In 1934, we took the first step to close the loophole that these designers have been able to smugly slip through when we gave the Attorney General the power to impose a temporary ban on designer drugs. This law is not enough--it applies only after the existence of a designer drug becomes known. That is why I We need to be proactive rather than reactive. support legislation to change the definition of the crime being committed. The legislation which I have introduced would change the illegality from the substance itself to the effect this substance has on an individual. "A rose by any other name..." may still smell. An addictive, deadly substance, which has the effect of an illegal substance, should itself be illegal. We must meet this problem head on with new definitions of what is an illegal drug, with prosecution for those who participate in this illegal act, and stiffer penalties for those who use children to traffic these substances. My hill, The Drug Enforcement Amendments Act of 1986, proposes to meet these challenges. First, it would impose stiffer sentences on individuals who use minors to distribute controlled substances. A continuing problem in drug traffic is the ability of pushers to hide behind juveniles and children. I hope that this Subcommittee will give serious consideration to this section. The second thrust is towards the designer drugs themselves. H.R. The 3936 makes it illegal to manufacture or distribute designer drugs for human consumption. The term "designer drug" is defined carefully. illegality of the designer drug would no longer be the molecular structure of the drug itself, but the effect substantially similar to that of a controlled substance. This would close the dangerous loophole which has allowed the designers and distributors of these drugs to stay relatively beyond the reach of the law. Finally, my bill would seek control over the chemicals used to create or process illegal drugs. It directs the Attorney General to study the need for methods to control the diversion of legal chemicals for illegal uses. I am pleased that the full Committee added this language to the Department of Justice authorization bill. The law should not be a game to those who would abuse it. We must work together to close these loopholes which have allowed the designers of deadly substances to play this game thus far. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee's holding these hearings and I know that the chairman is extremely interested in the problem and wants to see some resolution in the form of passage of a bill out of this committee. As you know, one part of my bill, H.R. 3936, would ban designer drugs. I think we should pass a designer drug ban whichever bill is passed, but I certainly want to see a drug bill enacted into law this session. A new source of drugs which often is beyond the reach of the law has emerged. A designer drug is cheap, addictive and, in many cases, perfectly legal and also often fatal or crippling. A person can change the molecular structure of a legal drug, or an illegal compound, to a drug which mimics the effects of heroin or other drugs. The designers of these drugs stay one step ahead of the law by simply once again changing the molecular structure of the drug to create a new and, for the time being, legal substance. The effect of these drugs is not known by the designer for, as stated by the Miami Herald, "the users are the guinea pigs." Those seeking heroin have found designer drugs to be cheaper and a better substitute often disguised as heroin itself. But these drugs are more potent than heroin and have resulted in a number of overdoses and deaths. They have also caused nerve damage to some individuals which creates a condition similar to Parkinson's dis ease. The reward to the designer drug manufacturer is also high. For a small investment in chemicals and lab equipment, a person can produce a $2 million batch of synthetic heroin that easily fits into a shoebox. Until recently designer drugs have been a localized phenomenon. But as recently evidenced in my home State of Florida and as we shall hear testimony on this today, designer drugs are spreading across the United States. I sympathize with Mr. Lungren and with the people of California. Florida is usually the first in these categories, and in this case we are playing catch-up to California. In 1984, we took the first step. But we need to be proactive, rather than reactive. A rose by any other name may still smell. An addictive deadly substance which has the effect of an illegal substance should itself be illegal. H.R. 3936 makes it illegal to manufacture or distribute designer drugs for human consumption. The term "designer drug" is defined carefully. The illegality of the designer drug would no longer result from the molecular structure of the drug itself but from the effect substantially similar to that of a controlled substance that that drug would produce. The law must not be a game to those who would abuse it. We must work together to close these loopholes which have allowed the designers of deadly substances to play this game thus far. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUGHES. Any other members who would care to be recognized for the purpose of an opening statement? Mr. GEKAS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. GEKAS. I am usually optimistic about a lot of the things we do here in the Congress and the attempts we make. I have to con fess, even though I want to do everything I can to help in this subject matter, I am very pessimistic because I have always believed that the black marketeers are always, as was indicated by the gentleman from Florida, one step ahead of the lawmakers and the law enforcers. This does not mean that I am not going to fully engage in trying to help in this legislation, but I just wish that there was more that we could do. And I don't know in what areas we can wander in attempting to fully understand the full scope of this, but let us at least designate this as a proper necessary step and let us all work to see something accomplished. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUGHES. Other members? The gentleman from California is recognized for the purpose of showing a film. Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thing I should say is I know that you had an interest in perhaps having a field hearing in other places and I know the constraints this committee and subcommittee are under, and so I have obtained this film, which is produced by Dr. Robert Robertson, Ph.D., who, when he made the film, was the chief of the drug programs division of the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. I think it is an instructive film. It is only about 6 minutes, and it goes into the question that we are talking about. [Video tape presentation: "The Walking Death."] Mr. HUGHES. I want to thank the gentleman from California for an excellent presentation. Congressman Charley Rangel is involved in a markup and cannot be with us today, and he has asked that his statement be inserted in the record. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered. [The statement of Mr. Rangel follows:] |