Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

common diagnoses is a history of drug abuse. A response directed at legalization does not really address these medical problems that we have in this country.

In fact, epidemiological evidence demonstrates that when a psychotrophic agent is legalized, the incidence and prevalence of medical sequelae (resulting from the use of these agents) increases. This was the case subsequent to the repeal of prohibition regarding alcohol and during the period in which heroin was made legally available in England.

In this country, the current view and approach to drug addiction still seems to be as a stigma rather than the public health problem it truly is. This is evidenced by the structure of our response where drug abuse authorities are outside the framework of public health authorities in New York State and many other States across this country.

Now, if drug abuse is nothing else, it is a clear public health problem that needs to be addressed at least in that framework.

I also would like to, in fact, echo the words of Dr. Masi. I find it ridiculous in this day and age to find that we still have a paucity of formal as well as post-graduate training that involves drug abuse. It should be the role of this country to try and encourage our professional schools, our health professional schools, to include this area in the curriculum and in post graduate training programs.

The other areas that deal with the response to drug abuse is the fact that when we look at treatment facilities, they still continue to be second-class facilities. How can we truly expect to have a reasonable response to drug abuse if what we do is allocate the least attractive facilities for outpatients addicted to these drugs of abuse. It seems that while there are a number of people talking about the expansion of treatment, I just want to emphasize to the committee from the standpoint of this physician that expansion cannot be just in quantity but has to be also in quality. We have to be able to deliver a full range of services, including primary health care services. It seems to me while we have access to this patient population, we can do a lot more in providing preventive care that has benefits far beyond the drug abuser himself/herself.

One particular example of this is tuberculosis. We have recognized over the last decade that the previously falling trend in the number of cases of TB has reversed. That reversal has occurred concurrently with increase in HIV infection. The same persons likely to have HIV infection are also likely to become afflicted with tuberculosis-persons addicted to illicit drugs.

It seems if we are going to do anything, even in the best interests of persons who do not use drugs, it is important that we make an effective response to deal with all the ramifications of drug abuse. It is particularly important that this country must develop a policy that considers drug abuse in the same vein as it considers other major health problems, such as diabetes, heart disease and hypertension, for truly drug abuse is probably going to be chronic in the lives of these patients addicted.

This means encouragement of health professional schools to add drug addiction to their curriculum and to include public drug abuse authorities within the structure of their public health authorities.

It seems ridiculous that in New York State that we are in that in New York City, and particularly in Harlem, the number of sites for National Health Service Corporations has actually decreased. How are we expected to be able to respond to this growing dilemma? In fact, in Harlem, this has been an issue for a long time.

In closing, these discussions on legalization of drugs provides this country with an excellent opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the Federal drug policy. It is my considered opinion these discussions will far exceed their potential if we also use them as the opportunity to reassess Federal drug abuse policies and make bold steps to chart a course that will truly target those factors that promulgate the spread of drug abuse and enhance the ability of health care providers to provide the medical care to persons suffering from the disease of addiction and drug-related complications. Thank you.

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lawrence Brown appears on p. 138.]

Mr. RANGEL. David Boaz, CATO Institute.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID BOAZ, CATO INSTITUTE

Mr. Boaz. Thank you. I would like to thank you and the Select Committee for holding these hearings. It is high time we had a full national debate on the failure of our current drug policy and possible alternatives.

My argument today is very simple. Alcohol didn't cause the high crime rates of the 1920s, Prohibition did. And drugs don't cause today's urban crime rate, drug prohibition does.

What are the effects of prohibition, specifically drug prohibition? The first one is crime. Drug laws drive up the price of drugs and force users to commit crimes to pay for a habit that would be easily affordable if it was legal. Some drug prices might be 100 times higher because of prohibition. Some experts estimate at least half the violent crime in major cities is the result of drug prohibition, and policemen would tell you the same thing if they were free to speak out.

The most dramatic drug-related crimes in our cities, of course, are the bloody shootouts between dealers. These are also a result of the drug laws. We don't see shootouts between rival liquor dealers, but drug dealers have no other way to settle their differences; they have no recourse but violence because they can't go to the courts. The second effect of prohibition is corruption. Prohibition raises prices, which leads to extraordinary profits, which are an irresistible temptation to policemen, Customs officers and so on. When briefcases full of cash are casually offered to policemen making $35,000 a year, we should be shocked not that there are some Miami policemen on the take, but that there are some Miami policemen not on the take.

The third effect of prohibition, and one that is widely overlooked, is bringing buyers into contact with criminals. If you buy alcohol, because it is legal, you don't have to deal with criminals; but when you buy drugs, you are often dealing with real criminals. One of the strongest arguments for legalization is to divorce the process of

using drugs, especially among young people, from the process of getting involved in this criminal culture.

A fourth effect of prohibition is the creation of stronger drugs. Richard Cowan has identified what he identifies the iron law of prohibition: the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the drugs will become. Crack, for instance, is almost entirely a product of prohibition. It probably would not exist if drugs had been legal for the last 20 years. Crack is a result of prohibition, not an example of what legalization could mean.

A fifth effect of prohibition is civil liberties abuses. When you try to stop people from voluntarily engaging in a peaceful activity, you are almost certain to run into civil liberties problems in trying to enforce that law.

The sixth effect-I won't say the final effect-of prohibition is futility. The drug war simply isn't working. Some say that much of today's support for legalization is merely a sign of frustration. Well, frustration is a rational response to futility. If a government is involved in a war and it isn't winning, it has two basic choices: One is to escalate, and we have heard proposals to get the military involved, to make massive arrests of users, to strip search tourists returning to the United States, to seize cars and boats on the mere allegation of drug possession.

I think the more sensible response is to decriminalize, to de-escalate, to realize that trying to wage war not on chemical substances but on 23 million Americans is not going to be any more successful than Prohibition was in the 1920s. It is counterproductive. To decriminalize is not to endorse drug use, not to recommend drugs. It is merely to recognize that the cost of this war-billions of taxpayer dollars, runaway crime rates, the creation of criminal institutions, and civil liberties abuses-is too high.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of David Boaz appears on p. 144.] Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Scheuer has to leave.

Mr. SCHEUER. Can I make a unanimous consent request?

Mr. RANGEL. Yes.

Mr. SCHEUER. I would make a unanimous consent request that all members of the committee be-and this is the same unanimous consent request I made yesterday-be enabled to direct further questions at the various witnesses in writing and that the record be held open for perhaps two weeks to enable the witnesses to submit answers. We have an enormous number of highly talented witnesses, and with five minutes per member to address 10 witnesses, it is really impossible to do. I think this hearing has been a marvelous contribution to the discourse, and it would help if we could address individual questions to individual members.

Mr. RANGEL. No objection. I hope the gentleman might consider staying for just five more minutes as we listen to two addicts, or former addicts, rather, Ray and Gloria Whitfield, who have suffered the pains of being addicted to drugs and of having their family affected by it. Not only were they able to find recovery but they have dedicated their lives to helping other people.

So to the Whitfields, you more than any of the witnesses we have had in two days, the basic question is not only for you and your

family but those you are trying to help. Do you see any sense at all in making drugs available to these people?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Only if I am a member of some pharmaceutical company or have a tremendous amount of stock. Other than that, no, I don't.

Mr. RANGEL. You may proceed with your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF GLORIA WHITFIELD, RECOVERED ADDICT Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like for my wife to start.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to Mrs. Whitfield.

Mrs. WHITFIELD. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee and interested persons, I am employed with Rehabilitation Services Administration for the District of Columbia in the capacity of Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist. Rehabilitation Services Administration provides services to handicapped and disabled persons in an effort directed towards getting them back into the work force. My office is located in the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Section of Rehabilitation Services. Drug addiction and alcoholism are considered disabilities under the codes and policies of Rehabilitation Services Administration and persons suffering from such are entitled to certain services. My caseload of clients during a fiscal year sometimes exceeds 200 persons, from referral sources such as ADASA, Halfway Houses around the District, hospitals, RAP, Inc. and other treatment regimes located in D.C.

In addition, I receive walk-in referrals, i.e., persons seeking rehabilitation services on their own initiative. Persons seeking assistance are supposed to be drug free, completed or currently in residential or out-patient treatment and ready for the vocational rehabilitation process. Drug addiction and alcoholism causes unpredictable behavior in individuals, and as a result only a small percentage of my clients successfully complete the rehabilitation process. My training has afforded me the expertise of working with persons suffering from many different types of disabilities. But as a vocational rehabilitation specialist in the drug and alcohol abuse section, I tremble to think what my caseload would be if drugs were legalized.

Our government in America is often accused of fixing things that are not broken and/or enhancing a problem rather than finding a viable solution to eliminate the problem. We all agree that drug abuse is a serious problem in our midst, but how can anyone who has any insight or any perception on drug addiction believe that by legalizing drugs we would solve the problem of drug abuse? Or perhaps I am naive in believing that the problem of drug abuse holds even the slightest interest to those persons who would push for legislation to legalize drugs. Perhaps the main interest is in taking the mega profit out of the sale of illicit drugs. Well, to me that is the same as our government saying, "Hell, I want a piece of that action." Why it would make Uncle Sam the biggest dope pusher of all time. Is that not truly adding to our problem? Think about it. Drug abuse is killing generations of young Americans by destroying their minds, their motivation to succeed and their will. Addicts are motivated only toward achieving their next high. And drug ad

diction does not discriminate between my kids or your kids, race or religion, young or old, rich or poor. Families are being destroyed, generations of families are being destroyed and America is being weakened.

Yet America is assisting in its own destruction. Every time we make a deal with or support in any way those countries whose main source of income comes from exporting cocaine or heroin, we are aiding and abetting in self destruction. Legalization of drugs would simply make the demand for their product even more appealing to such countries. Our farmers are catching hell trying to grow tobacco and collard greens, so where are we going to get the poppies and coca plants and cannibis needed to process heroin, cocaine and marijuana? We would have to import. America would suddenly become partners with Noriega in the distribution of drugs, the Golden Triangle would become super powers and all of those other little countries whose gross national product is heroin and cocaine would suddenly have access to nuclear warheads. A gross exaggeration? Not really. Think about it.

Where do we draw the line? Uppers and downers, amphetamines and barbituates can be found in most households' medicine cabinets. Drugs are already legal in this country and fradulent prescriptions are big business. Yet some of our legislators will say, "To hell with it, let's make it even easier for them to drop off, beam up and freak out." But keep in mind those "them" that they are talking about happens to be our future because America's future rests with our young. Legalization of drugs calls for a forecast of a very dim future, it would insure America a future of space cadets that NASA wouldn't touch. Nor would med school, law school, science and technology, aviation or any other institute of higher learning and achievement because drug addicts are detrimental to themselves and to others, and, believe me, I know. Drug addiction is a sickness in which there would not be enough hospitals in America to treat if legalization existed.

Then too, what drugs are we talking about legalizing? Heroin? Cocaine? What about PCP? Maybe a little acid? Where will the line be drawn, and why would it be drawn there? There are many people who fought like hell against the hint of legalizing reefer, yet suddenly the thought of putting the real thing on the market isn't too far fetched. It is really frightening.

Have we seriously looked at the long and short-term ramifications of such a move? First of all, doctors would be in demand like never before even though there is a shortage of doctors, and not to mention nurses, all across this country. Little clinics would spring up like liquor stores on every corner ready to distribute prescriptions for poison. The wino's we see every morning on corners in front of liquor stores waiting for them to open would hold no comparison to the line of dope fiends that would be waiting outside of the little clinics and doctors' offices on any given day. "Hit the pipe" or "Take a fix and call me in the morning" would become a routine response.

Finally, compared to the percentage of our population who abuse drugs, only a small percentage are as fortunate as I am to find the strength to prevail and overcome my addiction and to grow. For

« AnteriorContinuar »