The proposed designer drug legislation needs to be redesigned. Its language must be clarified or the exemption for scientific and medical research rewritten to protect the public against opportunistic illicit drug profiteers without discouraging research on pharmacology in areas where early commercial application is unlikely.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Dr. Grinspoon.

STATEMENT

OF

LESTER GRINSPOON, M.D.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY

HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

ON THE SUBJECT OF

DESIGNER DRUG LEGISLATION

MAY 1, 1986

Chairman Hughes and Members of the Subcommittee.

My

name is Lester Grinspoon. I am an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Most of my research in recent years has been devoted to the study of psychoactive drugs. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to address the need for legislation to combat the serious and growing epidemic of the misuse of so-called "designer drugs" in this country.

I believe that as Congress studies various approaches to solving the enormous law enforcement problems posed by "designer drugs," Congress must also consider the potential impact of these legislative remedies on legitimate medical research and treatment, particularly in the field of psychiatry. That is why I and my other colleagues in the psychiatric profession appreciate your seeking the views of representatives of the medical community at today's hearing. I will be happy to answer your questions after my brief introductory statement.

Practitioners and researchers in the field of

psychiatry believe strongly that current efforts by the House and Senate to deal with the new phenomenon of "designer drugs" are to be applauded. Congress should take action to stop underground chemists who try to stay one step ahead of the law by altering the molecular structure of a drug listed as a controlled substance, and thus create a product that is entirely legal, but produces effects similar to an illegal substance. "Analog" is the technical term for

until

these chemical variations, but they are better known as "designer drugs." Action now has been prompted mainly because of deaths and serious injuries from analogs recently legal of fentanyl and meperidine, two potent controlled synthetic narcotics that resemble heroin in their effects. One of the meperidine analogs, when imperfectly synthesized in underground labs, became contaminated with a related substance that caused addicts to develop symptoms of Parkinson's disease, a disorder of body movement that may leave the victim nearly paralyzed. The profiteers who manufacture and distribute these analogs clearly have no concern for the public welfare and certainly no ties to legitimate scientific research.

3

We in the psychiatric community do share Congress' commitment to controlling the spread of substances which, when improperly used, can so threaten the public health. However, we are concerned that legitimate medical research must be protected.

The Senate has passed a new amendment to the Controlled Substances Act and you and your colleagues are now

considering several similar bills. The Controlled Substance Analogs' Enforcement Act makes it a crime knowingly to manufacture, possess, or distribute for human consumption any substance that is chemically "substantially similar" to a controlled drug in Schedule I or Schedule II or "specifically designed to produce a substantially similar effect." Schedule I includes heroin, marijuana, and other drugs with no accepted medical uses; Schedule II includes such medically important drugs as morphine,

dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine), and methylphenidate

(Ritalin).

Although the aim of the Senate bill and related House measures is a worthy one, I believe in its present form the legislation is seriously deficient in several ways that may