[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 13, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-115
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-343 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
BOB BARR, Georgia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Sharon Pinkerton, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Gil Macklin, Professional Staff Member
Sean Littlefield, Professional Staff Member
Amy Davenport, Clerk
Micheal Yeager, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 13, 1999.................................... 1
Statement of:
Cohen, Frederick, graduate of drug treatment alternative to
prison program............................................. 233
Constantine, Thomas A., former Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration................................. 7
Glasscock, Bruce D., chief of police, Plano, TX; Sandra S.
Bennett, president, Drug Watch International; R. Keith
Stroup, Esq., executive director, the National Organization
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws; and Robert J. MacCoun,
professor of public policy and law, University of
California at Berkeley..................................... 46
Hynes, Charles J., district attorney, Kings County, NY;
Katherine N. Lapp, New York State director of criminal
justice; and Barbara A. Broderick, State director of adult
probation, Administrative Office of the Courts, Arizona
Supreme Court.............................................. 113
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Bennett, Sandra S., president, Drug Watch International,
prepared statement of...................................... 96
Broderick, Barbara A., State director of adult probation,
Administrative Office of the Courts, Arizona Supreme Court,
prepared statement of...................................... 152
Constantine, Thomas A., former Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration, prepared statement of.......... 14
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 112
Glasscock, Bruce D., chief of police, Plano, TX, prepared
statement of............................................... 51
Hynes, Charles J., district attorney, Kings County, NY,
prepared statement of...................................... 116
Lapp, Katherine N., New York State director of criminal
justice, prepared statement of............................. 130
MacCoun, Robert J., professor of public policy and law,
University of California at Berkeley, prepared statement of 86
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 4
Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii, prepared statement of..................... 35
Stroup, R. Keith, Esq., executive director, the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, prepared
statement of............................................... 63
THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Barr, Hutchinson, Ose, Mink,
Kucinich, and Cummings.
Also present: Representative Sam Johnson of Texas.
Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, staff director and chief
counsel; Gil Macklin and Sean Littlefield, professional staff
memebers; Michael Yeager, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa,
minority staff assistant.
Mr. Mica. I would like to call this meeting of the Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Subcommittee to
order. This morning the hearing is entitled ``The
Decriminalization of Illegal Drugs.''
We have other Members who will be joining us, I understand
the ranking member is on her way, but we will begin so that we
can finish on a timely basis. I will start with an opening
statement, yield to others for their opening statements, I
believe we have three panels today.
Today, our Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy,
and Human Resources will examine the controversial topic of the
decriminalization of our narcotics laws. This hearing is one of
a series of hearings that we intend to hold to examine our
national drug control policy and also to determine its
effectiveness.
Last month, the subcommittee heard testimony from a number
of important witnesses on the topic of narcotics legalization.
Witnesses at that hearing included the Director of the Office
of National Drug Control Policy, General Barry McCaffrey; the
Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, Dr. Alan
Leshner, and Donnie Marshall from the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
Additionally, we heard from the new Florida drug czar, also
a former member of and staffer with the National Drug Control
Policy Office, and a number of other nongovernmental witnesses
who have testified before our subcommittee on this subject.
Today's hearing should help buildupon that record begun
last month. Some proponents of decriminalizing our drug laws
have claimed that many of those in our jails and prisons today
are incarcerated for minor drug use or for simple possession.
Others claim that those in prison have a health problem versus
a criminal problem and should be treated accordingly.
As we have examined the effects of illegal narcotics, it is
clear that drugs destroy lives. They help produce the felonious
behavior and conduct we have seen: overdoses, fatal accidents,
and death by criminal homicide. Drug overdose deaths continue
to plague our metropolitan areas, both our suburbs and our
inner cities, and our schools at every socioeconomic level
today.
Drug use is soaring among our young people. The latest
national survey found that more than 50 percent of 12th graders
had tried an illicit drug and more than one in four are current
users. If the laws are evenly applied and enforced, half our
young people would be eligible for jail time.
The American public should understand the policy
implications of decriminalization. Despite all the media hype,
however, most young drug users, and for that matter very few
drug use offenders, ever see the inside of a prison cell.
In fact, one of the most recent studies analyzing the New
York State prison population indicates that you really have to
work hard to be in prison for drug use. The facts--and we want
to deal with the facts today--also show that most of those in
our State and Federal prisons are, in fact, repeat felony
offenders or those have trafficked in large quantities of hard
narcotics.
Should Congress change the laws to take the criminal
penalties out of these narcotic-related felonies? Today we will
hear from a number of witnesses on this subject. We will hear
from two witnesses who have important stories to tell about
drug programs that appear to be producing results in New York
State and in the State of Arizona. We will also hear from some
nongovernmental witnesses who represent differing viewpoints on
this issue.
It is the contention of some that drug laws in this Nation
are sending first time offenders to prison. The statistics
tell, in fact, another story. In fact, virtually all convicted
criminals who go to prison are violent offenders, repeat
offenders, or violent repeat offenders. It is a simple myth, in
fact, that our prison cells are filled with people who don't
belong there, or that we somehow would be safer if fewer of
these people were in prison.
A scientific survey of State prisoners conducted by the
U.S. Department of Justice found that 62 percent of the prison
population has a history of violence, and 94 percent of our
State prisoners committed one or more violent crimes or served
a previous sentence of incarceration. Between 1994 and 1996,
over 90 percent of all State prisoners were violent offenders
or recidivists.
The closer one looks into the criminal conviction history
of prisoners, the clearer it becomes that there are almost no
petty, nonviolent, or first time felons behind bars who pose no
real threat to our public safety and who simply do not deserve
to be incarcerated.
According to another study, in 1994, California's prison
population rose to over 125,000 inmates. Numerous experts and
journalists insisted that the State's prisons were overflowing
with first time offenders and harmless parole violators.
The results of the California Department of Corrections'
analysis of randomly selected felony offenders admitted to the
State's prisons in 1992 and classified as nonviolent, revealed
that 88.5 percent of these offenders had one or more prior
adult convictions. The average number of prior convictions in
fact was 4.7, and a fifth of these so-called nonviolent felons
had been committed to prison once or twice before.
A 1996 study of individuals imprisoned in Wisconsin found
that about 91 percent of the prisoners had a current or prior
adult or juvenile conviction for violent crime. None were
sentenced solely for possession or as drug users, and fewer
than 2 percent were first time drug or property offenders. Of
these prisoners, 82 percent were eligible for discretionary
parole within a few years.
It is true that many of those in our State and Federal
prisons are there because of drug-related offenses. Some have
murdered, robbed or physically assaulted others while under the
influence of hard drugs or while trafficking in significant
quantities of deadly narcotics.
Do we let these felons out of prison? Do we have adequate
treatment for drug abusers and addicts who commit felonies
while under the influence of drugs? Is this just a public
health problem that medical professionals can solve?
These and many other questions will be asked today as we
address the topic of decriminalization. I look forward to
today's hearing on this important topic. I want to thank our
witnesses for taking the time to participate.
That concludes my opening statement. I am pleased to yield
at this time to Mr. Kucinich.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.002
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you again for holding hearings which focus on this important
question. And to that, I would just like to simply add a
question, because I don't know if I am here today with any
answers.
My question is, what is it about our society or individual
experience which causes people to seek an altered reality? What
is going on with our world that people try to find ways of
escaping it through the use of drugs? I think that is a
question worth pondering, whether it is going to be pondered in
this particular setting or not.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. I would yield now to Mr.
Hutchinson.
Mr. Hutchinson. I thank the chairman, and I just want to
express my appreciation for you holding this hearing. I believe
it is an extraordinarily important subject that we need to hear
about, but also to provide a tool of education for people in
America to really look at this head-on and see the problems of
moving in this particular direction.
I also want to take the opportunity to welcome Mr.
Constantine and express appreciation for the work that he has
done as administrator of the DEA. I look forward to hearing his
testimony on this very important subject.
I yield back.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman, and we will turn now to
our first panel, which consists of one individual who is known
to all of us, Tom Constantine, who served an incredibly
distinguished tenure as the Administrator of our Drug
Enforcement Agency.
I just want to say a few things while he is before us
today, as I introduce him. During his 5 years as the head of
DEA, he did, in fact, do a superb job of bolstering our
national drug control efforts. He not only improved the
quantity of agents that we have working but also the quality of
the organization, the modernization of the agency's
intelligence operation.
He has been referred to as a law enforcement officer who
has been applauded by almost every State, local, national and
international organization for his incredible efforts. He has
only been out of office a few days now, but already his
presence and his leadership are missed.
We are indeed privileged to have him before us today as a
retired, former administrator. I think hearing his perspective,
too, having served in that important drug enforcement position,
will be especially enlightening.
Again, sometimes when you come before us as a public
servant, as the head of an agency, there are some constraints,
there is some tempering, although I have never known Tom to
temper his comments too much to us. He has always been frank
and candid. But he is in a different role now, and we are
delighted that he would voluntarily come back and testify. The
topic before us is a difficult topic, but there has been much
public discussion about decriminalization, and I think it is
important that our subcommittee and Congress hear his
perspective.
Having been before us, Mr. Constantine, I think you know
this is an investigations and oversight panel, so if you
wouldn't mind, sir, even though you are no longer the
Administrator, we are still going to swear you in.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Mica. With nothing but accolades for your past
performance, your great service to our country and the drug
enforcement agency, let me welcome you back, sir, and recognize
you for your testimony today.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. CONSTANTINE, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Constantine. Congressman, thank you very much for your
kind comments. They are very flattering, and I wish that half
the things that have been said over the last 3 or 4 weeks were
true, and then I would feel that I had been successful.
However, I very seldom have been involved in discussions or
debates on the legalization or decriminalization issue. The
reason being, I always had a concern that it would be similar
to deciding how much domestic violence we would tolerate, how
much drunken driving we would tolerate, how much child abuse we
would tolerate, and we would wind up compromising positions on
the edges of the argument, and the eventual losers would be the
young people of the United States.
Unfortunately, during my 39-year career in law enforcement,
both with the State Police of New York and now with the Drug
Enforcement Administration, I have seen this cycle come one
time before at least. When I first began my career in the
1960's, drug abuse was a little-known problem within the United
States. Very few people utilized drugs. It was not a burden on
our criminal justice system, our social system. The individuals
who were using narcotics tended to be addicted to heroin of
low-level purity, in very small numbers.
During the 1960's, I saw a great change occur in our
society. I saw young people become involved in the use of all
types of drugs, originally the so-called soft drugs--marijuana,
hashish, hallucinogenic drugs--and there became almost a
cultural divide between my generation and the generation that
followed.
Unfortunately, I watched as leading people in many of our
universities and opinion leaders started to address narcotics
and the use of narcotics as if it was a rite of passage, and in
many ways that it was something that was a civil right, that
people could do what they wanted with their own bodies. The
availability of drugs in so many segments of our society over
the last 30 years has created profound damage, I believe, not
only to individuals, families, neighborhoods, but entire cities
and sometimes our entire society.
I think we have to make very, very clear the discussions
and the arguments that are taking place. If you look at opinion
survey after opinion survey over the last 30 years,
continually, U.S. citizens are diametrically opposed to the
legalization of drugs. So now we begin to hear words like
``decriminalization'' and ``harm reduction,'' and when we start
to consider those approaches, I think it is important to
understand the ultimate goal of some of the advocates of
legalization when they say ``harm reduction.''
Last night, when I was going over my papers, I found a
letter that had been sent to me by Mr. Ethan A. Nadelmann, who
is from the Lindsmith Center in New York City, working for the
Open Society Institute with Mr. George Soros as the president.
He asked that I review an article he had published in the
Foreign Affairs magazine that might be useful in my thinking
about drug policy issues.
One paragraph caught my eye, and I recall the term ``harm
reduction'' something that I think you will hear again and
again because it is a euphemism for legalization. Here is what
Mr. Nadelmann thinks, and I read his own words, ``harm
reduction'' means: ``Harm reduction innovation includes efforts
to stem the spread of HIV by making sterile syringes readily
available and collecting used syringes; allowing doctors to
prescribe oral methadone for heroin addiction treatment, as
well as prescribe heroin and other drugs for addicts who would
otherwise buy them in the black market; establishing safe
injection rooms so that addicts do not congregate in public
places or dangerous `shooting galleries.' ''
The last interesting comment caught my attention,
obviously, quite vividly. Mr. Nadelmann recommends employing
drug analysis units to be stationed at large dance parties
called ``raves'' to test the quality and potency of the MDMA
and Ecstacy drugs and other drugs that patrons buy and consume.
He also recommends decriminalizing, but not legalizing,
possession and retail sale of marijuana, and in some cases
possession of small amounts of hard drugs, and integrating
``harm reduction'' policies and principles into community
policing strategies.
That, I think, is a fairly clear indictor of some of the
arguments that have been made and will be made. But there are
some things that are obvious to me over all of this experience,
that is, the advocates of decriminalization and legalization
are mostly affluent, well-educated, and socially distant from
the potential victims of their experiment. The legalization
movement is well-financed, and has been spawned in the salons
of the Upper East Side of New York and country clubs on both
coasts of the Nation, locations remote from the realities of
drug addiction, despair and the social decay that accompany
drug use.
The people who are always excluded from the legalization
debate, and this is no accident, I think, are the mothers of
addicted children, religious leaders, and the loved ones of
those who have been victimized by crime and addiction. Law
enforcement officials are also absent from the ranks of those
who are calling for legalization, not because we have a vested
interest in enforcing the drug laws of the United States--
nothing could be further from the truth--but because we have
seen how dangerous and devastating drug use and trafficking
have been, and unfortunately, in those very communities that
suffer the most from social problems.
I would like to make several points during my presentation
today to show some additional insight as to just how misguided
the legalization argument is. In order to do this as succinctly
as possible, I would like to address head-on some of the issues
that are pertinent to this debate. Because of my extensive
experience in law enforcement, the majority of my comments will
be focused in this area.
First, it is important to recognize that the drug supply
often drives the demand. Second, the enforcement of drug laws
can and has had a significant impact on reducing the crime rate
in the United States. And, third, there are far too many
questions that remain unanswered by legalization advocates
about the practical implementation of their social experiment.
Often, legalization advocates claim that drugs should be
legalized in order to satisfy what they characterize as
America's insatiable demand for drugs. From my experience and
the experience of the vast numbers of law enforcement officials
that I deal with, it is clear that it is drug availability that
often leads to increased usage.
At the current time, communities in the United States are
often being targeted by powerful international drug syndicates,
presently from Colombia and Mexico. They have brought to the
United States, cocaine in massive tonnage amounts, heroin of
very high purity, and methamphetamine, a drug that was
virtually unknown in the United States until about 6 years ago.
All of it offered at low prices and high purity until such time
as individuals become addicted to the usage of the drug, and
then demand does perpetuate the source of supply.
Today's heroin mortality rates are the highest ever
recorded, exceeding even those of the mid-1970's when deaths
reached a high point of just over 2,000 per year. Close to
4,000 people died in each of the last 3 years from heroin-
related overdoses. That has taken a toll on a wide range of
communities such as Baltimore, MD, which has unfortunately
become the heroin capital of the United States, or Orlando, FL,
and suburban cities such as Plano, TX, in the West, Seattle and
San Francisco.
The fact that increased drug supply leads to increased drug
demand is also demonstrated by the skyrocketing surge in
methamphetamine abuse throughout the United States. Before
there became a large amount of methamphetamine available, there
were over 4,900 emergency room episodes in 1991. As the drug
became more prevalent and available, in 1997, we had 17,400
emergency room episodes, a 280 percent increase, and this is
spread across the entire United States.
Second is the impact of aggressive law enforcement. Much is
said about the issue of law enforcement and their ability to
direct resources to focus on these problems of crime and
violence. I watched, Congressman, as the State which I live in
and am very proud of, New York State, went through a period
from 1960 to 1990 where the violent crime rate deteriorated to
levels that were almost unimaginable.
In the city of New York, there were about 400 murders in
1960. By the time we had gotten to 1990, there were over 2,250
murders in that city. The armed robberies went from 7,000 to
120,000.
All of that changed in 1990. In the fall of 1990, a young
man from Provo, UT was murdered in front of his parents in a
subway station in Manhattan, and there immediately became a
reaction to the problem.
Previously, we were told in law enforcement that our
strategies would not work, we could not arrest our way out of
the problem, that prison was not the answer to these
situations, nor were arrests. However, with added police
resources in the city of New York, the arrests doubled over a
period from 1994 to 1998.
When that occurred, we watched the crime rate drop, so
where there was 2,250 murders in New York City in 1990, the
murders had gone down to just a little over 600 last year. If
you add those homicide victims up cumulatively from 1990 to
1998, if they had continued to be murdered at the rate that
they were being murdered at in 1990, there are approximately
6,700 people alive today in New York City who would not be
alive had it not been for the active, aggressive use of law
enforcement in that city, in that State.
Even more amazing to me is the reduction in the so-called
index crimes. We have a uniform crime reporting system in the
United States, that all law enforcement agencies have to file
the incidents that occur within their communities. It is
murder, robbery, rape, manslaughter, assault, burglary, car
theft, and I believe, arson.
In New York City, and I have met with the leaders of the
New York City Police Department, they focused on the violent
drug gangs that were causing these immense problems within that
city, and they doubled their arrests. They went from 64,000
drug arrests in 1994 to over 130,000 drug arrests in 1998.
What is the result? The index crimes have been cut in half.
They went from 400,000 index crimes in 1994 to 200,000 index
crimes in 1998. That means in that 1 year alone, in 1998, there
are 200,000 less crime victims in the city of New York than
there would have been if there had not been immediate use of
law enforcement resources directed to that area.
In fact, I am very proud to say that city, and that State
which is my home, and as I said, I am very proud of it, has led
the entire Nation in the reduction of crime. It has become one
of the safest cities in the Union. A lot of that work is the
responsibility of very professional, very active law
enforcement.
We also have done similar things within DEA. We have gone
from community to community throughout the United States and
targeted violent drug traffickers. I think it's important for
everybody to understand, there is a nexus between drug use and
violence, and drug trafficking and violence. Over 70 percent of
all of the felons in most of our major cities who are arrested,
are under the influence of drugs at the time of their arrest
and during the commission of their crime.
Second, those groups competing with each other in the
violence that occurred, that have engaged in an enormous amount
of homicides and assaults, in our program, we are able to
demonstrate a 12 percent reduction in homicides in less than 6
months. That means in just these small communities throughout
the rural, suburban areas of the United States, over 130 less
crime victims, 2,000 less robbery victims, 2,000 less assault
victims.
We believe that drug abuse, along with the combination of
violent crime and social decay that accompany it, can be
prevented. Too many people in the United States sometimes seem
resigned to the inevitability of rampant drug abuse. However,
effective prevention programs, effective law enforcement
programs, and effective rehabilitation programs can improve
that drastically, as we have been able to demonstrate over the
past 7 or 8 years.
Now, the reality is, the legalization opponents are telling
Americans that drugs are not dangerous; that increased
addiction is not a significant threat to America; and that the
people living in the poor neighborhoods of our cities and
communities will be better off because it is drug dealing, not
drug use, that is the problem.
There was a report released at 10 o'clock this morning by
the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University. I read portions of the report last night.
It is the most impressive treatise that I have seen on the
entire area of the use of marijuana and the impact on young
people.
It finds that more teens age 19 and younger--and this is
very important--enter treatment for marijuana abuse and
dependence than any other drug, including alcohol. In fact,
nearly as many teens and children were admitted to treatment
for marijuana as were admitted for abuse and dependence on all
other substances combined. So that most vulnerable segment of
our society, teenagers up to the age of 19, are being admitted
for therapy and rehabilitation and counseling for marijuana
more than any other substance combined, including alcohol.
They find that of the 181,000 teens and children who
entered treatment in 1996, nearly half, 87,000 of them were
admitted for abuse or addiction to marijuana alone; 35,000 were
admitted for alcohol with a secondary drug; 21,000 for alcohol
use. More than half the teens in treatment for marijuana were
between the ages of 15 and 17.
The paper goes on in a great deal of depth, and time does
not allow me to present it all, and I probably would not be
able to give it the appropriate treatment that it deserves.
But it discusses in depth the issue of who goes to prison,
who gets arrested, and what is the real story on individuals
arrested for the possession of marijuana and other drugs, and I
think you will see that it is an infinitesimal number of people
in the Federal prison system and in the State prison system who
have, as a first offense, nonviolent drug usage. In fact, in
DEA, our marijuana cases, the average amount of marijuana per
defendant convicted is over 300 pounds of marijuana.
So the legalization advocates unfortunately are not telling
the truth about the consequences of their proposal. It is not
that they are purposely misleading Americans, but rather, they
are not providing all of the information that is necessary for
us to make a sound judgment on the issue.
The logistics of legalization of drugs are overwhelming.
Take legal pharmaceuticals, for example. Despite tough
regulations and strict controls, these powerful and addicting
legalized drugs, that have been tested again and again by the
major pharmaceutical corporations, remain the most widely
abused drugs in the country. Surely the same would happen if we
were to legalize heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.
There are many tough questions to ask legalization
advocates. I believe many cannot be answered adequately. Some
of these include: Will all drugs be legalized? Will we legalize
marijuana, Ecstacy, hashish, hallucinogenics, cocaine, heroin,
methamphetamine?
Will we knowingly make dangerous, mind-altering addictive
substances like crack cocaine and methamphetamine and heroin
available to everyone? Will we, as a society, willingly and
knowingly addict our citizens to a lifelong dependency on
drugs, regardless of their age, regardless of their health,
regardless of their profession, regardless of their past
criminal record?
How will we address the black market that will inevitably
spring up to provide newer, purer, more potent drugs to those
now addicted who cannot be satisfied with the product that they
obtain by the government or the private sector?
Simply, if we start to allow people to use heroin, as a
government, and we know that they become addicted and they need
more and more, in the sense of their dependency on that
substance, will we continue to give as much heroin as they
want, as often as they want? Once we say no, there is a limit
that we will place on the amount of heroin we will give them,
we now have an addicted junkie who wants more heroin than the
government will provide, and as a result will be looking to
many outside sources.
Given the fact that our record with cigarettes and alcohol
in this country is not very good, how will we limit the
abundance of dangerous drugs to 18 or 21-year-olds? Who will
pay for the health costs and the social costs which will accrue
as a result of increased drug usage? Or do we have a store in
the middle of the block that makes drugs available to people
who want them, and then on the corner at the other end of the
street, will we need a rehabilitation center and a therapy
center, both of which are paid for by the government?
Who will pay for the loss in productivity and the
absenteeism in our society as a whole? Whose taxes will pay for
the thousands of babies who are born addicted to drugs? What
responsibility will our society have for these children as they
grow and have problems as a result of their drug usage?
Where will we set up these drug centers? I talked to a
mayor of a major city in this country who I thought put the
problem as succinctly as I have ever heard it placed.
He said if the advocates for legalization think this is
such a very good idea, why don't they start off with their
family first and see, after a year or two, the impact of their
family utilizing these substances? If then, they feel it has
been productive and will be successful, let them then move to
their own childrens schools or their own neighborhoods before
there are any experiments that go further.
Last but not least, if we are going to have a place that
distributes and dispenses drugs, please do not place it back in
my city, which has all of the social burdens that we have
today. See how that will work in some of the trendy suburbs or
some of the areas in the Upper East Side of Manhattan where
many of these individuals live.
Most legalization experts cannot answer this question: Can
we set up a legalization pilot program in your neighborhood?
These are all questions we should ask, and these are
answers that we should demand. Granted, we have not effectively
addressed all of the drug problems facing our Nation today, but
we have made substantial progress and improved dramatically.
From 1979 to 1992, the violent crime rate in this country
has dropped at a rate that most would not have imagined 5 or 6
years ago. If we could be as successful in reducing violent
crime as we have been with the other diseases, the communicable
diseases, cancer and heart conditions, whoever was responsible
for that reduction in crime would probably be a recipient of
the Nobel prize.
We must also realize the drug issue is a very complex
problem. It has been with us for decades. It will take more
time for us to see our way clear. Despite this realization, it
is astounding to me that legalization proponents advocate
surrender.
Our Nation is faced with other problems beside drug abuse--
AIDS, declining educational standards, homelessness--but we do
not hear cries for us to abandon our efforts and surrender to
inaction on these issues. Why is the drug issue different? We
do not advocate giving up on our schools or negating everything
we have done to date to find a cure for cancer, even though we
have spent billions of dollars on research and we've not yet
found a cure.
In closing, I would have to say, as a sergeant with the New
York State Police, a lieutenant, a captain, a major, I went
from neighborhoods and eventually to cities and entire
communities throughout our State. When I went to those
communities that were suffering the most as a result of the
drug problem, never once did I have a mother, a sister, a
priest, a teacher come to me and say, ``Sergeant Constantine,
Lieutenant Constantine, Major Constantine, what our community
needs more than anything is drugs that would be available to
our children in a legalization scheme, because that will
improve our schools, it will improve their work habits, it will
improve their study habits.''
I think, because these parents have all the wisdom of
generations and know that more drugs, freer drugs, more
accessible drugs, will only lead to more addiction, more
problems. They do not have a lot of the resources within their
family wealth, their family background, to be able to solve
those problems. We have a responsibility, those of us who have
been very fortunate in life, some very successful, to make sure
that our first and No. 1 priority is to take care of those who
have been less successful and have limited resources.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Constantine follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.022
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Moving to our ranking member, do you have an opening
statement at this time?
Mrs. Mink.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Patsy T. Mink follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.024
Mr. Mica. Also, we have been joined by Mr. Ose from
California, and I see Mr. Johnson is here. Welcome, and I think
you are going to introduce one of our next panelists.
With that, I do have some questions for you, Mr.
Constantine. First of all, again we thank you for stepping out
and coming forward to testify today.
Obviously, you come from the tough law enforcement side.
You had some statistics that you have used before, particularly
with New York City and the dramatic change in crime there.
However, we're hearing more and more that this is not a
comparable problem, that this is similar to Prohibition, when
they tried to stop alcohol, it was made illegal in this
country, and that it wasn't possible to enforce the laws.
Can you tell us, do you view this as a valid analogy? We
have had some reputable folks in the last set of hearings that
we had from the CATO Institute, I believe it was, who said to
legalize heroin, cocaine, and sell it like cigarettes or
alcohol, that is controlled and regulated.
Is this a prohibition problem that we're never going to
solve, like alcohol?
Mr. Constantine. I think the ultimate solution obviously is
prevention programs. All of the studies that I have looked at,
those that are most impressive claim the answer lies in the
family. It lies in an intact family, it lies in established
standards for children, it lies in communication. It's the
responsibility of parents to talk to their children continually
about their concerns about the dangers of drug abuse and
utilization.
And where all of those things are intact, the studies that
I have read, which are very reliable, point out that 9 times
out of 10, that young person will not become involved in using
drugs in that vulnerable period between 13 or 14 up until 18 or
19. If you get that far, you are pretty well satisfied that
they will not become involved in the use of drugs, as they have
a more mature outlook to life.
So I have always supported, I am a great believer in the
Partnership for a Drug-Free America. I am a great believer in
Mr. Califano and the CASA Center at Columbia. I think they
provide a major service to the people of the United States, and
whatever we can do in the way of resources and assistance to
help with prevention programs, I think over the long haul, 10,
15, 20 years, will help us to improve this problem.
In the meantime, we have a responsibility in law
enforcement to make our communities safe. We have a
responsibility to citizens who come to us and say, ``My son or
daughter was sold drugs by individuals at a certain location
who are profiting from this criminal enterprise,'' and ``My son
or daughter is addicted and has been harmed, perhaps
irreparably.''
We have a responsibility as a society to bring those
individuals to justice and to make sure, if they are found
guilty, that they're sanctioned commensurate with the pain
they've caused other people. I think that aspect of the
strategy has been the most successful in this dramatic
reduction of violence.
But the long-term usage of drugs, people who are addicted
to drugs, I believe, is a prevention program. I do not see the
analogy with prohibition. It is a vastly different substance;
it is a vastly different cultural issue.
Mr. Mica. The other thing that prevails today is this
belief that behind Federal prison walls, State prison walls,
and local jails, are countless people who are there for simple
possession of marijuana or some other substance, and that is
why they are incarcerated.
You had given us some statistics. I think you said
something about the quantity of, for example, marijuana seized
from Federal prisoners, averages 300 pounds. Geraldo Rivera did
a piece a couple of days ago that showed a woman in tears who
was in prison for only having 4 ounces of cocaine, I guess, and
trafficking 4 ounces of cocaine.
Is this a myth, or have we imprisoned innocent mothers and
folks who possessed small quantities of drugs?
Mr. Constantine. Let me address it from two perspectives.
One, as the head of DEA, a Federal law enforcement agency, for
the last 5\1/2\ years, virtually all of our investigations are
geared to individuals who sell drugs at enormous profit, and we
are trying always to reach the highest level of those criminal
organizations.
The only time that we tend to go for lower-level
individuals is if these individuals tend to be involved in
murders, robberies or assaults as part of their drug
trafficking issue. So all of our defendants that we have are,
for the most part, major dealers in narcotics. They fit the
pattern.
Mr. Mica. So in the Federal prison we would find what
person, you know, charged with possession?
Mr. Constantine. The actual figures, I presently don't
have. They are in this report, by the way, from the Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse. I saw the figures last night. I
don't want to quote them without reading them, and I don't know
if I can find them fast enough for you, for this presentation.
But as I recall, possession was like 1, maybe 1 percent, 1.5
percent, mere possession.
Mr. Mica. And some of those had----
Mr. Constantine. My experience in New York State as
superintendent of the State Police was, as I always said, it
would be easier for a kid to get into Harvard, Princeton or
Yale than it would be to get into the State prison system.
When I worked on a sub-cabinet in the Governor's office,
there was a second felony offender law in the State of New
York, whereby individuals with a second felony conviction would
have to go to State prison. There was a movement, for financial
reasons and for a number of other reasons, to make that a third
felony offender law.
All I said was that we had better start telling these
police officers that it is not serious until we get to the
individuals who were the second felons who were going to get
sentenced. They had 15 previous arrests, 9 or 10 misdemeanors,
4 or 5 felonies, and that they fled to all different types of
diversion programs to try to avoid putting them in prison
before it became impossible to do that any longer.
So I have had many interviews with individuals who were
reporters and came to me, and I said, ``Look, if you find a
prisoner in Attica who is serving time for a sole possession of
marijuana, an ounce or 2 ounces or 100 marijuana cigarettes, I
will buy you dinner in the best restaurant in Washington, DC.''
And I have yet to buy a dinner for any reporter.
Mr. Mica. You also said that the drug supply drives demand,
and you cited the problem of growing addiction where there is a
liberal policy. I think in the past you have used Baltimore as
an example. Maybe you could explain the difference between
Baltimore and your New York experience?
Mr. Constantine. In Baltimore in the 1950's, there were
approximately 300 heroin addicts for 950,000 people. In 1998,
there were about 39,000 heroin addicts in Baltimore for about
650,000 people. The population has been reduced by 300,000 in
the city. The eventual heroin addicts have gone from 300 to
about 39,000. As I recall the figures, in the 1950's, there was
one heroin addict for every 3,161 people in Baltimore. By the
time we got to 1998, there was one heroin addict for every 17
people in the city of Baltimore.
To give you a sense of what that looks like, the overdose
death rate for heroin in Baltimore is five times that of New
York City. The homicide rate in Baltimore is six times that of
New York City.
I don't believe it is coincidental that the mayor of
Baltimore has espoused the legalization of drugs; that there is
a very soft attitude on the arrest or prosecution of low-level
drug traffickers that has caused Baltimore to be a magnet for
drug addicts and drug traffickers.
Mr. Mica. So a very liberalized thought that essentially
the problem goes away----
Mr. Constantine. I mean, if somebody indicates that because
it has been more lenient and more acceptable in Baltimore, that
has solved the drug and crime problem, I don't think the
experiment worked.
I think it is important to note, too, that New York, along
with a number of other States, decriminalized marijuana in the
1970's. It, in essence, became, for low-level arrests for
possession of marijuana, what was called an adjournment in
contemplation of dismissal. If the individual did not get
involved in other criminal activity for about 6 months, the
charge was dismissed; and if they were younger, they could have
that criminal record expunged and sealed.
Now, I have to tell you, if that was the concept, that by
decriminalizing marijuana in the 1970's, we would not have a
more significant drug problem in the 1980's, the experience is
exactly the opposite. We wound up with a huge drug problem in
the 1980's, the State of New York, along with other States, I
suspect.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much. Welcome to our hearing
today, Mr. Constantine.
The subject of law enforcement is something that I am very,
very committed to. It seems to me that the problem has to be
dealt with harshly, and that the Congress and the Federal
Government in general have to support stringent law enforcement
activity in order to get to the nub of the problem, and so I
certainly support the thesis that you have presented to the
committee today.
What troubles me is a city like Baltimore that you have
just described, and the suggestion that perhaps the advocacy
alone of more liberal policies toward marijuana has produced an
even greater problem than they had two decades ago. My question
goes to the fact that even if the city officials and others
were moving toward a more liberal policy, wasn't the
responsibility of the Federal Government the same there as in
New York City or any other place?
Mr. Constantine. Well, it was more than an espousing of a
philosophy, which I think is--everybody is entitled to talk
about, obviously, certainly, elected officials more than
anybody else. That's their role in life.
But this became an implementation of policy. The prosecutor
would not prosecute individuals with under 29 dosage units of
whatever the drug might be, so as a result, the police
community had little role left to make arrests for low-level
operations.
People on the street, in the narcotics trafficking
industry, pick that type of policy up in a strategy very
quickly. When there is an absence of enforcement, it becomes
apparent to them that there is no legitimate sanction.
We have doubled the number of people that we had in the
Baltimore office, trying to deal with, as I mentioned, we try
to focus as often as we possibly can on the highest level
dealers of heroin trafficking, as it would be in Baltimore, and
the mid-level. The lower level street operations, there are
just not enough resources in the Federal Government to be able
to do that, other than to take it away from perhaps the bigger
criminal organizations.
Now, we did in Baltimore--I have a personal admiration for
the police chief, I have worked with Chief Frazier a number of
times--and we lent two of our MET teams, our Mobile Enforcement
Teams, in the city to go after the violent drug trafficking
organizations within the city of Baltimore, to try to assist
them. And I think we do have a role, and obviously, as a city
starts to suffer more than perhaps neighboring jurisdictions.
It is important for me to note that not all of the addicts,
by the way, are living in the city of Baltimore. What has
happened, you now have middle class young people from the
affluent suburbs of Carroll County and Harford County who are
going into the city of Baltimore to purchase their drugs. So
the industry has become something that is attractive to all
types of people from different sites.
My concern is that if you announce to drug traffickers that
drugs should be legalized, if you adopt a strategy that you
will not enforce the law at certain levels, I don't think it is
coincidental--now, that obviously is a decision for the people
who live in the city of Baltimore, not my decision--but I don't
think it's coincidental that you wind up with these tremendous
heroin problems, a homicide rate six times that of New York,
and an overdose death rate five times that.
Mrs. Mink. What was the level of success of the DEA
enforcement activities in Baltimore, going after the big
traffickers and those who were warehousing the drugs, if there
was a lenient policy toward the people on the street and those
who were using it, and you maintained a tough policy with
reference to the big dealers? Couldn't or wouldn't that have
made some impact on the distribution, if you were successful?
Or did the local authorities impede your successes at the
higher levels of distribution?
Mr. Constantine. No, no. They did not impede, they
cooperated, and the relationship between the police department,
the DEA and other Federal agencies is very, very good. We went
after every major trafficker that we could identify.
Usually these big organizations that were responsible--in
Baltimore much of the heroin comes down from New York City. It
is Colombian heroin, it comes from Colombia usually to the
Washington Heights area of New York City. Then it is brought
down to Baltimore. We continually have tried to impact that by
enforcement against those groups. Obviously, the problem still
continues.
I have always felt that to have an effective enforcement
strategy, it has to touch all of the components, because if you
just do one and then leave the others, if you were just to work
low level and not work the mid level or high level, I don't
think you are going to be successful.
I believe the experience that I have seen in other cities
throughout the United States, if you could focus on those drug
trafficking organizations in the neighborhoods of Baltimore who
are causing all this problem, I have no reason to believe that
you would not be just as successful in Baltimore as they have
been in New York City.
It is not a magic strategy. It is not something that had to
be invented in a laboratory. It was merely the identification
of traffickers, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood,
and going after them and arresting them, and having reasonable
sanctions or some type of rehabilitation if that is the
appropriate strategy to be able to improve the situation. There
is no reason why one city should have a homicide rate six times
that of another city, and an overdose death rate five times
that of another city. I think those problems can be addressed.
Will that address the problem of people who are addicted to
heroin? I think that is a prevention/rehabilitation issue that
I am not an expert on, but I believe in both strategies.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could you tell me the number of deaths, all categories, per
year due to drug use? I saw the number on heroin of about
1,300, 1,400 a year over the last 3 years. What about----
Mr. Constantine. I believe it is 4,000 per year in each of
the last 4 years. All drugs, cocaine, heroin, I don't have that
exact figure available at the present. I can get that back to
you.
Mr. Ose. Rough, is it 5,000, 10,000?
Mr. Constantine. I don't have that exact number presently.
I would rather get back to you than----
Mr. Ose. The reason I ask the question is that those who
are a little older than me went through a period of time in the
1960's where we were losing roughly 5,000 or 6,000 young people
a year in the war in Vietnam, and I don't quite understand this
sense of legalization of a product that equates to that kind of
a mortality rate. I think you probably share that. If Vietnam
was such a fiasco, why do people close their eyes to this and
suggest legalization? Do you have any feedback on that?
Mr. Constantine. I never looked at it from that particular
perspective, but most of my feelings and impressions and
thoughts on drug use and legalization are really from dealing
with people in neighborhoods who are living behind three locks
on their door, are afraid to go out to the corner grocery
store, are afraid to go to a PTA meeting, have not a lot of
money, and they can't send their child to some prep school in
New England. Their child will have to get their education at
the public school three blocks away, and if the drug
traffickers, as they have, have taken control of those corners
in many neighborhoods in various cities, those people are
living as virtual prisoners.
So all of my analysis of the legalization issue is, why
would we want to visit more problems on people who, in my
opinion, have far too many problems, and far too many problems
that have not been addressed already by society, let alone to
bring them down to the depths of further concerns for their
children and themselves?
Mr. Ose. I appreciate what you are saying, truly. I want to
go on to the next item.
On page 10 of your testimony you comment that drug use
related to methamphetamine in Iowa contributes to an estimated
80 percent of the domestic violence cases in Iowa. Am I
correct? I mean, there is a nexus you can draw there?
And if that is the case, why wouldn't we ask a question
similar to that one I just asked about Vietnam, why would we
legalize a product that not only diminishes one's individual
capabilities on a day-to-day basis but also contributes to 80
percent of the domestic violence? Why would I, as a lawmaker,
ever agree to that?
Mr. Constantine. Well, Iowa is, I think, a classic example
of how supply creates demand. If you were to talk to anybody in
Iowa in law enforcement 10 years ago about a methamphetamine
problem in the State of Iowa, it would be nonexistent. People
would talk about maybe some motorcycle gangs on the West Coast
or a Hell's Angels club in the southern tier of New York.
Now we find there are organized criminal groups out of
Mexico and then California, operating out of California, who
were able to get large amounts of precursor drugs and begin to
sell methamphetamine at very low cost, relatively, and high
purity. Then, as a result of the meat packing industry, in
which very decent, hard-working people came from Mexico to earn
money and send it back to their family, drug traffickers came
in behind them and started selling methamphetamine at very low
prices throughout the State of Iowa.
There are now--if that last figure that you mentioned
doesn't capture people's interest, then this one may--there are
more methamphetamine arrests in the city of Des Moines, IA,
than there are drunken driving arrests. I think all of us know
someone, family or friends or neighbors, who have been arrested
for drunken driving.
One-third of all the children in Marshalltown High School--
which is a rural county northeast of Des Moines, I have met
with all of the fantastic people from this community--have
experimented or tried methamphetamine. They have a huge
addiction problem that was created by increased supply, and
that has been, to a degree, part of my perception of this
issue.
If we make methamphetamine more available to more people,
more accessible, there is no doubt that more people would
utilize these drugs. I have never, never used any of them. I
have talked to doctors, I have talked to people who have been
in this business. They say the patients tell them that these
drugs are the most pleasurable experience that you could ever
imagine when they first begin to use them, and it is not
unreasonable to think that people, with those drugs accessible,
will use more of them in the future.
Those are all of the reasons why I argue against
legalization, or what they now call ``harm reduction,'' which
is really the same thing.
Mr. Ose. I need a professional person's response to the
following question. That is, if we increase the supply of
methamphetamine, either through legalization or otherwise, are
we going to see an equivalent increase in the amount of
domestic violence?
Mr. Constantine. I can't tell you. I can't tell you if
there would be a straight line correlation. With
methamphetamine I think you would see significant increases in
domestic violence, because the properties of that particular
drug and the physiological impact of that drug on people is
different than anything we had seen before, even more
exacerbated than crack cocaine. People tend not to eat or
sleep, they become delusional, paranoid, and incredibly
violent. It is a problem for police officers trying to arrest
individuals, either on routine traffic stops or in domestic
violence situations. Yes, I think you would see a fairly
dramatic increase in domestic violence where that drug was used
more freely.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, as usual, you have been very
generous, and I thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. We have been joined on the panel by
Mr. Johnson from Texas.
Mr. Johnson of Texas. Would you allow me to ask a question,
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mica. Without objection, go right ahead.
Mr. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. I would just like to ask a
couple or three quick questions. You have been talking about
the major cities. I think your last answer was an eloquent
reply as to why we don't need to legalize these drugs, based on
what you just said.
But I am thinking of the border areas which you haven't
mentioned, at least I haven't heard you. I have been down
there. It is a veritable sieve, where drugs are coming through,
not just in Texas, but in Arizona, New Mexico and California.
I am told that--as an ex-DEA guy, maybe you can tell me--
Customs and the Border Patrol don't really coordinate and work
together down there very well. Is there a problem with split
police or enforcement down there?
Mr. Constantine. Well, it is tough to say historically what
happened. Before I got to Washington, I heard many of the same
concerns on the part of people, of Federal law enforcement
agencies not cooperating with one another, and I made one of my
No. 1 goals, as the administrator of DEA, to improve our
relationship and cooperation with not only the other key
Federal agencies but State and local law enforcement, and I
think a lot of those areas have passed now.
We see the Border Patrol as very important. They act as a
tremendous resource for the seizure of narcotics, especially at
the checkpoints they set up away from the border, because a lot
of the substances are coming right across the river, and then
eventually the checkpoints, because they have to move it in
bulk. We also see this Operation Pipeline where we have the
highway interdiction that is very, very effective in seizing a
lot of these substances.
We actually have Border Patrol officers stationed in DEA
offfices, to be almost, from my view of things, like the
uniformed force to help all of the detective agencies, Customs
and DEA and the FBI. We have co-located our offices with the
FBI in El Paso, which is the hub crossing from Juarez and very,
very important.
I signed an agreement to cross-designate over 1,000 Customs
agents, and for the first time, the DEA and FBI signed a
memorandum of understanding to make sure all of these cases are
coordinated one with the other. I don't see it as the problem
that it was once reported to be. I think they have been very
effective and very successful.
Mr. Johnson of Texas. Are we stopping it at all? I mean,
you know, we talk about the war on drugs, and I am not
convinced that we are fighting it as a war.
Mr. Constantine. Well, two things. I have testified before
Congress, the use of the term ``war'' is an analogy that for
somebody who grew up as a young boy in World War II, and at
least watched some of it, over 12 million of our young people
volunteered or were drafted into the service; that people who
stayed home went without various food and cars and commodities.
There was a belief that we were united in many ways against a
common enemy.
In those indications, people who would have talked about
giving up in World War II, in essence capitulating to a
dangerous adversary, would obviously have been either have been
considered a treasonous or certainly placed in a situation
where nobody would want to deal with them.
Now, we have in essence, an adversary. The adversary is
drug traffickers and drugs, and we still have some people who
would like to surrender, would like to capitulate. I am not
sure we have made the sacrifices that we need as a society to
be able to improve the situation.
You may not have been here earlier. I testified that the
key component to protect young people in the area of drug abuse
is the family, a strong, intact family. Unfortunately, I am not
so sure everybody wants to sacrifice, even at the family level,
all that they need to sacrifice in order to make sure that kid
gets a great chance at life.
Mr. Johnson of Texas. I hear you.
Mr. Constantine. So I have always tried to stay away from
the ``war'' analogy. Our seizures have gone up dramatically
along the border. We have gone from 105 tons of marijuana in
1992 to about 858 tons of marijuana in 1998. But the key is not
seizing drugs alone, because they are really an infinite
commodity. It is overproduced for the amount that can be
utilized. What's not infinite are the criminals and the
criminal organizations, so we try to focus on them as our
priority.
Mr. Johnson of Texas. Yes, that is where I think you should
be. Can you tell me, in your opinion, if our HIDTA's are doing
any good?
Mr. Constantine. Yes, we have HIDTA's in virtually every
location throughout the country right now. We have DEA
supervisors who work on that. We have intelligence centers.
We just opened our new academy about a month and a half
ago. We have--I am sure that my successor will continue that--
we have dedicated 50 beds in that academy for intelligence
training. A lot of that will go for intelligence officers
assigned to HIDTAs. So we have a universal system of analyzing
this problem and our reaction to it.
So, yes, they have been successful. They are different. If
you go to New England and ask what the HIDTA looks like, it is
going to be dramatically different from the HIDTA on the
border, but I think it reflects the concerns of that community.
Mr. Johnson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Do you have any questions of Mr. Constantine?
[No response.]
Mr. Mica. We want to thank you for coming forward today and
providing your perspective, Mr. Constantine. We have enjoyed
working with you, and look forward to your future participation
and your incredible knowledge on the subject of drug
enforcement. We will probably be asking you to come back and
provide our subcommittee with assistance in the months and
years to come, so thank you again for your service and for your
testimony.
Mr. Constantine. Thank you very much, all of you, for the
gracious treatment I have received these past 5 years.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
I would like to call our second panel this morning, Chief
Bruce Glasscock, the chief of police from Plano, TX, and we
will have a further introduction in just a minute.
We have Sandra Bennett, president of Drug Watch
International. We have Mr. R. Keith Stroup, executive director
of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
And we have Mr. Robert MacCoun, who is a professor of public
policy and law at the University of California at Berkeley. I
see three. Mr. Stroup.
Let me explain the ground rules. I think most of you are
new in testifying here. This is an investigations and oversight
subcommittee of Congress, and we swear in our witnesses, so the
first order will be, if you don't mind, to stand and be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. The witnesses answered in the affirmative, and we
are pleased to have each of you here. We only had one
individual in our first panel so we didn't run the timing
light, but if you have a lengthy statement or additional
information or data that you would like submitted for the
record, within reason, we will do that by unanimous consent
request. And if you will just ask, we will grant that.
We have Mr. Johnson here, who is a Representative, of
course, a Congressman from Texas and the Plano area, and I will
let him, if he would, introduce his witness.
Mr. Johnson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed
a pleasure to introduce Chief Bruce Glasscock. He is head of
the police department in my home town, which is Plano, TX, and
the chief has run the Plano Police Department since August
1990. Prior to that he served as chief of police for Fort
Collins, CO, and as an officer in both Lakewood, CO, and St.
Petersburg, FL.
Overall, Chief Glasscock has spent over 30 years of his
life serving in the field of law enforcement. He holds a
Bachelor's degree in criminal justice management from the
Metropolitan State College in Denver, and a Master's degree in
public administration from the University of Colorado.
Apart from his current duties serving the citizens of
Plano, TX, Chief Glasscock is also the current vice president
of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. As the
head of law enforcement in a city that has seen the all too
tragic effects of drug use by our Nation's teenagers, Chief
Glasscock, I think, offers a unique perspective, and I am
grateful that he has agreed to share his experience and
expertise with this committee.
We have had some terrible problems in the city of Plano,
and thanks to his leadership and guidance, along with the other
city officials, and the State and local officials in the
surrounding cities, and the fact that we have established a
HIDTA in the Dallas area now, we have helped solve some of the
problems. So I would like to welcome him here today, and thank
you for having him as a witness, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And we welcome you, Chief
Glasscock. We will hear from you first. We have two folks who
are on the pro, and two I guess on the con side of this issue
on this panel, and we will recognize you first, chief, for 5
minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENTS OF BRUCE D. GLASSCOCK, CHIEF OF POLICE, PLANO, TX;
SANDRA S. BENNETT, PRESIDENT, DRUG WATCH INTERNATIONAL; R.
KEITH STROUP, ESQ., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS; AND ROBERT J.
MacCOUN, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY
Chief Glasscock. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, and thank you, Congressman, for the kind
comments. I am pleased to be here this morning to share my
experience in combating drug abuse and my views on the question
of drug legalization.
The issue of drug legalization is of great concern to those
of us in the law enforcement community. It is my belief the
nature of our profession provides law enforcement officials
with a unique insight into the ravages caused by the abuse of
narcotics and other dangerous drugs. These experiences have
clearly demonstrated to me that this Nation should not be
considering legalizing drugs, but rather we should increase our
efforts to combat drug traffickers and assist those individuals
who have become addicted to drugs to break the cycle of
addiction.
Over the last few years, my position as chief of the Plano
Police Department has provided me with a first-hand look at the
problems and dangers that accompany drug abuse. The recent
heroin overdose death of former Dallas Cowboy Mark Tuinei
received extensive national media coverage. Unfortunately, it
was not the first such occurrence in Plano. Our community was
faced with a series of events involving heroin overdoses which
resulted in our taking an aggressive plan of action in dealing
with drug abuse.
In June 1995 the city of Plano experienced its first
heroin-related death. Additionally, between 1995 and 1996, our
detectives noticed an increase in burglaries being committed by
heroin addicts to support their addictions. During this same
time period, local hospitals reported seeing about six
overdoses a week, some of which resulted in death.
Between 1995 and year to date 1999, there have been 18
heroin overdose deaths related to Plano in some fashion. We had
one in 1995, three in 1996, nine in 1997, three in 1998, and
two deaths so far in 1999. The victims of these deaths were not
your stereotypical drug addicts. The average age was 20 years,
with a range of 14 to 36, and if you were to take the high and
low, the average was about 18 to 19. Most were young adolescent
white males; most considered your average all-American kid.
Because of the rise of incidences of heroin overdoses, in
early 1997, the Plano Police Department adopted a multifaceted
strategy to attack the heroin crisis. First, we undertook
aggressive enforcement action to identify and prosecute those
responsible for supplying the heroin. The police department
joined with the DEA, FBI, Texas Department of Public Safety and
other local agencies in a coordinated effort.
Because of this effort, 29 individuals were indicted on
Federal charges of conspiring to distribute heroin and cocaine,
as well as charges of contributing to heroin overdose deaths.
Another of our enforcement actions involved an undercover
operation in our senior high schools, which resulted in the
arrest of 37 individuals on 84 cases of narcotics violations.
We believe our enforcement actions have greatly reduced the
amount of heroin being sold in the Plano community and the
number of heroin overdoses.
The second part of our strategy involved using education as
a means to reduce the demand for heroin. The DEA's demand
reduction specialist, who provided us with guidance in demand
reduction, spoke at community meetings and helped utilize the
media effectively, assisted us in this effort.
During this time, our department hosted several community
meetings, the largest occurring in November 1997. This meeting
was attended by more than 1,800 citizens and was televised and
covered by the national and local media as well as the city
cable television network.
Our education efforts would not have been successful if it
were not for the cooperation of our Community Task Force,
Plano's Promise, and many other community organizations not
affiliated with the police department. These community
organizations provided education programs within our high
school groups, PTAs, neighborhood associations, church and
parent groups.
In addition to the above-mentioned strategies, our
department is involved with several organizations that are
working to continue the fight against drug abuse. These
organizations strive to prevent drug usage through education as
well as intervention.
The department is currently involved with Kick Drugs Out of
America, a school-based program designed to teach children the
skills needed to resist drug and gang pressure. This program is
in addition to our department-run D.A.R.E. program, which also
teaches elementary school children the risk of drugs and how to
resist peer pressure.
We are currently working with a nonprofit organization in
Florida that offers home drug testing kits to families. This
organization offers a free and anonymous way for parents to
find out if their children are using drugs. If the child tests
positive for drugs, Drug Free America provides the family with
support organizations in or near the community to help with
intervention efforts.
Our statistics show a clear reduction in the number of
heroin overdose deaths, as well as hospitals reporting a
reduction of in overdose cases, which leads to the conclusion
that our strategy is working. Our continuing investigations
also show a reduced availability of heroin on the streets in
our community.
Unfortunately, the battle is not over. Our drug risk
assessment continues to show the north Texas area is a major
hub for shipment and distribution of a variety of illegal drugs
by Mexican drug traffickers. These drugs include
methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana.
The porous Texas-Mexico border has 1,241 miles of frontier
that challenge all of our resources. Since the enactment of
NAFTA, the major ports of entry have experienced approximately
a 30 percent increase in legitimate commercial and passenger
traffic. The number of vehicles inspected has increased, but
the overall inspection rate has decreased, affording new
opportunities for smuggling. Our statistics also show that
since the passage of NAFTA in 1992, Texas has the highest
volume of drug trafficking in the Nation. All of this directly
impacts local communities located along the NAFTA
transportation corridors, and will continue to do so in the
future.
This massive effort represents what just one city faces and
has gone through to combat the flow of drugs into its community
in order to protect its citizens. Plano is not unique. Similar
scenarios are being repeated in communities throughout our
Nation. Combined strategies like the one I have just described
to you are expensive, complex to manage, and sometimes
controversial. However, they are working.
Unfortunately, if those who favor legalization have their
way, our efforts to reduce crime and protect our children from
the horrors of drug abuse will be wasted. It is a simple fact:
Increased drug abuse and increased crime go hand-in-hand. It
makes no difference whether the user can purchase their drugs
legally or not, they must still find a way to pay for them, and
the way most drug addicts finance their habit is through crime.
Eventually, they will do one of two things, they will either
steal or deal.
This is not just speculation on my part. A 1996 study
conducted by NIJ clearly demonstrated drug users are more
likely to be involved in criminal activities. Findings
indicated that a median 68 percent of arrestees test positive
for at least one drug at arrest, and in 1995, the study
revealed that 31 percent of both male and female arrestees
reported they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol when
they committed their crime. It also indicated that 28 percent
of inmates arrested for homicide were under the influence of
drugs when they committed their crime.
In 1986, during the midst of the crack epidemic, violent
crime reached a level of 617 violent crimes per 100,000
citizens. As we experienced a continuing escalation of drug-
related violence, this figure rose in 1993, to 746 violent
crimes for every 100,000 citizens. In response, an outraged
public joined together with government leaders to challenge the
escalating violent crime.
As a result of these efforts, new enforcement programs were
implemented in the 1990's that began to reverse this trend. In
recent years, we have seen a decrease in the violent crime rate
in many communities--such as New York, Boston and Houston--
attributable to aggressive law enforcement efforts and the
incarceration of criminals. We know vigorous law enforcement
actions aimed at criminal activity, including illegal drug use,
can have a material effect on reducing violent crime.
After making progress against violent crime during the last
several years, we should not erode these gains by instituting
policies such as the legalization of drugs which we know will
increase drug use and drug-related crime.
In addition, aside from the fact that legalization will
lead to an increase in the level of crime and violence in our
communities, it also has terrible consequences on our citizens
in other ways. Drug-related illness, death and crime are
estimated to cost Americans $67 billion a year. That translates
into every American having to pay $1,000 per year to carry the
cost of health care, extra law enforcement, car crashes, crime,
and lost productivity.
Drug use also impacts on the productivity of America's
workers. Seventy-one percent of illicit drug users are 18 or
older and employed. In a study conducted by the U.S. Postal
Service, the data collected shows that among drug users,
absenteeism is 66 percent higher and health benefits
utilization is 84 percent greater in dollar terms when compared
against other workers.
Public safety is another critical factor. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported 18 percent of
2,000 fatally injured drivers in seven States had drugs other
than alcohol in their systems.
I trust it is clear by now why other law enforcement
officials and I believe the legalization of drugs is wrong. It
is a wrong course for our Nation to take. Drug legalization
will lead to increased crime, a decline in economic
productivity, significantly increased burden on an already
strained health care system, danger to those traveling on our
highways, and perhaps most tragically, it sends a message to
our children that drug use is acceptable.
A recent study by the Partnership for a Drug Free America
showed that as young Americans perceive that drugs are
dangerous, drug use drops proportionately. Conversely, as young
Americans get the message that social disapproval drops, as
they hear in the legalization debate, drug use increases.
Drug use in America was reduced significantly between the
year 1985 to 1992. Since 1992, and until just recently, the
amount of antidrug messages has decreased. As recently retired
DEA Administrator Constantine once said, ``As a Nation we took
our eye off the ball and began to get complacent about drugs.''
Drug use among our young people began to rise again in 1992.
The legalization movement and the growing destigmatization
of drugs, along with the confusing message we are giving our
young people, will result in further decreases in the
perceptions of risk, and I believe a concurrent increase in
drug use among our youth. Within this atmosphere, it is very
difficult, if not impossible, to reach children and convince
them that doing drugs is bad.
We must not make it easier or more acceptable for today's
young people to start down the slippery slope from drug
experimentation to drug addiction. We, as a Nation, must
continue to clearly and unequivocally state that drug use is
dangerous, drug use is unhealthy, and drug use is illegal.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
the opportunity to appear here today, and I will be happy to
answer any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Chief Glasscock follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.033
Mr. Mica. Thank you, and we will withhold questions until
we have heard from all of the witnesses.
We will hear next from R. Keith Stroup, executive director
of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Mr. Stroup, you are recognized, and welcome.
Mr. Stroup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. NORML, for nearly 30 years, has been a voice for
those Americans who oppose marijuana prohibition. We are a not-
for-profit, public interest lobby, and we attempt to represent
the interests of the millions of otherwise law-abiding
Americans who smoke marijuana responsibly.
As I have summarized in my written testimony, when Congress
first outlawed marijuana in 1937, it was the result of a
campaign of extraordinary misinformation and ignorance in which
it was alleged that marijuana caused insanity and violence and
turned average people into savage killers who knew no fear and
lost all inhibitions. This claim of ``reefer madness''
continued for decades, and can still be heard from some
quarters today, including occasionally from this Congress.
It is time for Congress to move beyond the ``reefer
madness'' phase of marijuana policy, where elected officials
simply try to frighten the American public into supporting the
status quo by exaggerating the dangers presented by marijuana.
Most Americans know the difference between marijuana and more
dangerous drugs, and most Americans oppose spending $25,000 a
year to lock up otherwise law-abiding marijuana smokers.
In fact, if marijuana were truly dangerous, we would know
it today. There is a sizable segment of our population who are
current recreational marijuana smokers, and there would be
epidemiological evidence of the harm to our citizens. No such
evidence exists, despite millions of people who have smoked
marijuana for years and years.
So, while of course we need to fund more research on
marijuana, it should be directed toward marijuana's potential
to alleviate pain and suffering for seriously ill patients. We
certainly know enough now to know that marijuana is relatively
harmless when it is used responsibly by adults.
It is time for Congress to get beyond ``reefer madness,''
to end what has really been a crusade against both marijuana
and marijuana smokers, and to begin discussing this subject in
a rational manner. In particular, we need to expand the
parameters of the discussion in Congress on marijuana policy to
include, first, decriminalizing the marijuana smoker; and,
second, legalizing and regulating the sale of marijuana to do
away with the black market.
Let me speak for a moment about who smokes marijuana today
in America. It is time to put to rest the myth that marijuana
smoking is some sort of fringe or deviant activity engaged in
only by those on the margin of society. In reality, marijuana
smoking is extremely commonplace, and it is the recreational
drug of choice for millions of middle class, mainstream
Americans.
According to the government's own surveys, as many as 70
million Americans have smoked marijuana at some time in their
lives; 18 to 20 million have smoked within the last year.
Marijuana is the third most popular recreational drug of choice
in this country, exceeded in popularity only by alcohol and
tobacco.
Like most other Americans, the vast majority of marijuana
smokers are otherwise law-abiding citizens who work hard, raise
families, contribute to their communities, and pay taxes. They
are indistinguishable from the their non-marijuana-using peers
except for their use of marijuana.
Thirty-two percent of the eligible voters in this country
acknowledge they have smoked marijuana at some point in their
lives. This includes many successful business people and
professional leaders, including many State and Federal elected
officials. Many Members of Congress have conceded they have
smoked marijuana: former Speaker Newt Gingrich; the President
of the United States; the Vice President of the United States.
It is time to reflect that reality in the legislation that
Congress passes on marijuana. Congress needs to acknowledge
this constituency exists, and stop legislating as if marijuana
smokers were dangerous people. In fact, marijuana smokers are
simply average citizens who happen to smoke marijuana.
Unfortunately, our current enforcement policies seem to
target marijuana smokers. According to the FBI, in 1997, the
last year for which data is available, there were nearly
700,000 Americans arrested on marijuana charges, 694,000. Of
those, 87 percent were for simple possession, not for sale.
Right now, we have a marijuana smoker arrested every 45 seconds
in this country, and 43 percent of all of the drug arrests that
occur in this country are for marijuana.
Despite criticism from some in Congress, and I believe from
some on this committee, that President Clinton has somehow been
soft on crime, in fact the data suggest that the Clinton
administration has waged the most aggressive war against
marijuana smokers of any Presidency in history. Marijuana
arrests have doubled since President Clinton took office, and
at the same time there has been a 51 percent decline in the
arrest of cocaine and heroin sellers.
Now in 1972, there was a blue ribbon panel created by
former President Richard Nixon. It was chaired by former
Republican Governor Raymond Shafer from Pennsylvania. The
commission recognized that more harm was being caused by
marijuana prohibition than by the use of marijuana itself. They
recommended that State and Federal laws be changed to eliminate
penalties for marijuana smokers and for small transfers of not-
for-profit amounts. This report served instantly as a basis for
the decriminalization laws that were passed during the 1970's
in 11 States.
What former President Jimmy Carter said in 1976 to Congress
still holds true today: ``Penalties against drug use should
never be more damaging to an individual than the use of the
drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws
against possession of marijuana in private for personal use.''
Led by Oregon in 1973, 11 American States adopted modified
versions of decriminalization, where a citation and a small
fine were substituted for an arrest and jail. Approximately 30
percent of our population in this country live under
decriminalization laws, so we have experience. We know what
happens with decriminalization.
And the only Federal study that has ever been done to
compare usage rates in those 11 decriminalized States, versus
the States where they still arrest and jail marijuana smokers,
concluded that decriminalization had absolutely no impact on
usage rates. It did not lead to an increased use of marijuana.
Decriminalization laws are also popular with the voters, as
evidenced by a State-wide vote in Oregon in 1998, in which
Oregonians voted 2 to 1 to reject a law previously passed by
their State legislature which would have reimposed criminal
penalties against marijuana smokers. Clearly and resoundingly,
the voters in Oregon said, ``We don't want to spend our tax
dollars arresting and jailing marijuana smokers.''
In conclusion, it is time that we adopted a marijuana
policy in this country that recognizes the distinction between
use and abuse, and which recognizes and reflects the importance
we have always placed in this country on the right of the
individual to be free from the overreaching power of the State.
Most would agree that the government has no business knowing
what books we read, what music we listen to, the subject of our
telephone conversations, or how we conduct ourselves in the
privacy of our bedrooms.
Similarly, whether one smokes marijuana or drinks alcohol
when we relax is simply not an appropriate area of concern for
the government. By stubbornly defining all marijuana smokers as
criminals, including situations in which adults are simply
smoking marijuana in the privacy of their home, government is
wasting valuable law enforcement and prosecutorial resources,
we are clogging our courts, we are filling our jails and prison
cells with nonviolent drug offenders, and most importantly, we
are needlessly wrecking the lives and careers of hundreds of
thousands of genuinely good citizens every year in this
country.
It is time that Congress acknowledges what millions of
Americans already know: There is absolutely nothing wrong with
the responsible use of marijuana by adults, and it should be of
no interest or concern to the government. In the final
analysis, this debate is only incidentally about marijuana. It
is really about personal freedom.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stroup follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.054
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony, and now I would
like to recognize Mr. Robert MacCoun, professor of public
policy and law at the University of California at Berkeley.
Welcome, and you are recognized. I hope I pronounced that
correctly?
Mr. MacCoun. MacCoun, that is correct.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. MacCoun. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
ask that my written testimony, which is longer, be entered into
the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, that will be made part of the
record.
Mr. MacCoun. My name is Robert MacCoun. I am from the
University of California at Berkeley. My collaborator is Peter
Reuter of the University of Maryland.
I am here today to summarize some conclusions from our
study of drug control alternatives funded by a grant from the
Alfred Sloan Foundation to the Rand Corp.'s Drug Policy
Research Center. Rand is a nonprofit institution that helps
improve policy and decisionmaking through research and
analysis. The opinions and conclusions expressed today are my
own, and should not be interpreted as representing those of
Rand or any other agency sponsoring the research.
I should also mention an earlier statement by the Chair
suggested that there were two pro and two cons here. I am not
here in an advocacy role today. My purpose today is to try to
inform the debate by talking empirically about what we know
about these policies.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. I just made that----
Mr. MacCoun. That is quite all right. It is understandable.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Comment and I stand corrected. It
never happened before, but you are the first.
Mr. MacCoun. Thank you. I am proud to be part of that
first.
The empirical base is strongest for analyzing marijuana
decriminalization, weaker for marijuana legalization, and quite
weak for the legalization of cocaine or heroin, so I will focus
today mostly on what we know about marijuana.
Decriminalization refers to the elimination or substantial
reduction of penalties for possession of modest drug
quantities. In a decriminalization regime, the sale and
manufacture of the drug remains illegal. Marijuana has been
decriminalized in 11 United States States, in some regions of
Australia, and in the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain.
The available evidence suggests that marijuana
decriminalization has either no effect or a very small effect
on marijuana use. Survey analyses in decriminalizing States
have found either no change in marijuana use or an increase
that was slight and temporary. Cross-State comparisons have
found no difference in adolescent marijuana use in
decriminalizing versus non-decriminalizing States. The
conclusion that marijuana decriminalization has little or no
effect is bolstered by studies finding no effect of
decriminalization in South Australia and in the Australian
Capital Territory.
Our statements about marijuana decriminalization should not
be generalized to marijuana legalization. Legalization goes
beyond the decriminalization of user possession to allow some
form of legally regulated sale and distribution. We know of
only one contemporary example that comes close, and that is the
Dutch model.
In compliance with international treaty obligations, Dutch
law states unequivocally that cannabis is illegal, yet in 1976,
the Dutch adopted a formal written policy of nonenforcement for
violations involving possession or sale of up to 30 grams. That
has been reduced to 5 grams in 1995. Not only are prosecutors
forbidden to act against users, but a formal written policy
regulates the technically illicit sale of those small amounts
in licensed coffee shops and nightclubs.
The Dutch decriminalization of possession per se had no
detectable effect on marijuana use, consistent with evidence
from the United States and from Australia. But in the mid-
1980's there was a significant increase in the number of
tolerated commercial sales outlets for marijuana.
We believe this shift from mere decriminalization to de
facto legalization was associated with rapid growth in the
number of users, an increase that was not mirrored in other
nations during that same time period. That increase might have
been coincidental, but it's consistent with other evidence that
commercial promotion of a vice will increase consumption of
that vice.
Dutch heroin and cocaine use numbers are not particularly
high by European standards, and a smaller fraction of marijuana
users go on to use those drugs in the Netherlands than in the
United States. There's no evidence that Dutch cannabis policy
has resulted in any increase in property crime or violence, and
claims that it has are simply not credible.
The Dutch have made a policy choice: less black market
activity at the retail level, and less police intrusiveness
into ordinary life, in exchange for higher levels of marijuana
use. Whether that is the right choice depends upon one's views
about the dangers of marijuana. At any rate, it seems likely
that the Dutch might have achieved their goals with a less
extreme policy. For example, South Australia allows home
cultivation of small quantities of marijuana but not commercial
sales or promotion.
Much less is known about the consequences of alternative
drug laws for heroin or cocaine. On the one hand, legalization
would probably reduce the harmfulness to the user, and to
others, of the average drug-taking episode. On the other hand,
legalization would increase the number of those drug-taking
episodes. At present, there's no firm basis for predicting the
relative size of those two effects. Thus, legalization is a
very risky strategy for reducing drug-related harm.
But the drawbacks of legalization do not imply that our
current version of prohibition is the optimal drug strategy. It
may well be possible to implement prohibition in less harmful
ways.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. MacCoun follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.061
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony, and now I'll
recognize the last witness on this panel, Sandra Bennett,
president of Drug Watch International.
Ms. Bennett. I have a statement here by one of our members,
a 20-year-old member of Drug Watch, and could I submit this
for----
Mr. Mica. Without objection, that will be made part of the
record. Can you pull that as close as possible?
Ms. Bennett. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Great. You're recognized. Go right ahead.
Ms. Bennett. Chairman Mica, members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me to provide testimony on this critical
issue, one that's so important to the welfare and strength of
our Nation, and particularly important for the quality of the
future we want for our children.
First and foremost, I'm a mother who, because of illicit
drugs, has been subjected to every parent's worst nightmare and
ultimate horror, the death of their child, and it's from that
perspective that I'm going to address you today. Though it
would seem that much of the public is still in the dark, the
harmful effects of drugs on the body, the mind, an on society
itself are well documented in scientific research and history.
However, here we are again, for the umpteenth time over the
past 20 years, being forced to debate this inanity.
It's been said, those who don't learn from their mistakes
are doomed to repeat them. With this caveat in mind, I
fervently pray that you'll do everything in your power to
prevent this country from returning to the permissive drug
policies of the 1970's which embraced responsible use of
dangerous drugs.
It was in this permissive environment that drug use
flourished, and decriminalization of marijuana became the
mantra of the pot smokers. Drug use, particularly among
students, ran rampant, and the United States raced far ahead of
the rest of the world in consumption of illicit drugs.
Police Chief Reuben Greenberg of Charleston, SC, wrote,
``With few exceptions, other than the drug traffickers
themselves, faculties and administrations of our Nation's
colleges and universities are the most hostile elements to the
enforcement of our Nation's drug laws.'' It was this permissive
campus drug environment that led to the death of our son
Garrett.
My testimony today is for Garrett and all those young men
and women whose lives have been irreparably damaged by drugs,
or who did not survive their encounter with marijuana, cocaine,
heroin, Ecstacy, and LSD. And it's for the parents of those
children who must face the rest of their life knowing that
their child's death or disability was a completely preventable
tragedy, a tragedy that likely would not have happened had
sanctions against drug use been enforced.
Decriminalization, as embraced by the drug culture, is
simply the notion that those who use illicit drugs are
blameless and that all criminal legal sanctions against use
should be removed. As a bereaved parent, I can tell you that I
would rather my son be shaken to his senses with a little jail
time than have to lose him, have him lose his life or lead a
useless, debilitated one.
Decriminalization is actually part of a back door effort to
ease society into accepting legalization of all psychoactive
and addictive drugs. ``Harm reduction,'' a cover-all term
coined by the legalizers, is a euphemism encompassing
legalization and liberalization of drug policy, and can best be
defined as a variety of strategies for making illicit drug use
safer and cheaper for drug users at the expense of the rest of
society, regardless of the cost.
Included in these strategies are decriminalization,
medicalization of marijuana, industrial marijuana hemp,
distribution of free needles to injecting drug users, free
drugs to addicts, and a host of other tactics designed to
enable and protect drug users. The media and our educational
institutions are rife with ``harm reduction'' propaganda.
Speaking for the hundreds and thousands of parents who have
lost children to drugs, I cannot understand how this country
can listen for even one moment to those who advocate making
illicit drugs easier to come by, particularly when most of the
leaders of this effort are admitted drug users. Unfortunately,
credibility is given to those disingenuous scofflaws when they
are invited to the podium, paraded on TV, glorified on PBS, and
asked to serve as consultants to government agencies and the
media, who then parrot this misleading, deceitful and dangerous
propaganda.
The pro-drug advocates are allowed to operate out of our
universities with impunity, and their deceptive and dangerous
rhetoric fills the Internet, where it is readily available even
to our primary school children. The media, which could be part
of the solution, are instead a tremendous part of the problem.
They play a significant role in the way people think, whether
it's about political, business, health or community issues.
Many journalists and commentators have bought into the
notion that using psychoactive drugs is a personal right.
Although adolescent drug use is half what it was in the late
1970's, the media echoes the claims of the legalizers that
despite having spent billions of dollars fighting the war on
drugs, it has failed and should be abandoned in favor of
permissive drug policies.
Complaints about spending too much money on the war on
drugs have no basis in fact. It's simply pro-legalization
rhetoric, as espoused at a Drug Policy Foundation media
workshop in 1992, where attendees were coached to ``use
economics, paint ridiculous extremes, then go for logical,
moderate alternatives.''
If spending billions to reduce drug use is such a waste,
where is their outcry against the War on Poverty? Declared in
1964, the War on Poverty has already cost this country over $5
trillion, yet more than 20 percent of American children between
the ages of 6 and 11 still live in poverty, a condition
worsened by the impact of illicit drugs.
How does all of this relate to my son's death?
In 1980, President Carter's blue ribbon panel on drugs, the
Drug Abuse Council, issued a report stating that America did
not have a drug problem and that it was mostly hysteria, and it
called for decriminalization of possession of small amounts of
marijuana. The report went on to lament that by adhering to an
unrealistic goal of total abstinence from use of illicit drugs,
opportunities to encourage responsible drug-using behavior are
missed.
Responsible use of an illicit drug? Is this akin to driving
responsibly while drunk, or wearing boxing gloves to assault
your spouse? One does not act responsibly under the influence
of mind-altering drugs.
That same year, 1980, Lester Grinspoon, M.D., associate
professor at Harvard and an outspoken proponent of drug
legalization, wrote in the Comprehensive Textbook of
Psychiatry, ``Used no more than two or three times a week,
cocaine creates no serious problems.'' Respected medical
researchers believe this article fueled the rise in cocaine use
in this country.
To my family and me, Grinspoon's statement is nothing short
of criminal. Our son Garrett died of cardiac arrest, and though
the only abnormality found during his autopsy was a trace of
cocaine in his urine, we learned later that even a small amount
of cocaine is known to trigger this sort of fatal cardiac
arrest. Similar circumstances occurred in the deaths of
professional athletes Len Bias, Reggie Lewis, and Mark Tuinei.
Lester Grinspoon is but one of many individuals and
organizations that want to see drugs decriminalized as a first
step toward full legalization. People like Grinspoon, Ethan
Nadelmann, Rick Doblin, Eric Sterling, John Morgan, Kevin
Zeese, Keith Stroup, Andrew Weil, Tony Serra, all of whom have
publicly attested to their personal use of illicit drugs, are
at the forefront of the drug legalization/decriminalization
movement in America.
And let's not forget Mark Kleiman. Kleiman was a consultant
to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He not only
advocates legalization of marijuana, but also indicated
publicly that he agrees with Canadian psychiatrist John
Beresford that everyone has the right to use LSD.
Eric Sterling, the admitted pot-smoking head of the
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, talking to a pro-
legalization audience about how to legalize marijuana under the
guise of medicalization, said ``Packaging is important, and
messages get packaged.'' In an article about the marijuana hemp
movement, Sterling was quoted as saying, ``It is the leaky
bucket strategy. Legalize it in one area, and sooner or later
it will trickle down into others.'' We are talking about
legalization of all drugs.
This notion was taken up by international entrepreneur
George Soros, who offered to fund the legalizers if they would
target a few winnable issues like medical marijuana and the
repeal of mandatory minimums. Consequently, the pro-drug lobby
has cut up its agenda into a dozen smaller packages and is busy
trying to dupe the public into accepting the whole pie, one
bite at a time.
Perception of consequences or danger is key. When drug
users suffer no consequences, the behavior appears safe,
acceptable, and spreads unchecked, friend to friend, sibling to
sibling, parent to child. Decriminalization of drugs? Not on
your life. And please, not on the lives of our children.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bennett follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.064
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. I will start with a
couple of questions. First of all, Mr. MacCoun, did I hear the
statistics correct about the Netherlands? Did you say the
Netherlands had allowed up to 30 grams of cannabis until 1995,
and then dropped it to 5?
Mr. MacCoun. To 5 grams. That is, possession of up to 5
grams is not prosecuted.
Mr. Mica. Are you aware why they tightened this up? I
wasn't aware of that.
Mr. MacCoun. It was part of a general tightening up of the
Dutch policy in response to international pressure, both from
the United States and from the Dutch neighbors, France,
Belgium, and Germany.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Stroup, you used the Netherlands as an
example, I think. Is that the model that you would like to see
in the United States? I guess that in the Netherlands it is
still illegal but you can have a small quantity of marijuana.
Mr. Stroup. It is sort of a gray market, Mr. Chairman,
where they allow adults to go to coffee shops, where they can
buy small amounts of marijuana at the coffee shops.
Mr. Mica. They sell----
Mr. Stroup. That is correct. I don't think that is the
perfect solution but I think it is a cease-fire, sort of middle
ground for the moment. What it does is what decriminalization
does generally. It removes the consumer from the threat of
arrest and jail, but it maintains strong criminal sanctions
against commercial sellers. So I think it is a good first step.
Mr. Mica. So your group would still advocate enforcement,
then, of trafficking?
Mr. Stroup. What we would like to see----
Mr. Mica. Someone has to be involved in an illegal process
to get the 5 grams to the coffee shop.
Mr. Stroup. What we would recommend, Mr. Chairman, is that
the government legalize and regulate a market for marijuana so
consumers would have a legal and a safe source to get it, but
we recognize there may always be characters who would sell
beyond that, just as there occasionally are bootleggers that
still operate today, and that would still remain illegal.
Unregulated commercial sales would remain a crime. Regulated
sales would not.
Mr. Mica. Well, to date there have been 11 States, I think
you testified, that have decriminalized or lowered the
penalties. Should this be left up to the States, as opposed to
having the Feds make some decision on this?
Mr. Stroup. Yes, sir. I believe we should follow the same
sort of pattern we did at the end of alcohol prohibition in
1933. As you recall, the Federal Government got out of the
business of enforcing alcohol prohibition. They removed Federal
prohibition, but they did not demand that every State
immediately legalize the sale of alcohol. Some counties in this
country are still dry counties.
I think the correct procedure would be to remove the
antimarijuana law that was passed in 1937 and let the States
experiment with different models. It is the way our Federal
system was designed to work.
Mr. Mica. Now, we have talked about marijuana in this panel
mostly, although Ms. Bennett can certainly testify to the
adverse effects of cocaine. Are you advocating taking the same
position relating to heroin or cocaine?
Mr. Stroup. No. I believe that we have a right as a society
to judge illicit drugs, to some degree, based on their
potential for harm. Quite honestly, of the 13 million illicit
drug users in this country, that is roughly the government
figure, 10 million are just marijuana smokers. There are 3
million that use the more dangerous drugs, cocaine,
amphetamines, and heroin, all the drugs I have heard talked
about today, but 10 million are just marijuana smokers.
So if we simply decriminalized and legalized marijuana, we
would reduce the drug problem in this country enormously,
reduce the number of good, hard-working citizens who are being
dragged through the criminal justice system needlessly, and
then let's see how that system works.
What I do think about the other drugs, cocaine, heroin,
amphetamines, is that for people who use those drugs, if they
have a problem, it is a medical problem. It is not a criminal
justice problem. So what I would suggest is that we legalize
marijuana but that we medicalize the other drugs; that is, we
don't create a market, we don't have a store that sells heroin
or amphetamines, but that when someone is caught with those
drugs, they are put into drug treatment, they are given help.
Mr. Mica. I think one of you cited, maybe it was you also,
Mr. Stroup, that the cocaine--the decline in cocaine arrests,
was that the Federal and State level?
Mr. Stroup. Yes, that is the combination of Federal and
State cocaine and heroin sales arrests. There was a 51 percent
decline in the last decade, at the same time that the emphasis
was placed back on marijuana smokers.
Mr. Mica. The problem with that, I think, if you look at
those statistics, is people have now gone from cocaine to
heroin and methamphetamine.
Mr. Stroup. I would agree. I don't suggest that every law
enforcement officer out there by any means goes out with the
intention of looking for marijuana smokers, but I think when
you have 10 million to 12 million people that smoke on a
regular basis and 20 million marijuana smokers during the
course of a year, the fact is, they are going to run across
large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens who have got a
marijuana joint in their pocket. So the result is, the people
we end up arresting are predominantly marijuana smokers. They
are not heroin addicts, they are not amphetamine sellers,
they're marijuana smokers.
Mr. Mica. Mr. MacCoun, you said you did some studies. Was
that in all 11 States that have changed their laws?
Mr. MacCoun. Yes. There is a small literature now. A number
of both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have looked at
the U.S. experience with the 11 States that decriminalized
marijuana.
Mr. Mica. And you said that there was no difference in the
number of people who went from one drug to another?
Mr. MacCoun. No, that there was no difference between
decriminalizing and non-decriminalizing States in the rates of
marijuana use.
Mr. Mica. What about the question of marijuana being a
gateway drug, as the drug czar testified in our previous panel?
Is there any study or evidence to document that?
Mr. MacCoun. There are two lines of evidence. One is U.S.
research. Some people believe that there is a substitution,
actually a substitution relationship between current marijuana
use and current use of hard drugs, and that decriminalization
of marijuana actually might bring about some reduction in hard
drug use. That is controversial, and that is not accepted by
everyone in the research community.
The other line of research that addresses that question--
first let me say there is clearly a statistical association
between cannabis use and hard drug use. Most people who use
marijuana do not go on to hard drug use, but there is clearly a
statistical association.
The Dutch cite that statistical association as the basis
for their policy. The Dutch believe that the reason there is a
statistical association between using cannabis and using hard
drugs is because once people begin using cannabis, most
cannabis users do not encounter serious health problems as a
result. They also come into contact with drug dealers who sell
hard drugs, and for those two reasons, people start moving on
to harder drugs. What the Dutch wanted to do was separate those
two markets by making cannabis not legally available but de
facto legally available in these coffee shops, so that people
would not come into contact with hard drug users.
In our research we have looked at that question. We do find
some evidence that the probability of going on to hard drug
use, given that you are a marijuana user, is lower in the
Netherlands than in the United States. Whether that is a result
of their policy is hard to say, but statistically fewer people
go on to hard drug use in the Netherlands than in the United
States.
Mr. Mica. Chief Glasscock, what do you think about
legalizing marijuana?
Chief Glasscock. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not--I kid people
and I say----
Mr. Mica. Decriminalizing it, or----
Chief Glasscock. Decriminalizing it or legalizing it I
guess is almost synonymous for me, and I tell people I am just
a plain old chief from Plano, TX, and I am not a scientist or a
researcher.
There are a few things that I do know. I am not aware of
any reputable medical institution that recommends the use or
the decriminalization or the legalization of marijuana. I think
we have had a number of people who take the contrary.
The other is, I don't know of any--and we talk about it for
medicinal purposes--I don't know of any medicine that we smoke,
and I think we only have to look at our history with tobacco
and what we have learned from that, and for us to go and tell,
particularly tell our youth, that smoking marijuana is going to
be OK, to me is indefensible.
I look at what we experience on the streets. Marijuana is
the most commonly used illicit drug among youth. The most
recent survey data that I have out of the Texas school survey
shows that the average age is 13 for a young person to be
starting to use marijuana.
My experience shows me that marijuana is a gateway drug.
The 18 deaths that we have had to deal with in our community
from heroin overdose, they all started with gateway drugs. They
were poly drug users, and every one of them had a history of
marijuana use.
It is just difficult for me to accept the concept of
decriminalization or legalization of the use of marijuana,
particularly in what we are seeing on the streets and among our
young people.
Mr. Mica. Ms. Bennett, a final question: Did your son abuse
any other drugs, other than cocaine, to your knowledge?
Ms. Bennett. Actually, he did not smoke, and was chided
because he did not like alcohol. So in this case, it was the
perception all over the campus and probably throughout the
State that cocaine was neither harmful nor addictive that made
it seem safer than the other drugs, and there was no school
policy against it and no fraternity policy against any sort of
illicit drugs.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to address my question to Dr. MacCoun. The
discussion is very confusing, because as an ordinary person, I
have great difficulty in understanding this one sentence in
your testimony which says that it is important to emphasize
that in decriminalization, the sale and manufacture of the drug
remains illegal and is criminally prosecuted.
Now, I don't understand how the sale and manufacture of a
drug can remain illegal and criminally prosecuted, while at the
same time saying that its use and possession is decriminalized.
How do you get to use marijuana except after a sale and
manufacture?
Mr. MacCoun. Well, clearly in decriminalization regimes,
the marijuana is changing hands through an illegal sale.
Mrs. Mink. Well, isn't the possession and product of
something which is illegal also illegal? Isn't that what we are
taught in law school?
Mr. MacCoun. Well, possession is--I am not a lawyer,
although I am a law professor--but possession is defined----
Mrs. Mink. Are you applauding, Mr. Ose?
Mr. Ose. The fewer attorneys, the better.
Mr. MacCoun. Possession is defined as a separate legal
offense from sale and manufacture, and that has been true----
Mrs. Mink. But it is traceable back to it, and so I don't
understand this argument. I could understand it if you were
arguing that sale and manufacture for personal use or something
like that is perfectly legal and would not be prosecuted, but
when you argue that under your concept the sale and manufacture
remains illegal and is criminally prosecuted, it is absolutely
confusing.
Mr. MacCoun. I want to clarify, this--I am not arguing a
concept. I am simply describing the state of the laws in 11
States.
Mrs. Mink. But I am trying to----
Mr. MacCoun. I quite accept your point that there is an
ambiguity there, and I find the Dutch policy even more
ambiguous. The Dutch are willing to live with that ambiguity.
Probably the least ambiguous version of decriminalization
would be the South Australia version, which was also the regime
in Alaska for some years. That is, personal cultivation of
small amounts was not criminalized. Again, trying to break up
the black market by getting people to grow their own marijuana
if they were going to use it.
I am not here to advocate that the policy should be
ambiguous or not ambiguous. I am simply describing factually
the state of law in 11 States in this country.
Mrs. Mink. The 11 States adhere to that ambiguity?
Mr. MacCoun. Yes, that is right; 11 States adhere to that
ambiguity. It is not an unprecedented ambiguity. We have
similar ambiguity in our enforcement of other vices. Whether
that is a good thing or a bad----
Mrs. Mink. But does that ambiguity then lead to even
greater confusion among our young people, when we are trying to
say to them that they ought not start this habit? Because I
assume in your testimony that you are not advocating the use of
marijuana, you are just analyzing the circumstances that
exist----
Mr. MacCoun. That is correct.
Mrs. Mink [continuing]. In our society. So wouldn't you
also then conclude that this ambiguity creates even greater
confusion in our teenage population when faced with this
dichotomy?
Mr. MacCoun. I think that is a very plausible argument.
However, I think that empirically, if it were true that
decriminalizing marijuana implied endorsement of marijuana, we
would expect to see an increase in marijuana use in the
decriminalizing States, and we didn't see any such increase.
Mrs. Mink. What about increases in the use of other illegal
drugs as a result of this ambiguity with regard to marijuana in
those 11 States?
Mr. MacCoun. Those States do not have higher levels of hard
drug use than nondecriminalizing States.
Mrs. Mink. Now, what accounted for the increase in the use
of marijuana under the Dutch policy?
Mr. MacCoun. Well, it's--the evidence I cited is
correlational and not causal. Nevertheless, we believe--we
contend in our analysis that the most likely explanation for
the increase--and I want to be clear this is an increase that
occurred during the 1980's--that it coincided with an increase
in the number of commercial coffee shops selling cannabis.
We think that correlation is probably not a coincidence;
that in fact commercial promotion led to an increase in use.
Prior to that time, when the Dutch stopped incarcerating
offenders for marijuana possession, but there weren't coffee
shops, we saw no effect in Dutch cannabis statistics. Which
leads us to the conclusion that the decriminalization aspect
per se had little or no effect, but that the commercialization
of cannabis has led to an increase in cannabis consumption in
the Netherlands.
Mrs. Mink. As a researcher, would you be concerned at all
about the statistics which were just released today by the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University, which cites the fact that almost 88,000 teenagers
were admitted for treatment for abuse or addiction to
marijuana?
Mr. MacCoun. Of course I am greatly concerned by that.
Mrs. Mink. Well, how would----
Mr. MacCoun. I haven't seen the report, but I think that
there is evidence that--I certainly would not contend that
cannabis is not harmful, and I have not contended so today.
There are risks associated with cannabis. We also know that
most people who use cannabis do not get involved in serious,
harmful consequences, so the risks are less serious than for
cocaine or heroin, but cannabis is a harmful drug.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to pursue
the lawyer question----
Mrs. Mink. Careful, I am a lawyer.
Mr. Ose. Well, you are one of the good ones, though, of
course.
First, I'd like to clarify something. Somebody, I don't
recall who, made a comment about studies commissioned under
President Nixon and ratified under Carter, and the current
President and Vice President and former Speaker of the House
making comments about marijuana use.
No. 1, I didn't vote for Nixon, who commissioned the
initial study. I didn't vote for Carter, who ratified it, and I
certainly didn't vote for President Clinton or Vice President
Gore, who admitted to using it, and I never voted for former
Speaker Gingrich, who also admitted using it. I want to be
clear that that kind of an argument really doesn't hold water
with me.
However, let me go on to the substance of my questions. If
I understand correctly, Mr. Stroup, from your testimony,
there's 18 to 20----
Mr. Stroup. Million people who have smoked in the last
year.
Mr. Ose. Yes, 18 to 20 million who have smoked during the
last year.
Mr. Stroup. Right.
Mr. Ose. Thirty-two percent of the voting adults
acknowledging having smoked marijuana at some point in their
lives. That means that there is roughly 230 or 240 million who
haven't smoked during the last year, and roughly 68 percent of
the voting adults in the country who haven't smoked marijuana
at some point in their lives. I am just doing the simple math.
Mr. Stroup. I am not sure about your math, but at least it
is true that if you have one-third of the eligible voters who
have smoked, there are two-thirds who have not.
Mr. Ose. Right. Well, that is my point. So the question I
come to is that when I look at your cover letter here, the
third line describes you as a nonprofit public interest lobby,
and I am trying to figure out what do those 230 or 240 million
people, or those 68 percent of the voting adults--why should I
subsidize an organization such as yours?
Mr. Stroup. Well, I think that if you believe the current
policies are ineffective and costly and counter-productive,
then there is an obligation to look for alternative policies.
We are simply suggesting that we can decriminalize marijuana,
we can reduce the number of good, honest, hard-working
Americans who are needlessly dragged through the criminal
justice system, and there are no apparent down sides to that
change.
Mr. Ose. I have learned in politics to never let an
arguable position go unchallenged, and I would challenge you on
your position that decriminalization has no negative impact.
For instance, can you tell me whether or not NORML has any
epidemiological data regarding the use of marijuana by pregnant
women?
Mr. Stroup. No. There certainly has been research done by
the Federal Government and others on that question, and there
is no indication to date that marijuana smoking has any impact
on pregnant women or on newborns that have been born to
pregnant women who have smoked marijuana. It is not a smart
thing to do. I think most of us would suggest that you not
drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or smoke marijuana when you are
pregnant.
Mr. Ose. How can you say it is not a smart thing to do? You
have no data on which to base that comment.
Mr. Stroup. Well, certainly. Smoking itself is unhealthy.
We know that when pregnant women drink alcohol, for example,
there is fetal alcohol syndrome. The suggestion would be that
if there is any time when a person should be extremely
healthful, it would be during pregnancy when you are carrying a
child.
The idea here is not to turn on America or to increase the
number of drug users in America; it is to minimize the harm of
our current antidrug policies.
Mr. Ose. Actually, my objective here is to eliminate the
drug use or abuse of any----
Mr. Stroup. Well, good luck, it has never happened in the
history of mankind, and I suspect you will be frustrated.
Mr. Ose. It is all right, I am young.
Mr. Stroup. And optimistic.
Mr. Ose. Now, from where does NORML obtain its function for
operations?
Mr. Stroup. Private contributions. We get people who agree
with our position and who appreciate the work we do, and they
contribute money. We are a 501(c)(4). It is not tax deductible.
It is a contribution----
Mr. Ose. That was my next question.
Mr. Stroup. No, we are not. We do have a tax-exempt side, a
501(c)(3) NORML Foundation, but the NORML Foundation can do no
lobbying. It is simply an educational foundation.
Mr. Ose. The activities that the foundation engages in
range what gamut?
Mr. Stroup. Public education, primarily. We do some public
advertising, some campaigns in which we try to get our
viewpoint out. We also provide legal assistance to people who
have been arrested on the marijuana penalties and need help
either finding a good lawyer or raising a valid defense. In
particular, most of the legal defense is provided to those who
are medical users of marijuana but who have been prosecuted
under State law.
Mr. Ose. So if I understand correctly, the 501(c)(3)
organization does enjoy certain tax advantages that could
arguably be used to further the ``agenda'' that some of us,
wherever we might sit today, find objectionable.
Mr. Stroup. Well, if we filed what is called a 501(h)
election--I hate to be too technical, but that is the provision
under the IRS Code where even a foundation can do a modest
amount of lobbying--we would be entitled to do that. We have
not filed a 501(h) election.
The NORML Foundation does no lobbying or policy work at
all. We simply do research and education and legal support.
Now, you might not agree with the legal support we are
providing, I understand, but that is what is great about this
country, is it is a free country.
Mr. Ose. I am trying to find out why I would agree to any
such educational program, the consequence of which might be
adverse to my 6 and 4-year-old, 5 years, 5 months, 5 days from
now.
Mr. Stroup. I don't think that telling the truth about
marijuana and marijuana policy is detrimental to anyone,
including your 5 and 6-year-olds. We are trying to counter a
``reefer madness'' misinformation campaign that the State and
Federal Governments have been involved in now for 60 years, and
many of you in Congress are still involved in. So I don't think
you should fear the facts.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, I see the red light. I regret my
time has passed. However, I do want to again subscribe to the
theory of letting no suggestion go unchallenged. I want to
refute, as best I can today, simply that I am not a subscriber
to the fact that marijuana has no adverse consequences. I
happen to think it does have adverse consequences, and I
appreciate the opportunity to participate today.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Cummings, did you have any questions for this panel?
Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am always intrigued by your efforts to get away from the
term ``legalization.'' When did this term ``decriminalization''
first come into popular usage? Was it you that developed that
for a euphemism?
Mr. Stroup. To me, Mr. Barr?
Mr. Barr. Yes.
Mr. Stroup. No. The first time I had heard of that word was
in 1972, when the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug
Abuse came out with it. In fact, I think for most of us it
seemed like a strange term, and we weren't quite sure what they
meant until we had read the report.
Mr. Barr. You embrace it now?
Mr. Stroup. I do embrace it. I think it is a common sense
recommendation that has worked well in the 11 States that have
had that policy in effect now for 25-plus years.
Mr. Barr. What are the other two States? There are nine of
them listed here, in somebody's paper here.
Mr. Stroup. I have a foot----
Mr. Barr. It says 11, and then the footnote only lists
nine: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota----
Mr. Stroup. If you will look on footnote 3 of my statement,
you will see 11 States listed there.
Mr. Barr. All right. Your colleague might want to check
that out. He only has nine listed.
Mr. Stroup. Well, mine has 11.
Mr. Barr. OK. Maybe we will split the difference, I don't
know. But this term ``decriminalization,'' I mean, I can
understand why you embrace it and like to use it, because it
sounds like something less than ``legalization.'' I do think it
is sort of splitting hairs and is simply sort of a Clintonesque
way of describing something to make it appear different from
what it really is.
Mr. Stroup. Could I explain in one sentence the difference
between----
Mr. Barr. The--sure.
Mr. Stroup. The difference in----
Mr. Barr. It means reducing penalties.
Mr. Stroup. No, no. There really is a subject matter
difference, as well.
Mr. Barr. I was just quoting one of your papers here.
Mr. Stroup. On the first page of my statement, in fact,
what we talk about is--decriminalization removes the user, the
consumer, from the threat of arrest or jail. However,
commercial sellers would still be subject to arrest and jail
just like they are now. Legalization----
Mr. Barr. What would be the legal basis on which you could
do that? Say somebody can use a substance, in this case
marijuana, say, without any threat of any penalty, but the
person that gives it to him or sells it to him would be subject
to penalties.
Mr. Stroup. Well, the most obvious prohibition was alcohol
prohibition from 1919 to 1933. You are young enough that you
wouldn't remember that, I expect, but the reality is, it was
never illegal to possess or drink alcohol during alcohol
prohibition. It was illegal to sell it commercially. You were
even allowed to make several--I forget the quantity, 50 pounds
or something, of alcohol in your own home during alcohol
prohibition, so there is precedent there.
Mr. Barr. Does there, in terms of that precedent, lie the
fallacy of saying that decriminalization isn't, in and of
itself--just if you characterize prohibition as
decriminalization of alcohol from that standpoint, it didn't
work, I presume.
Mr. Stroup. I am delighted to hear you say that, Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. This is all hypothetical, but I am certainly not
arguing to, you know, change our alcohol laws. The use of
alcohol, when it measurably and demonstrably impairs a person's
ability to act and react to the work around them, is criminal.
Mr. Stroup. And so should marijuana remain.
Mr. Barr. Well, and therein, I suppose, lies the
distinction, whether or not one can smoke some joints and not
have their ability to react to the world around them impaired
to the extent that it poses a danger, but I don't want to get
into that debate. I would disagree with you on that, but I
understand the distinction there.
But it seems to me that if you are saying, ``Well,
decriminalization didn't work with regard to alcohol back in
the days of prohibition, but we want to try it now for
marijuana,'' you probably would conclude that it is not going
to work with marijuana either if we go that route. You are
going to run into all sorts of, I suppose, equal protection
problems. You are going to run into all sorts of enforcement
problems, and then the next step would be, ``Well, let's, you
know, legalize it. Let's just legalize it.''
Mr. Stroup. In fact, on the first page of my statement, you
will see that we do, in fact, favor eventual legalization of
marijuana. By that I mean the distinction is, the government
would actually legalize and regulate a market so consumers
could buy marijuana in a safe setting.
Now, I think that is going to take some time before we are
going to get there, but I think eventually we need to do that
in order to deal with the attendant violence and crime
associated with any unregulated and uncontrolled black market.
The reason alcohol prohibition was such a failure, in addition
to the fact that you had millions of citizens who wanted to
drink whether or not the government wanted them to, was because
of the crime associated with the prohibition, and the same
thing is true with marijuana prohibition.
Most of the ills that result from marijuana prohibition are
what bother everybody about marijuana. It is not the marijuana,
it is the prohibition. When you have large amounts of money in
a totally unregulated setting----
Mr. Barr. Well, no. I mean, that depends on who you talk
to. When I talk to my colleagues and parents and people in my
district, it is not the enforcement that bothers them, it is
what it does to people's minds and the danger that it poses,
because they do believe that there are dangers and adverse
consequences that affect a person who smokes marijuana.
I was intrigued, though, by one comment you made in your
answer, I think, to a question from my colleague from
California regarding smoking. Would you concede--I wrote down
here, and I extrapolated from something that you said--would
you concede that smoking marijuana is at least as harmful as
smoking tobacco?
Mr. Stroup. No. I think actually the research shows that it
is not as harmful as smoking tobacco. However, I would concede
that it is harmful to bring smoke into your lungs, and we
should generally discourage those kinds of activities. But we
don't have to pass a criminal law----
Mr. Barr. If we are going to decriminalize marijuana, then
if smoking tobacco is even worse than that, then we ought to
make smoking tobacco illegal.
Mr. Stroup. It sounds like many of you in Congress are
heading that way, but I would certainly advise against it.
Mr. Barr. Not this Member.
Mr. Stroup. No, no. You are from Georgia, I know.
Mr. Barr. But, anyway, I appreciate you being here. It is a
very interesting discussion. I doubt that I will convince you
of anything, and vice versa, but I do appreciate you being
here.
Mr. Mica. Did you have any additional questions?
Mrs. Mink. No.
Mr. Mica. I think today we have had several sides
presented, and Mr. MacCoun has tried to present the facts as he
sees them. We appreciate that. I don't know if we have reached
any conclusions. Sometimes they try to portray, I guess, drug
use as a right and drug abuse as a victimless crime. I think
you would probably have to disagree with that, Ms. Bennett,
wouldn't you?
Ms. Bennett. Could I make one statement?
Mr. Mica. Yes. We will give you the last word.
Ms. Bennett. I am from the Pacific Northwest, from Oregon,
and I know, because I have been working in prevention since
1988, that drug use increased dramatically when marijuana was
decriminalized, and California experienced an 81 percent
increase after decriminalization, and in Alaska it became so
bad after they legalized it that they recriminalized it a
couple of years ago. So we are looking at a different set of
facts, and there really can only be one set of facts. The rest
of it is just balderdash.
And I would say one other thing: that if you got anyone in
this room on the stand and asked them if they ever stole
anything, I am sure most people in their youth have tried that
once or twice. It doesn't mean that we abandoned the laws
against--enforcing that there is no theft, that thievery and
robbery is a crime. Just because as children we might have done
that or made that mistake, does not mean that we should
legalize it or decriminalize robbery.
And I think when we see these people who in their youth
tried an illicit drug or did an illicit act, that it falls in
that same category. It doesn't mean that we should go on to
legalize bad behavior.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Barr, you had one last question?
Mr. Barr. Just one question: Is Geraldo Rivera still on
your advisory board?
Mr. Stroup. No, Mr. Barr. He was, at some time in the
1970's, but I have not actually seen or spoken to Mr. Geraldo
for 15 years. He has not been for a long time.
Mr. Barr. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just
have a very brief question and comment for Ms. Bennett.
Ms. Bennett, I agree with what you just said. I don't know
if most of America--as a matter of fact, I know most of America
doesn't see what I see in my neighborhood, and a lot of the
young people in my neighborhood got started on drugs through
marijuana and smoking.
And if you were to tour my neighborhood in Baltimore, you
would see within a block of my house around about this time of
day, maybe 100 people, young people, standing around in a
stupor. Not in school, should be in school. And many of these
young people I have known all their lives. Young girls at 14
and 15 years old who will commit any sexual act you request for
$5. That is the part America doesn't see. Maybe that hasn't
gotten to certain parts of America, but it can get there.
And, you know, when you talk about decriminalization, not
you but just this whole idea of decriminalization and
legalization and all of this, you know, there may be something
to that for medical purposes. I don't know. But when I see the
pain on the one hand, and what happens to people, and not just
young people, and when I consider the pain, the pain to the
families; our court systems being literally clogged. I mean,
you can't even--you can barely get a civil case done because
there are so many criminal cases, and 85 to 90 percent of them
are because of drugs.
When I took a relative to the emergency room the other
night, I mean, I literally sat there for about 5 hours, from
about 1 o'clock a.m., to about 6, and I was just talking to the
ambulance personnel as they were bringing people in, and the
guy told me, he says, ``You know, 85 to 90 percent of all the
cases who come through this facility are drug-related.''
And our society is paying a very, very high price, and I
think it is very easy sometimes when we sit back and we make
these philosophical statements about the legalization and
decriminalization. But I am going to tell you, when you see the
human toll, when you see the loss of life as you have seen and
felt, when you go to the funerals like I do, because of folks
arguing over who is going to sell drugs on what corner, when
you see mothers cry, when you see classmates come, taking time
out from their classes, to stand over caskets after people have
been shot to death over drugs, I am telling you, it is not a
pretty picture. It is a very painful picture.
And a lot of their lives are basically, their potential is
being snuffed out. When I go to a high school graduation
sometimes, I went to several this past June, and you know, when
people get to a point where literally they almost explode over
the fact that their children are graduating--in other words,
they see so much hell coming at them, and they are able to get
around all of these roadblocks and graduate from high school,
it is almost like the highest religious experience you have
ever had. And at one school it was only 20 percent of the kids
who started in the 9th grade, who graduated by the end of the
12th.
And so my point is, that there is a lot of pain out here so
if we are going to talk about decriminalization and all that
kind of stuff, you know, I just want you to know that, I mean,
I look at this thing as a health issue--the whole drug thing,
we need more treatment, and I will say this over and over
again, for people who may become addicted. But we also have to
look at the pain that is brought upon communities.
Now, there was a time that people in the suburbs weren't
talking about this. Let's be frank. And now that it has
infiltrated every nook and cranny of this country. And I know
about Plano, TX. They had a thing on one of the national shows
not long ago, and I am telling you, I was spellbound. I mean, I
just couldn't--as a matter of fact, Congresswoman Maxine Waters
and I said maybe we need to go down there and try to help out,
because we understand the pain.
So hopefully America will wake up and understand that what
is happening is that we are snuffing out not a generation but
generations of people. And I want to thank you for your
testimony. I am sorry I missed it earlier, but I just wanted to
say that. I mean, a lot of times people, they don't see. They
don't see all that.
And sometimes--and then I will end with this, Mr. Chairman.
You know, Martin Luther King, Sr., said something that is so
special. He said you cannot lead where you do not go, and you
cannot teach what you do not know. And I think sometimes when
you
walk the path, as you have, and seen the pain and understood
it, and then taken that pain and turned it around and used it
as a passport to help other people, you ought to be applauded.
And I thank you, and I just want you to know I am on your side.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.065
Mr. Mica. Thank you, and I want to thank each of our
panelists for being with us today, for participating in this
discussion and providing us with testimony.
I might say, when I was a freshman in Congress, from 1993
to 1995, we had one hearing on national drug policy. So we at
least have attempted to try to open the debate and the
discussion here and hopefully enlightened both the Congress and
the American people about this subject, and we appreciate your
helping us in that regard.
Thank you. We will let this panel be excused.
I will call the third panel, consisting of Mr. Charles J.
Hynes, the district attorney of Kings County, NY. I believe he
is going to talk about the DTAP program.
Ms. Katherine Lapp, director of Criminal Justice, the
Office of the Governor of New York, and I think New York has
completed one of the most recent surveys relating to crime and
incarceration.
Then we have Ms. Barbara Broderick, director of Adult
Services of the Administrative Office of the Courts, and she is
with the State of Arizona, and we are pleased to have her.
There has been much discussion nationally about what is going
on in Arizona, and I think this should be one of the most
interesting panels that we have had in all of our sessions this
year.
I am pleased that you are joining us. As I indicated, this
is an investigations and oversight subcommittee of Congress.
Please stand and be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Witnesses answered in the affirmative,
and we would be glad to include lengthy statements in the
record upon request. We do ask that you summarize. I got a
little bit lax in the last panel, but we will try to ask you to
summarize in 5 minutes or so, if you can, and that will leave
us time for questions. But we do appreciate your being with us,
and I will recognize first Mr. Charles J. Hynes, district
attorney of Kings County, NY. You are recognized, sir, and
welcome.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES J. HYNES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KINGS
COUNTY, NY; KATHERINE N. LAPP, NEW YORK STATE DIRECTOR OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE; AND BARBARA A. BRODERICK, STATE DIRECTOR OF
ADULT PROBATION, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, ARIZONA
SUPREME COURT
Mr. Hynes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mica,
members of the committee, and good afternoon. I would
respectfully submit my full statement for the record in
addition to these charts which deal with employment and
recidivism as a result of our drug treatment program, which is
what I am going to talk about.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, they will all be made part of
our record.
Mr. Hynes. Thank you. And I am very, very pleased to be
with both Ms. Lapp and Ms. Broderick. We are all New Yorkers.
Arizona stole Ms. Broderick, and we miss her in New York. Katie
Lapp is, of course, the Governor's chief adviser in criminal
justice and an old friend of mine.
I want to share some ideas I have with the committee on
drug treatment alternatives to prisons and drug treatment
alternatives to criminalization. But, first, just a brief
moment on some background.
I became the district attorney in Kings County, Brooklyn,
NY, more than 10 years ago. My county had become the fifth most
violent municipality per capita in the United States. Our
population of 2.3 million people witnessed the horror of the
murders of between 750 and 800 men, women, and children between
1988 and 1992. In one particularly tragic year, 129 of our
children, 17 years or younger, were murdered in Brooklyn. When
we assessed the reasons for the carnage, it led immediately to
the conclusion that drug-related crime, which rose from 15
percent of all arrests in 1975, in New York City, to nearly 85
percent in 1989, was directly responsible.
It is very clear that the proliferation of drugs always
leads to the creation of profit-motivated drug gangs who arm
themselves to protect their product. Out of that violence,
every neighborhood, village, town, and city is soon threatened
with the same crisis level that Brooklyn faced in the late
1980's and early 1990's when the phrase ``drive-by shootings''
became a common part of our lexicon.
To deal with the crisis, we considered several options, the
goal of which was to reduce the demand for drugs. And I should
add that we never considered decriminalization as an option for
a host of reasons, not the least of which is the inevitability
of an illicit drug market controlled by the same drug dealers
who sell drugs today. But I will leave that for others to
expand the reasons against decriminalization because the
initiatives we formulated in Brooklyn, in my view, moots the
issue. The bi-level option we did choose was, first, an
aggressive prosecutorial approach to nonaddicted drug
traffickers. We throw the key away. If you get caught in my
county and you are selling drugs and you are not a drug addict,
we will send you to prison as long as we can. For example, if
you are a trafficker caught selling more than 2 ounces of
heroin or cocaine, you face a minimum period of 15 years to
life in prison. But the second part of our option was to offer
a treatment alternative prison to non-violent drug-addicted
defendants who are facing sentences as high as 4\1/2\ to 9
years in prison as second felony offenders.
This second prong of our strategy, drug treatment, begun in
late 1990, was the first ever prosecution controlled drug
treatment program in the United States, and it is called DTAP,
the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison.
The program has been adopted by all five district attorneys
of New York City and various counties in the other parts of New
York State, and it identifies prison-bound, non-violent,
second-felony offenders who commit drug crimes in order to
support their habit. Facing mandatory prison time, these
defendants are thus motivated to choose diversion into long-
term treatment, and our office does the screening for
suitability. We make the appropriate placement in a residential
therapeutic community, and we monitor the progress. And if they
succeed, generally, in a 2-year period, we dismiss the charges.
Our office also takes control over getting them jobs and making
sure they continue with their jobs.
But if they withdraw from the program, they are returned to
the court by a special arrest team, and they are sentenced to
State prison on the plea that they originally made in court--
with no credit for time served in our program.
DTAP has a 1-year retention rate of 66 percent, which is
considerably higher than the national average. Three years
after treatment, only 23 percent of our graduates have been re-
arrested, compared to 48 percent of those defendants who spent
a comparable amount of time in prison on drug charges. Of our
398 graduates to date, we have saved New York State more than
$14 million in reduced criminal justice costs, health costs,
and welfare costs. What is more, the graduates pay taxes, an
average of $2,000 in Federal, State, and local taxes every
year.
Based on our experience in Brooklyn, now for nearly 10
years, I can tell you there is another way to use existing drug
laws to accomplish beneficial results without
decriminalization. I agree with the critics of New York State's
so-called Rockefeller drug laws that it makes no sense to
simply warehouse non-violent drug abuses with long prison
sentences. But rather than continuing the never-ending debate
over the efficacy of long prison sentences for junkies who
recycle drugs to other junkies to support their habit, we can
use these harsh laws to encourage addicts to opt for treatment.
Indeed, these laws should be changed, in my view, only where
treatment is mandated.
Today, we were asked by your staff, Chairman Mica, to put a
face on this, and we brought a very, very fine face, a young
man who joined our program in 1992 and is a proud 1995 graduate
of DTAP, Mr. Frederick Cohen, who is with me. I hope you will
give him a chance to say a few words sometime during this
presentation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hynes follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.076
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Did you want to identify the
individual?
Mr. Hynes. This young gentleman right here.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. We will go through the panel first. We
will recognize now Ms. Katherine Lapp, director of Criminal
Justice, Office of the Governor of New York.
Ms. Lapp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
inviting me here this morning to talk about the topic of
decriminalization of illegal drugs.
I would like to focus my remarks principally on the
experience of New York State in addressing illicit drug use and
drug-driven crime. Over the last several years, there has been
much debate in New York State about the efficacy of our drug
laws, oftentimes referred to as the Rockefeller drug laws,
which were enacted in 1973, in response to the onslaught of
drugs and drug-driven crime. Drug law reform advocates have
argued that the drug laws have done little to remove drugs from
our communities and have only served to imprison low-level drug
addicts in our State's prison system for lengthy periods of
time. Advocates also argue that the laws should be repealed in
whole or in part and replaced with a system to provide
treatment for all drug-addicted criminals.
My response to this position is twofold: First, the facts
do not bear out the position that there are thousands of low-
level drug-addicted offenders sentenced each year to State
prison for lengthy periods of time on charges of pure
possession of small amounts of drugs. Second, New York State
has developed a rather sophisticated and progressive system for
providing drug treatment options and alternatives to
incarceration programs for dealing with drug-addicted non-
violent offenders. The success of that system, however, is
premised, in large part, on the fact that these offenders are
motivated to take advantage of treatment options in order to
avoid mandatory prison terms.
In a recent report issued by my office entitled, ``Narrow
Pathways to Prison: The Selective Incarceration of Repeat Drug
Offenders in New York State,'' we have documented that less
than 10 percent of persons with no prior felony record arrested
each year in New York State for a felony-level drug offenses
received sentences of State imprisonment; the balance received
sentences of local jail time or probation. When we analyzed the
group who were sentenced to State prison, we learned that 49
percent had been arrested for a Class A-1 drug offense. Of
those charged with lesser offenses, 48 percent had one or more
bench warrants issued against them while they were out on
pretrial release awaiting disposition of the drug charge.
Mr. Mica. Excuse me, could you tell us what is a Class A-1
drug offense?
Ms. Lapp. Sure. In New York State, a Class A-1 drug
offense, is sale of 2 ounces or more of a narcotic substance or
possession of 4 ounces or more of a narcotic drug. In addition,
57 percent were arrested at least once while out on pretrial
release.
We also undertook a random review of the case files for
these first-time felony drug offenders sentenced to State
prison and, in what I believe is a very persuasive way,
documented the various reasons why they were sent to State
prison. In simple terms, the offenders gave the judges little
choice as they consistently and routinely ``thumbed their
nose'' at the system and showed little remorse for their
actions or interest in seeking treatment. And, finally, those
sentenced to State prison served an average of 13 months in
prison--hardly the lengthy sentences which drug reform
advocates suggest.
As for repeat drug offenders, our report also documented
that only 30 percent of persons with prior felony arrest
histories who were arrested on a drug felony charge actually
received a sentence of State imprisonment.
Now, there are roughly 22,000 individuals currently serving
time in New York State prisons for drug offenses, and we have
roughly a population of over 70,000 inmates in our prison
system. Eighty-seven percent of the 22,000 are actually serving
time for selling drugs, not mere possession, and over 70
percent have one or more felony convictions in their record. Of
those persons serving time for drug possession charges, 76
percent were actually arrested on sale or intent to sell
charges and pled down to possession.
It is also significant to note that despite 15 years of
continuous increases in the number of non-violent offenders
sentenced to New York State prison, we have begun to witness a
stabilization and, in fact, a slight decline in the number of
non-violent offenders in State prison. Between 1982 and 1995,
the number of non-violent offenders in New York State prisons
increased four-fold, from 8,200 in 1982 to 34,000 in 1996. But
from 1996 to 1997, we witnessed a slight decline, actually
about 1,000 offenders, in the number of non-violent offenders
coming into our custody.
Now, that stabilization can be directly attributed to a
variety of initiatives that have diverted these otherwise
prison-bound offenders into alternative treatment programs.
These programs include drug courts, the DTAP program, initiated
by District Attorney Hynes in Kings County and now replicated
by numerous prosecutors throughout the State, and the State
Willard Drug Treatment Facility, implemented by Governor Pataki
to provide a 90-day drug treatment program in a secure facility
for D and E repeat non-violent drug offenders who would
otherwise be prison-bound. Governor Pataki also implemented a
merit time program for incarcerated non-violent offenders which
allows these offenders to be considered for early parole
release if they take part in and successfully complete in-
prison substance abuse treatment programs.
Each of these treatment alternatives and early release
programs have varying degrees of success in terms of reduced
recidivism rates, perhaps the most successful being the DTAP
program which reports a recidivism rate of roughly 10 percent
among its graduates after only 1 year. What is oftentimes
overlooked in analyzing the success of these programs, however,
is the fact that the program participants are motivated to
address their substance abuse because of the lengthy prison
terms which loom over them. In fact, in a recent Wall Street
Journal article regarding this very issue, Dr. Mitchell
Rosenthal, head of the Phoenix House national drug treatment
organization, which participates in the DTAP program, noted
that the State's tough drug laws have ``diverted lots of people
into treatment who wouldn't otherwise go into treatment.''
I would submit that those who advocate a wholesale repeal
of New York State's drug laws in favor of treatment for
substance-abusing offenders actually miss the point or fail to
appreciate or choose to ignore the realities of the system.
Perhaps the most compelling argument in favor of maintaining
tough drug laws as a way to motivate substance-abusing
offenders is found in the reports of the Kings County DTAP
program. On average, over 30 percent of the defendants screened
and deemed eligible for the DTAP program actually declined to
participate in the 18-month residential program, opting instead
to go to State prison. This despite the fact, as District
Attorney Hynes noted, if they successfully complete the
program, the charges will be dropped and wiped off their
record. Now, I submit, what are we to do with these categories
of offenders in the absence of mandatory minimums? Return them
to the community? I think not.
In recent years, changes have been made to the New York
State drug laws to permit certain non-violent offenders to be
diverted from prison into treatment programs--two examples
mentioned, the Willard Drug Treatment Facility and the merit
time program. Those programs, along with DTAP, incorporate a
``tough but smart'' approach to criminal justice and substance
abuse. Wholesale repeal of drug laws is a simplistic and
irresponsible approach to our country's drug problem--
simplistic because it ignores the reality of drug use and
irresponsible because it would only serve to fuel crime in our
communities.
The intrinsic link between crime and drugs is indisputable,
as any member of this Nation's law enforcement community will
attest. The 1998 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring program report
issued by the National Institute of Justice documented that an
estimated 80 percent of persons arrested each year in New York
City, regardless of charge, tested positive for drugs. It is
also no coincidence that when the New York City Police
Department in 1994, began implementing a targeted and
comprehensive policing strategy aimed at the street drug trade
in some of the highest crime areas in that city, those
communities witnessed unprecedented reductions in crime--
reductions, I might add, which outpaced those in other areas of
the city. This same trend has been witnessed throughout the
Nation, as noted in the 1999 National Drug Control Strategy
report, which reported that drug-related murders decreased by
42 percent from 1991 to 1997, as drug arrests increased by 57
percent during that period.
So, in closing, I would submit that our drug laws work and
the effective drug treatment options we have operating in New
York State for drug-addicted offenders are successful because
of them. Repeal or wholesale revisions to those laws would only
serve to undermine the successes we have enjoyed over the last
several years in New York State, with index crime down by 28
percent since 1994, more than four times the national average,
and our communities being the safest they have been since the
1960's.
Thank you once again for inviting me here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lapp follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.095
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
We will recognize now Ms. Barbara Broderick, director of
Adult Services, Administrative Office of the Courts, from
Arizona.
Ms. Broderick. Thank you, chairman and members of the
committee. I would ask to have my written testimony submitted.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, we will make that part of the
record. And if you would just pull that mic as close as
possible, we will be able to hear.
Ms. Broderick. Sure.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Ms. Broderick. I also will attempt to shorten my version.
I am not here to discuss decriminalization of drugs but
rather, to relate to you a strategy that I think is very
promising to taxpayers and to public safety. It is a system
that talks about strong probation with available and effective
drug treatment services. One point I have to make very clear:
while the courts can provide you with information, basically,
on drugs and about drug offenders, we take no position in terms
of legalization. That rightfully belongs with the legislative
and the executive branches of Government.
I am the director, as you stated, of probation programs at
the State level in Arizona. Our probation system is very
different than a lot of other States. We are under the auspices
of the judiciary, and we have a decentralized system with the
15 counties. Each chief probation officer reports directly to
the presiding judge of our superior court.
Another thing that is very fortunate about Arizona, we have
a very well-funded probation system. I grant you it has
probably one of the best supervision and control mechanisms in
the Nation. We have in statute for standard supervision, 1
officer to 60 adults. For our youth, it is 1 officer to 35. For
our high-risk felons, it is 2 to 25. When you have a system
like that, what you start to look for is how do you actually
bring in the treatment services. That is what was lacking in
Arizona.
In 1996, the citizens passed Proposition 200, better known
as the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act. This
particular act, I am happy to say, gave us the ability to bring
in more drug treatment dollars to the courts, close to $3.1
million. It also brought in another $3.1 million to a parents
commission that basically deals with prevention. And it brought
in another $2.7 million to our Department of Corrections to
actually place programs in the facilities to deal with
substance abuse.
In Arizona, not unlike the rest of the Nation, two out of
three people on community supervision have a substance abuse
problem. We also have the ability to use the National Institute
of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program, better
known as ADAM, and if you look at the 1998 annual report, you
will see that Phoenix is listed. Basically, 63 percent of the
men who are arrested test positive for drugs, and more
alarming, perhaps, is the fact that 71 percent of the women
also test positive for drugs.
The first report I am going to talk to you about--and I
will be talking about two--is going to be dealing with what we
call the Drug Treatment and Education Fund. This is the fund
that was made available through Proposition 200 and came into
the probation system.
First, and probably most importantly, the DTEF--as we call
it, very similar to DTAP--hypothesis is: If substance-abusing
offenders can be accurately and effectively assessed as to the
risk and degree of substance abuse, and these offenders can be
matched with effective treatment interventions determined
through research to confront their presenting problems, and
supervised closely by probation, then substance-abusing
behaviors can be reduced or eliminated, offenders' quality of
life will improve through recovery, community safety will
increase, and incarceration will be primarily reserved for the
violent and chronic offender.
Now, one problem that emerged with the passage of DTEF was
the idea that we could not use jail as a sanction for
revocation. One of the fallacies to that--and that has been a
part of what the national press has talked about--is we can--it
is at the discretion of the judge. At the time he or she
decides to sentence, they can impose up to a year of jail time
as a condition of probation. And when we find people in non-
compliant behavior, we can go back to the court and ask the
court to impose a sanction of jail.
We have also gotten very creative because, as a part of the
DTEF, we are not allowed to send back first and second non-
violent possessing offenders to prison. So we have gotten very
creative in terms of the sanctions that we will use. We have
done things like move people into intensive probation. We have
moved them into day reporting. There is nothing worse than
having to come down to a probation office at 7:30 a.m., and
7:30 p.m. We have also established more and more programs.
Now, our first year, the accomplishments were very
encouraging. We created basically 2,600 more treatment slots,
and they range from everything from education classes right on
through to long-term residential beds. Arizona is a rural
State. We have one big metropolitan area and one suburban. We
have Phoenix and we have Tucson. The rest of the State is very,
very small. We have actually created a tremendous amount of
treatment slots in very rural counties.
What we found was the following: In our first year of
operation--and it was partial operation--we were able to
basically match offenders into appropriate treatment over 90
percent of the time. We were also able to have 932 people go
through treatment, and 3 out of 5 of those people completed
successfully.
Now, one of the problems--or not necessarily a problem--was
our first year, we did not look at an outcome evaluation. We
have not found the recidivism data. We do not have quality-of-
life information to give you. We have preliminary results, and
you have to take these very cautiously. But they are good. We
basically found that primarily 75 percent of the offenders
could offset their treatment by at least paying for part of it.
We also found that about 77 percent of them remained drug-free.
We also found that probation coupled with treatment was cheaper
than incarceration.
Now, the second report that I am going to talk to you about
is probably more methodologically sound. It is an audit that
was conducted by our Office of the Auditor General, and they
came in with a question that was posed by the legislature, and
I will read the question. The legislature asked: ``How
effective are substance abuse programs at reducing abuse and
crime, and do they contribute to the successful completion of
probation?'' The audit came in and basically had to answer that
question.
They looked at 845 cases, randomly selected from four
counties, representing 80 percent of our population. Those four
counties had two of the big urban areas and two rurals.
Basically, what they found out is the following: Probation with
treatment works. Eighty-five percent, very similar to what D.A.
Hynes was talking about, of the individuals who were in drug
treatment and successfully completed it then went on to
successfully complete probation. This is a 4-year study. Those
people who were in alcohol treatment with probation, 80 percent
went on, if they completed treatment, to complete their
probation successfully. Now, by contrast, those people who
refused to go into treatment, only 22 percent of them completed
their probation successfully.
Another interesting statistic is, only 57 percent of the
people who were not identified actually were ever able to
complete the probation.
I can go on. There are some other interesting ones that
deal with employment. Ninety percent of the people who are
consistently employed will do well. Those people who do not
stay consistently employed will do poorer, about 40 percent,
and the same is true for those who have paid full restitution
and do their community work service. People who do their
probation will do well.
In conclusion, I just want to talk to you about something
that Joan Petersilia's work talked about. She is the former
director of RAND's Criminal Justice Research Center, and she is
a professor at the University of California at Davis.
Basically, she recognizes the probation system and the
treatment system in Arizona as one of the most effective. We
believe that probationers, if they can become clean and sober,
will maintain jobs, they will pay in full their restitution,
and they will live law-abiding lives, resulting in safer
communities, improved family and social relationships,
increased productivity and wages, and decreased health costs.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Broderick follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4343.176
Mr. Mica. We thank each of you for your testimony.
Mr. Hynes. Mr. Chairman, may I ask for your indulgence to
have 1 minute for Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Mica. Yes, in just 1 second. I want to make this
announcement to the panel before I lose some of these folks.
I was informed by the Attorney General yesterday evening
that the Mexican Supreme Court ruled in favor of extradition
for Mr. Del Toro. Several weeks ago, we had a very compelling
hearing about the problem with extradition of that individual.
I don't know that this is the case. The Attorney General told
me, I believe, yesterday or today, he will be extradited to the
United States. So I do want to thank all of the members of the
panel. Mr. Miller also asked me to convey his thanks to you,
and those of you who participated in the hearing, we appreciate
it.
Yes?
Mr. Barr. Did the Justice Department have to agree not to
seek the death penalty, though?
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Barr. Is that the price----
Mr. Mica. That is the unfortunate part. I did talk to Mr.
Bellush yesterday. It is unfortunate that is one of the
conditions which Mexico insists on for all their extraditions.
But at least there will be some justice in the case. So I do
thank you, and we also received the thanks of Mr. Bellush and
his family yesterday.
Mrs. Mink. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mrs. Mink. I would like to commend the chairman and our
colleague, Mr. Miller, for bringing the matter to the
subcommittee and giving us an opportunity to have input. I
would particularly like to compliment my colleague, Mr.
Cummings, for his role in achieving this result. It is a
tribute to your leadership, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Well, as I told the press, we were fortunate on
that case. But we still have 274 to go, so we can only pat
ourselves on the back a little bit. But, again, after that
hearing, I think everyone feels a little bit of satisfaction in
what we were able to achieve. So thank you.
I do apologize. I meant to do that at the beginning of the
hearing and didn't get a chance to inform my colleagues on the
panel of that information.
You were going to introduce this gentleman?
Mr. Hynes. Frederick Cohen is a 1995 graduate of the drug
treatment program. I know he has no more than 1 minute to talk
to you about his experience.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Cohen, if you could come up, and would you
mind just standing for a second and being sworn?
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you and welcome, and we will recognize you
for a statement.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK COHEN, GRADUATE OF DRUG TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAM
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman Mica,
for having me and allowing me 1 minute to briefly speak to you.
I heard a lot of interesting things today in discussing the
legalization of drugs. A lot of things were rallying to my
ears. I want to share with you briefly, a story about a drug
history and an outcome, a personal story.
At the age of 9 to 11, I began drinking alcohol and smoking
marijuana, which for me, marijuana was a gateway drug which led
me to use other drugs. By the age of 14, I had done PCP, LSD,
cocaine, Valium, and hashish. I had experimented with
mushrooms, assorted hallucinogens. In fact, this was in the
early 1980's. I had done Ectasy at that time. I frequented the
Washington, DC, area and tried what they called Love Boat at
that time, which was PCP sprinkled over marijuana. By the time
I was 16, I actually began to sell drugs in order to support my
habit. At the same time, I committed petty non-violent crimes
to obtain money to support this habit.
It was at that time that I understood that if I wanted to
get high, I would have to devise a way to do so. So I began to
sell drugs, and I would take the profits that I made selling
drugs to supply my habit. This continued and by the time I was
22 years old, I was smoking crack daily in the streets of New
York. I met all the criteria for chemical dependency at that
time, and I continued to use drugs for 4 years after that,
despite the negative consequences.
And you may ask yourself, what type of background did I
have and what type of life did I lead during this time? Well, I
was a Boy Scout. I was a Cub Scout, and I went to Weplo and I
became a first-class Boy Scout as a juvenile. I graduated
valedictorian from a private high school in New York City. From
there I went on to college with hopes and dreams of becoming a
computer scientist. All during this time I was using drugs. I
dropped out of college because my chemical dependency problem
caught up with me and I could no longer concentrate on my
studies.
I remember leaving college and obtaining certain types of
employment from bank tellers to computer operators to
accountants to construction workers and security guards. All
jobs were lost due to my chemical dependency problem, the
absenteeism and the tardiness.
I remember getting arrested on several occasions for petty
crimes, for petty possessions, and doing small amounts of time,
up to a year. None of this was a deterrent for my substance
abuse problem. I remember the hardship. I remember the
homelessness. None of this was a deterrent. I remember losing
my family, losing my friends, and yet still I used substances.
The only deterrent for me was the threat of serious
sentencing from the district attorney's office of Kings County.
I was arrested again, for a second felon, and I faced a minimum
of 4\1/2\ to 9 years. It was at that point that the district
attorney's office actually offered me an opportunity to get my
life together. It was either I do the minimum sentence of 4\1/
2\ years or I opt for a drug treatment alternative to prison
program and get my life together with the promise of the case
being dismissed. The district attorney's office gave me another
opportunity at life.
It was at that point that I realized the destruction that
the chemical dependency had caused in my life, and I took
advantage of that opportunity. I took advantage of the
opportunity because the manipulative, addictive mind-set said,
``Hey, 18 to 24 months is far better than 4\1/2\ to 9 years.''
I went into the program, I excelled, and I found out a lot of
things about myself, about drug use, about how to restructure
my life, and about how to be responsible.
To make a long story short, I went from a welfare
recipient, a beggar on the street, to the program director at
the Project Return Foundation where I make over $45,000 a year.
I pay over $10,000 a year in taxes today. I am a home owner. I
pay property taxes. And I am a voting American citizen.
In conclusion, I just want to say that legalizing drugs
perpetuates the illness. Arresting people actually bandages the
illness. Arresting people with an alternative to incarceration
remedies the illness.
I want to thank the committee for hearing me. I want to
thank District Attorney, Charles Hynes, for saving my life. I
want to thank the assistant district attorney, Samaritan
Village, and the Project Return Foundation for all their help
and all their efforts.
Thank you once again.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. I think you have
provided an interesting chronology of how this whole problem
has affected you personally. It doesn't sound like you would be
much of an advocate then for reducing tough enforcement. It
sounds like tough enforcement is the only thing that got you to
the point where you had to choose. Is that correct?
Mr. Cohen. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Mica. What do you think, time to liberalize some of
these tough laws, Mr. Hynes?
Mr. Hynes. Mr. Chairman, as I said, these harsh laws we use
as creating an opportunity to have people save their lives. And
if we are going to make modification of the so-called
Rockefeller drug laws, we better do it with mandated treatment.
Mr. Mica. Did they alter the laws to give you the
discretion at that point? Or was there enough----
Mr. Hynes. Sir, I have an obligation. Once a grand jury
returns an indictment in these kinds of cases, I lose all
discretion. This is pre-indictment.
Mr. Mica. Pre-indictment.
Mr. Hynes. Yes.
Mr. Mica. It was interesting to hear Ms. Broderick. I have
heard quite a bit about the Arizona--I don't want to say
experiment--but the Arizona approach and some of the
preliminary data. You are telling us that there is not a
decriminalization under this law. Is that correct?
Ms. Broderick. Probation is a very strong and viable
sanction in Arizona.
Mr. Mica. But you told us, you said that you can still--you
hold over their heads----
Ms. Broderick. Correct.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Incarceration and the tough penalty.
Ms. Broderick. The judge may impose that as a condition of
probation.
Mr. Mica. So it is actually withheld based on a
performance, but some 30 percent are sent back to the--or I
forget what your failure rate. I guess it varies?
Ms. Broderick. Actually, there are two things going on
here. One is the way in which a person is sentenced, and the
way the sentencing laws are in Arizona, for first-time
possession and second-time possession, the person must be
sentenced to probation. In Arizona----
Mr. Mica. OK. That is important. You said first-time
possession?
Ms. Broderick. And second-time possession. People must get
probation, and there must be no violence in their background.
And it is an incident of violence, which means a simple arrest.
So it is truly first-time drug possession, second-time drug
possession.
Mr. Mica. First-time drug possession is mandatory
probation, but with the caveat that there can be some
incarceration if they don't complete their probation.
Ms. Broderick. Correct. As a condition of probation, a
judge may impose up to a year of jail.
Mr. Mica. OK. That is different than what the public
perception is.
Ms. Broderick. Correct, and that is one of the
clarifications I wanted----
Mr. Mica. I have not seen that in any of the news stories
or editorials that I have read to date. And the second time,
how does it----
Ms. Broderick. Same thing. The judge can impose up to a
year of deferred jail time. Now, why there is some confusion is
the fact that in the revocation process, which is a way in
which probation usually comes forward and says to the judge we
would like this person to be revoked, we no longer have that as
an option if there is just simple non-compliance and the year
jail time that has been deferred has been used up. So that is
probably where some of the confusion may be.
Mr. Mica. And what substances are taken into account by
first-time possession? Is that marijuana, cocaine, heroin,
methamphetamine, all drugs?
Ms. Broderick. All drugs.
Mr. Mica. And what about quantities?
Ms. Broderick. That varies depending on----
Mr. Mica. What is the triggering----
Ms. Broderick. I don't know off the top of my head. I am
sorry. I can tell you that the bulk of people that are coming
through are principally methamphetamine--I look no different
than Iowa--and marijuana.
Mr. Mica. And I heard small numbers quoted here, like you
said 932 have been in that program?
Ms. Broderick. Correct. The program----
Mr. Mica. Over what period of time?
Ms. Broderick. It is 1 year.
Mr. Mica. So for 1 year.
Ms. Broderick. Correct.
Mr. Mica. And how big is your prison population?
Ms. Broderick. About 27,000, and under probation we have
about 35,000.
Mr. Mica. But in your program, under probation in your
program, it has only been 932?
Ms. Broderick. 2,622 people actually received services.
Mr. Mica. I am sorry, 2,000?
Ms. Broderick. 2,622, and 932 in a given year graduated,
either successfully or not. Like I said, three out of five were
successful and two out of five were not, and they went on
either to be reassessed and placed in a different type of
treatment, or they committed a new crime or perhaps absconded.
Mr. Mica. Has this resulted in any decrease in your prison
population?
Ms. Broderick. That is a very difficult question to answer
and something that we will be looking to in the future. But
Arizona is a growth State, so one has to take into account the
numbers coming into the State. So our at-risk population keeps
growing.
Mr. Mica. But if I go back and look at 1996--when did this
start, 1995?
Ms. Broderick. The law was passed in 1996. The program
became effective in 1997.
Mr. Mica. So we would look at 1997 and 1998, and we factor
in population growth, too. But do you know if the population
incarcerated in the State prison has increased or decreased?
Ms. Broderick. I am assuming it has increased because the
population on probation has also increased. Our population
growth is just so great, and there are other factors that are
going on, being a border State with Mexico.
Mr. Mica. And your crime, though, is generally down,
according to national trends?
Ms. Broderick. Unfortunately, Phoenix is not one of the
cities that is down.
Mr. Mica. Phoenix is not down?
Ms. Broderick. No.
Mr. Mica. Does that mean the State is not down?
Ms. Broderick. I think where goes Phoenix, so goes the
State.
Mr. Mica. So the State is not down, either?
Ms. Broderick. Correct.
Mr. Mica. Because I look at your prison population and the
crime rate, I know--I come from a growth State, Florida, and we
have a lot of that. But most of the people who come to our
State are the least likely to commit crimes unless it is----
Ms. Broderick. Not that I want to have a commerce debate
with you----
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Driving behind the wheel of their
car and not being able to see the dashboard. But we won't get
into that.
Ms. Broderick. That fits two sections of our State, also.
Mr. Mica. I have heard a lot about the DTAP program. It is
impressive, and certainly this gentleman that you brought along
is an example. DTAP, though, is part of a very tough--now,
Kings--I don't--I am the fourth one from New York. I am from
upstate New York, but I am not that familiar with the city
geography. Kings County, is that part of the metropolitan----
Mr. Hynes. We are one of the five counties of New York
City. We are the largest county in New York State by
population.
Mr. Mica. Now, where does Giuliani fit into the picture? Is
he also----
Mr. Hynes. Anywhere he wants to be, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. But is the--would he be the mayor of----
Mr. Hynes. He is the mayor of the five counties of New York
City.
Mr. Mica. OK. That is my question. He has had a tough
enforcement policy.
Mr. Hynes. Yes.
Mr. Mica. And you, therefore, have had a tough enforcement
policy combined with this program, which--and you said this is
pre-indictment or----
Mr. Hynes. It is pre-indictment, and I must make a point
that there are some good things that preceded the mayor. He is
not responsible for all the good things that happened in New
York City.
Mr. Mica. You know what? We don't want to hear that.
[Laughter.]
But it is impressive.
Mr. Hynes. Yes, it is.
Mr. Mica. By any standard.
Mr. Hynes. I can tell you that the crime reductions are
extraordinary. We have a 61 percent reduction since 1990, in
the seven major categories of crime, the index crimes. It is
really extraordinary. But I believe it is fundamentally part of
the strategy of being very, very tough on violent crime and
drug traffickers that are not addicted and having this piece
put in, which is to offer an opportunity, as we did for Mr.
Cohen.
The third part of the fundamental change is we have an
extraordinary education program. We have had 135,000 kids
through our program since 1990, 10 hours a month for the entire
school year, which is run by my prosecutors who teach kids two
essential values: that it is wrong to hate anyone regardless of
what the difference might be, and that drugs are about death.
It has been an extraordinary program. It has been replicated in
about 12 cities in America and about 8 counties in the State.
So I think it has got to be a coordinated strategy. I don't
think anyone would suggest that prison alone works. It has to
be a much broader strategy.
Mr. Mica. Now, you also had some numbers. I thought I had
them down here, but I don't----
Mr. Hynes. There are 398 graduates, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. OK. But that is not a whole lot of----
Mr. Hynes. No, it is not. But if you begin to look at the
numbers, I mean, Ryker's Island, which is our local prison, the
cost, I think, will astound you. It is $69,000 for 1 year. Now,
it takes us about 6 months to get someone involved in drugs out
of the downstate prison up to upstate. So it is about $34,500
for 6 months of incarceration. Then we ship them upstate for
the remainder of their sentence, and you are talking about
another $15,000 for that second 6 months, and then $30,000 for
the next year and subsequent years. So while the numbers seem,
I guess, a drop in the bucket, if you begin to look at all of
the money--this is Anne Sweren, who is my deputy. She gives me
charts because I can't read. She would be more than happy to
explain them if you would like.
But if you look at the money that is spent, for this 398
population, it is extraordinary. It is $14 million, and that is
documented.
Mr. Mica. Well, I don't want to hog all the time. Mr.
Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hynes, let me ask you, one of the problems that a lot
of jurisdictions face is trying to figure out how to have
effective drug treatment.
Mr. Hynes. Well, you begin with a very preliminary problem.
When you talk about drug treatment, you are almost always
accused of being soft on crime. It took us a long time to be
able to get the word out that you can do this thing in a tough,
coercive way. I tell the story of one of my colleagues that
someone from the public defender's office wanted to help us run
the program, and I told him I didn't need his help, I will run
the program, I will decide who goes into my program. We
typically knock out two-thirds of the people who are eligible.
As was mentioned before by Ms. Lapp, you will get 30 percent
who won't take the program because it is too tough.
I think the prosecutors have got to make the argument that
you can't continue to build prisons without alternative
strategies. Prisons ought to be used for people who you can
send away until they are too old to hurt people, too old to
commit crime. But I think you have got to look at a strategy
that says let's give someone like Fred Cohen a chance, let's
try it because it works. So there has to be, I think, a much
broader strategy.
I am the director for New York State representing the 62
counties on the national board, and I say to my colleagues all
over the country that it is a program that works, you ought to
try it. But you are going to have to deal with the reality.
When you initially talk about it, people are going to look at
you askance and wonder if you are soft on crime all of a
sudden.
Mr. Cummings. Well, thank you for that response, but that
wasn't my question. Let me try to zero in on what I am talking
about.
When I say effective, I mean the treatment itself. In other
words, in Maryland, we have a lot of treatment programs, but
the question is whether they are effective with the individual.
Do you follow what I am saying?
Mr. Hynes. I understand.
Mr. Cummings. We have a lot of people throughout, and--wait
a minute, hold on--and I guess what I am trying to get to, is
it is clear, based upon what you have just said, that you have
a lot of confidence in the program itself.
Mr. Hynes. Right.
Mr. Cummings. And I am asking you, what does that program
entail, and apparently it is effective, so how do you make
sure----
Mr. Hynes. I apologize for misunderstanding.
Mr. Cummings. No, that is OK. It is no problem.
Mr. Hynes. But let me tell you what--let me tell you about
the Holy Grail of this program--jobs. Because if you have a
drug treatment program and there is no job component, you are
going to get a 12 to 14 percent success rate.
By the way, I take that, but it doesn't work unless you
have jobs, and that is why our retention rate jumps up to 66
percent after 1 year. If you can create a model in Maryland or
Indiana or Georgia or anywhere you want, create a model that
has tough, coercive alternatives and a job component at the end
of the program, you are going to get success.
Mr. Cummings. You know, it is interesting. Before I came to
Congress--this is an interesting point you just made. Before I
came to Congress, I created a program in my church where we
worked with people who were coming out of boot camp programs,
and not 1 dime of Government money was used, all volunteers,
young men like the young man sitting there, who wanted to help
and advise. But one of the key pieces of it was, the business
community got involved and helped folk with jobs. You are
absolutely right.
We saw things began to really change. We saw people who--
guys would come up to us and say, you know, a light bulb came
on because now I am working and I am getting the treatment. Now
I have found that fun is being with my 2-year-old as opposed to
standing on the corner. And I guess the job thing allows--does
something else. What I noticed is, a lot of the problem was,
these guys would come out of prison and go right back to the
corner. And if they could just stay away from the corner, that
would be very, very helpful.
Mr. Hynes. The breakthrough in our program was going to a
plant manager of a major corporation in Brooklyn and saying
this is what I have in mind, and he just looked at me, and he
said, ``Listen, you know, I know you from a lot of other jobs
you had, I mean, you want to put junkies on my factory floor?''
And I said, ``do you have an alcohol rehab program?'' He said,
``Of course, we do, very progressive.'' I said, ``I will give
you the same quality, and maybe even better.'' And that broke
through.
Now, Anne Sweren, who is my deputy who runs the program,
just had a meeting the other day, a luncheon meeting. We had 45
business people. They are on line waiting to hire my people. It
is the breakthrough. And everywhere it has been tried, it is
very successful.
Mr. Cummings. And is there monitoring with regard to those?
When you send somebody to get a job, do you monitor them, too?
Mr. Hynes. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. Cummings. To what extent? I mean, is it just checking
the drug use, or is it more than that?
Mr. Hynes. Well, I mean, the drug use ultimately leads to
arrest. We do have our failures, no question about it. But we
regularly check in with our work force, and we find a great
deal of success. And you are right, if they are not hanging out
on the street corner, they feel good about themselves and the
edge of success is assured.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Mr. Hynes, you may have covered this, and if you
did, I apologize. But what if somebody goes through the DTAP
program and then later on there is a problem? They successfully
complete it and later on they have a problem.
Mr. Hynes. There is no longer a chance. They have had their
chance. But the more difficult thing is that someone might go
through it for 19 months and walk away, Mr. Barr. And we have
an enforcement team that is very effective. We pick them up.
They don't get time served for a minute in our program. And
they know it. They know it when they go in. So they go back to
the original sentence.
Mr. Barr. That is very similar to a first offender program,
for example, that we have in Georgia that applies.
Mr. Hynes. Yes.
Mr. Barr. When you first instituted this program, was
everybody on board, or did you have some detractors?
Mr. Hynes. Heavens no. I mean, people on my own staff said,
``Are you crazy? You have to run for office. If, God forbid,
someone walks off the program and hurts someone, you know, how
are you going to face the people?'' And I said, ``I am going to
say a prayer every day,'' and thank God we have never had a
problem. But, sure, there was a great deal of resistance.
Mr. Barr. What was the general nature of that? I know there
seems to be always inherent opposition to anything that changes
the status quo. But how would you summarize the type of
opposition that you faced?
Mr. Hynes. It was political fear. It was that simple.
People on my staff were saying--you know, I had a lot of
appointed jobs. I was in private practice a lot of years, but I
had a lot of appointed jobs. I was the fire commissioner of New
York City. And someone said, you know, this is the first time
you have run and been elected to something, and you better be
very careful. And I said, look, if we are going to remain--you
know, maintain the status quo, as you suggest, Mr. Barr--and
you have been a prosecutor--you will never get a change. So we
took the chance and it has worked, and my only disappointment
is that it has not expanded to the extent that it can. We have
had great support from Governor Pataki through his criminal
justice adviser, Katie Lapp, but we have--there is unending
conflict in our legislature with the two houses represented by
two different parties, and it is difficult to get agreement on
expansion.
Mr. Barr. How about within the city? The chairman mentioned
the mayor. Do you work with him? Do you have a good
relationship?
Mr. Hynes. Yes, the mayor has been supportive. The city
council, you know, funds most of my budget, and we get approval
from that segment. But most of our funding comes from the
State.
Mr. Barr. Have you discussed this program and received
support or have others taken it on? And a couple come to my
mind, the National District Attorneys Association?
Mr. Hynes. Oh, yes. I represent the State on the board, and
some counties are very, very interested. The problem is two
things: first, getting beyond the reaction, the visceral
reaction that, you know, you are going to put people like this
in a program? I don't know if I should take that chance. But
once you get beyond that, the money saved is demonstrable. And
once we get beyond that, I think it is pretty easy, but it is
the first step.
Mr. Barr. How about the folks at Main Justice?
Mr. Hynes. I have had a number of conversations with the
Attorney General. She has been very helpful to us in supporting
the program. Actually, she came up to--the corporation that
first signed on was Pfizer, and she came up to the anniversary
of Pfizer a couple of weeks ago in Brooklyn, and she was very
pleased to hear from this former plant chairman how happy he
was with the program.
Mr. Barr. Is there anything in particular that we could do,
both on this subcommittee as well as, perhaps, the Congress
generally?
Mr. Hynes. It is all about resources, Representative Barr.
If we had money to expand this program by perhaps 4,000 or
5,000 slots, I think we could effect an incredible change in
public safety, even for all of the positive changes we have in
my city and my State. I think the more people we could put into
this program and turn them from drug addict criminals into
taxpayers, the better it would be for public safety. So if we
could get some kind of visible support through direct grants to
prosecutors, through the State DAs Association, that would be
terrific, through the National DAs Association, that would be
great.
Mr. Barr. And you don't receive any Federal funds for the
program?
Mr. Hynes. Well, most of the Federal funds are--if they are
targeted, they go through the State government, and Ms. Lapp
can speak to that more eloquently than I can. But I think we
have had a number of conversations with----
Mr. Barr. Another chart you can't read?
Mr. Hynes. No. This is from Katie Lapp. The Byrne money has
been cut by 10 percent during the current budget. Restoring
that would be very helpful. But the Deputy Attorney General,
Eric Holder, had a conference of about 25 prosecutors around
the country, and Ralph Martin from Boston, whom I am sure you
are familiar with, complained to him that, you know, if you
don't have a particularly good idea and someone happens to slip
it to you, you get funded. But if you got a great idea and you
want to expand it, you have no money for enhancement. Eric
Holder is now committed to helping us with direct grants to
prosecutors to allow us to enhance programs. So if we get some
support from the Congress, this committee, you know, for drug
treatment expansion, that would be wonderful.
Mr. Barr. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hynes. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hynes. I am a lawyer, Mr. Ose, I am sorry to say.
Mr. Ose. I am sorry?
Mr. Hynes. I am a lawyer, I am sorry to say.
Mr. Ose. Well, we will see how you are.
Mr. Hynes. OK.
Mr. Ose. I look at the testimony, your written testimony
here on page 4, and it highlights the difference after a 3-year
treatment period, really highlighting the difference of about
25 percent, that being the differential from the two treatment
modalities.
Mr. Hynes. No, it is from treatment as opposed to prison.
Mr. Ose. Well, treatment--not treatment in the sense of
medical treatment, but how you treat the person that is there
in front of you in court.
Mr. Hynes. Right.
Mr. Ose. There is a 25 percent difference in terms of re-
arresting, equating to around $14 million in reduced criminal
justice costs.
Mr. Hynes. Right.
Mr. Ose. And health and welfare costs. That is remarkable.
That is only 400 people?
Mr. Hynes. That is right.
Mr. Ose. That is remarkable.
Mr. Hynes. I think, as I said to my associate coming over
here, the true figure is a heck of a lot higher, and I will
tell you why. The average drug addict goes to jail for life on
the installment plan. So if you took half those people, you are
talking over a 50-year life expectancy--you know, a 50-year
life of crime, you are talking about a lot of money.
Mr. Ose. Because that $14 million only relates to a 3-year
period.
Mr. Hynes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. Now, the other question I have, Ms. Lapp, you
have--I am not quite sure I read it here other than maybe
implicitly, but both of you--I am sorry, Ms. Broderick. I
haven't quite read your testimony yet. Both of you suggest that
repeal of drug laws will not satisfy or address our problem,
and I perceive there is concern on both your parts that, in
fact, this is inappropriate behavior on people's part and we
need to help them stop this behavior. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Hynes. Well, Mr. Ose, we were well served, I think, by
the testimony of this young man, and I don't think you were in
the room. What he said was very, very clear. It wasn't until he
faced 4\1/2\ to 9 years in prison that we got his attention,
and so he would believe that harsh punishment led him to change
his life. He is now a program director of a major agency and
paying $10,000 a year in income tax.
Mr. Ose. The reason I asked that question, I could hardly
contain my disbelief at the testimony from some members of the
second panel that marijuana in particular is a behavioral
pattern that we should overlook. Is it your conclusion that we
should or should not overlook marijuana use?
Mr. Hynes. I don't believe for a moment that we should
overlook marijuana use. Indeed, the testimony of Frederick
Cohen a few minutes ago was that he began his substance
problems with marijuana and booze. You know, I have heard
marijuana advocates say endlessly that there is no data that
would suggest that because you use marijuana you naturally will
go on to the next drug. I look at it in the reverse way. If you
speak to the average hard-core drug abuser, they will tell you
that certainly marijuana was their first introduction to drugs.
Mr. Ose. Their gateway.
Mr. Hynes. Yes, their gateway, right. And that is exactly
the word Mr. Cohen used.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, I can't--I sat here literally in
disbelief at the second panel to have that gentleman suggest
that we should over--I just--I am sorry. I had to leave the
room. And I thank you for tolerating this. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Don't leave the room. Stay and engage, Mr. Ose.
It is more fun that way.
We appreciate all of the testimony. It is fascinating to
hear more about the Arizona experience, and, again, we would
like to get some additional data, I think, on that approach.
You know, we have a responsibility here to see what is going on
across the country and what is effective and what isn't
effective. And we do spend a lot of money. Believe it or not, I
think, in the last 6 years, we have almost doubled the
treatment money from the Federal level, which filters down into
the State level and these local programs. Mr. Barr just said
that if the New York State program is effective, then we should
make certain that funds get to these programs that are
effective. That is all I care about, that it is effective and
we are doing something about the problem Mr. Cummings has in
Baltimore or New York or Arizona or wherever it may be. I think
that is our major interest.
So we would like to hear more about your program. Did you
want to comment?
Ms. Broderick. Chairman Mica, there is going to be a full-
blown evaluation that will be done looking at it after we
really have been in existence a little bit longer. I was
required by the law to do an initial report, and it basically--
that initial report that really got a lot of attention was
about a first-year implementation program, going to what
Congressman Cummings was talking about in terms of best
practice. We are working with all 15 departments to try and
come up with research-based best practice so we can go out and
contract with really good, effective treatment providers. So
hopefully, about 10 months from now, you will see some long-
term evaluation that really gets to outcome, not the
preliminary data that we talked about.
The other thing, if I can just put in a pitch to
Congressman Barr, there is some funding for residential
substance abuse and treatment, RSAT. It is not available to
community corrections. It is only for institutions. It would be
wonderful if you could see if there is a way to open up some of
that funding so that probation departments and not-for-profits
and ATI programs could actually access some of that.
Mr. Barr. Could I just ask one quick question on that, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Mica. Go right ahead.
Mr. Barr. Would you send me, either directly or through the
chairman, either way, just a few details on that so that we
could maybe draft something up?
Ms. Broderick. Sure, I would be glad to.
Mr. Barr. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. The other thing we planned to look at as a panel
is the amount--the way this money filters down to the States
and the programs. I believe it is administered by SAMHSA, and
the preliminary information is that we spend an incredible
amount on administering the programs and the grants, and they
end up going into State programs or local programs that are
already in existence, that already get State money. I think it
was $129 million we have identified in overhead, which sounds
like just paring that down and maybe going to a grant system to
these locales we could put, let's say, $120 million into the
system and use $9 million to administer, dividing it up, which
seems like it would be much more effective.
The other thing we did in some of our preliminary studies--
and we used Florida as an example when I had to testify
before--not testify, but participate in a State summit. We
found an interesting phenomenon in Florida, and we will see if
it is repeated across the country, which, in fact, the Federal
Government has dramatically increased the amount of treatment
money. But then we are finding that the States--in particular,
we verified that with Florida. As the Feds increased the money
to the States for treatment, the legislatures decreased the
amount. And it was one of these things, we went up, they went
down, and so the money was being shuffled around at the State
level. And we need to look at that because we want the money to
go into the programs.
Then the third area is the effectiveness of the programs.
Unfortunately, some of the secular programs have had very
dismal rates of success. Some of those that have been non-
secular, private and some with a religious connection, have
been highly successful, and some of those are not eligible for
Federal funding, which I think we are doing a re-examination
of. All we care about is success, and we are trying to evaluate
that.
In 10 months, Ms. Broderick, we will invite you back, maybe
11 months, and we would like to hear more of your program and
the specifics and see what we can do to get additional funds
and resources into programs that obviously are effective.
It does appear that decriminalization, we have some real
problems with it, and there is a lot of mess out there about
it. The study that you conducted, Ms. Lapp, in New York is
really outstanding. It is probably the most recent. Was it
completed in April?
Ms. Lapp. Yes, it was issued in April.
Mr. Mica. And it does debunk some of the myths that we
have, just first-time offenders in prison in New York. In fact,
I think even the cases where you cited there for possession
were, in fact, almost all--what do you say--something down,
taking the sentence----
Ms. Lapp. Oh, pled down.
Mr. Mica. Pled down, exactly. That is the term I was
looking for. So that as far as pure possession, there were very
few, if any, incarcerated in New York for first-time possession
offenses. Is that correct?
Ms. Lapp. That is correct. One of the purposes of the
report was actually to just synopsize who was actually in our
State prison system and for what types of offenses because we
have had substantial debate about the Rockefeller drug laws.
There have been a lot of advocates seeking to repeal, wholesale
repeal, of those laws. And one of the things--I just wanted to
segue a little bit. Before I took my current position with
Governor Pataki, I worked for Mayor Giuliani for 4 years, and
what we did in the city, which now dovetails with what the
State has been doing, is we took a very intensive and targeted
approach to all drug dealing and drug possession.
Mr. Mica. All drug dealing?
Ms. Lapp. And possession.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Ms. Lapp. But prior to 1994, one of the problems that the
police department had was that uniformed police officers were
discouraged, actually not allowed to make any arrests of drug
dealers on the street. They used undercover units to do that.
Mayor Giuliani turned that around and told the police officers,
you see drug dealers on the corner, on the stoop, in the
playground, we want them arrested, we want them to go to jail,
we want them to go to prison. That is what happened.
For drug possessors--and we enforce laws and district
attorneys such as District Attorney Hynes enforce those laws
very vigorously against possessors with substance abuse
problems and put them into programs that work--DTAP and some of
the others.
One of the interesting things that happened in New York
State is despite increased arrests at an all-time high of all
felony levels, and particularly drug offenses, we saw a
reduction in the jail population in Ryker's Island. It is down
to about 15,000. It used to be over 23,000 in 1994. New York
State's prison system essentially remained the same; 70,000 of
the population remained the same since 1994.
What happened was, the makeup of the prison population
changed. We are holding the violent felony offenders for longer
periods of time, and we are allowing appropriate non-violent
felony offenders to go into treatment programs like DTAP, like
merit time, like some of the others that I mentioned.
What that allowed us to do was, unlike the prior
administration, which released a high number of violent felony
offenders on work release, we kept them in prison. That helped
the police officers on the street, it helped prosecutors like
District Attorney Hynes, because they weren't seeing those
people come back again. They were being released into our
community, recidivating in violent ways--and I am talking about
violent felony offenders--and the police officers were just
continually arresting them and sending them to--being
prosecuted and sending them to State prison. So what we have
done is hold the right people in prison, prosecute them, hold
them for longer periods of time, not allow early parole
release. We ended early parole discretionary release for all
violent felons, and we screened, very appropriately, the non-
violent felons, drug offenders, that would otherwise go into
State prison to go into DTAP and some of the others.
Mr. Mica. So your violent folks are staying behind bars?
Ms. Lapp. That is right.
Mr. Mica. The non-violent ones are getting a chance at
probation?
Ms. Lapp. That is right, or, you know, going into DTAP as
an alternative to prison or in some of the other programs.
Mr. Mica. Now, Ryker's--again, excuse my New York
geographic ignorance--that is a State prison or local?
Ms. Lapp. Ryker's Island represents the local jail system
in New York City.
Mr. Mica. You said that went from 23,000 to 15,000?
Ms. Lapp. 15,000. And it makes sense when you think about
it. In New York City, prior to 1994, violent felony offenders
were being released on early parole release from the State
prison system, and they were put into work release programs
when they really should not have been. They were going back to
the communities. They were recidivating. The police officers
just continued to re-arrest them. The prosecutors were re-
prosecuting them. They would go back to State prison, and we
would release them again.
All that changed with what Mayor Giuliani did in the city
and what Governor Pataki did in the State. Mayor Giuliani said,
I am going to arrest everybody that is breaking the law, and I
want tough State prison sentences for violent felony offenders.
In concert, Governor Pataki passed a truth in sentencing scheme
for all violent felons. They do not get out early. They are
being held behind bars. But the non-violent offenders are being
screened appropriately.
It is actually quite a success in New York State that very
few people know about. We have talked about it. I have spoken
to many, many people about it, and we have had people from
other States come in to see how we have worked in concert with
programs like District Attorney Hynes' program, tough law
enforcement by Mayor Giuliani, and Governor Pataki with his
truth in sentencing, holding the violent felony offenders
behind bars.
One of the things I would just like to quote and synopsize
as a success: Prior to Governor Pataki, work release and--
violent felony offenders could go into work release, which
allows them to go into the communities. We stopped that, and
Governor Pataki changed that in 1995, and said no violent
felons can go into work release. That is a privilege that
should only be limited to non-violent offenders.
We reduced the work release participants group by about 32
percent, and we saw a 90 percent drop in violent felony
offenses committed by work release inmates. That synopsizes--
and it is just plain common sense. Keep the violent felons
behind bars and the non-violent felons with violent criminal
histories behind bars. Give non-violent offenders who want
treatment that opportunity like this young man here. Give them
a chance. If they succeed, then we can see the success--more
success stories like this. If they don't want to deal with
their problem, we have to send them to prison because I do not
advocate, nor does Governor Pataki or Mayor Giuliani advocate,
putting them back in the community. They are just going to prey
on their neighbors.
Mr. Mica. One other point. We are seeing now, an attack on
the Federal minimum mandatory, and we have a certain class of
offenders at the Federal level. They are going after, as I
understand it from Mr. Constantine's testimony, Barry McCaffrey
and others, they are going after the trafficker, the big
dealer, the big-time dealer, the repeat felony offender. If you
look at a study of who is in the Federal prison population--and
we are going to explore that a little bit further--you have
some pretty tough cookies who have been involved in some
serious felony offenses, in most cases repeat.
You wouldn't then advocate changing our minimum mandatory?
Mr. Hynes. No, but that doesn't----
Mr. Mica. At the Federal level.
Mr. Hynes. Sure, but it doesn't deal with the historic
problem. You know, drugs as something affecting society didn't
happen over a weekend. It took a long time for it to catch on.
And there has to be a reduction in demand, and if we are not
allowed or we can't corral the demand, we are always going to
have the hard-core drug sellers down to the low-level people
who are committing crime.
The reduction in demand, I think, should be a primary goal
of this country, and, you know, interdiction has not worked. I
wouldn't do away with interdiction, but interdiction is not
something that has worked. I think you have to expand the
alternatives for treatment. That is the only way you can deal
with demand as I see it.
Mr. Mica. I have to disagree with you on the interdiction,
but that is--since we abolished interdiction----
Mr. Hynes. No, I wouldn't abolish it. I am just saying it
hasn't worked terribly effectively.
Mr. Mica. Yes, well, I would disagree with that, too,
because we basically at the Federal level abolished
interdiction in 1994 and 1995, and that is why you are seeing
this incredible supply coming in now--not that interdiction is
the key. I believe you start in the source countries. But that
doesn't answer it, either, because if you look at
methamphetamine, people can get the recipe off the Internet and
cook it in their kitchen, and we still have a hell of a----
Mr. Hynes. It is----
Mr. Mica. It is a combination----
Mr. Hynes. It is a cultural thing that has to be dealt
with, and we allowed it to become part of our culture.
Mr. Mica. Let me see. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you. As I am listening to you all,
everything you are saying just makes sense. And I was thinking
how what happens so often is we get so caught up in which party
you are in that we miss the boat. I mean, we just miss it. I
have got to give you credit, what you are doing makes sense.
I think that in the African American community, there is a
concern that many--just a disproportionate number of African
Americans are being literally warehoused in prisons. That is
one piece of it. But there is another piece, too, and that is
that in my district, which is predominantly African American,
folk want people to be punished for violent offenses, there is
no doubt about it. I mean, I have been in Congress only 3\1/2\
years, but in politics, in elected office for 20, and I have
seen it. Because African American people are so much
victimized--and I am not saying other people aren't, but I am
just saying I know we are.
So it makes sense, Ms. Lapp, it makes sense to treat the
violent offenders the way they are treated. And you said
something that kind of confused me. You said that when you
stopped allowing violent offenders and those with a history of
violent offending, your work release offenses, violent
offenses--is it offenses or violent offenses?
Ms. Lapp. All violent offenses committed by work release
inmates.
Mr. Cummings. Work release inmates went down----
Ms. Lapp. Ninety percent.
Mr. Cummings. Ninety percent. So basically, you have
created a situation where you have no violent offenders in your
midst unless they commit it while they are on work release. Is
that right? Does that make sense?
Ms. Lapp. Well, I think what----
Mr. Cummings. I mean, I know they are kicked out of the
program if they do it on work release, but I am just saying
basically, what you have, based upon that, is that when these
guys go out today there should be no violent offenders in----
Ms. Lapp. In the work release program.
Mr. Cummings. In the work release program. And that makes a
lot of sense.
On another matter--I am sorry. I forgot your name.
Mr. Hynes. Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. My name is Frederick Cohen.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cohen. Something that Mr. Cohen said, and
I just wonder how this affects your report. And I have seen
this to be true, too. You will get people who are using, and in
order to maintain their habit, they have got to figure out what
to do. They may have done some petty larceny, robbed a few
people, and then they get to a point where they are saying,
well, I mean, what else can I do? So then they begin to sell or
they have been selling for a while. So maybe they have been
arrested one or two times, three times for possession. And then
they finally get caught doing something like robbing somebody.
I was just trying to figure out, when you were talking
about your statistics, the ones that the chairman was impressed
with, which I am impressed with, too, about who is arrested and
how long--you know, who is in your prisons, how is that--I
mean, how does that play out? Are you following my question? In
other words, you have people who--you can't even put your
finger on how many people fall into that category. In other
words, they have been doing--they have been using drugs for
years, arrested say three or four times for possession, and
they have been committing violent offenses for years. But now
finally they get caught. So I am just trying to figure out how
do you--how does that play into your analysis, if at all?
Ms. Lapp. Is your question how do we address someone whose
violent offense was fueled because of their drug habit?
Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Ms. Lapp. Well, I think once an offender starts committing
violent acts against other members of society, we have to
separate that person from someone who repeats a drug offense.
Mr. Hynes. We don't accept them in our program.
Ms. Lapp. They will not go into the DTAP program.
Obviously, when they get into prison and violent felony
offenders--our laws are very tough with regard to that. We have
increased the sentences fairly dramatically. We put them in
prison drug treatment, and in New York State, ours has gone up
in the last 3 years. The participants have gone up about 27
percent, 28 percent now. So we are pretty aggressive in New
York State in terms of once--if you are a violent felony
offender you go into prison. But if your underlying problem was
substance abuse, we are going to put you in a substance abuse
program while you are in prison and continue that once you are
released on parole after you have served your definite period
of imprisonment.
It is a difficult thing. Once someone starts engaging in
violent offenses because of their drug habit, we as responsible
government officials, need to make sure that those people are
punished appropriately. And that is why the district attorney
doesn't allow them to go into even the DTAP program.
Mr. Cummings. Well, it just seems to me that if the program
is all that you all said it is--and I have no reason to doubt
it--it seems like every State would be doing something like
this. I mean, can you help me with what the arguments are
against it? I am just curious. It makes sense.
Ms. Broderick. In Arizona, our district attorney in
Maricopa County has a very similar program called ``Do Drugs,
Do Time,'' and it is exactly modeled after the program in
Brooklyn. There are a lot of district attorneys. They may have
different names for those programs, but they all are
prosecutorial where they make the selection, they do the
screening, they offer the diversion, you complete that and you
basically are able to do away with your offense.
Mr. Hynes. Mr. Cummings, this is new. You know, I mean, 12
years ago you wouldn't want to talk about this. This is new.
But we did it in Brooklyn because we had no choice. We were in
a crisis. You know, you talked about seeing those young men in
a stupor. They were on my block, too. They were mugging people
on my block. My house was burglarized four times in 5 years,
and one of my graduates was one of the burglars before he went
into my program.
So, I mean, this is new, and it has taken a long time. As I
mentioned to Ms. Sweren coming over here, and Mr. Cohen, this
is the first time I have been called before a congressional
committee in 10 years on this program. And it does make perfect
sense. And I will tell you, of the 62 district attorneys,
apropos of your mention about political parties, of the 62
district attorneys in my State, the vast majority are
conservative Republican. They would buy into this program in a
minute if we could get the funding. But the Governor, who has
been pushing the program to get money from the legislation, has
had this constant fight with the legislature. So, you know, Mr.
Barr didn't invite it, but I am certainly going to send
something on to him, of course, through you, Mr. Chairman, to
try and get some additional funding because it does make sense.
It is a perfectly appropriate approach. For the violent people,
no questions asked, you go to jail--you know, don't pass go.
But if you are someone like Frederick Cohen, you give them a
shot. And he is just one of the many, many examples of why this
program works so well.
Mr. Cummings. What I hear, I have never--and I am sure that
there are probably similar statistics somewhere in the United
States. I have never heard those kinds of statistics with
regard to jail cells and who occupies them and a reduction of
the drug--I mean, how did you put it, Ms. Lapp? In other words,
you all, you say you still have the 70,000----
Ms. Lapp. Our overall population is still 70,000. The mix
is starting to shift. Over 15 years, it went from 80 to 100 to
34,000 non-violent offenders in our system, of which most of
them are drug offenders. And now that has shifted. At the same
time, let me underscore that New York State's crime declined,
went down 28 percent, which is four times the national average,
and we are the safest we have ever been since 1960. All those
things indicate that New York State is doing something very
interesting, and obviously right, which was one of the reasons
why District Attorney Hynes and I, when we received the
invitation from Congressman Mica's office to be here today, we
jumped at the chance because we have a lot to say, we have a
lot to show. And we think that this is a recipe for success.
Obviously, we still have our problems, but working together
with the local police, with prosecutors, courts, the State
government and the State legislature in passing laws, that is
how all this has changed, and it has been a lot of
coordination.
I can recall the days when the mayor took office and he
said we are going to arrest every drug dealer and every drug
possessor and every quality-of-life offender in New York City.
And I sat down with people like District Attorney Hynes and
said I don't know how we are going to handle it. But we did
because we coordinated everything.
Mr. Hynes. It would have been more helpful if they gave us
more money, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. The last question, Mr. Chairman. It does have
to be--you have to have both sides of this thing, though. You
know, I am just thinking, you got to have that toughness on the
violence, but you also have got to have this treatment and give
it a chance. And I guess it is that combination, like a one-two
situation, that helps it to work so that I guess it does free
up funds on one end, and I guess those funds don't necessarily
flow back, but the treatment----
Ms. Lapp. No, not as much as the district attorney would
like.
Mr. Cummings. I am sorry?
Ms. Lapp. Not as much as the district attorney would like.
Mr. Cummings. Yes. Well, you would be in great shape,
wouldn't you? The money that you save in the end, if that came
back to the other side. That is all right. You don't have to
comment.
Mr. Hynes. OK. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. You all have been very,
very helpful.
Mr. Mica. I look forward to working with you in getting
more of that money into the system. I know where there is $120
million to start with, not counting what resources are used by
you to apply for this Federal largesse.
Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Before I venture into my few items, I think that
my friend from Maryland has come up with an idea. He only
touched on it very briefly, and that is perhaps to put some
sort of an incentive program to work where a portion of the
funds saved go back to the agency that saved them. And I think
that is well worth exploring.
One of the things that--going back to my comment about
never leaving a charge unanswered that you disagree with, Ms.
Lapp, you have in your testimony on page 3, the first
paragraph, at least as it relates to New York State, some
statistics regarding who has been arrested and incarcerated
under the current legal protocols affecting drugs. And some who
have testified before you suggested, whether it was explicitly
or implicitly, that we were incarcerating people for,
``recreational use,'' ``individual use,'' and the like. And I
just--the first paragraph kind of refutes that comment. I mean,
87 percent of these 22,000 individuals are serving time for
selling drugs, not for recreational use but for selling drugs.
We don't know if they were selling to their siblings or their
parents or their children or what have you, but they were
selling drugs. It was a commercial transaction.
Over 70 percent have one or more felony conviction in their
record. Of the persons serving time for drug possession, 76
percent were arrested for sale or intent to sell. And then they
pled down.
You know, one of the things we lose up here in the
testimony is the ability to come back and say, well, now those
down pleadings are actually the result of a higher charge being
negotiated down.
I wish we could have had all eight of you up here to kind
of have a roundtable discussion, as we say in politics. I just
want to suggest to you that this information is extremely
valuable to me, and I appreciate you bringing it forward.
The other aspect that I wanted, Mr. Chairman--I went
through everybody's testimony here, and I found it very
interesting. I started with Mr. Constantine, page 1: ``I have
passionately believed that legalizing drugs is wrong . . .''
Ms. Bennett in her--there is no question what she thinks.
Her son is dead, and she obviously believes it is wrong.
Mr. MacCoun, on page 7, ``Legalization is a very risky
strategy for reducing drug-related harm.''
Sheriff Glasscock, ``[My] experiences have clearly
demonstrated to me that this Nation should not be considering
legalizing drugs . . .''
District Attorney Hynes, ``I believe it would be a terrible
mistake to make any changes in the law that would make it
easier for young people to have access to these poisons.''
And then I compare that to Mr. Stroup's testimony and, Ms.
Lapp, your comment here. Here it is, page 5: ``Wholesale repeal
of drug laws is a simplistic and irresponsible approach to our
country's drug problems.''
Mr. Chairman, I am having a little trouble right now
because we sit and receive the testimony of people whose sole
purpose in life is to improve our community by enforcing the
laws that are passed, and then we countenance testimony from
individuals, organizations like NORML that, for personal
gratification or otherwise, wish to have these poisons remain
available in our country. And I just--I can hardly contain
myself today.
To you, I very much appreciate what you are doing. I mean,
you are on the other end of the country from where I live. You
will never have an impact on my town or my kids or my
community. But just keep at it. We will give you every resource
we can.
Mr. Hynes. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I do want to thank the panelists. We tried to
open this whole subject up to discussion. There is increased
interest in so-called decriminalization, but when you talk to
folks in New York or Arizona, you find out a little bit more of
what is going on, the facts, so to speak. They are not all in,
at least in Arizona, and I think the study that has been
revealed here today from New York is interesting.
It is incumbent on us at the Federal level that we look for
effective legislative and administrative initiatives that will
make a difference. Mr. Cummings' community--he and I served
together. He was a ranking member when I chaired Civil Service,
and he told me--I think he has 60,000--his estimate is 60,000.
Mr. Constantine had 38,900 heroin addicts in Baltimore; the
population is 60,000, which has adopted a more liberal
approach, so it does raise some very serious questions about
what we do, and that certainly has to have some cost to his
community.
I think we would all be better off if we could have more
success stories liken Mr. Cohens. That is what we are looking
for, and trying to find a route there isn't easy.
We do appreciate your participation, your testimony. As we
move along, we may call on you again, obviously trying to draw
on those success stories and see where we can do a better job,
from the Federal level, of assisting you.
We have no further business to come before the
subcommittee. I am going to leave the record open for 10 days
for additional comments or additional information or questions
that may be directed to any of the witnesses.
There being no further business before the subcommittee
this afternoon, I would like to thank you again for being with
us and providing testimony.
Mr. Hynes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-