Chairman Rangel, members of this Select Committee, I welcome your invitation to testify regarding the proposals to legalize drugs. As you know, I am an ex-drug abuser and ex-offender, but I ask you to hear my testimony as not only coming from those two life experiences because today, I am also a husband, parent, grandparent, tax payer,

a professional and productive member of the Washington, D.C. community. Hopefully, my testimony will reflect these dimensions and my concern about drug abuse.

If I understand the purpose of this hearing correctly, it has been called to discuss the efficacy of legalizing narcotics. To my knowledge, no one has clearly stated which narcotics we're concerned with or if the proponents of legalization mean all narcotics that are currently illegal. This being my understanding, I hope my statement will still have relevancy when this issue is decided.

A couple of weeks ago, I watched the very skillful Mr. Koppel on his Nightline program attempt to get some clarity on this point. In my estimation, he was frustrated in his attempt, but what was very clear is that everyone had an opinion based on their own assumptions. Mine no doubt will fall in that same category.

As

mentioned earlier, I'm very concerned about drug abuse in all of it's dimensions; prevention, addiction, treatment and the private and public consequences of this destructive behavior. Consequently, I will support any proposal that works positively to reduce or eliminate drug abuse. I do not view the the legalization of narcotics as one of those positive proposals; and this is based on what may be a false assumption that the proposal is made as a measure to reduce drug abuse. Perhaps I'm wrong? Come to think of it, I've heard proponents say many things, but to be honest, I haven't heard any one say "Legalize Today, Be Drug Free Tommorrow!!.

page 2

If the proponents of legalization are not on the team to fight against drug abuse, then their proposal would be better received in another forum. Perhaps at a stock holders meeting of some of the major pharmaceutical companies. But, there are two things I have heard proponents say over and over again. One, is that legalization will take the tremendous, obscene, illegal profits out of drug sales. is that as a result of the profits being removed, the drug related murders, that many areas of the country are plagued with will be reduced or possibly eliminated. To both of these statements, my bottom line

comment is, you got to be mad or you must think I am.

Two,

Let's just look at number one, that legalization will take the illegal profits out of drug sales. Yes, it will. Illegality will be removed, but the legal profits will still be tremendous and still be obscene. The style, perhaps the color, and the risks of the drug dealer will change, but is that what we're really concerned with? Legal or illegal, the goals of the drug dealer remains the same, to sell drugs. I'm sure that pharmaceutical companies and their stock holders would see an increased value in their portfolios. I doubt very seriously if there would be a corresponding decrease in the incidents of drug abuse. The only things drug abusers are interested in are who has the best dope and an uninterupted supply. I'm sure that current drug addicts would certainly enjoy those benefits, plus the added advantage of quality control that big business would provide. On the other hand, their parents, loved ones and community would still have a dope fiend to contend with. Whatever the causes of drug addiction, none of them will be addressed by legalization. Conversely, many more unanswered questions will be created, i.e. will employment become more or less

page 3

available for those legal drug abusers who have been chronically unemployed? Will the treatment centers that city, state, and Federal Governments haven't been able to provide suddenly become available for those who want treatment? Will all treatment be private, only

for those who can afford it? Will the legal drug dealers provide treatment?

I think not, if the tobacco and alcohol industry can be used as an example. Will legislation be written to protect the civil rights of drug addicts in the areas of employment, housing, insurance, right to hold public office, etc? Or in legalizing drugs would we also be legally relegating drug abusers to a completely new, lesser status, not exactly criminal, but much less that what we currently think of as the status of an American Citizen? Can our already overburdened social service and health systems handle, what I believe will be, an increased need for their services? I'm certain our new drug dealers will be as skilled as other large corporations at finding tax loopholes, so let's not count on them to pay for the cost of their human pollution. I firmly believe that those who are in favor of legalization simply want a piece of the action with no more concern for the drug abuser and the community than the current drug lords. They will also share the same need to increase the market and their individual market share. Perhaps gang shoot outs in Southeast will become a thing of the past, but their competitive advertising campaigns could be just as deadly. When I look at their second statement, that legalization will reduce the number of drug related murders, I am not totally convinced. First, let me abuse semantics just a bit and change drug related murders to drug related deaths. When I hear drug related murders, I envision shoot outs in the street with the possibility of innocent people being killed; gangland style executions which are documented and glorified

95-568 O 89-9

page 4

in our movies and history books, with victims left in dark alleys, rundown apartments or secluded wooded areas, and the media there to inform us of the lawlessness which is threatening the very fabric of our lives. This vision is very threatening, scary.

But when I hear

First of all, the

vision.

It just

drug related deaths, somehow the vision is altered. media usually is not there to help us formulate our isn't very spectacular and so much easier to ignore. It doesn't threaten us in the same way that drug related murders do, even if the body count is very similar. It doesn't occupy the headlines in the metro sections of newspapers week after week, or provide the obscene pictures on our nightly news broadcasts. And if it isn't reported, it must not be news, therefore, it doesn't present a problem. At least it doesn't present the kind of problem that demands our attention.

Yes, I am convinced that the number of media worthy drug related murders would decrease. I am also equally convinced that the number of drug related deaths would be increased.

Good health and long life is no more a by-product of heroin, PCP, cocaine and its dirivatives than is tobacco and cigarettes. If we accept that cigarette smoking is responsible directly or indirectly for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year, can any reasonable person expect less from legalizing drugs that have a much greater destructive potential, both physically and mentally? Folks, the proponents of legalizing narcotics are running a shell game. What their agenda is, I do not claim to know. But, what seems absolutely clear is that their agenda is not participation as a supporter in the struggle against drug abuse. Still, I feel there is something to be gained from this dialogue, besides trashing the proponents of legalization.

page 5

Obviously I don't think much of legalizing narcotics, but there is still the question of what shall we do to win this so called war on drugs. In closing, I would like for us to consider some of the things that I believe have brought all of us together today around the issue of drug abuse. Perhaps in reviewing them we may be directed toward searching even harder for solutions. Hopelessness, privilege, a twisted sense of values, and duplicity are the things I have in mind. Hopelessness is the primary reality of one segment of our population. Some have turned to drug abuse to ease their pain and find escape from a reality they feel ill equiped to deal with. Others in this same category, without the educational background to compete in our structured society, have used their entrepreneurial skills on the wild side. They are the young local drug sellers who will put me or anyone else in their graves in an attempt to hold onto what they view as their ticket to success. We have nothing to threaten them with. Many of their lives have been worst than anything the criminal justice system has been able to devise. Privilege is the primary reality of another segment of our population. Some have turned to drug abuse for recreation. They are confident that the term "dope fiend" doesn't apply to them. They are educated, not deprived in the traditional sense, and do not commit street crimes. Still they don't realize that drugs and recreation are diametrically opposed. A twisted sense of values is shared by both groups and is partially responsible for their susceptibility to drug abuse. It allows one group to feel they have no choice and the other to feel that they are marching to the tune of a different drummer.

Duplicity describes the way that our governmental agencies and policy makers have dealt with the issue of drug addiction during my