Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

lute best to educate and make certain young people understand the perils.

That is why I think these hearings have really been super, because we have heard a great deal of conversation about legalization as opposed to the present system we have now, and I don't think there is any easy solution, but I do know the solution has not really come about by just opening the flood gates. There are too many young people I think who would fall into that. I just want you to know I am deeply appreciative for your testimony, and I enjoyed it very much.

Dr. MUSTO. Thank you.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Scheuer of New York.

Mr. SCHEUER. We have all enjoyed and appreciated your testimony and have learned from it, Dr. Musto. You said in passing we ought to do more to mobilize the ghetto, as I recall it, something like that. Can you give us the specifics? Obviously any leadership that we can get from the ghetto would be far more valuable than a bunch of us from other communities and other backgrounds sitting around and moralizing. How do we mobilize the community of the ghetto, how do we use that as the most powerful tool for getting these young kids off addiction?

Dr. MUSTO. I would like to know whether Mr. Rangel agrees with me, but I think there is leadership in the inner city. I think you have seen it here in Washington where neighborhoods have demanded and pleaded for help against drugs, to free up their neighborhoods, their playgrounds, where we have had other groups like the Muslims come in and try to clean things up. By following it in the Post and Times, it seems that the Muslims have been a substantial help.

If you have a community pleading for help and someone goes in and helps them, that is a wonderful thing. You have pleading going on, and you have to respond to them. This is happening in New York City also. It is inexplicable that you could have people pleading for some sort of law enforcement in these areas, to get dealing out of these places, and we have to bring in some non-law enforcement agency or group in order to help. It seems to me that there should be no shortage of locating people who want support. It would seem to me a tragedy if these people in the inner city who are pleading for help for their families and their kids were to be left adrift and told, "Fend for yourselves, we are not going to do anything."

I think there is plenty to be done to help them right here in Washington and also in New York City. I don't think there is a shortage of people who are asking for organization and help, and it is happening in various parts of New York City too, but much more has to be done. To abandon them is, it is a tragedy that reminds me of the 1930s and World War II-abandonment.

Mr. RANGEL. It would be obscene, considering the tens of thousands of homeless people, or those who are crammed into welfare hotels, or our jails that are bursting with people, for us to come in and to say that before we can deal with rehabilitation, providing skills, providing homes, that our government has decided to embark on a program not to give skills, not to give hope, not to give jobs, not to give homes, but instead we have decided, and to

me it is a political question, a very serious political question, that for this particular group we have decided to pay for narcotics and to get doctors, doctors who we can't get to take care of common colds, pneumonia, serious health problems that people in poor communities have, to administrate drugs. We don't have the neighborhood clinics, we don't have the staffs at the public hospitals, we don't have care for everyone who needs it, but we have decided that we will underwrite a program to provide legal drugs.

I know that a lot of people who think this way do not discuss this on the high moral grounds as Mr. Scheuer, but I know there are certain people that believe that if these people can be contained, which is stupid, that we can move on and deal with the problems of the non-addict population. And the tragedy is that there are so many people without hope that drugs are the only way they think they can survive.

Dr. MUSTO. That is right. Without education or job opportunities, they lack two of the important reasons why middle-class Americans are reducing their drug use. If you don't have a job, drugs can interfere with your showing up at work at 8 o'clock in the morning, and if you have given up on education or education is inadequate, you can't stop using drugs so you can graduate.

The reason the middle class is the first group in our society to stop using drugs is because drugs interfere with achieving individual and family goals. The lack of education and opportunity are the very reasons why you have a problem in the inner city. If you leave the cities alone, drug use will just continue, it will not resolve. That is the present and future that worries me. Are going to write off the inner city? Will we believe they are a bunch of drug users and not realize the reasons the middle class are stopping are conditions we ought to support and make possible for people in the inner city?

It isn't just a matter of arresting people; it is a matter of providing hope and some goal, because drugs mainly are stopped because they interfere with your personal life and the goals you are trying to achieve. If you have nothing to work for, you have no reason to stop using the drugs.

Mr. RANGEL. Doctor, we will be in touch with you. We have agreed that rather than having the television lights, a group of us ought to get together, exchange ideas, and as long as other people are looking for new alternatives and are not talking about dispensing this poison in a legal way, we hope that we can have a discussion. Your testimony has really made an outstanding contribution, and, as I promised to you, it will be distributed to all of the members.

Thank you very much.

Dr. MUSTO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RANGEL. The next panel will be split into two panels. I don't know whether they are divided because of their thinking, but we will have Dale Masi, Professor of the University of Maryland, School of Social Work and Community Panning; David Boaz from CATO Institute; Richard Karel, Northern Virginia Journalist; Marvin Miller, Member of the Board of directors of NORML, and then sitting on the other side is-has Dr. Brown been able to get here yet? Well, we are expecting at some point Dr. Lawrence

Brown, but if he is not here-Dr. Brown is here. Would you come right up, Doctor. Ray and Gloria Whitfield, who have drug problems. Are they with us? And Paul Moore, the Development Director of the Scott Newman Center.

We have a full panel. And for those of you who have been following these hearings, the members do want to make inquiries, and you could help us do that by confining your prepared statement to five minutes with the understanding that, without objection, your full statement will be in the record.

And since Professor Masi has to leave, we will make an exception. If there are people who have a question of her, rather than wait until both panels, we will yield to that. Why don't you start. TESTIMONY OF DALE MASI, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK AND COMMUNITY PLANNING Dr. MASI. Mr. Chairman, committee members, and those assembled, thank you for inviting me to testify today on this important issue. I shall address the question only from my area of expertise, namely the workplace. I shall provide some facts and several examples about drug abuse in the workplace showing why the workplace cannot afford legalization of illicit durgs. I will then submit recommendations for solutions to the committee.

For your information, from 1979 to 1984, I developed and directed the model Federal employee assistance program from the Office of the Secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I am presently a professor at the University of Maryland, specializing in teaching and evaluating programs for a variety of employers, including national corporations, Federal agencies, and small businesses.

I think it is very important because I think most of the speakers-I have heard all of the testimony, Mr. Chairman-and it seems to me most of the testimony has addressed drugs as associated with youth, and I think I would want to emphasize the fact that adults are also taking these drugs, both legal and illicit.

Facts: In previous testimony before this committee, in September, 1984, I stated that I had seen a dramatic need for an increase in drug programs in industry. As evidenced by the cases which I shall describe, today there is an even greater need for more programs. It is critical to first recognize a few facts.

First, a majority of legal and illicit drug abusers are in the workplace. These are employed people. It is a mistake to see this only as a problem of the young.

Second, alcohol, a legal drug, is the primary drug of abuse in the workplace.

Third, prescription drugs, also legal drugs, are the second largest group of drugs abused by the American worker.

Fourth, the most recent survey tells us 19- to 25-year-olds are the most frequent users of cocaine, with 25- to 30-year-olds being the second most frequent user group, not the young teenager. Legalize it, and it will outdistance the former two drugs.

The workplace bears the effects, as well as the cost, of drug abuse by paying escalating health insurance bills. Many of the nation's costly industrial problems which result from drug abuse are

increasing tremendously; i.e. absenteeism, excessive sick leave, accidents, rising health claims and increased workers compensation claims. Work stress which is often associated with drug addiction is now payable under worker's compensation. Legalization will not stop these costs to industry, it will increase them.

The work place is being forced to address the issue head on. They can't wait. Companies are investing in EAPs, drug testing, and whatever else our experts recommend. The following cases typically represent employees with addiction problems in the American workplace throughout each of the States in our country. They are real, life examples taken from my consulting work. I have many of such cases. Legalization will cause more of the same, resulting in an impossible situation for American business.

First, a subway maintenance worker, self-referred and seeking help for alcohol and cocaine problems which culminated in the breakup of his 15-year marriage. This person called an EAP counselor after he had started drinking-he stated that he did not want to live and wanted to kill his supervisor.

Second, an air traffic controller, self-referred because he had been arrested for a felony and public intoxication charge. There had been continuous problems with the law and personal finances. The employee's roommate was a cocaine user which resulted in violent arguments. He was planning to move out.

Third, a data processor who was referred by her supervisor for poor job performance revealed during counseling she had to care for her grandchildren because her daughter has become a cocaine addict. The daughter goes on "rampages" threatening to kill her and the children. It has become impossible for her to work.

Solution: To achieve a drug-free work place, I am advocating a program integration model for the work place. Human resources is the center and driving force in coordinating the drug policy, EAP, drug testing, security, legal, medical and unions toward the common goal. Companies must educate people to the danger of drugs, as we have done with tobacco.

Recent studies by Cook and Harrell reveal few companies even with health promotion programs stress drug education. The IBM Corporation stands as an outstanding example with a drug and alcohol education program offered to all employees and family members throughout the country. Substantive training programs for mental health professionals who have these programs are needed immediately.

I think this information is going to surprise the committee. It seems unbelievable schools of medicine, social work and psychology rarely today require a course in alcohol or drug addiction. Today there are fewer schools of psychology that require a course in drug addiction than they in 1950. Even the Council on Social Work Education, the accrediting board for schools of social work, does not today require a single course in addiction for the master's and social work candidates.

All managers and supervisors need training in alcohol and drug abuse. We need EAPs that concentrate on reaching drug and alcohol abusing employees early. There must be new funds for meaningful treatment, especially for outpatient programs. At Health and Human Services we funded with Blue Cross the outpatient

model for treating drug addiction at the work site for Federal employees, this was right down the street at 200 Independence Avenue. In the evening, we had treatment programs in operation using EAP offices and conference rooms that were outerwise empty.

Mr. RANGEL. Professor, I hate to interrupt, but in order to make certain that we can hear the entire panel, I am going to ask you to end your testimony here. You will be given ample opportunity to finish the thoughts that you have during questioning.

Dr. MASI. I would sum up to say the work place carries a large part of the burden of drug abuse, and we don't want to see it increased.

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you for your understanding of our problem. [The prepared statement of Dr. Masi appears on p. 130.]

Mr. RANGEL. On the other side we have Dr. Lawrence Brown, a clinical instructor, Department of Medicine, Harlem Hospital, and also associated with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University. We welcome your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE BROWN, M.D., CLINICAL INSTRUCTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE, HARLEM HOSPITAL, SURGEONS OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Dr. BROWN. Thank you.

Let me offer my sincerest gratitude for the opportunity to be able to talk to you about an issue that you do doubt know affects a large portion of health care providers in the Harlem community. When I consider discussions of legalization, it seems to me that these are stimulated by two different areas; one, the mounting evidence that the current response of the American society to drug abuse is schamefully inadequate; and the second is a hypothesis that legalization represents a reasonable alternative to the current American response to drug addiction.

Addressing these facts separately, I am going to limit my responses actually to the medical issues, not because of the fact that they are necessarily the most critical issues, although it would be rare to hear a physician say health care is not one of the highest priorities in this country's considerations, but rather because there are probably going to be other individuals addressing non-medical areas more capably than I can.

From the public health perspective, one can either address our policies on drug addiction from the standpoint of a number of people who consume drugs or the consequences that we see as a result of those who use them. Using the first one, I think even though-our colleagues at the National Institute on Drug Abuse are still themselves somewhat stymied by an ability to predict how many people are actually using illicit drugs. In part, this is because data bases are atrophied by the fact they have been underutilized for a number of years.

The other issue, from the standpoint of what we see at Harlem hospital, is a continuing parade of patients who are admitted into our hospitals for cancer, heart disease, meningitis, and kidney failure in association with drug abuse. When we look at the persons admitted for kidney failure, necessitating dialysis, one of the most

« AnteriorContinuar »