 some to get. 133 1 2 There are people who would be 3 willing to do drugs, had those 4 barriers not existed. I believe and 5 I have spoken to people who are 6 deterred by needing to go to a 7 street corner and dealing with 8 somebody and engaging in an illegal 9 transaction and risk their 10 reputation and freedom. 11 MR. BROWN: I just have a 12 couple of questions. 13 I understand that Phoenix 14 House, by your testimony, has 15 experience with heavy users, high 16 risk users. 17 I just would ask you to 18 comment briefly, what do you think 19 about any kind of changes in the law 20 with regard to marijuana or the 21 entheogens we were talking about 22 earlier today by Robert Jesse? 23 MR. GOLDSTEIN: It's a very 24 complicated question. It's not 25 a good question to answer. 134 1 2 The marijuana I know, from 3 visiting and talking with 4 adolescents in treatment both here 5 in New York and on the west coast, 6 there are lot of adolescents in 7 treatment around the country who are 8 now 13 years old who started 9 drinking and using marijuana when 10 they were eight or nine years old. 11 They were given marijuana by 12 their parents. They smoked 13 marijuana with their parents. 14 I am not sure if I am in favor 15 of parental acception to legalize 16 the availability of drugs for 17 minors. That has gone onto a 18 dependence on inhalants and other 19 drugs. 20 Marijuana, we believe, is a 21 gateway drug to other drugs. I 22 don't have a problem supporting 23 research in a controlled way. I 24 have no problem in trying to expand 25 knowledge about the effects of 135 1 2 drugs. 3 Many of our colleagues 4 believe that ought to be done. 5 Research should be a big part of the 6 governmental budget towards finding 7 out the truth about drugs and their 8 effect on behavior, as well as the 9 chemistry of drugs. I don't think 10 there should be drastic revisions in 11 the laws. 12 MR. BROWN: You said that 13 there was an effort to denormalize 14 drug use in this country and you 15 said the illegality is the most 16 important form of stigmatizing 17 behavior in our society. 18 Does it surprise you there has 19 been a drop off of people who, say, 20 from 25 million people at a certain 21 point 20 years ago to now 13 million 22 today, people who say they used 23 drugs? 24 MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, it does 25 not surprise me. Most of the 136 1 2 decrease has been in the casual use 3 of drugs. Most of it I believe 4 occurred during the decade from '79 5 to '89 when there was far more. 6 A recent survey reported 7 increased use of drugs among 8 adolescents, there are segments of 9 that population where that use is 10 going up rather than down and we 11 believe that reversal of that trend 12 is caused by a lack of political 13 attention, a lack of funding and 14 lack of media interest in this 15 issue. 16 MR. BROWN: What I am saying 17 is, that do you think when people 18 say they are not using drugs, that 19 accurately reflects what they are 20 doing? 21 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I don't know. 22 MR. BROWN: Do you think that 23 is connected with the stigmatization 24 and denormalizing of drugs in the 25 society? 137 1 2 MR. GOLDSTEIN: We get more 3 than 100,000 calls a year, well more 4 than 100,000 calls, who say they are 5 doing drugs and want information 6 about drugs. 7 I don't think, in that 8 context, there is a reluctance to 9 admit to drug use in an anonymous 10 way. 11 MR. KAYSER: I have a couple 12 of questions. My first is to the 13 extent that you have drug 14 prohibition, drug sales occurring in 15 our society. 16 Do you recognize that we are 17 subsidizing drug use by failing to 18 collect taxes? 19 MR. GOLDSTEIN: If the IRS 20 wants to tax income on drug sales, I 21 believe they should do that. 22 Yes, I agree with you, there 23 ought to be government taxation of 24 illegal profits, yes. 25 MR. KAYSER: To get voluntary 138 1 2 compliance, you can't do it and make 3 it legal. 4 You can only get a small 5 percentage of the drug sales which 6 you collect as a result of 7 forfeiture laws. 8 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I don't know 9 how much revenue would be gained, 10 whether it would be worth the 11 effort, et cetera. 12 MR. KAYSER: My next question 13 has to do with whether or not you 14 think, whether or not you might 15 recognize, do you know what percent 16 of the people who use drugs actually 17 can be classified as drug users or 18 do you equate use with abuse? 19 MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, I don't 20 equate use with abuse. There are 21 approximately six million users of 22 hardcore drugs whose use would 23 constitute very chronic high risk 24 drug abuse in the country. 25 MR. KASER: How many people? 139 1 2 MR. GOLSTEIN: Thirteen 3 million people report using 4 drugs once a year. 5 MR. KAYSER: You are 6 advocating a system that would 7 eliminate choice and liberty for the 8 other 60 percent that you recognize 9 that do not fall into the risk 10 category who are not abusers and you 11 eliminate their freedom of choice 12 and you have them run the risk of 13 having their life ruined which might 14 affect their careers and their lives 15 because you would be trying to 16 protect the 40 percent? 17 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I am not 18 trying to protect anybody. That is 19 a misstatement. 20 What I am saying is those 21 people who engage in disordered 22 behavior who cause enormous social 23 costs, should not be protected. 24 They should be encouraged by the 25 criminal system to go into treatment 140 1 2 and take responsibility for their 3 actions. 4 I have no doubt that one of 5 the biggest problems to ease the 6 laws and basically to normalize drug 7 abuse for the general population 8 would be to invite massive amounts 9 of people, who are not abusing 10 drugs, at this time to become drug 11 abusers including minors and 12 adolescents and preadolescents. 13 MR. SALOMON: We will now take 14 questions from the floor. 15 SPEAKER: First, according to 16 your testimony, according to your 17 testimony, Phoenix House gets 18 clients directly from the justice 19 system? 20 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. 21 SPEAKER: The small number of 22 addicts, the small percentage of 23 addicts whose lives are disordered, 24 you cannot control their lives. 25 Is there any system that you 141 1 2 can think of that can deal with 3 those people's lives without putting 4 hundreds of thousands of other 5 people in prison and creating all of 6 the other problems we have seen? 7 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. The 8 first question is no, Phoenix House 9 does not defend on the availability 10 of criminal justice clients to run 11 its programs. 12 It's a non profit Organiza- 13 tion. We have more than 4,000 people 14 who knock on our doors every day. 15 We cannot possibly treat that many 16 people. 17 As a matter of fact, we 18 believe sincerely that the opposite 19 would happen, that if you legalize 20 drugs, we would have a greater 21 flood. There would be more disorder 22 rather than less disorder. 23 My understanding, from the 24 Bureau of Justice Statistics, there 25 are now people using drugs for their 142 1 2 own enjoyment or their own social 3 lubrication who are spending an 4 enormous amount of time in federal 5 jails or state jails. 6 Seventy percent of the 7 arrested population in New York 8 State test positive for some kind of 9 drugs. Certainly, they are not most 10 of them being arrested for 11 possession of recreational 12 quantities of drugs. 13 Most of the people spending 14 time in jail are felons who are 15 selling drugs, not just using them 16 for their own pleasure. 17 There is another system. It 18 is equally controversial than the 19 subject we are talking about today, 20 which is why I hesitate to bring it 21 up, but yes. 22 SPEAKER: Mr. Goldstein, I was 23 wondering if you were familiar with 24 the report I mentioned this morning 25 from the Grant Corporation showing 143 1 2 that spending on treatment is vastly 3 more cost effective than spending on 4 enforcement, and I am wondering, 5 considering that resources are 6 limited, whether you would favor a 7 shift of resources into treatment 8 and from enforcement? 9 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I am familiar 10 with that study, with the California 11 study. I have seen lots of numbers, 12 which I am always pleased to see. 13 There are numbers ranging from 14 $1.00 to $11.00. The answer, 15 generally speaking, is yes. I would 16 rather see government policy move 17 towards treatment than towards 18 enforcement and certainly towards 19 treatment and enforcement of local 20 drug laws rather than enormous 21 amounts of money being spent on 22 international addiction. 23 Unfortunately, I come back to 24 the final argument that I made, 25 which is the notion that we 144 1 2 should provide treatment on demand 3 as a more cost effective way to 4 spend government resources. Very 5 few addicts who are on heroin or 6