INCREASED CONTROLS OVER HALLUCINOGENS AND OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul G. Rogers presiding (Hon. John Jarman, chairman). Mr. ROGERS. The committee will come to order, please. The committee is continuing its hearings on H.R. 15355 and H.R. 14096 and related bills to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to control LSD and other dangerous drugs. We are pleased to have some of the Members of Congress, our colleagues, to testify this morning, and particularly pleased to welcome one of our colleagues who is a member of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and who has taken a great interest in this problem and has done a great deal of research in the extent of this problem in our Nation, our colleague, Congressman Clarence Brown, of Ohio. Congressman Brown. STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE J. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your letting me go first this morning because I do have a subcommittee meeting at this hour on another matter, pipeline safety. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to appear before you, and I am pleased, as a cosponsor of H.R. 14096, to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues. Much has occurred politically, if you will, since our introduction of this bill. If you will recall last session, this issue of harmful narcotics and hallucinogens broke before the Congress and this committee as a result of some public concern and confusion growing out of statements made by Dr. James Goddard, of the Food and Drug Administration, when he appeared before a University of Minnesota audience. Several of us on the committee felt that legislative action had to be taken because there appeared to be no clear position within the executive branch of our Federal Government. Confronted with the mounting evidence of the extreme dangers of LSD, we had to frame legislation which, while attacking the problem of LSD, also stood some likelihood of gaining sufficient bipartisan sup port to insure its passage, in view of the administration's ambivalent attitude. This executive branch inability to offer any suitable legislation was apparently due to the irreconcilable conflict between Dr. James Goddard, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and the enforcement people represented by Henry L. Giordano, Commissioner of the Bureau of Narcotics. Dr. Goddard's approach, reasoned somewhat inversely, I feel. It appeared to be his view that, since LSD was more dangerous than marihuana, the penalties for marihuana should be reduced to those for LSD. In complete disagreement was the Giordano approach, which reasoned that since LSD was more dangerous than marihuana, the rather limited penalties regarding LSD should be increased. I am pleased that the President in his message, "The Challenge of Crime to Our Society," transmitted to the Congress on February 7, 1968, has finally elected to pursue the approach of his enforcement authorities and has recommended legislation to deal with LSD. I am happy that the President has spoken out in favor of more stringent penalties for possessors and pushers of LSD, and I am happy to support these tardy recommendations. While the political climate which existed when we introduced our bills has changed, no new evidence to console the Nation about the dangers of LSD has been discovered. Still lacking the results of more extensive research on the effects of this hallucinogen, we can only be totally shocked by what evidence we have now. So far, the evidence indicates that LSD does not lead to dependency. But the possible effects from just one encounter are, in my opinion, sufficient to warrant immediate of this legislation. Taking LSD can lead to prolonged psychoses, schizrophrenia and and paranoid reactions, including even the possibility of suicide, hospitalization, and psychotic depressions. Furthermore, these reactions may occur without any further stimulation, long after the original dose has been taken. But even more frightening is the evidence that LSD can cause mutations in the chromosomes and resulting damage to forthcoming generations of unborn children. These dangers are much more horrifying in view of the growing numbers of LSD users and the ease with which amateurs can produce the drug. I do not claim to be a medical, legal, or enforcement expert, but I am a parent and as such I feel something must be done now to counteract this growing use. More than a long-range program of education is required, although this must be a part of the attack, also-and not an educational program that amounts to a recruitment campaign either. We need hard-hitting program which will put the fear of God into the potential user, the fear of permanent insanity or the destruction of one's own offspring. If self-destruction which can destroy others is a crime, then possession of LSD-whether for sale or self-use should also be a crime. To the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence which indicates that criminal penalties do not serve as a deterrent to the commission of crime. If the possession, and only the "mere" possession of LSD was a crime, I cannot help but believe that some number of reasonable, responsible people-particularly college students anxious over their future admissions to a profession or graduate schools and jobs if they have a criminal record-will be deterred from possessing LSD. I believe that the desire to experiment, to take a chance for a thrill, will be reduced if experimentation also risks criminal punishment. Dr. Goddard's opinion, which presumably feels that criminal penalties encourage a rebellious younger generation to take LSD, rests on sociological and psychological notions still lacking adequate scientific research and support. So, possession of LSD should be a crime because it can act as a deterrent to those using LSD. If it will stop one promising but foolish young person from destroying himself and his progeny, such a law would be worthwhile. And, "mere" possession of LSD should be a crime if it will enable the enforcement arm of the Government to deal more effectively with any who traffic in LSD. The problem of proof is an ancient one to the prosecutor. Proof of possession and sale is more difficult than proof of "mere" possession, so we should make "mere" possession a crime so that the enforcement authorities will be able to prosecute those pushers of LSD clever enough to evade effective prosecution for possession and sale. If making "mere" possession a crime will insure that any who traffic will not evade punishment, it would be worthwhile. Finally, I am convinced that LSD spreads from user to user. Users breed more users. If possession is a crime, society will be better able to reduce the availability, and hence, the use of LSD. Looking briefly to the other side of this question, I would ask, "Why not make possession a crime?" Such action certainly deters some. Such action certainly prevents some from openly advocating LSD. Such action certainly strengthens the hand of our enforcement agents. Why not pass legislation in this area? Who will be hurt if we take this action? Dr. Goddard seems to feel that education about the harm and risk of LSD is sufficient. While I feel that the evidence does not support this contention, I would ask, "Why not a two-pronged attack?": "Why not education for those so reckless as to flaunt the laws of society and enact legislation to make possession a crime so that those who obey the laws of society will be deterred from using LSD. I would applaud further Government efforts to publicize to our youths the enormous risk of trying LSD but strongly feel that we cannot afford to rely on that approach alone. I think it is a shame that so much of our discussion of this problem at the national level has revealed the ambivalence of the administration and made nationally known its inner conflict over the issue of marihauna. Dr. Goddard's careless statement at the University of Minnesota and his well-publicized displeasure with the current laws regarding marihuana, views with which narcotics enforcement authorities disagree, have unfortunately deflected congressional attention from the very serious problems of LSD. Who knows how many, needlessly, experimented with LSD while the Administration confusion caused unnecessary debate about marihuana. We need enactment of more stringent penalties for users of LSD, and we need them now. But we should not quit there. We also need much more research into not only the effects of LSD but the motivations of today's young people to experiment with it. And we need education on its dangers. But let us pass this legislation first-and waste no more time. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much for a very strong statement. It will be most helpful to the committee. Dr. Carter. Mr. CARTER. I am extremely interested in your statement. Perhaps you would be interest to know that Dr. Goddard shifted his base yesterday and his is for penalty for users. He brought that out in his testimony in support of the administration's bill. Mr. BROWN. So the newspaper reported, at least. Mr. CARTER. In your statement you concentrated on the users of LSD. Do you think they should be penalized quite severely? Mr. BROWN. I think the users of LSD ought to be discouraged in any way we can from the use of this drug, not only because they do damage to themselves but because they do potential damage to their children and they can do a great deal of damage to others when they are in the narcotics state as a result of the use of the drug. Mr. CARTER. Certainly I am in agreement that users can cause trouble but don't you think that the thrust of our legislation should be toward the manufacturers and the pushers, those who sell this drug? Don't you think that the major thrust should be toward that? If we the source then there won't be any users; is that right? dry up Mr. BROWN. I think that is correct, if you can dry up the source. I think there is one problem with LSD and that is that it can be produced, as I understand, rather easily by rather unsophisticated people, with a concentration of time. So it may be somewhat different than a drug like heroin or marihuana that takes a little time to grow and transport. Mr. CARTER. I should agree with you on that except that it is not as easy to make perhaps as a lot of people think. It takes at least 4 hours, as I understand it, by a chemistry major, a college chemistry major, someone of that ability can produce it. And that is a great problem. But again, this is the very person who must be controlled, as I see it, the maker. How many high school students in this country use LSD? Mr. BROWN. As I understand the figure given by Dr. Goddard yesterday, it was quite a high one. I don't know how that is documented. I was somewhat surprised by his rather Mr. CARTER. I believe if you will check that record you will find that 1,600,000 high school students have used LSD. Then according to your recommendations, you would prosecute these high school students? Mr. BROWN. I would make them subject to prosecution. Mr. CARTER. Well, what does your law, your legislation provide? What penalty does it provide? Mr. BROWN. The legislation which is before the committee from the administration provides for criminal penalties to make a felony the simple possession of LSD. |