January 30, 1970

We, the undersigned, as members of the Scientific
Review Committee of the Center for the Studies of Narco-
tics and Drug Abuse have carefully reviewed the provis-
ions of S.3246 as reported out by the Senate Committee
of the Judiciary. We feel that it is imperative that we
bring to the attention of the Congress a series of con-
cepts and specific provisions which are greatly disturb-
ing to us as members of the scientific community.

1. First, and most important, we object to the
basic concept of the Bill which approaches the subject
of drug abuse from a law enforcement point of view rather
than from a public health standpoint. If we have learned
anything from the lessons of the past fifty years, it
is that a punitive law enforcement approach to problems
such as drug and alcohol’ use and abuse is doomed to fail-
ure. The Bill places the ultimate decision making power
in every key area in the hands of the Attorney General
and relegates the Secretary of Health, ‘Education and
Welfare to a weak advisory position. The law enforce-
ment orientation of S.3246 is perhaps best typified by
Section 702 (b) which sets up the machinery by which a
police officer may enter a private dwelling or laboratory
without even announcing his presence. As scientists and
as citizens, we wish to express our displeasure with the
law enforcement orientation of this Bill in general and
the "no-knock" provision in particular.

2. A second basic concept with which we are in basic
disagreement is the criteria which are used in categoriz-—
ing the various substances which are controlled by the Bill.
The dominant criteria appear to be the medical usefulness
of the substance and the potential for abuse, rather than
the more realistic criteria of the danger of the substance
to the individual and/or to society in general. The cri-
teria used in the Bill lead to the absurd result of the
-2?2-

classification of marijuana in the same schedule as heroin,
with amphetamine, among the most dangerous of all abused
substances, being placed’ much further down, in Schedule III,
We submit that the basic concepts by which drugs are classi-
fied be carefully re-examined and replaced by more realistic
criteria,

3. One of our most specific objections is the fact
that the Attorney General is given in Section 201 the final
authority to classify substances. He is enjoined to seek
the advice of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
and the Scientific Advisory Committee, but the final decision
is his. We submit that the very criteria which the Attorney
General must by law consider in reaching his decision, prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the final decision in the
matter of classification should rest with the Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare. These criteria include the
"actual or relative potential for abuse", the "scientific
evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known", the
"state of current scientific knowledge regarding the sub-—
Stance", and other similar criteria which are peculiarly a
matter of health and research, not of law enforcement. We
urge that the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare be
given the power of classification, with advice sought from
the Attorney General if a substance presents a particular
law enforcement problem.

4, We note with concern that S.3246 gives to the
Attorney Generali’ the sole power to license those who will
be distributing controtled Substances, It is true, however,
that the Attorney General must so license practitioners to
dispense substances in Schedules II (i.e., morphine, metha-
done), III’ (the amphetamines): and IV (small amounts of codeine,
etc.) if they are "authorized to dispense under the law of
the state in which they practice." This means that any doc-
tor who has a state license must be licensed by the Attorney
General to dispense amphetamines, drugs which should be under
much stricter controls. Yet, to dispense marijuana in a
research project, the doctor must not only be licensed by his
State, but must secure a Special license from the Attorney
General, The same is true for other Schedule T drugs, which
include Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, Mescaline and Peyote.
In granting or withholding such special registration, the
Attorney General is required to seek the advice of the Sec-
retary of Health, Education and Welfare. If the applicant
is found to be acceptable by the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare, the Attorney General may still deny the
registration if he finds that the registrant has falsified
- 3-

his registration application, has been convicted of a

drug-related felony, has had his state license or regis-
tration suspended or revoked or "on the ground that the
licant's ‘practice or

  
 

   

  
 

   
 

unlawfully transfer such substances or
~ adequately his suppl

to safeguard
‘of such substances against diver-—

    

We submit that the italicized language is so broad
that it may serve to unduly delay a researcher or may
serve to deny a research application on vague and uncer-
tain grounds. We are aware that there is the possibility
of Judicial review of such a denial of the decision of
the Attorney General, but the procedure is cumbersome
and expensive and presents the researcher with many dif-
ficult hurdles. Such a provision also gives to the
Attorney General the implied right to review all research
protocols involving Schedule I substances, a power which
should be given only to the Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare. Research with Schedule I substances
such as marijuana is desparately needed and we urge that
the decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare should be final with regard to registration for
dispensing controlled substances, particularly where
research is concerned.

5. We note that Section 602 (a) authorizes and
directs the Attorney General to carry out "educational
and research programs", including the accurate assessment
of controlled dangerous substances and identification and
characterization of controlled dangerous substances with
potential for abuse. We submit that this section pre-
sents a potentially dangerous dilution of the government
sponsored research effort, and that the primary responsi-
bility for research involving the controlled substances
should remain with the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare.

6. Section 604 (a) provides for the establishment
of a Scientific Advisory Committee to be appointed by the
Attorney General. We are pleased to note that the appoint-
ments are to be selected by the Attorney General after
consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare and that candidates will be selected from a list
drawn by the National Academy of Sciences, We do feel,
however, that there should be a more explicit description

whet,
-4-

of the term "expert" so that a balanced and diversified
team, representing many disciplines, will be assured and
that no one interest will have a dominant majority. We
note that Title VIII of the Bill provides for the estab-
lishment of a committee on marijuana under the joint
sponsorship of the Attorney General and the Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare. We suggest that this com-
mittee be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare in that this is

the appropriate governmental organ to provide the most
impartial and unbiased study of a substance which has
historically evoked’ great partiality, bias, and irrational
comment.

In summary, we are pleased to note that more realis-
tic penalty provisions have emerged in the Bill and are
particularly pleased with the first offender treatment
section and that which distinguishes between the profes-—
sional criminal and. the casual dealer, a distinction long
overlooked. However, we sincerely hope that the comments
made above will be heeded and that we can make greater
strides in understanding and dealing with the problem of
drug abuse which has received so much attention, yet so
little effort which can be termed positive and construc-
tive. The young people, who are most often touched by
this social problem, deserve better than we have given.

Henry F. Brill, M. D. Neil L. Chayet
Jerome H. Jaffe, M. D. William H. McGlothlin, Ph.D.
Helen H. Nowlis, Ph. D. John A. O'Donnell, Ph. D.

John E. Overall, Ph. D.

Bernard C. Glueck, Jr., M. D.
Chairman