Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "2122729",
    "label": "Subject File, 1969-73: [Administration Drug Bill] [5 of 5]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2122729"
}

{
    "id": "2122729",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2122729",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Subject File, 1969-73: [Administration Drug Bill] [5 of 5]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2122729",
    "collections": [
        "White House Staff Member and Office Files (Nixon Administration)",
        "John W. Dean III's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/922108/Batch0001/2122729.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/922108/Batch0001/2122729.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/922108/Batch0001/2122729.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2122729",
    "naId": 2122729,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/922108/Batch0001/2122729.pdf",
    "mediaId": "8e7c302bbf237479",
    "ocrText": "DEPARTMENT OF\nHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY\nJune 4, 1969\nMain HEW\nTO: Mr. Hugh M. Durham\nFROM: L. Patrick Gray, III\n5238 N# # N\nSecretary Finch asked that this\nbe forwarded to you.\nAny further work should be done\nwith Mr. Creed Black, Assistant\nSecretary for Legislation,\non Code 13, ext. 37868.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nJUSTICE DEPARTMENT OMNIBUS DRUG ABUSE BILL: Major Problems\n1.\nDecisions to Control\nRole $105\nThe bill authorizes the Attorney General to control any substance\nwhich he determines to have a \"high potential for abuse. \" He\nwould have the advice of an Advisory Committee but would not be\nobliged to follow the Committee's advice. The Committee\nwould\ninclude two consultants (not members) from DHEW.\nWe believe that the decision to control a substance is essentially\na medical decision and should rest with DHEW. Alternatively,\nthe Attorney General should be required to obtain the scientific\nadvice and consent of the Secretary in making decisions to control.\n2. Drug Abuse Potential\nNotice\nThe bill requires manufacturers to submit to the Attorney General\ninformation about the abuse potential for any drug which is the\nsubject of a New Drug Application. This would create a duplicative\nsituation and since, again, it is a medical problem, it should\nremain within DHEW.\n3. Licensing of Researchers\nThe bill would authorize the Attorney General to license practitioners\ncan we this Not to\nwho wish to conduct research on Schedule I substances (e.g. marijuana,\nLSD) and Schedule II substances (therapeutically useful narcotics).\nAgain, this is a medical function and DHEW already has the expertise\nHEW to to unine\nnecessary to evaluate the qualifications of researchers. We would\nnot object to a requirement that such investigators report the use\nThe 8101 &\nof these substances to Justice, or to be subject to dual authority\nto revoke registration (Justice from abuse standpoint, and HEW from\nhealth standpoint.)\ne\n4. Research and Education\nThe bill would authorize Justice to conduct broad programs to drug\nwe limit\nabuse research, education, and public information. It is clear\ncan this relates to R/E\nin the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1968, that only enforcement\nprovisions, not research and education, were being transferred to\nJustice. To create a special competence in Justice for medical\nas\nIE\nand scientific research on drug abuse would be not only duplicative,\nit would be contrary to the intent of Congress.\nto and the\npurposes of his\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\n(1) DECISION to Control\n- HEW Questions Re Org Plan which transferred\nboth regulatory and investigation functions\nNOTES\nReory plan sought to place dnug control problem\nin the agency with law/enf responsibilities - D/J.\n[It would be politically unwise for RN to take a\nsofter position on Drags MAN LBS]\nMuch of the Repoblism opposition to the Reongamization\nfowsed on giving Runsey clark control - it was felt\nthat Tres. was a hand line get and this world\nbe lost order Elask\nThe I/E nature of ky problem is suggested by\nthe pre existing structure of FBN 8 BDAC. FBN had\n475 employees - 304 were enforment people. BOHC had\n460 employees - 300 were informat people 8 20 Achin\npersonal fromal he link to other HEW rele activities\nrelating to drug problems.\n# Public (f Congress) look at the problem\nof drugs as an informent problem.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nHEALTH.\nOF\nDELICATION.\ndepartment OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nU.S.A.\nMay 1, 1969\nMr. John W. Dean\nAssociate Deputy Attorney General\nDepartment of Justice\nWashington, D.C.\nDear John:\nEnclosed is a copy of a letter sent to the Budget\nBureau today by the Under Secretary in order to\nexpedite staff discussion on the Justice Depart-\nment's draft, \"Controlled Dangerous Substances\nAct of 1969\". While I am enclosing a copy of this\nDepartment's comments on the draft Message, I am\nnot enclosing a copy of the draft report on the\nbill because I have already sent you that. A copy,\nhowever, is going to Mr. Kleindienstfrom the\nUnder Secretary.\nSincerely,\nTheodore Ellenbogen\nAssistant General Counsel\nfor Legislation\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nMay 1, 1969\nMr. John W. Dean\nAssociate Deputy Attorney General\nDepartment of Justice\nWashington, D.C.\nDear John:\nEnclosed is a copy of a letter sent to the Budget\nBureau today by the Under Secretary in order to\nexpedite staff discussion on the Justice Depart-\nment's draft, \"Controlled Dangerous Substances\nAct of 1969\". While I am enclosing a copy of this\nDepartment's comments on the draft Message, I am\nnot enclosing a copy of the draft report on the\nbill because I have already sent you that. A copy,\nhowever, is going to Mr. Kleindienstfrom the\nUnder Secretary.\nSincerely,\nTheodore Ellenbogen\nAssistant General Counsel\nfor Legislation\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nMISSOURI\nTHE UNDER SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20201\nMAY 1 1969\nDear Mr. Mayo:\nThis is in response to your request for a DHEW reaction to the\ndraft bill \"Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969.' =\nEnclosed is a copy of our staff reaction to the bill.\nSecretary Finch has not seen this paper.\nSince time is very short, we would like to start staff dis-\ncussions with the Bureau of the Budget and the Department of\nJustice on the basis of:\n1. The draft comments (enclosed)\n2. The Department's position on the draft message,\ntransmitted by Secretary Finch to the President on April 18,\n1969, which outlines the spirit of our differences with the\nproposed legislation (enclosed).\nWe would like to ensure, through the staff discussions suggested\nabove, that we have coordinated input to the content of the\ndraft message and the draft bill. Hopefully these discussions\ncan begin immediately. I look forward to hearing from you.\nSincerely yours\nUnder Secretary\nHonorable Robert P. Mayo\nDirector, Bureau of the Budget\nWashington, D. C. 20503\nEnclosures\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nCONFIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE\nHEMORANOUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Resotion to Draft Ressage to Congress (4/14/69):\nMarcetics and Dangerous Drugs\nWifle 1 fully support the encouragement of far greater law\nenforcement afforts against the importation, interstate\ntrafficking, and local selling of drugs and narcotics, I\nbelieve this Lessage could be greatly Improved 1f 1 : encom-\npassed both law enforcement and rensbilitation. Further,\nthe message should display on understanding of distinctions\nacong the narcotics end dengareus drugs.\n1 suggest that the massage be restructured into four najor\nsections:\n1 Law Enforcement\nII Distinctions Among Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs\nIII Treatment and Rehabilitation of Addicts\nIV Public Education\nWithin the section on Law Enforcement, 1t should be stated\nthat the effectiveness of Tax enforcement depands upon\nimproving comunications between concerned communities and\nlaw enforcement agencies. by \"isproving communications\"\nI mean:\n---make known that users of narcotics will be regarded\nas sick people, which should make it caster for individuals\nwithin commitics to cooperate with law enforcement officials;\n--urge local Tor enforcement agencies to encourage\nusers to turn themsolves fa without fear of criminal\nproducetion;\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\n2\nincrease the visibility of law enforcement agencies\nand Improve access to them; and\noncourage law enforcement people to work with the\npeople in thair communities on this problem.\nIn Section II, Distinction Among Marcotics and Dangerous Drugs,\nwe want to note that marijuana, LSD, and the opiotes pose\ntimes separate problems. Marijuana is probably the most\ncomplex because anyone can grow it in his backyard, because\nof the publicity, and because hard data on the deleterious\neffects is not presently available.\nAmong the young, marijuana is looked upon as no worse than the\nuse of alcoholic beverages by adults. We should point out that\nmarijusna has a similar effect to alcohol on vision and re-\nactions, and could become as much a cause of automobile fatalities\nand injuries as alcohol, which presently accounts for more than\n50% of the traffic fatalities in the United States.\nLSD effects have been more carefully described, the effects\nare more severe (apparently) than those of marijuana, and\npublicity on these effects has reduced use somewhat. However,\nwhile it can't Le grown in every yard, those with a good knowl-\nedge of chemistry can make it, and, therefore, like marijuana\nit will be difficult to centrol access to the drug through law\nenforcement: public education will have to play a strong role.\nMoreover, LSD users are probably better educated than marijuona\nusers, so that the educational thrust will have to vary between\nthese two.\nThe opiates constitute the worst problem, and it has been\nobscured by the publicity about marijuana and LSD. The central\npurpose of this message should be to focus far greater energy\nand resources on the hard narcetics.\nIn Section III, Treatment and Rehabilitation of Addicts, we\nshould draw attention to the fact that the use of narcotics\nis fundespontally a social and health problem, not a criminal\nproblem (although users may be driven to crime to pay for their\nsupplies). Our objective should be the mental, social, and\nphysical rehabilitation of users.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\n3\nIn this connection the massage should ask the National Institute\nof Montal Health to focus all possible resources on the develop-\nment of adaquate treatment facilities casily accessible to drug\nusers.\nRecognizing that whole communities suffer from the problems of\nthe addicts, to should encourage communition to assist In\nefforts to help prevent and control the abuse of drugs and\nnarcatics. This will be most difficult if this problem 1s\napproached solely in terms of crime and law enforcement.\nWithin this section should be included comments now in the\naussage on increasing our research on the effects. of narcotics\nand drugs and on the discovery of new means of treatment.\nFinally, in Section IV, on Public Education, in addition to the\nwords now contained in the massage on this subject, we should\nalso encourage understanding arrong employers of the productive\npossibilities of the rehabilitated addict. It is within the\npower of employers to assist the rehabilitated addict in his\nsearch for social acceptance, and to prevent him from back-\nsliding into addiction.\nWe should also call for the strengthening of the present\ncampaign which the National Institute of-Mental Health has\nundertaken to reach youth and others through TV and radio spots.\nMark\nSecretary\nTEWirth:rw 4/18/69\nCC: NEW\nMrs. Byers\nMr. Gray\nMr. Wirth\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nOPTIONAL FORM NO. 10\nMAY 1962 EDITION\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nUNITED STATES GOVERNMENT\nMemorandum\nCONFIDENTIAL - ADMINISTRATIVE\nJohn W. Dean\nApril 30, 1969\nTO\n:\nAssociate Deputy Attorney General\nDATE:\nDepartment of Justice\nTheodore Ellenbogen\nFROM :\nAssistant General Counsel\nfor Legislation, HEW\nSUBJECT:\nIssues involved in Justice Department draft \"Controlled Dangerous\nSubstances Act of 1969\".\nAs requested, I am transmitting herewith, on a confidential basis,\na copy of the draft report (tab c) on the Justice Department's\ndraft bill which I mentioned to you, together with summaries of the\ndraft report (tab B) and of the bill (tab A). I should like to\nemphasize that the material has not as yet been reviewed by the\nSecretary. I look forward to meeting with you for an explanatory\ndiscussion of the issues.\nBuy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan\n5010-108\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nTab A\nCONFIDENTIAL - ADMINISTRATIVE\nSummary of Draft \"Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969\"\nI. Coverage of bill.\nTo be subject to control, at any given time, a drug or other substance\nwould at that time have to be listed on one of 4 \"Schedules\" (I, II,\nIII, IV). To a large extent, the degree of control, and penalties\nfor violations, would depend on the schedule in which a substance\nappears. At the outset, each schedule would be set forth in the bill.\nThe Attorney General would be authorized, after obtaining the non=\nbinding advice of a scientific advisory committee, 1/ to transfer\nsubstances between schedules, add a previously unlisted substance to\nany schedule, or decontrol a substance (i.e., take it completely out\nof the schedules). Any substance (except liquor, wine, beer, and\ntobacco) could thus be put under control, provided that the Attorney\nGeneral found, after considering certain factors, that it had a\n\"potential for abuse\" (or that control was required by treaty) and\nthat it met the criteria specified for a particular schedule.\nII. Licensure.\nEvery person who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses controlled\nsubstances (including practitioners) would have to obtain an annual\nlicense from the Attorney General. A practitioner would be entitled\nto a license for Schedules II through IV substances if licensed under\nState law and not convicted of a felony with regard to a controlled\nsubstance under Federal or State law. For Schedule I substances, a\npractitioner would be treated as a \"distributor\" and denied a license\nif \"not consistent with the public interest\". Secondly, if research\nI/ HEW could designate two persons as consultants to the committee,\nnot to the Attorney General.\n2/ Actual or relative potential for abuse, and history, current pattern,\nscope, duration, and significance of abuse; any known pharmacological\neffect; current scientific knowledge as to the substance; any public\nhealth risk; psychic or physiological dependence liability of the\nsubstance; controls required by treaty; and whether the substance is\nan immediate precursor of a previously controlled substance.\n3/ For Schedule I, high abuse potential, no accepted U.S. medical use,\nand lack of \"accepted safety for use under medical supervision\"; for\nSchedule II, high abuse potential, currently accepted U.S. medical use\n(with or without severe restrictions), and risk of severe psychic or\nphysical dependence from abuse; for Schedule III, less abuse potential,\nwell documented and approved medical use in U.S., and risk of moderate\nor low physical dependence or high psychic dependence from abuse; and\nfor Schedule IV low abuse potential and limited physical or psychic\ndependence liability as compared with Schedule III substances, and\ncurrently accepted medical use in U.S.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\n- 2 -\n(even animal research) is to be conducted with the substance, as\nwould be true in virtually every Schedule I case, the Attorney\nGeneral, after obtaining the non-binding advice of HEW as to the\napplicant's qualifications for the particular research, would grant\nthe license only if he considered the research \"consistent with the\npublic health and safety\".\nIf licensed for research, and if authorized by the Attorney General\nto withhold the names and other identifying characteristics of\npersons who are subjects of the research, a researcher could not\nbe compelled to disclose this information in any Federal or State\nproceeding of any kin d. Secondly, if the Attorney General autho-\nrized possession and distribution of a controlled substance by a\nresearcher, the researcher would be exempt from Federal, State, or\nlocal prosecution for such possession and distribution \"to the\nextent authorized by the Attorney General.\"\nIII. Production quotas.\nFor each Schedule I and II substance, the Attorney General would\nannually determine national production requirements to provide for\nthe medical, scientific, and industrial needs of the United States,\nand for exports and reserve stocks, and would assign production\nquotas to individual manufacturers which they may not exceed.\nIV. Record-keeping, reporting, order form, and prescription requirements.\n1. All licensees for controlled substances, except practitioners who\nadminister but do not otherwise dispense such substances, would have\nto maintain complete and cumulative records, and take biennial in-\nventories, of controlled substances in accordance with regulations\nand would, if required by the Attorney General, have to make reports\nnecessary to conform to treaty obligations of the United States.\n2. Order forms. Schedule I and II substances could be distributed\nonly pursuant to an order form prescribed by the Attorney General,\nexcept that this would not apply to the administration or other dis-\npensing of a drug by a physician to a patient, or to the dispensing\nof a drug by a pharmacist on written prescription.\n3. Prescriptions. Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner,\nor \"in emergency situations as prescribed by the Attorney General by\nregulation, 11 a Schedule II substance could be dispensed only on written\nprescription (which could not be refilled), and a Schedule III substance\ncould be dispensed only on written or oral prescription which could not\nbe refilled more than five times or more than 6 months after the date of\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\n- 3 -\nprescription. Schedule IV substances could be distributed or dis-\npensed only for medical purposes.\nV. Imports and Exports.\nThe bill provides for pervasive regulation of imports and exports\nby the Attorney General.\nSchedule I and II substances, or any narcotic drug in Schedules III\nand IV, would be barred from importation except pursuant to such\nexceptions as the Attorney General may by regulation provide as\nnecessary for medical, scientific, or other legitimate purposes.\nNon-narcotic Schedule III substances could be imported for medical\nand other legitimate uses only, pursuant to notification require-\nments prescribed by the Attorney General.\nNarcotic drugs listed in Schedules I, II, and III and non-narcotic\nSchedule I and II substances could be exported only on certain\nconditions and pursuant to an export permit issued by the Attorney\nGeneral in each instance, and in the case of narcotics only to\ncountries that are parties to the Single Convention or certain\nother treaties.\nSpecial safeguards are also provided for exports of other controlled\nsubstances for which no export permit is required.\nVI. Penalties.\nTrafficking in narcotic drugs, including possession with intent to\ndistribute, is treated more severely than trafficking in other drugs\nlisted on the same Schedule, but the bill is, as to narcotics, less\nharsh than existing law.\nFor a first offense of trafficking, even in the case of narcotic\ndrugs, the bill does not require a minimum term of imprisonment but\nprovides that, in addition to any term of imprisonment, a special\nparole term of at least three years in the case of narcotic, and of\nat least two years in the case of other substances, shall be imposed.\nA first offense of trafficking in a Schedule IV substance, or of\npossession for one's own use in the case of any controlled substance,\nwould be a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum prison term of one\nyear. In the case of a first offense of mere possession of any\ncontrolled substance, provision is made for up to a year's probation\nand thereafter discharging the defendant and dismissing the proceeding\nwithout a record of correction. (Similar provisions already apply to\nnonnarcotic drugs. )\nUnlawful distribution of a controlled substance by a person 18 years\nor older to a person under 18 who is at least 3 years his junior\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nsot 4 -\nwould be punishable by imprisonment of up to twice that other-\nwise authorized.\nIn the case of second or subsequent offenses of trafficking, a\nmandatory minimum prison term is provided for, suspension of\nthe sentence or placement on probation is prohibited, and, if\nthe offense is a third or subsequent offense, parole under\n18 U.S.C. 4202 is prohibited. Special sentencing provisions are\nincluded for persons substantially engaged in organized crime\n(\"continuing criminal enterprises\").\nVII. Education and Research.\n1. The Attorney General would be authorized and directed \"to\ncarry out educational programs designed to prevent and deter\nmisuse of controlled dangerous substances. \" In connection\ntherewith he would be authorized to promote better recognition\nof the problems of misuse and abuse of such substances within\nthe regulated industries and among other interested groups and\norganizations; assist them in contributing to reduction of drug\nmisuse and abuse; consult with interested groups and organiza-\ntions to aid them in solving administrative and organizational\nproblems; evaluate procedures, projects, techniques, and controls\nconducted or proposed as part of educational programs on drug\nabuse; disseminate the results of research to promote a better\nunderstanding of the problems and what can be done to combat them;\nand conduct and assist in training of local, State, and Federal\nlaw enforcement personnel.\n2. The Attorney General would be authorized and directed to\nencourage research on misuse and abuse of controlled dangerous\nsubstances. In connection therewith, and in furtherance in\nenforcement of the bill, he could (1) establish methods to assess\neffects of controlled substances and identify and characterize\nthose with abuse potential; and (2) undertake research programs to\ndevelop new or improved enforcement techniques and devices,\ndetermine patterns of misuse and abuse of controlled dangerous\nsubstances \"and the social effects thereof\", improve methods for\npreventing, understanding, and dealing with the misuse and abuse\nof controlled substances, and enter into contracts with public\nagencies, institutions of higher education, and private organiza-\ntions or individuals for the purpose of \"conducting research,\ndemonstrations, or special projects which bear directly on misuse\nand abuse of controlled dangerous substances.\"\nVIII. Statistics and Roster of Addicts.\nThe Attorney General would be authorized to maintain in the\nBureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs a unit that will accept,\ncatalogue, file, and otherwise utilize all information and statis-\ntics, including records of dangerous substance addicts and other\ndangerous substance law offenders, which may be received from\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\n- 5 =\nFederal, State and local agencies, and make such information\navailable for Federal, State and local law enforcement\npurposes.\nIX. Enforcement Powers. The bill provides broad authority\nfor enforcement of the bill, including subpena power, adminis-\ntrative inspection authority, provision for forfeiture of\nseized subsubstances, equipment, and vehicles, etc., and\nspecific provision for judicial warrant for administrative\ninspections.\nX. Repealers, etc.\nTitle VIII of the bill would repeal a number of existing\nstatutes which would be superseded by the bill. In attempting\nto repeal the amendments to the Food and Drug Act made by the\nDrug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965, the bill is technically\ndefective. Also, the draftsman overlooked the recently enacted\npenalty amendments to the Food and Drug Act.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nCONFIDENTIAL - ADMINISTRATIVE\nTAB B\nSummary of draft of report to Budget Bureau on\nJustice Department's \"Controlled Dangerous\nSubstances Act of 1969\".\n1. Recommends that the bill be changed to vest all basic-\nregulatory functions (including licensure), as distinguished from\nЯ\nlaw enforcement and related investigative functions, in HEW instead\nof Justice Department, or to require the Attorney General to dele-\ngate these functions to HEWL/ (because more appropriate to, and\ninvolving primarily those disciplines within the special competence\nof, HEW's missions than the mission of a law enforcement agency.\nThis would be in line with the 1963 report of the Prettyman Com-\nmission (President's Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse) in 1963.\nIn this connection, the draft report confronts and questions in\nthis regard the soundness of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1968 which\ntransferred both the regulatory and investigative functions under\nexisting law to Justice under the narcotic laws and the Drug Abuse\nControl Amendments of 1965 (to the Food and Drug Act).\n2. Questions requirement of Federal licensure of physicians\nand researchers, but states that we would not oppose a simple regis-\ntration requirement. (Raises no question as to licensure of manu-\nfacturers and distributors, though the associations representing\nthese interests will presumably do so.) States that any control over\nresearch should be vested in this Department, which already exercises\nThe Hoover Commission, in 1949, recommended that the Bureau of\nNarcotics be transferred from the Treasury Dpt. to the Justice Dpt.\nAt that time the Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965, controlling\npsychotropic drugs other than narcotics and marihuana, had, of\ncourse, not yet been enacted.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\n2.\npervasive surveillance and control over drug research in the context\nof the new-drug provisions of the Food and Drug Act, and states that\nany additional desired control, such as jurisdiction over research\nwith psychotropic drugs of intrastate origin, could and should be\nadded by simple amendment of that Act.\n3. Suggests deletion of research and educational functions from\nthe bill (except for authority to train Federal, State, and local law\nenforcement personnel) because, to the extent it is intended as\nmerely in aid of other functions conferred by the bill, such authority\nwould necessarily be implied and, if intended to be more comprehensive\nas suggested by its language, it would inappropriately and inefficiently\nduplicate HEW functions and activities.\n4. Expresses qualified approval of penalty scheme as moving in\nthe direction of a proposal under consideration by National Commission\non Reform of Federal Criminal Laws and away from the excessively puni-\ntive approach of the narcotics laws, but suggests that, inter alia,\nconsideration be given to (a) deleting disqualification of recidivists\nfor parole, especially in the case of nonnarcotic offenses where parole\nis authorized under existing law, and (b) making drug addiction a\ndefense in cases of possession of a drug for one's own use.\n5. Suggests that coverage of the bill, for substances not listed\nby the bill itself, be more closely circumscribed than by the words\n\"potential for abuse\" standing alone, e.g., by requiring a finding that\nthe abuse potential be due to the substance's effect on the central\nnervous system, as now required under Drug Abuse Control Amendments\nof 1965.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\n3.\n6. Mentions that Dr. Yolles, Director of NIMH, is to arrange\nestablishment of an interagency committee on research in this field,\nbut suggests establishment (not necessarily by statute) of a broader\nintergovernmental coordinating committee on drug abuse, perhaps\nalong the lines of the long dormant Interdepartmental Committee on\nNarcotics.\n7. Encloses a staff paper making supplementary suggestions.\nThe staff paper recommends--\n(a) that substances to be regulated under the bill be\ncalled \"controlled substances\" rather than \"controlled dangerous\nsubstances\", and that the short title ofthe bill be \"Drug Abuse\nControl Act\" or \"Drug Abuse Control Code\", because the term\n\"dangerous\" is hyperbolic and unduly alarmist as applied to many\nsubstances that are or will be within the scope of the bill;\n(b) that the Congressional findings to be set forth in the\nbill be revised to reflect the fact that the need for special\ncontrols is due to the detrimental effect on health and general\nwelfare caused by the misuse and abuse of the drugs and substances\ninvolved for nonmedicinal and nonscientific purposes;\n(c) points out that the requirement of the bill that a manu-\nfacturer filing a new-drug application with HEW for a depressant,\nstimulant, or hallucinogenic drug submit information on the drug's\nabuse potential to the Justice Dpt's. Bureau of Narcotics and\nDangerous Drugs for review by the Scientific Advisory Committee\nwould in effect provide for duplicate new-drug review by the two\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\n4.\ndepartments and would put an intolerable burden on the advisory\ncommittee (as well as manufacturers) because the requirement\nwould involve virtually every \"new drug\" submitted to HEW;\n(a) states that the lists of substances in the bill under\nthe various schedules should be perfected before submission to\nCongress, rather than thereafter as suggested in the summary\naccompanying the draft bill;\n(e) recommends that the bill follow existing law so as to\nrequire that, in the case of \"depressant or stimulant drugs\" as\ndefined in the Food and Drug Act, the drug be exempted from the\ncontrols under the bill if, under the provisions of that Act, it\nis an over-the-counter (rather than prescription) drug, or if it\nis an ingredient of a mixture that vitiates the depressant, stimu-\nlant, or hallucinogenic potential of that ingredient;\n(f) objects to vesting in the Attorney General, rather than\nHEW, authority for determining when or whether a drug may be sold\nonly on prescription;\n(g) recommends a broad provision that nothing in the bill\nshall in any way modify, repeal, supersede, or otherwise affect\nprovisions of the Food and Drug Act (instead of the bill's\nnarrower provision that a license granted under the bill does\nnot relieve a licensee from any obligation imposed by the Food\nand Drug Act;\n(h) states that HEW does not object to the bill's provision\nfor maintaining in BNDD records of addicts and offenders against\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library\n5.\nFederal, State, or local drug abuse control laws and other\nstatistical information, for making such information available\nfor law enforcement purposes at Federal, State, and local levels,\non the understanding that Justice Dpt. should have no authority\nto require from any treatment or research source information\nidentifying individual addicts, patients, or research subjects;\nand points out that statistical reporting for law enforcement\npurposes would not fully serve HEW's needs or the need for a\nnational reporting system as outlined in the Prettyman Commission's\nreport;\n(i) recommends that the procedural provisions for judicial\nwarrants for administrative inspections under the bill be deleted\non the ground that only uniform across-the-board authorizing legis-\nlation for such warrants, for all Federal regulatory programs under\nwhich periodic administrative inspections are made, rather than\npiecemeal legislation, should be submitted to Congress, and that\nthe Justice Department has already developed a first draft of\nsuch legislation, on which HEW has commented at staff level; and\n(j) states that HEW staff, in reviewing the drug bill,\nhave noted a number of drafting problems. (These could be taken\nup informally with Justice Department at staff level. )\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library"
}