Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

In my view, the essential element in ending a drug's use is that a consensus exists that the drug is bad in any amount. That is why cocaine was essentially wiped out.

In 1914, when the first prohibition amendment started through Congress, James R. Mann, more famous for the Mann Act, shepherded the Harris or Anti-Narcotic Act through Congress. No problem, Congress was opposed to narcotics.

The next week he led the fight against the prohibition amendment in the House of Representatives. Rep. Mann, like many others had a very distinct view between the two substances, namely because alcohol had become a major element in so many lives, culturally.

Talking to the current situation, most of the drugs-heroin, co caine-have been found by the American people to be without merit in recreational use. We are in the process of making these decisions about marijuana at the present time.

I don't see that prohibition shows that we should abandon attempts to control these substances. I would say that prohibition shows that you can have a law about a substance that even is considered quite okay by many citizens and you can still reduce enormously the consumption.

The death rate from liver cirrhosis in the 1920s was cut in half by prohibition. It would have gone up if we did not have prohibition. You have to look at what it is you are dealing with and what is the response.

I would say prohibition does not offer any support for the idea of legalizing cocaine.

Mr. RANGEL. The Chair would like to recognize Mr. Guarini, one of the senior Members of our committee.

Mr. GUARINI. Culturally, our society is changing. I think we all agree that we have single-parent families, are taking the grandparents out of the family, and are replacing them with day care centers.

You say education is important. I agree with you, and we should do more for treatment rehabilitation. I also agree with you. Then the problem will eventually ameliorate.

Have you put in to your consideration the changes that are taking place, which are enormous in our society today, to base your conclusion on the fact that we don't need more penalties, we don't need more law enforcement, we don't have to go after users? What is your general opinion concerning these changes that are taking place that will effect the long-range drug problem in our country?

Dr. Musto. I hope I have made it clear I am not opposed to law enforcement in drug control. I think it is very important. To assume you will just wait around for people to stop using drugs is not a reasonable thing and it is something I don't think the American people would stand for either.

I see, from looking over the changes of attitude in this country, that a very profound change has taken place with regard to these drugs. We have moved from seeing them okay if you don't misuse them to not okay in any amount. I think a lot of antidrug efforts are going to appear to work better than they did 15 or 25 years ago: law enforcement and education will seem more effective.

When we were on the upturn of the drug problem in the early 1970's, education seemed to be of no effect at all. I think you will now find people more receptive to antidrug education for they have already learned a lot from looking around them.

I am not saying those things are not important. I also am not saying we should just stand idly by and see if it takes 10 or 20 years for this to go away. I am saying that one has to be careful that the antagonisms that grow up around drugs may become so enormous that they sanction any action labelled antidrug.

I will give an example. Cocaine had come to be seen as the most feared drug in America in the 1920's, but it was also seen by a majority of the population to be almost a black drug. It was not. It was given as a reason for black hostility in the South, at the time of lynchings, of voter disenfranchisement. Not only did cocaine become a source of problems, but it became an explanation for resistance to actions that should have happened.

So in this atmosphere, you have an almost magnetic attraction between otherwise distinct social problems. Drugs can become an explanation for just about anything.

I am not dealing with the specific issues currently before the Senate. I am simply saying that one has to be very careful that in the antagonisms to drugs, we don't indulge in overkill and also not become unduly disappointed when the drug problem does not go away in 2 or 3 years, because that is most unlikely.

Mr. GUARINI. As a historian and someone who has studied our culture as it relates to the medical field, knowing the behavior of people in our society, which I imagine is very complex because we have such a mosaic society, would you say that we would be advised to go after the user at all? Should there be penalties against the user, such as marking his passport, taking his driver's license away, or taking away certain benefits he would get as a citizen from, say, school, loans and such? Would that help?

Dr. Musto. My feeling is there should be some user responsibility or some user effect; if you have decided this is a very dangerous substance, you want to discourage use, but I am not able to comment on those specific recommendations contained in the bill. I have not seen the bill, and I have not considered what all the actions might be.

Mr. GUARINI. We could go after that part of the demand equation?

Dr. MUSTO. Yes. I think that it is effective and has been shown in other areas, such as in our battle against racial discrimination, that it is important to have laws appropriately applied.

Mr. GUARINI. And disincentives?

Dr. Musto. And disincentives. There is nothing unusual about that. I am concerned about the level to which it might go. For example, in the decline phase, as fewer and fewer people use the drugs in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, the penalties got higher until in 1955 we had the death penalty. Senator Price Daniels put that ino his drug penalty bill. I remember interviewing Harry Anslinger, who was our Narcotics Commissioner for 32 years. I asked, how did the death penalty get into Senator Daniels' bill?” Anslinger replied, he wanted to make this bill different from any other bill on this issue.

In my view, the essential element in ending a drug's use is that a consensus exists that the drug is bad in any amount. That is why cocaine was essentially wiped out.

In 1914, when the first prohibition amendment started through Congress, James R. Mann, more famous for the Mann Act, shepherded the Harris or Anti-Narcotic Act through Congress. No problem, Congress was opposed to narcotics.

The next week he led the fight against the prohibition amendment in the House of Representatives. Rep. Mann, like many others had a very distinct view between the two substances, namely because alcohol had become a major element in so many lives, culturally.

Talking to the current situation, most of the drugs-heroin, co caine-have been found by the American people to be without merit in recreational use. We are in the process of making these decisions about marijuana at the present time.

I don't see that prohibition shows that we should abandon attempts to control these substances. I would say that prohibition shows that you can have a law about a substance that even is considered quite okay by many citizens and you can still reduce enormously the consumption.

The death rate from liver cirrhosis in the 1920s was cut in half by prohibition. It would have gone up if we did not have prohibition. You have to look at what it is you are dealing with and what is the response.

I would say prohibition does not offer any support for the idea of legalizing cocaine.

Mr. RANGEL. The Chair would like to recognize Mr. Guarini, one of the senior Members of our committee.

Mr. GUARINI. Culturally, our society is changing. I think we all agree that we have single-parent families, are taking the grandparents out of the family, and are replacing them with day care centers.

You say education is important. I agree with you, and we should do more for treatment rehabilitation. I also agree with you. Then the problem will eventually ameliorate.

Have you put in to your consideration the changes that are taking place, which are enormous in our society today, to base your conclusion on the fact that we don't need more penalties, we don't need more law enforcement, we don't have to go after users? What is your general opinion concerning these changes that are taking place that will effect the long-range drug problem in our country?

Dr. Musto. I hope I have made it clear I am not opposed to law enforcement in drug control. I think it is very important. To assume you will just wait around for people to stop using drugs is not a reasonable thing and it is something I don't think the American people would stand for either.

I see, from looking over the changes of attitude in this country, that a very profound change has taken place with regard to these drugs. We have moved from seeing them okay if you don't misuse them to not okay in any amount. I think a lot of antidrug efforts are going to appear to work better than they did 15 or 25 years ago: law enforcement and education will seem more effective.

When we were on the upturn of the drug problem in the early 1970's, education seemed to be of no effect at all. I think you will now find people more receptive to antidrug education for they have already learned a lot from looking around them.

I am not saying those things are not important. I also am not saying we should just stand idly by and see if it takes 10 or 20 years for this to go away. I am saying that one has to be careful that the antagonisms that grow up around drugs may become so enormous that they sanction any action labelled antidrug.

I will give an example. Cocaine had come to be seen as the most feared drug in America in the 1920's, but it was also seen by a majority of the population to be almost a black drug. It was not. It was given as a reason for black hostility in the South, at the time of lynchings, of voter disenfranchisement. Not only did cocaine become a source of problems, but it became an explanation for resistance to actions that should have happened.

So in this atmosphere, you have an almost magnetic attraction between otherwise distinct social problems. Drugs can become an explanation for just about anything:

I am not dealing with the specific issues currently before the Senate. I am simply saying that one has to be very careful that in the antagonisms to drugs, we don't indulge in overkill and also not become unduly disappointed when the drug problem does not go away in 2 or 3 years, because that is most unlikely.

Mr. GUARINI. As a historian and someone who has studied our culture as it relates to the medical field, knowing the behavior of people in our society, which I imagine is very complex because we have such a mosaic society, would you say that we would be advised to go after the user at all? Should there be penalties against the user, such as marking his passport, taking his driver's license away, or taking away certain benefits he would get as a citizen from, say, school, loans and such? Would that help?

Dr. Musto. My feeling is there should be some user responsibility or some user effect; if you have decided this is a very dangerous substance, you want to discourage use, but I am not able to comment on those specific recommendations contained in the bill. I have not seen the bill, and I have not considered what all the actions might be.

Mr. GUARINI. We could go after that part of the demand equation?

Dr. MUSTO. Yes. I think that it is effective and has been shown in other areas, such as in our battle against racial discrimination, that it is important to have laws appropriately applied.

Mr. GUARINI. And disincentives?

Dr. MUSTO. And disincentives. There is nothing unusual about that. I am concerned about the level to which it might go. For example, in the decline phase, as fewer and fewer people use the drugs in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, the penalties got higher until in 1955 we had the death penalty. Senator Price Daniels put that ino his drug penalty bill. I remember interviewing Harry Anslinger, who was our Narcotics Commissioner for 32 years. I asked, “how did the death penalty get into Senator Daniels' bill?” Anslinger replied, he wanted to make this bill different from any other bill on this issue.

Congressman Boggs had sponsored an Act in 1951 that got a lot of attention by imposing mandatory minimum sentences. Senator Daniels went one better and put in the death penalty for anyone over 18 who sold heroin to anyone under 18. To my knowledge, no one was ever executed, but it did give that extra fillip to the bill it might have lacked otherwise.

Well, extreme punishments for possession is not practicable once you start having widespread use of drugs in society, and I think we have to be careful not, as drugs go down, to create draconian penalties which if enforced would completely fill the jails to overflowing, or if not enforced would lead the public to be extremely frustrated that the bill had been enacted, but ignored. I think you have to work between these two areas.

But we have had the death penalty before. As I said, no one died from it, but it was added more for public relations than as a law enforcement necessity.

Mr. GUARINI. We had it for kidnapping, and it seemed to be effective after the Lindberg trial.

Dr. Musto. I am just referring to drugs.

Mr. RANGEL. We have been joined by Mr. Oxley, a member of this committee, who has made an outstanding contribution on the House Floor, as well as the Select Narcotics Committee. He is a former FBI agent. We welcome you. You may inquire.

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If we are to believe the testimony from some yesterday, particularly Mayor Schmoke of Baltimore, we have lost the war on drugs. If we were to accept that as a fact, does the Baltimore Mayor's prescription of legalization win us the war on drugs; and if so, how does it do it?

Dr. MUSTO. As I understand Mayor Schmoke's proposal, he would have drugs carefully controlled, by doctors or other responsible people who would make these decisions. This proposal has no relationship to the actual drug user. I have been struck by the extreme difficulty of reaching out to people who have drug problems, especially in the United States. These are people who will not come near any organization, much less a doctor who is going to write a prescription for them. It is extremely difficult to reach them. This proposal would only deal with a small number of people.

If you are going to legalize drugs, you are going to have to make them as available as if they were commodities in supermarkets because any hurdle you put in is going to create a black market instantly. There are people who will not go to a doctor. to get a prescription, who will not get involved with some sort of bureaucratic organization. I see the idea of a clinic system as unrelated to the people having the serious drug problems in the inner city. I don't see how it would work.

Mr. Oxley. I am with you. I had some real problem following that testimony yesterday.

There has been a lot of discussion also about the difference be tween alcohol and drugs, and those who say alcohol is indeed a drug may very well be correct, but you pointed out that there is a certain degree of public acceptance of alcohol vis-a-vis hard drugs.

It seems to me that one can use alcohol in moderation with little or no damage to one's body or to others. It seems to me quite a dif

« AnteriorContinuar »