Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
2122729
label
Subject File, 1969-73: [Administration Drug Bill] [5 of 5]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
2122729
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Subject File, 1969-73: [Administration Drug Bill] [5 of 5]
citationUrl
collections
White House Staff Member and Office Files (Nixon Administration)
John W. Dean III's Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
2122729
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8e7c302bbf237479
ocrText
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
June 4, 1969
Main HEW
TO: Mr. Hugh M. Durham
FROM: L. Patrick Gray, III
5238 N# # N
Secretary Finch asked that this
be forwarded to you.
Any further work should be done
with Mr. Creed Black, Assistant
Secretary for Legislation,
on Code 13, ext. 37868.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OMNIBUS DRUG ABUSE BILL: Major Problems
1.
Decisions to Control
Role $105
The bill authorizes the Attorney General to control any substance
which he determines to have a "high potential for abuse. " He
would have the advice of an Advisory Committee but would not be
obliged to follow the Committee's advice. The Committee
would
include two consultants (not members) from DHEW.
We believe that the decision to control a substance is essentially
a medical decision and should rest with DHEW. Alternatively,
the Attorney General should be required to obtain the scientific
advice and consent of the Secretary in making decisions to control.
2. Drug Abuse Potential
Notice
The bill requires manufacturers to submit to the Attorney General
information about the abuse potential for any drug which is the
subject of a New Drug Application. This would create a duplicative
situation and since, again, it is a medical problem, it should
remain within DHEW.
3. Licensing of Researchers
The bill would authorize the Attorney General to license practitioners
can we this Not to
who wish to conduct research on Schedule I substances (e.g. marijuana,
LSD) and Schedule II substances (therapeutically useful narcotics).
Again, this is a medical function and DHEW already has the expertise
HEW to to unine
necessary to evaluate the qualifications of researchers. We would
not object to a requirement that such investigators report the use
The 8101 &
of these substances to Justice, or to be subject to dual authority
to revoke registration (Justice from abuse standpoint, and HEW from
health standpoint.)
e
4. Research and Education
The bill would authorize Justice to conduct broad programs to drug
we limit
abuse research, education, and public information. It is clear
can this relates to R/E
in the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1968, that only enforcement
provisions, not research and education, were being transferred to
Justice. To create a special competence in Justice for medical
as
IE
and scientific research on drug abuse would be not only duplicative,
it would be contrary to the intent of Congress.
to and the
purposes of his
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
(1) DECISION to Control
- HEW Questions Re Org Plan which transferred
both regulatory and investigation functions
NOTES
Reory plan sought to place dnug control problem
in the agency with law/enf responsibilities - D/J.
[It would be politically unwise for RN to take a
softer position on Drags MAN LBS]
Much of the Repoblism opposition to the Reongamization
fowsed on giving Runsey clark control - it was felt
that Tres. was a hand line get and this world
be lost order Elask
The I/E nature of ky problem is suggested by
the pre existing structure of FBN 8 BDAC. FBN had
475 employees - 304 were enforment people. BOHC had
460 employees - 300 were informat people 8 20 Achin
personal fromal he link to other HEW rele activities
relating to drug problems.
# Public (f Congress) look at the problem
of drugs as an informent problem.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
HEALTH.
OF
DELICATION.
department OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
U.S.A.
May 1, 1969
Mr. John W. Dean
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.
Dear John:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to the Budget
Bureau today by the Under Secretary in order to
expedite staff discussion on the Justice Depart-
ment's draft, "Controlled Dangerous Substances
Act of 1969". While I am enclosing a copy of this
Department's comments on the draft Message, I am
not enclosing a copy of the draft report on the
bill because I have already sent you that. A copy,
however, is going to Mr. Kleindienstfrom the
Under Secretary.
Sincerely,
Theodore Ellenbogen
Assistant General Counsel
for Legislation
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
May 1, 1969
Mr. John W. Dean
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.
Dear John:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to the Budget
Bureau today by the Under Secretary in order to
expedite staff discussion on the Justice Depart-
ment's draft, "Controlled Dangerous Substances
Act of 1969". While I am enclosing a copy of this
Department's comments on the draft Message, I am
not enclosing a copy of the draft report on the
bill because I have already sent you that. A copy,
however, is going to Mr. Kleindienstfrom the
Under Secretary.
Sincerely,
Theodore Ellenbogen
Assistant General Counsel
for Legislation
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
MISSOURI
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
MAY 1 1969
Dear Mr. Mayo:
This is in response to your request for a DHEW reaction to the
draft bill "Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969.' =
Enclosed is a copy of our staff reaction to the bill.
Secretary Finch has not seen this paper.
Since time is very short, we would like to start staff dis-
cussions with the Bureau of the Budget and the Department of
Justice on the basis of:
1. The draft comments (enclosed)
2. The Department's position on the draft message,
transmitted by Secretary Finch to the President on April 18,
1969, which outlines the spirit of our differences with the
proposed legislation (enclosed).
We would like to ensure, through the staff discussions suggested
above, that we have coordinated input to the content of the
draft message and the draft bill. Hopefully these discussions
can begin immediately. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours
Under Secretary
Honorable Robert P. Mayo
Director, Bureau of the Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Enclosures
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
CONFIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
HEMORANOUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Resotion to Draft Ressage to Congress (4/14/69):
Marcetics and Dangerous Drugs
Wifle 1 fully support the encouragement of far greater law
enforcement afforts against the importation, interstate
trafficking, and local selling of drugs and narcotics, I
believe this Lessage could be greatly Improved 1f 1 : encom-
passed both law enforcement and rensbilitation. Further,
the message should display on understanding of distinctions
acong the narcotics end dengareus drugs.
1 suggest that the massage be restructured into four najor
sections:
1 Law Enforcement
II Distinctions Among Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
III Treatment and Rehabilitation of Addicts
IV Public Education
Within the section on Law Enforcement, 1t should be stated
that the effectiveness of Tax enforcement depands upon
improving comunications between concerned communities and
law enforcement agencies. by "isproving communications"
I mean:
---make known that users of narcotics will be regarded
as sick people, which should make it caster for individuals
within commitics to cooperate with law enforcement officials;
--urge local Tor enforcement agencies to encourage
users to turn themsolves fa without fear of criminal
producetion;
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
2
increase the visibility of law enforcement agencies
and Improve access to them; and
oncourage law enforcement people to work with the
people in thair communities on this problem.
In Section II, Distinction Among Marcotics and Dangerous Drugs,
we want to note that marijuana, LSD, and the opiotes pose
times separate problems. Marijuana is probably the most
complex because anyone can grow it in his backyard, because
of the publicity, and because hard data on the deleterious
effects is not presently available.
Among the young, marijuana is looked upon as no worse than the
use of alcoholic beverages by adults. We should point out that
marijusna has a similar effect to alcohol on vision and re-
actions, and could become as much a cause of automobile fatalities
and injuries as alcohol, which presently accounts for more than
50% of the traffic fatalities in the United States.
LSD effects have been more carefully described, the effects
are more severe (apparently) than those of marijuana, and
publicity on these effects has reduced use somewhat. However,
while it can't Le grown in every yard, those with a good knowl-
edge of chemistry can make it, and, therefore, like marijuana
it will be difficult to centrol access to the drug through law
enforcement: public education will have to play a strong role.
Moreover, LSD users are probably better educated than marijuona
users, so that the educational thrust will have to vary between
these two.
The opiates constitute the worst problem, and it has been
obscured by the publicity about marijuana and LSD. The central
purpose of this message should be to focus far greater energy
and resources on the hard narcetics.
In Section III, Treatment and Rehabilitation of Addicts, we
should draw attention to the fact that the use of narcotics
is fundespontally a social and health problem, not a criminal
problem (although users may be driven to crime to pay for their
supplies). Our objective should be the mental, social, and
physical rehabilitation of users.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
3
In this connection the massage should ask the National Institute
of Montal Health to focus all possible resources on the develop-
ment of adaquate treatment facilities casily accessible to drug
users.
Recognizing that whole communities suffer from the problems of
the addicts, to should encourage communition to assist In
efforts to help prevent and control the abuse of drugs and
narcatics. This will be most difficult if this problem 1s
approached solely in terms of crime and law enforcement.
Within this section should be included comments now in the
aussage on increasing our research on the effects. of narcotics
and drugs and on the discovery of new means of treatment.
Finally, in Section IV, on Public Education, in addition to the
words now contained in the massage on this subject, we should
also encourage understanding arrong employers of the productive
possibilities of the rehabilitated addict. It is within the
power of employers to assist the rehabilitated addict in his
search for social acceptance, and to prevent him from back-
sliding into addiction.
We should also call for the strengthening of the present
campaign which the National Institute of-Mental Health has
undertaken to reach youth and others through TV and radio spots.
Mark
Secretary
TEWirth:rw 4/18/69
CC: NEW
Mrs. Byers
Mr. Gray
Mr. Wirth
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10
MAY 1962 EDITION
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
CONFIDENTIAL - ADMINISTRATIVE
John W. Dean
April 30, 1969
TO
:
Associate Deputy Attorney General
DATE:
Department of Justice
Theodore Ellenbogen
FROM :
Assistant General Counsel
for Legislation, HEW
SUBJECT:
Issues involved in Justice Department draft "Controlled Dangerous
Substances Act of 1969".
As requested, I am transmitting herewith, on a confidential basis,
a copy of the draft report (tab c) on the Justice Department's
draft bill which I mentioned to you, together with summaries of the
draft report (tab B) and of the bill (tab A). I should like to
emphasize that the material has not as yet been reviewed by the
Secretary. I look forward to meeting with you for an explanatory
discussion of the issues.
Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
5010-108
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Tab A
CONFIDENTIAL - ADMINISTRATIVE
Summary of Draft "Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969"
I. Coverage of bill.
To be subject to control, at any given time, a drug or other substance
would at that time have to be listed on one of 4 "Schedules" (I, II,
III, IV). To a large extent, the degree of control, and penalties
for violations, would depend on the schedule in which a substance
appears. At the outset, each schedule would be set forth in the bill.
The Attorney General would be authorized, after obtaining the non=
binding advice of a scientific advisory committee, 1/ to transfer
substances between schedules, add a previously unlisted substance to
any schedule, or decontrol a substance (i.e., take it completely out
of the schedules). Any substance (except liquor, wine, beer, and
tobacco) could thus be put under control, provided that the Attorney
General found, after considering certain factors, that it had a
"potential for abuse" (or that control was required by treaty) and
that it met the criteria specified for a particular schedule.
II. Licensure.
Every person who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses controlled
substances (including practitioners) would have to obtain an annual
license from the Attorney General. A practitioner would be entitled
to a license for Schedules II through IV substances if licensed under
State law and not convicted of a felony with regard to a controlled
substance under Federal or State law. For Schedule I substances, a
practitioner would be treated as a "distributor" and denied a license
if "not consistent with the public interest". Secondly, if research
I/ HEW could designate two persons as consultants to the committee,
not to the Attorney General.
2/ Actual or relative potential for abuse, and history, current pattern,
scope, duration, and significance of abuse; any known pharmacological
effect; current scientific knowledge as to the substance; any public
health risk; psychic or physiological dependence liability of the
substance; controls required by treaty; and whether the substance is
an immediate precursor of a previously controlled substance.
3/ For Schedule I, high abuse potential, no accepted U.S. medical use,
and lack of "accepted safety for use under medical supervision"; for
Schedule II, high abuse potential, currently accepted U.S. medical use
(with or without severe restrictions), and risk of severe psychic or
physical dependence from abuse; for Schedule III, less abuse potential,
well documented and approved medical use in U.S., and risk of moderate
or low physical dependence or high psychic dependence from abuse; and
for Schedule IV low abuse potential and limited physical or psychic
dependence liability as compared with Schedule III substances, and
currently accepted medical use in U.S.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
- 2 -
(even animal research) is to be conducted with the substance, as
would be true in virtually every Schedule I case, the Attorney
General, after obtaining the non-binding advice of HEW as to the
applicant's qualifications for the particular research, would grant
the license only if he considered the research "consistent with the
public health and safety".
If licensed for research, and if authorized by the Attorney General
to withhold the names and other identifying characteristics of
persons who are subjects of the research, a researcher could not
be compelled to disclose this information in any Federal or State
proceeding of any kin d. Secondly, if the Attorney General autho-
rized possession and distribution of a controlled substance by a
researcher, the researcher would be exempt from Federal, State, or
local prosecution for such possession and distribution "to the
extent authorized by the Attorney General."
III. Production quotas.
For each Schedule I and II substance, the Attorney General would
annually determine national production requirements to provide for
the medical, scientific, and industrial needs of the United States,
and for exports and reserve stocks, and would assign production
quotas to individual manufacturers which they may not exceed.
IV. Record-keeping, reporting, order form, and prescription requirements.
1. All licensees for controlled substances, except practitioners who
administer but do not otherwise dispense such substances, would have
to maintain complete and cumulative records, and take biennial in-
ventories, of controlled substances in accordance with regulations
and would, if required by the Attorney General, have to make reports
necessary to conform to treaty obligations of the United States.
2. Order forms. Schedule I and II substances could be distributed
only pursuant to an order form prescribed by the Attorney General,
except that this would not apply to the administration or other dis-
pensing of a drug by a physician to a patient, or to the dispensing
of a drug by a pharmacist on written prescription.
3. Prescriptions. Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner,
or "in emergency situations as prescribed by the Attorney General by
regulation, 11 a Schedule II substance could be dispensed only on written
prescription (which could not be refilled), and a Schedule III substance
could be dispensed only on written or oral prescription which could not
be refilled more than five times or more than 6 months after the date of
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
- 3 -
prescription. Schedule IV substances could be distributed or dis-
pensed only for medical purposes.
V. Imports and Exports.
The bill provides for pervasive regulation of imports and exports
by the Attorney General.
Schedule I and II substances, or any narcotic drug in Schedules III
and IV, would be barred from importation except pursuant to such
exceptions as the Attorney General may by regulation provide as
necessary for medical, scientific, or other legitimate purposes.
Non-narcotic Schedule III substances could be imported for medical
and other legitimate uses only, pursuant to notification require-
ments prescribed by the Attorney General.
Narcotic drugs listed in Schedules I, II, and III and non-narcotic
Schedule I and II substances could be exported only on certain
conditions and pursuant to an export permit issued by the Attorney
General in each instance, and in the case of narcotics only to
countries that are parties to the Single Convention or certain
other treaties.
Special safeguards are also provided for exports of other controlled
substances for which no export permit is required.
VI. Penalties.
Trafficking in narcotic drugs, including possession with intent to
distribute, is treated more severely than trafficking in other drugs
listed on the same Schedule, but the bill is, as to narcotics, less
harsh than existing law.
For a first offense of trafficking, even in the case of narcotic
drugs, the bill does not require a minimum term of imprisonment but
provides that, in addition to any term of imprisonment, a special
parole term of at least three years in the case of narcotic, and of
at least two years in the case of other substances, shall be imposed.
A first offense of trafficking in a Schedule IV substance, or of
possession for one's own use in the case of any controlled substance,
would be a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum prison term of one
year. In the case of a first offense of mere possession of any
controlled substance, provision is made for up to a year's probation
and thereafter discharging the defendant and dismissing the proceeding
without a record of correction. (Similar provisions already apply to
nonnarcotic drugs. )
Unlawful distribution of a controlled substance by a person 18 years
or older to a person under 18 who is at least 3 years his junior
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
sot 4 -
would be punishable by imprisonment of up to twice that other-
wise authorized.
In the case of second or subsequent offenses of trafficking, a
mandatory minimum prison term is provided for, suspension of
the sentence or placement on probation is prohibited, and, if
the offense is a third or subsequent offense, parole under
18 U.S.C. 4202 is prohibited. Special sentencing provisions are
included for persons substantially engaged in organized crime
("continuing criminal enterprises").
VII. Education and Research.
1. The Attorney General would be authorized and directed "to
carry out educational programs designed to prevent and deter
misuse of controlled dangerous substances. " In connection
therewith he would be authorized to promote better recognition
of the problems of misuse and abuse of such substances within
the regulated industries and among other interested groups and
organizations; assist them in contributing to reduction of drug
misuse and abuse; consult with interested groups and organiza-
tions to aid them in solving administrative and organizational
problems; evaluate procedures, projects, techniques, and controls
conducted or proposed as part of educational programs on drug
abuse; disseminate the results of research to promote a better
understanding of the problems and what can be done to combat them;
and conduct and assist in training of local, State, and Federal
law enforcement personnel.
2. The Attorney General would be authorized and directed to
encourage research on misuse and abuse of controlled dangerous
substances. In connection therewith, and in furtherance in
enforcement of the bill, he could (1) establish methods to assess
effects of controlled substances and identify and characterize
those with abuse potential; and (2) undertake research programs to
develop new or improved enforcement techniques and devices,
determine patterns of misuse and abuse of controlled dangerous
substances "and the social effects thereof", improve methods for
preventing, understanding, and dealing with the misuse and abuse
of controlled substances, and enter into contracts with public
agencies, institutions of higher education, and private organiza-
tions or individuals for the purpose of "conducting research,
demonstrations, or special projects which bear directly on misuse
and abuse of controlled dangerous substances."
VIII. Statistics and Roster of Addicts.
The Attorney General would be authorized to maintain in the
Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs a unit that will accept,
catalogue, file, and otherwise utilize all information and statis-
tics, including records of dangerous substance addicts and other
dangerous substance law offenders, which may be received from
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
- 5 =
Federal, State and local agencies, and make such information
available for Federal, State and local law enforcement
purposes.
IX. Enforcement Powers. The bill provides broad authority
for enforcement of the bill, including subpena power, adminis-
trative inspection authority, provision for forfeiture of
seized subsubstances, equipment, and vehicles, etc., and
specific provision for judicial warrant for administrative
inspections.
X. Repealers, etc.
Title VIII of the bill would repeal a number of existing
statutes which would be superseded by the bill. In attempting
to repeal the amendments to the Food and Drug Act made by the
Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965, the bill is technically
defective. Also, the draftsman overlooked the recently enacted
penalty amendments to the Food and Drug Act.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
CONFIDENTIAL - ADMINISTRATIVE
TAB B
Summary of draft of report to Budget Bureau on
Justice Department's "Controlled Dangerous
Substances Act of 1969".
1. Recommends that the bill be changed to vest all basic-
regulatory functions (including licensure), as distinguished from
Я
law enforcement and related investigative functions, in HEW instead
of Justice Department, or to require the Attorney General to dele-
gate these functions to HEWL/ (because more appropriate to, and
involving primarily those disciplines within the special competence
of, HEW's missions than the mission of a law enforcement agency.
This would be in line with the 1963 report of the Prettyman Com-
mission (President's Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse) in 1963.
In this connection, the draft report confronts and questions in
this regard the soundness of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1968 which
transferred both the regulatory and investigative functions under
existing law to Justice under the narcotic laws and the Drug Abuse
Control Amendments of 1965 (to the Food and Drug Act).
2. Questions requirement of Federal licensure of physicians
and researchers, but states that we would not oppose a simple regis-
tration requirement. (Raises no question as to licensure of manu-
facturers and distributors, though the associations representing
these interests will presumably do so.) States that any control over
research should be vested in this Department, which already exercises
The Hoover Commission, in 1949, recommended that the Bureau of
Narcotics be transferred from the Treasury Dpt. to the Justice Dpt.
At that time the Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965, controlling
psychotropic drugs other than narcotics and marihuana, had, of
course, not yet been enacted.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
2.
pervasive surveillance and control over drug research in the context
of the new-drug provisions of the Food and Drug Act, and states that
any additional desired control, such as jurisdiction over research
with psychotropic drugs of intrastate origin, could and should be
added by simple amendment of that Act.
3. Suggests deletion of research and educational functions from
the bill (except for authority to train Federal, State, and local law
enforcement personnel) because, to the extent it is intended as
merely in aid of other functions conferred by the bill, such authority
would necessarily be implied and, if intended to be more comprehensive
as suggested by its language, it would inappropriately and inefficiently
duplicate HEW functions and activities.
4. Expresses qualified approval of penalty scheme as moving in
the direction of a proposal under consideration by National Commission
on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws and away from the excessively puni-
tive approach of the narcotics laws, but suggests that, inter alia,
consideration be given to (a) deleting disqualification of recidivists
for parole, especially in the case of nonnarcotic offenses where parole
is authorized under existing law, and (b) making drug addiction a
defense in cases of possession of a drug for one's own use.
5. Suggests that coverage of the bill, for substances not listed
by the bill itself, be more closely circumscribed than by the words
"potential for abuse" standing alone, e.g., by requiring a finding that
the abuse potential be due to the substance's effect on the central
nervous system, as now required under Drug Abuse Control Amendments
of 1965.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
3.
6. Mentions that Dr. Yolles, Director of NIMH, is to arrange
establishment of an interagency committee on research in this field,
but suggests establishment (not necessarily by statute) of a broader
intergovernmental coordinating committee on drug abuse, perhaps
along the lines of the long dormant Interdepartmental Committee on
Narcotics.
7. Encloses a staff paper making supplementary suggestions.
The staff paper recommends--
(a) that substances to be regulated under the bill be
called "controlled substances" rather than "controlled dangerous
substances", and that the short title ofthe bill be "Drug Abuse
Control Act" or "Drug Abuse Control Code", because the term
"dangerous" is hyperbolic and unduly alarmist as applied to many
substances that are or will be within the scope of the bill;
(b) that the Congressional findings to be set forth in the
bill be revised to reflect the fact that the need for special
controls is due to the detrimental effect on health and general
welfare caused by the misuse and abuse of the drugs and substances
involved for nonmedicinal and nonscientific purposes;
(c) points out that the requirement of the bill that a manu-
facturer filing a new-drug application with HEW for a depressant,
stimulant, or hallucinogenic drug submit information on the drug's
abuse potential to the Justice Dpt's. Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs for review by the Scientific Advisory Committee
would in effect provide for duplicate new-drug review by the two
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
4.
departments and would put an intolerable burden on the advisory
committee (as well as manufacturers) because the requirement
would involve virtually every "new drug" submitted to HEW;
(a) states that the lists of substances in the bill under
the various schedules should be perfected before submission to
Congress, rather than thereafter as suggested in the summary
accompanying the draft bill;
(e) recommends that the bill follow existing law so as to
require that, in the case of "depressant or stimulant drugs" as
defined in the Food and Drug Act, the drug be exempted from the
controls under the bill if, under the provisions of that Act, it
is an over-the-counter (rather than prescription) drug, or if it
is an ingredient of a mixture that vitiates the depressant, stimu-
lant, or hallucinogenic potential of that ingredient;
(f) objects to vesting in the Attorney General, rather than
HEW, authority for determining when or whether a drug may be sold
only on prescription;
(g) recommends a broad provision that nothing in the bill
shall in any way modify, repeal, supersede, or otherwise affect
provisions of the Food and Drug Act (instead of the bill's
narrower provision that a license granted under the bill does
not relieve a licensee from any obligation imposed by the Food
and Drug Act;
(h) states that HEW does not object to the bill's provision
for maintaining in BNDD records of addicts and offenders against
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library
5.
Federal, State, or local drug abuse control laws and other
statistical information, for making such information available
for law enforcement purposes at Federal, State, and local levels,
on the understanding that Justice Dpt. should have no authority
to require from any treatment or research source information
identifying individual addicts, patients, or research subjects;
and points out that statistical reporting for law enforcement
purposes would not fully serve HEW's needs or the need for a
national reporting system as outlined in the Prettyman Commission's
report;
(i) recommends that the procedural provisions for judicial
warrants for administrative inspections under the bill be deleted
on the ground that only uniform across-the-board authorizing legis-
lation for such warrants, for all Federal regulatory programs under
which periodic administrative inspections are made, rather than
piecemeal legislation, should be submitted to Congress, and that
the Justice Department has already developed a first draft of
such legislation, on which HEW has commented at staff level; and
(j) states that HEW staff, in reviewing the drug bill,
have noted a number of drafting problems. (These could be taken
up informally with Justice Department at staff level. )
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library