Imágenes de páginas

ferent story as it relates to hard drugs. Do you agree with that premise?

Dr. Musto. Yes, in general. That depends on what you define as a hard drug. I do believe alcohol is a drug. There is no way around it, it is a drug. But it is one in which we have come in many of our cultures in America to accept as an ordinary everyday thing. I see increasing signs of turning against alcohol. If I were to make a guess, I would say alcohol in the next decade or so is going to go under a lot of scrutiny in the United States. It has already begun with the labeling campaign and awareness of the fetal alcohol syndrome.

But my point is not that it cannot cause some difficulties. It is that it is impractical to prohibit something which has achieved a cultural status in our country, and we have tried it twice, not just once. We did it earlier in the 19th century. I think the evidence on this is pretty straightforward.

Mr. OXLEY. If I could follow that up a bit, it seems to me that in the relation of alcohol versus, say, cocaine or heroin, the evidence is rather clear one can use alcohol in moderation but at least to me there is some question as to whether one can use cocaine, a crack derivative, or heroin in moderation. It seems to me further that it begs the question when you are talking about the effect that those drugs have.

Dr. Musto. Yes. Cocaine, in particular. I don't see any future for a cocaine maintenance program. That seems a very strange thing, because it only makes you more twisted in your thinking and more liable to difficulty the more you take. The idea you would simply maintain someone on it seems to me to be very peculiar.

There was an attempt when we were trying maintenance around World War I to maintain people on cocaine in several places, and they all dropped it. It was simply unworkable, although they continued with morphine maintenance in these areas.

Mr. OXLEY. What about tobacco, does that present a more difficult argument for you? There was some discussion yesterday about tobacco versus drugs, and I wonder what your opinion is on that.

Dr. MUSTO. What I am trying to do is to try to discuss the dynamics of why we control things and what our experience has been; and with regard to tobacco, I believe in American society tobacco has undergone that crucial shift being seen as something which is really essentially harmless, sort of like a beverage, to something that is seen as extremely dangerous in any amount. I would say tobacco has made this transition, and I anticipate further restrictions on tobacco in the future.

Mr. OXLEY. One last question: Have you seen any evidence that the highly publicized deaths of athletes like Len Bias and entertainers like John Belushi have had any effect on shocking people into avoiding drugs?

Dr. Musto. That is a very interesting question, because I look upon some event like that like almost an experiment, as if you are taking the temperature of the public. If you go back to the early 1970s, when some of the rock stars died of heroin or whatever, it didn't seem to have any remarkable effect. It was thought they got bad stuff, they used too much, or had some physiological idiosyncrasy.

But as we have changed our attitudes toward drugs and these people have died, such as Len Bias more recently, it has been interpreted as proof of what cocaine will normally do to you when you take it as directed, so to say. Our reaction to Bias and the football player who died and John Belushi has been to confirm this new attitude toward cocaine, that it is bad in itself.

If you go back and look at famous deaths in 1969 or 1970, you will see they were explained away as being an accident. And so I think that what these deaths do is tell us where the public is with regard to their attitude towards cocaine. The public has become extraordinarily negative towards it. And, as I say, that is the groundwork for reduction in demand.

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RANGEL. I would like to recognize Mr. Garcia of New York, a strong supporter of the Select Narcotics Committee.

Mr. GARCIA. I will be very brief. I have a statement I would like to enter into the record as part of this hearing.

Mr. RANGEL. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia appears on p. 126.]
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you.

I would just like to say to you, Doctor, back in 1967, 1968 as a young State Senator, I received a grant, and I went over to England to meet with some of the people who were there, and I remember sitting in a clinic, sitting and watching people shoot up, and I was amazed by it because prior to that, the only time I ever saw people shoot up were on roof-tops in areas like mine, and one of the things that came out of it for me was, as I sat and talked to these young people, each one of them without family said to me, “I want to get off, I want to get off."

And it seemed to me the English program, as it was then, it wasn't so much against the doctors as the chemists, the chemists were finding themselves in all sorts of trouble with prescriptions and giving out these prescriptions and being brought in by the home office and the law enforcement agencies over there.

So here we were treating the people who were “under the legalized system”, and yet they themselves wanted no part of it. So it just seems to me that the advocates who have been pushing for the question of legalization should understand that as far as I am concerned from that little experience that I had back in 1968, that it didn't serve anybody's purpose, including the addicts. They were the first ones to say they wanted no part of it.

So I think my colleague, Frank Guarini from New Jersey, said this is very interesting testimony, and I would agree with him on that. I guess it is more of a statement, taking advantage of this moment that I have with you, Doctor.

The second part of it is that there is no question-I represent the South Bronx—there is no question that the problem is a major problem today, the profit motive is high, it is there, it is real, but it just seems to me whether we have the methadone clinics, which there are quite a few in my district, or we have these young people selling crack on the corner, the real problem is, as far as I am concerned, is not really to legalize. The bottom line is to try our absolute 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 MARY. LAND 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.Š. 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

« AnteriorContinuar »