BARBITURATE CONTROL

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1952

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS OF

THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
Washington, D. C.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

The subcommittee met at 10:15 a. m., in the Ways and Means Committee room, Hon. Hale Boggs, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Representatives Boggs, Granger, Jenkins, and Simpson. Also Present: Charles W. Davis, clerk; Leo H. Irwin, assistant clerk; Ed Croft, Office of Legislative Counsel.

Mr. BOGGS. Let us come to order.

I wonder if the various people representing various agencies would identify themselves. Mr. Tennyson?

Mr. TENNYSON. Alfred L. Tennyson, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Narcotics.

Mr. GRIGSBY. John T. Grigsby, attorney, Department of Justice. Mr. GOODRICH. William W. Goodrich, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Security Agency.

Mr. WILCOX. Alanson W. Wilcox, General Counsel, Federal Security Agency.

Mr. LARRICK. George P. Larrick, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Security Agency.

Dr. NELSON. Dr. Erwin E. Nelson, Medical Director, Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. KIRBY. Vance N. Kirby, Tax Legislative Counsel, Treasury Department.

Mr. RUSTIGAN. Edward C. Rustigan, Office of the Tax Legislative Counsel, Treasury Department.

Mr. BOPP. Rudolph J. Bopp, Assistant Deputy Commissioner (excise tax), Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Mr. LAMBERT. Bruce E. Lambert, Supervisor at Large, Tax Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Mr. MOORE. Morrow Moore, Office of the Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Dr. GRANGER. Dr. Gordon A. Granger, medical officer, Food and Drug Administration.

(Lawrence F. Greenleigh, M. D., medical officer, USPHS, National Institutes of Health, Federal Security Agency, was also present.)

Mr. BOGGS. Suppose you gentlemen come around and sit at the committee table. We will be very informal here. I think we had

17

better hear from Mr. Tennyson first. Mr. Tennyson, come up, will you?

The purpose of the meeting this morning is to try to get the various groups together and discuss this problem; No. 1, the need for legislation and, No. 2, who ought to have the enforcement job if we decide on legislation. Mr. Tennyson is here from the Bureau of Narcotics, representing Commissioner Anslinger. Is that correct?

Mr. TENNYSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. Boggs. Mr. Tennyson, we have here a letter dated July 5, 1951, from the Treasury Department, signed by Mr. Foley. I wonder if you would mind reading that letter to the committee.

Mr. TENNYSON. I don't have a copy of it here.

Mr. BOGGS. It is the last letter.

Mr. TENNYSON. Yes.

JULY 5, 1951.

DEAR SIR: Reference is made to your letter of May 10, 1951, and its enclosed copy of a letter to the Attorney General, pertaining to the request by Representative Boggs, chairman of the Subcommittee on Narcotics, Committee on Ways and Means, that the Federal Security Agency collaborate with the Department of Justice and this Department to develop a legislative plan or plans of Federal control over traffic in barbiturates. The comments of this Department are requested on the proposals outlined in the letter to the Attorney General, and particularly on the question of the exercising of the taxing power in connection with the proposal for licensing dealers in barbiturates.

In this letter of May 23, 1951, the Deputy Attorney General advised you that it would be constitutional under the commerce clause to regulate the sale of barbiturates at the retail level, even though the drug might have been produced in the same State as that where the sale is made, if the effective control of barbiturates moving in interstate commerce or held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce requires the regulation to apply also to the drug produced and sold locally. The Attorney General also perceived no objection to the proposal under which the handlers of the drug from manufacturers to the retail level would be licensed, and the possession of the drug by an unlicensed person (other than pursuant to a physician's prescription) would be made an offense, since where Congress possesses constitutional authority to regulate commerce, it may regulate by licenses as well as by other means. The Attorney General, however, points out that it is doubtful that prohibiting a sale to an unlicensed person would have the necessary real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained by the occupational tax statute.

The Treasury Department concurs in the views expressed by the Attorney General as to the constitutional sanction of the interstate commerce clause.

In connection with your suggestion that the possession, or sale to an unlicensed person, of barbiturates be made an offense as an incident to the enforcement of an Occupational tax (as distinguished from a stamp tax or other tax based on individual transactions) by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Treasury Department concurs in the views expressed by the Attorney General that it is doubtful that such a regulatory function would be a proper adjunct of the taxing power under the Constitution, although such control could be accomplished as an incident to the constitutional authority to regulate commerce.

It is the position of the Treasury Department, in general, that the Bureau of Internal Revenue, as the tax-collecting agency of the Federal Government, should not have imposed upon it any duties which are not intimately related to the collection of the revenues.

Very truly yours,

E. H. FOLEY, Acting Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Tennyson, of course I probably should not ask you this question. I should ask Mr. Kirby the question, though. What intimate relation, Mr. Kirby, is there of the collection of revenue with the enforcement of the marijuana statute, for instance.

Mr. KIRBY. I assume that there really isn't an intimate relationship there, but I think that what Mr. Tennyson or what the letter is

referring to is the plan that the Federal Security Agency tentatively considered with representatives of the Department as to whether under the taxing power we could enact a licensing tax and a truly sensing tax as distinguished from an occupational tax. It is felt by the Department as well as by the Department of Justice that we could not have a truly licensing tax based upon the taxing power.

Mr. BOGGS. Here is our problem: The agencies of the Government involved are represented here. We have a lot of testimony on this subject of barbiturates, however you pronounce the word. The evidence seems to indicate pretty conclusively that these drugs are maybe as harmful as other narcotics. As a matter of fact, we had some movies here taken at a hospital in Kentucky which showed the effect of barbiturate addiction. It showed that they constituted a problem as far as addiction was concerned just as bad as any other narcotic. The question is, what to do about it; No. 1, whether to have any legislation at all. Mr. Anslinger in his testimony before this committee said, no legislation. The Federal Security people say legislation is required, that it is a matter that has to be handled just as narcotics are handled, jointly by the Federal Government and the State Governments. Mr. Anslinger says if there is any legislation, he doesn't want any part of the enforcement. On the other hand, if we pass legislation and turn it over to the Federal Security Agency we are creating another agency for enforcement which is operating substantially in the same field that Mr. Anslinger is operating now. What we want is some enlightenment on how to go about solving this problem, because there is a problem. Mr. Tennyson, would you mind commenting on that?

Mr. TENNYSON. I think that there is a difference between the barbiturates and narcotic drugs, Mr. Boggs, to begin with. I believe, for instance, there is a very much more widespread use of barbiturates than there is of narcotics drugs. Narcotic drugs primarily are pain-relieving drugs. That is their function. That is, the phenanthrene derivatives, morphine, and so forth. I don't believe you will find as much medical use of narcotics as you will find at least distribution for medical use of barbiturates. It is a different kind of drug than the narcotic drugs.

I would like also to point out, Mr. Boggs

Mr. BOGGS. But they are both habit forming, aren't they? The barbiturate addict is just about as bad off as a morphine addict, is he not?

Mr. TENNYSON. Of course that would be a pharmacological question that I suppose I should not comment on, Mr. Boggs, but if you are asking my personal opinion, I think there is a difference, because with morphine you have addiction, with barbiturates you have habit formation, perhaps. I think there is a distinction there. Barbiturates, in my opinion, purely as a layman, are considered habit forming, but an addiction is a very much stronger term than habit formation. I think the moving picture that was shown here disclosed the results of abrupt withdrawal of barbiturates after a rather massive dosage. Those patients that we saw in the moving picture had been placed on barbiturates under a rather heavy dosage for a period of 30 or 60 days, and then there was an abrupt withdrawal. In other words, you saw the result of a rather, shall I say, unusual intake of barbiturates. The average patient taking a sleeping tablet would take

nowhere near the dosage shown to have been taken by the subjects in that moving picture. In other words, that was an unusual case. You don't find those severe withdrawal symptoms ordinarily by a patient who is simply taking sleeping tablets and then stops taking sleeping tablets.

Mr. BOGGS. We have everybody represented here. We may as well proceed very informally. Dr. Nelson is over here. From Food and Drug, which is his department. What is your feeling about what Mr. Tennyson just said?

Dr. NELSON. I would like to comment, Mr. Boggs, that not everybody who takes morphine suffers withdrawal symptoms after the need for it is over. Both of these are beneficent substances which have wide and important usage for the good of man. It is the misuse that we are concerned with. I personally am convinced that the addiction, not the habit formation-this is habit forming [indicating pipe]. The addiction to barbiturates is a more serious problem in this country today than addiction to opium, but not everybody is an addict any more than everybody who drinks alcohol is an addict. There are alcoholic addicts.

Mr. JENKINS. What is an addict? What do you mean by an addict?

Dr. NELSON. You had expert comment on this problem when Dr. Isbell, I believe, spoke before you; am I right? Did he address this committee?

Mr. BOGGS. Yes.

Dr. NELSON. It has a number of features. There is an impulsive or compulsive desire or necessity for taking the drug to the detriment of the individual and of society as a rule. Frequently there are withdrawal symptoms after repetition of high-level dosage. The individual ordinarily who uses morphine because he has a pain and when his pain is gone he doesn't have to have the morphine any more, doesn't show withdrawal symptoms. The person who really has a need for the soporific and when the need stops the drug is under such control that the drug is stopped, isn't an addict, either. Those aren't the people we are talking about.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Simpson?

Mr. SIMPSON. Dr. Isbell told us that there are probably 1,000 to 1,500 deaths due to barbiturate poisoning per year. Accepting that for the moment, do you have any idea as to the misuse of the barbiturates? Do you have any idea how many deaths there are from the misuse of morphine and so on?

Dr. NELSON. No, sir.

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you think there would be more or less.

Dr. NELSON. I would guess, sir, that it is less, but many deaths which occur from barbiturates are not barbiturate addiction. They are the misuse on an acute occasion. After an individual is under a barbiturate for whatever purpose, he loses his sense of judgment, his perspective, his memory, and I am convinced personally-it is an opinion, and I have nothing but opinion to offer-I am convinced that many of the deaths from barbiturates were not suicide but the accidental taking of an overdose. It is just as serious as far as society is concerned, but I don't think it is necessarily a part of the addiction problem. It does high light the danger of this drug and the necessity for more rigorous control of this group of drugs.