[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MIXED SIGNALS: THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY ON MARIJUANA, PART TWO
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 4, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-147
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-225 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan Vacancy
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Operations
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
TIM WALBERG, Michigan GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 4, 2014.................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Thomas M. Harrigan, Deputy Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Joint Written Statement...................................... 13
The Hon. John F. Walsh, U.S. Attorney, Colorado Department of
Justice
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Joint Written Statement...................................... 13
APPENDIX
Letter from Richard J. Bonnie, Harrison Foundation Professor of
Medicine and Law............................................... 44
MIXED SIGNALS: THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY ON MARIJUANA, PART TWO
----------
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:37 p.m., in
Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Massie, and Connolly.
Also Present: Representatives Blumenauer and Cohen.
Staff Present: Will Boyington, Deputy Press Secretary; Adam
P. Fromm, Director of Member Services and Committee Operations;
Tyler Grimm, Senior Professional Staff Member; Christopher
Hixon, Chief Counsel for Oversight; Emily Martin, Counsel; Katy
Rother, Counsel; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of
Administration; Courtney Cochran, Minority Press Secretary;
Juan McCullum, Minority Clerk; and Cecelia Thomas, Minority
Counsel.
Mr. Mica. Good afternoon. I would like to call this hearing
of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the
Subcommittee on Government Operations, this hearing to order.
Today's hearing is entitled ``Mixed Signals, the
Administration's Stance on Marijuana.'' And this is the second
in a series of hearings; we held one previously, heard from the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. And today we will hear
from several witnesses.
I might announce too in advance and also inform the
minority staff that we'll be doing a third in this series that
will focus on some of the aspects of the effect of marijuana,
its potency, and a host of other issues relating to comments
that have been brought to date. We'll hear some more issues
today. But we plan to continue this review. And that would be
our third hearing, and we'll work with the minority staff, the
Democrats, to set that. And also invite you to have witnesses
to participate in that.
The purpose of our Government Reform and Oversight
Committee is just that, to make certain that taxpayer dollars
is well spent and that the policy that we have is sound. Among
the responsibilities of our subcommittee, Mr. Connolly and I
are charged by the charter given to the subcommittee to also
deal with a whole host of issues, pretty broad authority, but
one of those is issues that relate to State and Federal laws
and relationships and mandates and things of that sort. So
that's the reason our committee is involved.
My particular personal history is I did--I have chaired two
other subcommittees on this full committee. One of them was
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and actually I think I cited
before for the record that I had held the first, probably,
hearing on marijuana in Congress, way back in 1998 and 1999,
2000, the time frame in which I chaired that subcommittee. So
we are trying to do an honest, thorough, and open review of
where we stand on this issue and that's the purpose of this
hearing.
The order of business today, I will hear opening
statements. And we may be joined by some other Members as they
make their way back. This was originally scheduled for another
time. I appreciate everyone's cooperation in the quick
rescheduling. And I know that the weather has been just an
incredible hindrance to conducting our normal affairs. But
again, I thank everyone. We may be joined by some other
subcommittee members.
And, Mr. Connolly, we are joined by Mr. Blumenauer. And I
would entertain a motion.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
that Mr. Blumenauer be allowed participate in this hearing.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Mr. Mica. If we have other--we've had others in the past
who are chosen to join us. Again, the order of business would
be we hear from members of our panel, and we'll do that first
in opening statements and also afford Mr. Blumenauer, others
who are not a member of the panel the same opportunity, the
same order in questioning if that's suitable. So we'll proceed.
With that, I'll open with some remarks and then I'll yield
to Mr. Connolly.
Again, I have to thank our two witnesses. Both Mr. Harrigan
from the Drug Enforcement Administration, Mr. Walsh, the U.S.
attorney from Colorado, for attending and accommodating the
change in schedule.
A month ago, as I mentioned briefly, we heard in our first
hearing the Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, Mr. Botticelli. He affirmed that, despite the
President's public comments on relative safety of marijuana,
that the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which is right
under the President in pecking order, it was put under the
White House, but that office continues to be opposed to
marijuana because marijuana is a dangerous substance. And that
was his testimony to us.
What stirred some of this up was the President's comments.
And the President in January during an interview said, I
don't--speaking--well, I should give his full quote, I don't
want to take it out of context. ``As has been well
documented,'' President Obama said, ``I smoked pot as a kid,
and I view it as a bad habit and vice, not very different from
the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person, up through a
big chunk of my adult life. I don't think it's more dangerous
than alcohol.'' And then he also went on to quote about State
legalization efforts. It's important to go forward.
And with the President's commentary with now a number of
States changing their laws in regard to medical use and now
recreational use, we do have a distinct conflict between State,
I called it the state of conflict and chaos right now, Federal
law versus State law and initiatives. But again, we are trying
to sort this out.
We've heard from others that, not just ONDC, about the
challenge that we now have with States legalizing marijuana for
recreational use. But also we have the public perception of
risks about marijuana. And we, again, have issues with the
increased use of marijuana with our adolescent population. And
they are some of our most vulnerable citizens.
As the National Institute of Drug Abuse Director Nora
Volkow wrote last year, and I'll quote from her, ``Given the
current number of regular marijuana users, about one in 15 high
school seniors, and the possibility of this number increasing
with marijuana legalization, we cannot afford to divert our
focus from the central point: Regular marijuana use stands to
jeopardize a young person's chances of success in school and in
life.'' And that, again, is an administration official.
The DEA Administrator, Michele Leonhart, affirmed this
message in a statement that was made on December 20th, 2013.
And let me quote that. ``The mixed messages being sent to
America's teens about the harmless and legality of using record
high potency marijuana are obscuring kids' awareness of the
effects their use will have on them. America owes it to its
children to give them the best possible start in life so they
and society are not hindered in the future.'' And that's a
quote of another administration official.
So today's hearing will go further into looking at the
conflicting messages of the administration, also the conflict
we have with some State laws, and the current enforcement of
Federal laws. We have to see again what is going on there with
these 20 States that have legalized marijuana for medicinal
purposes and recently, as you know, Colorado and Washington
legalized marijuana for recreational use.
I said it last month, but today's hearing, it's
particularly important to remember State laws do not change our
Federal laws. Federal laws still classify marijuana as a
Schedule I drug. That means marijuana is, one, illegal and two,
it's classified as--you know, as an illegal narcotic.
Despite the Federal prohibition on marijuana, the
Department of Justice that has issued policy memoranda that
explicitly decline to enforce the laws. On February 14th, 2014,
the Department of Justice issued a memo asserting a similar
policy to abstain from prosecuting Federal banking violations
associated with servicing marijuana businesses in States that
have legal marijuana, these policies create some ambiguity
about the true state of the Federal law.
I think we also heard from Mr. Blumenauer last time about
some of the conflict in not being able to deal in some of this
marijuana cash that's now mounting into--I heard as much as
billions of dollars.
The Colorado Bankers Association said this in a response to
the February memo: Bank--and let me quote again: ``Bankers had
expected the guidance to relieve them of the threat of
prosecution should they open accounts for marijuana businesses.
But the guidance does not do that. Instead it reiterates
reasons for prosecution. And is simply a modified reporting
system for banks to use. No bank can comply.'' And that was
again from the Colorado Bankers Association.
Finally, let me say that the DEA has found the conflicting
messages that are being sent out as a growing barrier to
effective law enforcement. In an interview with ABC, DEA
Assistant Special Agent Gary Hill, said and I'll quote him,
``We catch ourselves in a rock and hard place. We want to
enforce Federal laws, but we have times when State laws make it
difficult for us to be able to enforce the Federal laws as
well.'' That's his quote.
We are here today to hear from DEA. We are also here to
take the testimony of the Colorado U.S. attorney about what
Federal marijuana enforcement looks like on the ground, where
we are going with all this, and how these policies affect our
drug enforcement agencies and how these policies that we are
now confronting, and sometimes lack of policies, and pretty
foggy, hazy, almost marijuana-induced haze on the issue we--
there is no question we have a problem and some issues. So we
need to air them, see where we are going, and what we are going
to do.
With those opening comments, I'm pleased to welcome again,
our ranking member, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I begin
my statement, may I also ask unanimous consent that our
colleague, Mr. Cohen from Tennessee, be allowed----
Mr. Mica. Without objection so ordered.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
I want to thank you, Chairman Mica, for holding today's
hearing, the second in a series of oversight hearings by our
subcommittee to examine Federal policy and laws with respect to
marijuana. Today's hearing is focused on the implementation of
DOJ policy guidance addressing Federal marijuana enforcement
priorities and the treatment of marijuana-related financial
crimes under regulations regulated by FinCEN. As I noted last
month, from the outset, I want to be clear, I am not
unsympathetic to the concerns raised by skeptics of marijuana
decriminalization or legalization. As somebody who grew up in
the '60s, I witnessed firsthand the ravages of drug abuse, and
it gave me a permanent revulsion to them and to it. I am a
skeptic myself.
However, as a policy maker, I think we have--it's incumbent
upon us to examine the evidence and deal in cold, hard facts.
While I remain wary about outright legalization of marijuana, I
am just as alarmed by figures that were raised in our prior
hearing. For example, in 2011, the FBI reported approximately
750,000 Americans were arrested for a marijuana law violation.
That's one marijuana arrest every 42 seconds. That outpaced
significantly the total number of arrests for violent crime
that year.
The reality is that no matter one's normative judgment, to
be clear, I share the view that the use of Cannabis is a bad
idea. Not very healthy. But a fair examination of the evidence,
public health facts, leads to several conclusions. First, our
Nation's decades' worth of experience combating marijuana use
with a policy of criminalization and prohibition has not proved
effective in deterring the use of marijuana.
Second, marijuana's classification is a Schedule I
narcotic, which you made reference to, Mr. Chairman, under the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970, must be reconsidered, in
light of evidence of legitimate medicinal uses as well as the
reality that marijuana, bad idea as it may be to some including
me, does not pose a greater threat to public health than some
heavy drugs like heroin, LSD, or even prescription drugs or
alcohol abuse. It seems to me it's time for our Nation to
approach the debate of our marijuana policy with more honesty
and less hyperbole.
I was disappointed at our previous hearing when the Deputy
Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy was unable to identify the annual rate of deaths in our
country resulting from marijuana overdoses and had to be
badgered into confirming basic public health facts. It's a
disservice to public discourse when policy makers refuse to
grapple with challenging and complex issues in a more open and
objective manner.
As I noted last month, the Federal Government's
ineffectiveness in significantly reducing marijuana use becomes
even starker when one contrasts our Nation's failure to stem
rising marijuana usage traits with the results of our country's
voluntary anti-tobacco campaign. Without resorting to a policy
of prohibition and criminalization, our country has brought
tremendous resources to bear in an effort to prevent and reduce
tobacco use. Most importantly, those efforts are, in fact,
working. Our Nation cut the adult smoking rate in half for 42.4
percent in 1965 to 18 percent today. California successfully
lowered its adult smoking rate from 16.3 percent in 2000 to
12.7 percent in 2012. And with respect to reducing frequent
cigarette use among youth nationwide, CDC reports that the
decrease has been dramatic, falling from 16.8 percent in 1999
to just 7.3 percent in 2009.
Our steady progress in reducing tobacco use, along with
America's ill-advise attempt at instituting complete alcohol
prohibition, serves as a valuable reminder that the best
policies to prevent and reduce the use of perceived or real
harmful substances need not, and perhaps should not involve
total prohibition and criminalization.
Finally, beyond questions of effectiveness, Congress must
also not forget the basic issue of inequality. Research by many
had found that in 2010, black Americans were four times more
likely than whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana
possession, even though the utilization of marijuana is roughly
equal in both groups. Worse, the data indicates that these
racial disparities are even greater when you dig down at the
State level, with black Americans being eight times more likely
as whites to be arrested in certain States, including Iowa,
Illinois, and Minnesota. This level of disparity is
indefensible. And I commend the President for refusing to
accept the status quo that he accurately summarized as one
where ``middle-class kids don't get locked up for smoking pot,
poor kids do.''
As a Member of Congress who approaches this issue from an
outsider perspective, at least compared to my colleagues who
have been deeply involved in marijuana policy, I have been
surprised by the degree to which stakeholders have tended to
dwell on differences to the exclusion of the goals shared by
all. We would be well served to heed the observation made by
the sheriff of King County, Washington State, who testified
before Congress in 2013 at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
very similar to the one we are holding here today, ``While the
title of this hearing is 'Conflict Between State and Federal
Marijuana Laws,' I don't see a huge conflict,'' the sheriff
said. ``The reality is we do have complimentary goals and
values. We all agree we don't want our children using drugs, we
all agree we don't want impaired drivers, we all agree we don't
want to continue enriching criminal. Washington's law honors
these values, but separating consumers from gangs and diverting
the proceeds from the sale of marijuana to furthering the goals
of public safety. Is legalizing and regulating the possession
and sale of marijuana a better alternative?'' He said, ``I
think it is, and I'm willing to be proven wrong. But the only
way we'll know is if we're allowed to try.'' That's his quote.
I have long believed that the Federal Government governs
best when it truly listens and learns from our States, the
incubators of democracy. The citizens of States across the
country seem to be headed in a direction different than our
Federal policy. They want their local governments to have the
opportunity to innovate and experiment with regulatory and
enforcement frameworks governing marijuana use. And I believe
it's in our national interest to let those ongoing laboratories
of democracy proceed. With that, I look forward to the
testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And I'll ask unanimous consent just to
insert in the record after the ranking member's statement some
statistics about the increase of use of marijuana by 8th
graders since 2008 up 5.8 percent, 10th graders up 13.8
percent, 12th graders up 19 percent.
I just thought since the ranking member mentioned the
success we have had in tobacco, we are backsliding on
marijuana. It is up to Mr. Connolly. Do you want to give these
guys a minute or two?
Mr. Connolly. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. With the consent of Mr. Connolly, recognize first
Mr. Blumenauer for any opening comments.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your interest and follow-through in this important
area. And I appreciate the courtesy of the committee being able
to participate.
Mr. Chairman, you pointed out at our last hearing, we are
talking about $25 billion, according to the CBO, that is spent
on these efforts dealing with drugs in the United States. You
also referenced a serous problem that I talked about at the
last session we haven't completely resolved in terms of what
happens with this never-never land with banking regulations
where we have legitimate businesses in Colorado paying their
taxes, as we want them to do, with shopping bags full of $20
bills. Something that anybody who cares about money laundering,
who cares about tax evasion, who cares about robbery should not
want to embrace. And I hope that the warm signs from the
administration are followed up to be able to give it the
precision that it needs.
I do appreciate in the testimony, the joint testimony from
Mr. Harrigan and Mr. Walsh, the priority statement. Because I
think that that's a very important area for us to focus on. And
at the top of that list is keeping marijuana out of the hands
of our children. And I would hope, as there are different
issues and different approaches that this is something that we
could all focus on, that we could agree to and work to try and
resolve.
And, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you putting in the
record the fact that marijuana use is increasing among
children. Not as high as tobacco, but it's higher than we would
want, it is unacceptable. But I think it underscores the abject
failure of our current policy. We have arrested two-thirds to
three-quarters of a million people a year. We have the force of
law behind it, we've locked people up. We're spending billions
of dollars and it's not working. I don't know anybody who
thinks the policy is a success.
I think that part of the problem, and as I tried to get at
with our witness at the last hearing, is that we have decidedly
mixed messages and we're not credible. When the gentleman could
not answer, this is the deputy, could not answer what--what is
more dangerous, methamphetamine or marijuana, he couldn't give
an answer. But any parent of kids, any law enforcement official
knows that meth is ravaging American communities. And so the
inability to give honest, direct answers: Has anybody died from
a marijuana overdose? I had an opportunity to be--participating
in a program with the director of CDC this weekend. He wasn't--
we were talking about 16,000 people who've died from
prescription drugs overdoses. And we chronicle how many die
from cocaine, which is allegedly more dangerous under the
statute than marijuana. We know these things. He could not name
any examples. He thought there may have been one or two. But
that's, I think, stunning.
When we can't give our kids and their families straight
answers that they know to be--I think it undermines their
credibility and it speaks to misplaced priorities. It's not
effective in keeping it out of the hands of our kids. We have
ought to do that.
One of the things that I'm deeply troubled by is that these
antiquated policies dramatically interfere with the research
that we need that is able to give better answers. Mr. Chairman,
that is something that just deeply troubles me, I was at OHSU,
Oregon Health Science University, a few weeks ago talking to
people who deal with children with severe cases of epilepsy--
and I think this was on the front page of The Washington Post--
where some parents are reaching out, they are moving to
Colorado to give their children relief from these violent
epileptic seizures that just destroy their lives. And it was
stunning to me that the researchers who admitted that there are
some people that get positive results, but they don't have the
wherewithal to do the research to be able to understand what
works and what doesn't. It's easier for parents in this strange
world of medical marijuana, where we've got 20 States and the
District of Columbia, each being a little different, but legal,
being able to get access to medical marijuana, than researchers
who could help us get the answers that we need and deserve.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Connolly, I hope that the President or
Congress fixes the conflict. And there are ways that we could
do that to get these people out of an impossible situation
where State law is moving in one direction, where public
opinion is moving even faster. But they are caught with an
antiquated, outdated, inconsistent, and grotesquely unfair
Federal statute. The contrast with tobacco that Mr. Connolly
made is stark. I hope we can learn from this.
And, Mr. Chairman, I think these hearings that you're
having, opening it up, focusing on it, not ducking the tough
questions, is providing a very important service. I'm pleased
that you are doing it, and I'm gratified that I can participate
with you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
And, Mr. Cohen, did you have any opening comments?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Mica. I thank you and Mr.
Connolly for allowing me to participate. I think this is one of
the most important committees, that we--subcommittee hearings
we've had since I've been in Congress. Because the basic
respect for the law is so important and what we do as
legislators, Congress people is pass laws. When there is a law
that is so universally looked upon as wrong, a cultural lag
where the public doesn't agree with what the law is, it breeds
disrespect for the law, for the entire judiciary system.
Therefore, it needs to be rectified. Because the foundation of
our society rests upon the law. And young people think the law
is a joke. And a lot of people that aren't so young think the
law on marijuana is a joke, that you're taking people's
liberties away.
I want to go back into some history. A gentleman named
Richard Bonnie, and I'd like to introduce his letter. He's the
Harrison Foundation professor of medicine and law at UVA School
of Law. Professor of psychiatry, as well, and we'll get to
psychiatry later, and director of the Institute of Law,
Psychiatry, and Public Policy. He served as the Associate
Director of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse
from 1971 to '73. Richard Nixon was President. Long time ago.
And they had deliberations on this subject of marijuana. And he
wrote a paper called ``Marijuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding.'' The Commission and that paper recommended
decriminalization for personal use in 1972.
And he said that the Commission only classified marijuana
as Schedule I temporarily until studies could come forth. And
there were studies available, and he felt clearly that the
studies and particularly some other evidence that we've got,
Dr. Sanjay Gupta has referred to. From the Assistant Secretary
of Health, Dr. Roger Egeberg, who wrote a letter on this,
suggesting--he's the one that suggested it would be classified
as ``I'' temporarily until studies could take place. Dr.
Egeberg said, ``Since there is little''--``still a considerable
void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active
drug contained it in it, our recommendation is marijuana be
retained within Schedule I at least until the completion of
certain studies now underway to resolve the issue.''
So not because of sound science, Dr. Sanjay Gupta said, who
changed his opinion on marijuana. But because of its absence,
its absence of science, because they never completed the
studies, looked at the studies, nor got involved there that it
was schedule--Schedule I. That was 1970. And there were studies
underway that were never used.
The idea that it's an Schedule I drug is ludicrous. Same as
heroin and LSD, as far as their lack of medical benefits and
their likelihood of causing addiction. And the DEA could start,
Justice Department could start by recommending that it be
changed from Schedule I. And it should be changed from Schedule
I.
But let me go back to some history, Mr. Chairman. And I
think this is shocking to me, but it came to my attention
through a Huffington Post article recently. This all started
back in the 19--late '30s, Harry Anslinger was the head of DEA
and decided that people from the south, Mexico, were getting
too involved in our community and our country, and that one way
to do something was to start to enforce laws against marijuana,
which was before that Cannabis, but ``marijuana'' sounded more
Mexican and objectionable to people that didn't like Hispanics.
So it took on that tone. And they made it illegal. It wasn't
illegal up to that time.
But the war on drugs started under President Nixon. And Mr.
Haldeman--some people may not remember, Haldeman and Ehrlichman
and these guys were big in the Watergate hearings, but they
were the main think tank for President Nixon, if you call that
``think.''
Haldeman, in a diary entry of April 28, 1969 said, ``He
(Nixon) the President of the United States, ``emphasized if you
have to face the fact that the whole problem''--and this is
about drug and the drug war--``is really the blacks. They key--
the key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not
appearing to.''
So we have started with Anslinger coming down on the
Latinos. And then Haldeman says, Nixon did it to get at the
blacks, who Mr. Connolly rightfully pointed out are four times
more likely to be arrested and eight times more likely to be
convicted.
Then we have Mr. Ehrlichman, White House Counsel to
President Nixon, in an interview, the author of ``Smoke and
Mirrors, the War on Drugs and Politics of Failure,'' and Mr.
Ehrlichman said, ``Look, we understand we couldn't make it
illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States. But
we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understand that
drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to
be. But it was such a perfect issue for the Nixon White House,
we couldn't resist it.''
I just want you all to know the underpinnings of the
policies that you are carrying out and furthering, the basis of
them and where they started and the genesis of them. And then
Mr. Ehrlichman said, ``We knew we were lying about the health
effects on marijuana. We knew we were lying about that. But
this is what we were doing to win the election. And it
worked.''
43 years ago. Admitted all fantasy. But our law still goes
on and we continue to do it. And it's still Schedule I.
We are abettors, aiders and abettors of Ehrlichman,
Haldeman, and Nixon.
Then I think it's interesting, and sort of has nothing to
do with my good friend Mr. Mica, who talked about the
schizophrenia of the drug policies. My father was a
psychiatrist. I found this really interesting. And I'm Jewish.
Some of my colleagues who are for this are not Jewish. But, Mr.
Nixon, in talking to Haldeman, his chief of staff, says, ``I
want a G.D. Strong statement on marijuana. I mean, one on
marijuana that just tears the rear out of them. By God, we're
going to hit the marijuana thing. I want to hit it right square
in the puss. You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the
bastards out there for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the
Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter
with them? I suppose it's because most of them are
psychiatrists.''
That is the underpinnings and the genesis of the policy
upon which our drug war is being fought. I think it's time to
get real and change it.
I thank you for the opportunity to quote these American
leaders. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. I have to commend our colleague for an
excellent imitation of Richard Nixon.
Mr. Cohen. I am not a crook.
Mr. Mica. Well, we certainly have a diversity. And, Mr.
Connolly, when we open this to other Members who aren't on the
panel, we get an earful. But I think it's--everyone has their
perspective and where they're coming from needs to be aired. So
that's the purpose of this hearing.
We'll leave the record open for an additional 7 days for
other members that may have statements. Without objection, so
ordered.
Now we'll turn to our two witnesses, and I thank them again
for being patient and for the rescheduling. We have before us
today the Honorable Thomas Harrigan. And he's Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. And then
we have the Honorable John F. Walsh. He's the United States
Attorney in Colorado with the Department of Justice.
Gentlemen, I'm not sure if you've testified before our
Committee or Subcommittee before, but this is an investigative
committee. We do swear in our witnesses. If you'll stand, raise
your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're
about to give before this Subcommittee of Congress is the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
The witnesses have answered in the affirmative, and the
record will reflect so. Our custom--we only have two witnesses,
but we want to hear from you. We won't--I'm not going to run
the clock real tight. But if you have lengthy statements you'd
like to have made part of the record, you can do that, or
additional information, just through a request of the chair.
And we'll proceed.
So let me first recognize and welcome Thomas Harrigan,
Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Welcome, sir, and you're recognized.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS M. HARRIGAN
Mr. Harrigan. Thank you so much, sir. And I promise not to
do any impressions.
But again, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of
Administrator Leonhart' and the Drug Enforcement
Administration, I appreciate your invitation to testify today
regarding DEA's response to State efforts to legalize marijuana
and our enforcement strategy. And at this time, chairman, I ask
that my written statement be made part of----
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Harrigan. I'd like to begin with a few facts. One,
marijuana is the most widely available and commonly abused
illicit drug in the United States. According to the 2014
National Drug Threat Survey, more than 80 percent of the
responding agencies reported that marijuana was readily
available in their jurisdictions. The greater availability of
marijuana is due in part to domestic indoor grow operations and
States permitting the cultivation of marijuana for medical and
recreational purposes.
Number two. The number of people reporting use of marijuana
within the past month increased 21 percent from 2007 to 2011.
In each of those years, the number of people reporting
marijuana abuse was greater than all other drugs combined.
Number three. As the perceived danger of marijuana use has
decreased, abuse among adolescents is increasing. According to
the Monitor the Future Survey, since 2009, more students have
been smoking marijuana than cigarettes.
Number four. There was a 59-percent increase in marijuana-
related emergency room visits between 2006 and 2010. Marijuana
was second only to cocaine for illicit drug-related emergency
room visits in 2010.
Five. Today's marijuana is many times more potent than it
was in the past. Between 2007 and 2011 alone, the average
percentage of THC in marijuana increased 37 percent.
Number six. Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled
substance under the Controlled Substances Act and has no
scientifically accepted medicinal use, is addictive, and has a
high potential for abuse.
DEA will continue to aggressively enforce the Controlled
Substances Act by identifying and investigating any criminal
organization or individual who unlawfully grows, markets, or
distributes marijuana or other dangerous drugs.
DEA supports our State and local counterparts through joint
investigations and through the domestic Cannabis eradication
and suppression program which targets marijuana cultivation by
providing resources to 127 law enforcement agencies across the
country.
Last year, investigations related to this effort led to the
eradication of more than 4.3 million marijuana plants grown in
the U.S., the seizure of over $29 million in assets, more than
4,000 weapons and 121,000 pounds of processed marijuana.
Both domestically and internationally, DEA continues to
work with our international law enforcement counterparts in
identifying and combating drug trafficking organizations that
pose the greatest threat to the American public. These threats
are real, as we have seen international trafficking
organizations exploiting the changes in State marijuana laws,
including owning and operating sham marijuana businesses under
the guise of legitimate commerce.
The United States has a proud history of protecting its
people and ensuring the common good based on science and well-
reasoned policy, not changes in public opinion. For decades we
have known that driving under the influence kills people,
smoking causes cancer, and wearing seat belts and using infant
car seats saves lives. In response, legislatures, including
this one, have enacted sensible laws based on established
science and proven statistics.
We also know that marijuana destroys lives and families,
undermines our economy, and insults our common values. There
are no sound scientific economic or social reason to change our
Nation's marijuana policy. Treatment professionals, drug
education teachers, and the families of those touched by drug
abuse ask why States should now legalize a Schedule I
psychoactive drug, given all that we know. My Federal, State,
and local law enforcement counterparts know all too well the
devastating effects of drug use and how it extends into so many
areas of our economy, communities, and families. Even our
international law enforcement partners question us when we ask
them to enact and enforce drug laws. They question why we are
ignoring established scientific facts and the 50-year-old
international drug treaties while creating new drug
marketplaces in the U.S.
Illicit drugs like marijuana threaten our institutions and
society. By not enforcing our drug laws, we bring these dangers
to our doorstep. We must send a clear message to the American
people and ensure our public safety by not abandoning science
and fact in favor of public opinion. For our part, the men and
women of the DEA remain committed to enforcing our Federal drug
laws and protecting our national interest. I thank you for your
time and look forward to your questions.
[Prepared joint statement of Thomas M. Harrigan and John F.
Walsh follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF]
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And we'll hear next from Mr. Walsh,
Mr. John Walsh, before we get to questions. He's the U.S.
attorney in Colorado, the Department of Justice. Welcome, sir,
and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. WALSH
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member
Connolly----
Mr. Mica. I don't think your mic is on.
Mr. Walsh. I'm sorry. Good afternoon, chairman. And good
afternoon, Ranking Member Connolly and other members of the
committee and other--of the House who are attending here today.
On behalf of the Attorney General and the men and women of
the Department of Justice, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify here today. My testimony is going to focus today on our
marijuana enforcement efforts, and also the guidance that the
Department of Justice has issued to all U.S. attorneys around
the country regarding those efforts. I also appreciate the
opportunity to discuss our efforts specifically in Colorado to
ensure that Federal, State, and local law enforcement work
together effectively to protect public safety and public health
in the new marijuana enforcement environment that we are
seeing.
And I must add, it is a great honor to be here with Deputy
Administrator Harrigan of the DEA.
Now, as you know, the relevant Federal statute, the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970 among other things makes it a
Federal crime to possess, grow, or distribute marijuana. In
addition to that, financial transactions involving proceeds
generated by marijuana-related conduct can form the basis for
Federal prosecution under money-laundering statutes as well as
the Bank Secrecy Act, among other statutes.
Starting with California in 1996, a total of approximately
21 States--I say that because I've seen 20 and 21 both
mentioned--have authorized the use of marijuana for medical
purposes. My State, my home State, Colorado, first authorized
the medical use of marijuana in 2000, now 14 years ago. And in
2012, voters in Colorado and in Washington State approved State
constitutional changes that legalized recreational marijuana
and also established State regulatory systems to address the
recreational marijuana market. Federal law enforcement of
course has always focused on sophisticated drug trafficking
organizations while State and local authorities have focused
most of their drug enforcement activity on more localized
actions, even though that often includes drug trafficking
organizations. During this entire period, the Department of
Justice has worked closely with its State and local partners to
ensure the public safety and health of citizens in every State.
I cannot overstate the importance of strong partnerships
and coordination between Federal, State, and local law
enforcement today in this changing environment. For that
reason, we in Federal law enforcement in Colorado, and I know
also in Washington State, are working hard with our State and
local law enforcement partners to ensure that our efforts are
mutually supportive. For the overall regulation of marijuana to
be effective and for public safety and health to be protected,
all levels of law enforcement are going to have to work
together.
Now, as you also know, in August of 2013, the Department
issued marijuana enforcement guidance to Federal prosecutors
across the country. On that same day, the Attorney General
spoke to the Governors of Washington and of Colorado and
informed them that the Department as part of its policy
expected the States that had legalized recreational marijuana
to implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement
systems to fully protect against the public health and safety
harms that are the focus of Federal marijuana enforcement. He
also indicated that the Department would continue to
investigate and prosecute cases in which the underlying
marijuana-related conduct implicated Federal interests.
So, specifically, in that August guidance from Deputy
Attorney General Jim Cole, the Department outlined eight
Federal enforcement priorities in the marijuana arena. My
office has historically devoted a great deal of time and effort
to prosecuting cases in exactly those eight priority areas. For
example, we have targeted enforcement actions against marijuana
businesses located near schools which implicates the
possibility of sales, whether directly or indirectly to kids.
My office warned dozens of those businesses through a
letter campaign in 2012 and 2013 that their agencies violated
Federal law. And every one of those businesses that received a
letter closed without the need for further litigation by our
office.
We also continue to actively investigate and prosecute
cases involving international smuggling and interstate shipment
of marijuana, marijuana grows where violence and firearms are
involved, marijuana grows on public lands, an issue in a State
like Colorado that has as much Federal public land as we do,
and cases with potential organized crime involvement in
marijuana businesses.
Now, consistent with the guidance we have received from the
Department, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Colorado does not now
and has not in my time there ever focused on prosecuting
individuals who are using marijuana in personal-use amounts on
private property.
In addition, in February of 2014, the Department issued
guidance to all Federal prosecutors regarding marijuana-related
financial crimes. That guidance seeks to mitigate the
legitimate public safety concerns created by high-volume, cash-
driven businesses that do not have access to banking or the
financial system, but at the same time, to ensure that
organized crime and other cartel groups are not able to use
marijuana businesses as a pretext or a cover to launder funds
obtained in other criminal conduct, sale of other drugs, and
things of that sort.
Now, in Colorado, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Drug
Enforcement Administration work together closely to protect the
health and safety of every citizen. I want to take this moment
to earnestly thank Federal prosecutors in my office, DEA agents
in Colorado, but also Federal prosecutors throughout the west,
and particularly, in this instance, and DEA agents who are
dealing with this rapidly evolving and changing set of
marijuana enforcement issues. I also want to thank our many
State and local partners, sheriffs, police chiefs, and State
regulators for their dedicated work in trying to address this
issue.
With our collective effort, and only with our collective
effort, we can succeed in implementing strong and effective
marijuana enforcement and regulatory systems in practice on the
ground.
Thank you very much. And I look forward to our discussion.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And we'll get a few questions in and
turn to members to ask them.
Let me let Mr. Harrigan with a couple of them. Since I
guess the first announcement that came out on 2013--2013
August, when DOJ said, again, from the enforcement end, they
were not going to pursue some of these cases, what's happened?
What's the impact?
Mr. Harrigan. Well again, thank you for the question,
chairman. Again, as U.S. Attorney Walsh alluded to in his
opening statement, DEA works very closely with our United
States Attorneys, whether it's in Colorado, whether it's in the
State of Washington. DEA, because of limited resources,
throughout the years, we have always focused on the most
prolific drug-trafficking organizations in the United States
and in the world, principally those having the greatest impact
on the United States.
So, that being said, based upon Deputy Attorney General
Cole's memo, to date, there has been little impact on our
enforcement actions again because we continue to identify and
investigate the most prolific drug-trafficking organizations
impacting our cities. We do not go after those abusers, users
of drugs. We don't go after users claiming marijuana use for
medical reasons. So again, sir, as of now, there has been
little effect or impact on DEA's operations.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Walsh, you've had to deal with this, and--
and, you know, there--that we've had conflicts and comments
from various agencies at the Federal level. How do you see this
coming down? The President said he thought Congress could act
to change the scheduling. But the administration also has that
authority to change the scheduling. We have more States now
adopting medical use, and it looks like recreational use isn't
too far behind. What's your take?
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an interesting set of
circumstances that we have in Colorado. One of the, really, the
foundations for the guidance that the Department issued in
August of 2013 was the idea that a State that legalizes
marijuana, whether for medical or for recreational purposes,
needs to establish an effective and robust regulatory system on
the ground. In other words, that if a State is going to do
that, there is the risk that serious and significant Federal
interests are going to be implicated unless the State takes the
necessary steps to ensure that the regulatory system is
effective. So let's start with that. How does that play out on
the ground in our work?
In order to be sure that in Colorado, which is my home
State and that I love deeply, is not negatively impacted by the
legalization of recreational marijuana, we want to be sure that
what we do on the Federal side, working closely with the DEA,
is supportive of what State regulators and State law
enforcement officials are trying to do to make sure that the
situation is effectively and tightly regulated on the ground.
So my message to my law enforcement partners throughout the
State of Colorado, since August of 2013, has been that we have
to work together. We have to work together carefully, despite
the fact that the laws differ at the State and Federal level,
we have to work together to make sure that those common goals
that we all share that I think are embodied pretty well in the
eight guidance priorities that we were given in August of 2013
are achieved.
Mr. Mica. Well, Mr. Blumenauer, in our previous hearing,
talked about the huge amounts of cash and the illegality of
processing that money through the current financial system.
And then in February 2014, DOJ guidance changed and came
out with other--other guidelines. Can I take my marijuana-
gained cash and run it through the traditional banking system,
and am I going to jail? Or is it now acceptable financial
transaction?
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chair, I think it's important to remember
that the guidance that was issued was really in the form of two
different memos. There was a Department of Justice memo that
went from the Deputy Attorney General to all Federal
prosecutors on the question of financial crimes related to
marijuana. And what that memo did, in essence, was to say that
the same eight priority factors that we apply in considering
marijuana enforcement generally apply to banking crimes as
well. So that's step one.
The other memo that came out, which was step two, was
actually issued by the Department of Treasury, FinCEN. And what
FinCEN's guidance--that memo was directed to banks. And
essentially--and I don't want to step into the Department of
Treasury's lane on this--but essentially, set out the rules of
the road for how a bank, if it were to choose to do business
with a marijuana-industry business licensed in Colorado, for
example, what reporting obligations would it--should it follow
in order to be in compliance with its Bank Secrecy Act
obligations?
So we have those two different components of that guidance.
Nothing in either of those memos says to a bank, you should or
shouldn't actually do business with a marijuana business. On
the other hand, it does try to clarify the circumstances under
which a bank could, in fact, proceed in doing business with a
marijuana licensed business in a State like Colorado.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Mr. Harrigan, you just heard Mr. Walsh. And
it sounds like that from a criminal standpoint you still go
after people who are dealing and trading in ``illegal terms.''
There's some--now that we've got a new definition, I guess
there is legal business activity, medical marijuana, and
recreational. We got the second part of the enforcement. What's
happening in regard to your enforcement responsibilities to
carry out these sort of dueling guidances?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, again, chairman, it's a--a bit
premature now to comment exactly what's happening. Because,
again, this is just about 2 months since these initiatives were
put into practice. However, let me say this----
Mr. Mica. So you're still scratching your head?
Mr. Harrigan. I scratch my head every day, sir; you have no
idea.
Mr. Mica. I shouldn't have interjected.
Mr. Harrigan. That's okay. You're the chairman; you can do
anything you want.
Cash----
Mr. Connolly. For God's sake, don't tell him that.
Mr. Harrigan. He asked me to say that.
Cash, as you very well know, is--is the driving force for
these drug-trafficking organizations. The way I look at it,
drug-trafficking organizations aren't particularly in the
business to traffic drugs. They are in the business to make
money. So any time they can exploit, whether it's a change in
State laws, a changing in the banking industry, and what is
legal and is not illegal, they are going to exploit it.
We have right now, and obviously because they are ongoing
investigations, I cannot comment. I'm not at liberty to comment
on them. But we've already seen organizations, foreign drug-
trafficking organizations attempting to exploit these new
banking laws.
So, again, as John just mentioned, we will work very
closely with Treasury, with the banking industry, and with the
U.S. Attorney's Office. And we'll have to make a decision right
now on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Mica. Sounds like we may be doing some additional
hearings.
Mr. Connolly, I yield to you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you both for
your testimony.
I want to deal with two things: Efficacy and equality.
Equal protection under the law. And when you look at both of
those two E words, one cannot be but troubled by the facts at
hand with respect to marijuana, particularly, it seems to me.
Mr. Harrigan, if I understood your testimony correctly,
your view is it's the soundness of our current policies and
laws is beyond question, and we just need to buckle down and do
more of it.
Mr. Harrigan. Well, sir, the bottom line is this: I am not
a medical or a health care professional, I am a career cop. I
am a special agent.
Mr. Connolly. But you asserted in your testimony, Mr.
Harrigan, that the science, you invoked the word ``science.''
Tell us about that.
Mr. Harrigan. Absolutely. And again, I base my opinion on
what science has said. Whether it's the AMA, the American
Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and a whole
host of other health care organizations who have said that
marijuana is dangerous and it deserves to be in Schedule I.
That is what I base it on, sir.
Mr. Connolly. I have to interrupt a little bit. Forgive me.
Because I don't have all the time in the world. And I really do
want to dialogue with you on this.
I understand you're invoking them. But you would agree,
or--no. Would you agree that marijuana is certainly not in the
same category as heroin in terms of its danger?
Mr. Harrigan. Mr. Connolly, and, again, these decisions
aren't made in a vacuum. When I say DEA, also HHS is involved,
FDA and NIDA. However, the way it is--again, it is a Schedule I
controlled substance.
Mr. Connolly. I understand. How many people died from
marijuana overuse last year?
Mr. Harrigan. That I don't believe many, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Heroin?
Mr. Harrigan. I would assume thousands.
Mr. Connolly. A lot?
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, a lot.
Mr. Connolly. Even legal prescription drugs, we have an
overdose every 19 minutes in the United States of America.
Nobody can come up with any comparable statistic. I'm not
saying marijuana, therefore, you know, is the best thing since
sliced bread. But it might suggest that treating it as a
controlled substance, like we do tobacco or alcohol, may be a
better way of going, especially if you're worried about
organized crime.
The Chairman--the other chairman, excuse me, Mr. Massie.
The other chairman read into the record contrasting statistics
for youth use of marijuana versus tobacco. And I would simply
suggest, yeah, what's the difference? The difference is tobacco
is regulated and taxed, and we can leverage that fact and
actually affect positively behavior.
Marijuana is neither taxed nor regulated. And as a result,
our ability to influence young people's behavior and their use
of this illicit drug is quite limited.
Now, but the question is, is it working? We've had a war on
drugs since Richard Nixon. So is marijuana use in America,
after all your fine efforts as DEA and that of other law
enforcement agencies, is marijuana use in the United States on
the way down or on the way up?
Mr. Harrigan. I believe recent statistics will show it's on
the way up.
But if I can say, sir, just two things. Since 1979 through
2012, overall drug use has declined in this Nation by 35
percent. I think that's pretty significant. And, again, we're
not going to arrest ourselves out of this problem. I absolutely
agree with you. But it must be a holistic approach.
Mr. Connolly. What percentage, because we're talking about,
I'm going to get to you Mr. Walsh, but we're talking about
money. The role of money.
Mr. Connolly. What percentage, because we are talking
about--and I am going to get to you, Mr. Walsh--but we're
talking about money, the role of money. And, of course, you
know, it's all cash. Druggies don't take credit cards. What
percentage would you guess of total illicit narcotics traffic
money is marijuana related?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, that's very difficult, Mr. Connolly, to
speculate. Again, most of the drug-trafficking organizations
that DEA are involved with and with respective U.S. Attorney's
Office are multinational cartels, they're poly drug. So it's
not just marijuana. Marijuana without question generates a
great deal of revenue for these drug trafficking organizations,
but again, they're not a one-trick pony, if you will. They also
traffic in cocaine, in heroin, in methamphetamine and obviously
in marijuana as well, so it's very difficult to pinpoint
exactly how much is generated from marijuana.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I think we agreed on 2 more
minutes of my--your----
Mr. Massie. [Presiding.] Without objection.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Mr. Walsh, the other issue, inequality. Efficacy I'll leave
where we just left it. Count me a skeptic, Mr. Harrigan. I
think after almost half a century of experience, I don't think
we're winning this war, and I don't even know if this is a war
to be won with respect to marijuana.
Mr. Walsh, are you troubled by the statistics I read into
the record with respect to arrests and incarceration rates, the
inequality among whites and nonwhites?
Mr. Walsh. Mr. ----
Mr. Connolly. You have to turn on your----
Mr. Walsh. Oh, I'm sorry. I have to leave that on, I think.
Congressman, you know, the Department of Justice is focused
on the question of ensuring equity in the way that the drug
laws are enforced. In fact, last August, right around the time
the marijuana enforcement guidance was issued, the Attorney
General announced his Smart on Crime initiative. In part, that
was intended to make sure that we in the Federal Government
have a balanced approach, where enforcement remains, anti-drug
enforcement remains an important component, but we also build
into it prevention----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Walsh, again, because of the limited
time, I thank you, and that's aspirationally very noble, but
the record is wretched.
Mr. Walsh. It--and I----
Mr. Connolly. We certainly have not lived up to our own any
kind minimum standard of equality with respect to the meting
out of justice on this subject on racial lines, have we?
Mr. Walsh. I think that there is room to be concerned about
the way that has played out in effect, but I do want to say,
Congressman, something very important. I have worked for
decades in Federal law enforcement, and I can tell you that the
law enforcement agents at DEA, assistant U.S. Attorney's all
across the country work very hard to enforce the laws that are
on the book, and they are very diligent and they are very
careful not to enforce them in a way that they believe to be
disparate.
If the numbers turn out that way, it's important for us to
be very careful, because sometimes I think the discussion makes
it unclear to the public. We have a lot of wonderful public
servants who are doing the work--this work to protect the
public, and they will continue to do so----
Mr. Connolly. Well----
Mr. Walsh. --but it's not based on race.
Mr. Connolly. No, it may not be, but it just leads to a--it
leads to an outcome that most certainly is racially divided in
very stark terms.
I want to end with a quote from Rand Paul, Republican
senator from Kentucky, no liberal. He described this issue as
the new Jim Crow, and I quote, this is his testimony before the
Senate Judiciary Committee last year about this issue, ``If I
told you that one out of three African-American males is
forbidden by law from voting, you might think I was talking
about Jim Crow 50 years ago, but I'm talking about today. A
third of African-American males are prevented from voting
because of drug convictions.'' He went on to share that the
majority of illegal drug users and dealers nationwide are
white, but three-fourths of all people in prison for drug
offenses are African-Americans and Latinos, despite your
aspirations, Mr. Walsh.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Massie. Gentleman's time has expired. I now yield
myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Harrigan, is it safe to assume, in light of the August
2013 Department of Justice memo, that as long as States like
Kentucky have implemented a strong and effective regulatory and
enforcement system, the cultivation of industrial hemp will be
permitted by the Department of Justice when in accordance with
State laws?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is under policy
review right now at the Department of Justice, so that is
something we will certainly get back to you on.
Mr. Massie. Wouldn't it seem reasonable that if they can
grow marijuana for recreational purposes and medicinal purposes
in Colorado, that in Kentucky, you could grow hemp, which has
no psychoactive amount of THC, that in Kentucky, we could grow
hemp for industrial purposes?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, again, sir, that is under policy review
right now at the Department of Justice, and it would be
premature for me to comment on it before a decision is made.
Mr. Massie. Do you know when they might have a decision for
us?
Mr. Harrigan. No, I don't, but I'd be happy to get back to
you, sir.
Mr. Massie. Okay. Thank you very much.
And that's all the time that I need right now. I'm going to
yield----
Mr. Connolly. Wow.
Mr. Massie. --5 minutes to Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could you--Mr. Harrigan, we didn't get a copy of your--the
statement that you read. Could you read what you said about
emergency room visits?
Mr. Harrigan. Sure. I assume you're referring to and,
again, point number four, there was a 59 percent increase in
marijuana-related emergency room visits between 2006 and 2010.
Marijuana was second only to cocaine for illicit drug-related
emergency room visits in 2010.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
Mr. Harrigan. You're welcome.
Mr. Blumenauer. You know, it's interesting, we had, in our
previous hearing, discussion about emergency room admissions
for marijuana. Since then, I've been trying to find an
emergency room doctor who has treated somebody who has been
admitted for marijuana. They say it's likely that there are
people who had marijuana in their system, like people could
have nicotine in their system or have alcohol in their system,
but I have had numerous conversations with emergency room
doctors trying to understand what this means.
I'd respectfully request that you would--I don't want to
catch you unawares, but I'd like you to provide the committee
in writing what you're talking about, because it doesn't
square. Have you talked to an emergency room doctor that has
had somebody admitted for a marijuana overdose?
Mr. Harrigan. I have personally not, sir, but again, we'd
be happy to----
Mr. Blumenauer. Okay. I don't want to----
Mr. Harrigan. --get you----
Mr. Blumenauer. I don't want to trap you.
Mr. Harrigan. --the statistics.
Mr. Blumenauer. I don't want to trap you.
Mr. Harrigan. That's fine.
Mr. Blumenauer. I want to find out what these statistics
mean, because emergency room doctors that I talk to think it's
silly.
Mr. Harrigan. Actually, sir, this was----
Mr. Blumenauer. In fact, I----
Mr. Harrigan. I see--if I could respond to you.
Mr. Blumenauer. I don't have very much time left. I invite
you to provide it in writing.
Mr. Harrigan. Okay.
Mr. Blumenauer. I want to ask how many people died from
marijuana overdoses?
Mr. Harrigan. I'm not aware of any, sir.
Mr. Blumenauer. You put out information, for example, on
prescription drug overdoses, right?
Mr. Harrigan. Yes.
Mr. Blumenauer. 16,000 people----
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, we did.
Mr. Blumenauer. --last year. I would like you to provide,
again, I don't want to trap you, but in writing, so it can be
vetted, why you don't know whether or not anybody died from
marijuana overdose.
Third, I would love to have the evidence from the AMA that
you cited that AMA says that marijuana should be a Schedule I
drug. Again, I have not seen that. It would be very helpful to
be able to have this.
My last question, I'd like to follow up a little bit with
my friend from Kentucky--because we've got a massive drug
problem in this country, we're spending $25 billion, drug use
is going up, we're shifting money to drug cartels--how does the
DEA justify working against the legalization of industrial hemp
in this whole range of activities that you are tasked with
protecting the American public?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, again, sir, it is not just DEA. There
are several components----
Mr. Blumenauer. No. I'm asking specifically about DEA----
Mr. Harrigan. Well, we're----
Mr. Blumenauer. --because you're from DEA.
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, sir. We are involved in the
decisionmaking process. It simply is that. We will provide
detailed documents, information that we have, but it's part of
an overall decision that will eventually be made by the
Department of Justice.
Mr. Blumenauer. How does DEA justify taking scarce
resources when we have 16,000 people dying from drug overdose,
when we've got a heroin epidemic that is worrying in
communities across the country, how can you justify devoting
scarce resources to opposing industrial hemp legalization?
Mr. Harrigan. Sir, I don't a quite understand what you mean
by sending scant resources to do this. We have people who are
involved in the process. It's not as though it is requiring our
agents out on the street----
Mr. Blumenauer. Again, I don't want to----
Mr. Harrigan. --to enforce this.
Mr. Blumenauer. Again, I don't want to trap you, but I
would like to be able to do a deeper dive on that. The DEA,
according to published reports, was circulating on Capitol Hill
when Mr. Massie and I had an amendment that would allow just
research on industrial hemp, had talking points from the DEA
widely circulated for people to argue against a legislative
initiative. Now, there are certain arguments that one might
make about agencies lobbying, and I don't want to get there,
but it just speaks to me in terms of a serious question about
prioritization.
You've got a tough job. We don't want drugs killing our
people. Marijuana doesn't appear to be killing our people.
We've got real problems ahead of us. I'd like to have answers
to my questions so that I can understand how DEA prioritizes
our scarce resources.
Mr. Harrigan. I'd be happy to.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you very much. I really appreciate
it.
Mr. Harrigan. Thank you.
Mr. Massie. I suppose I can yield myself more time if we
have no other Republicans here right now.
I'll yield myself 5 minutes.
Question, what is the DEA's role and responsibility in
Federal marijuana enforcement in the two States that--where
it's been legalized?
Mr. Harrigan. Again, as I had alluded to earlier, sir, DEA
is the enforcement arm of the President's National Drug Control
Strategy. We have agents in--obviously, in the States of
Colorado and Washington, but again, due to limited resources
and prioritization, we go after the world's most prolific drug-
trafficking organizations, whether they're trafficking cocaine,
marijuana, heroin, methamphetamine. So, again, we continue to
do what we've done for the past 40 years, since DEA became an
agency in 1973, under President Nixon. We continue to target
those that have--those organizations that have the biggest
impact on our citizens.
Mr. Massie. What percent of your budget is spent on
marijuana laws, enforcement of those?
Mr. Harrigan. Sir, that is very difficult to estimate.
Again, these organizations that we target, we investigate and
we prosecute with our friends from the U.S. Attorney's Office
and State and local jurisdictions are poly drug. Very rarely do
you get an organization that's only going to traffic in
marijuana. Typically they'll traffic, like I said, poly drugs,
whether it's cocaine, heroin and marijuana. So, again,
percentage-wise, it would be very difficult to come up with a
precise amount, but again, these organizations make quite a bit
of money from marijuana trafficking.
Mr. Massie. Well, in speaking to marijuana specifically,
what percent of your budget is used for marijuana eradication
efforts?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, again, we get approximately through the
DCE/SP program, which I had mentioned in my opening statement,
Domestic Cannabis and Eradication/Suppression Program, we get
approximately $17 million, but of that, it goes to our State
and local counterparts, and that's used for things such as air
wing support helicopters, training, local police overtime for
State and local officials, so that money goes out to the
respective States in that manner.
Mr. Massie. Do States like Colorado, for instance, forego
that money now?
Mr. Harrigan. No, they don't.
Mr. Massie. So they're still accepting marijuana
eradication funds?
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, they do. DCE/SP funding, sir.
Mr. Massie. Okay. That's all the questions that I have.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, would you----
Mr. Massie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. --yield for a second.
Mr. Massie. I will.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
I think your questioning is very apt. I think we need to
know. I think DEA and other law enforcement agencies are going
to have to disaggregate what do you spend on marijuana
eradication? What do you spend on marijuana law enforcement
versus other kinds of drugs? I understand at times it can be
conflated, but, for example, wouldn't it be nice to know that
when we're dealing with illegal cartels, organized crime, what
percentage of their revenue is based on marijuana? You know,
because the argument has been made before that, well, illegal
syndicates, it's hard to do. Well, in prohibition, we did it.
When we ended prohibition, we didn't legalize prostitution and
illicit gambling and other sources of revenue of organized
crime. So I think it would be a very good thing to know so we
understand, again, going back to that word ``efficacy,'' how
effective are our efforts in fact and how does it guide us as
we consider policy changes moving forward?
So I thank you thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Massie. Thank you.
Mr. Harrigan. So, Ranking Member, if I may respond, and
it's a very good question and we do--we would be able to come
up with some statistics where--cases where we had resources,
manpower, funding directed specifically at marijuana
organizations, but again, the overwhelming majority of the
time, you know, the same organizations that traffic marijuana
traffic, you know, the cocaine, the heroin, so we're not going
to break up these organizations. It doesn't make sense from an
investigative standpoint and from a prosecutor's standpoint,
either, but we will certainly work on getting you some numbers,
Ranking Chairman.
Mr. Massie. Could you give us a rough idea of the breakdown
between domestic efforts and international efforts or efforts
at the border?
Mr. Harrigan. Yeah. In terms of just--I need just a little
more specificity, sir.
Mr. Massie. Marijuana, the war on--yeah, war on drugs as
pertains to marijuana.
Mr. Harrigan. Well, first, if I may mention, the war on
drugs, we don't--DEA, many of our State and local counter
parts, I don't want to speak for the U.S. attorneys either, but
nobody uses ``war on drugs'' anymore, to be quite honest with
you. We've come to the realization years ago that we're not
going to arrest ourselves out of this problem. We have to work
with Members of Congress, with healthcare professionals, with
medical professionals, with teachers. That's the way you get
the word out.
Now, as far as a war on drugs, you know, maybe some
countries around the world, you could classify it as a war on
drugs where maybe drug--where narcotics isn't a law enforcement
matter, maybe it's a national security matter; then perhaps
it's a war on drugs, but here, sir, I contend strongly it is
not a war on drugs.
Mr. Massie. Okay. Back to the original question. Do you--do
we spend money--do we spend taxpayer dollars trying to
eradicate marijuana overseas outside of our borders?
Mr. Harrigan. Eradication overseas?
Mr. Massie. Yes.
Mr. Harrigan. No. And, again, you would have to have ask
State Department more specifically for that. I know there are
programs, INL over at the Department of State, that provides
funding to various countries around the world.
Mr. Massie. I'd presumed you'd be coordinated with them.
Mr. Harrigan. Well, some of them, yes, absolutely, but,
again, they're in countries--we're not in every country that
State Department is. We have, I believe it's 87 offices in 68
countries around the globe, so obviously, that is not an all-
inclusive list.
Mr. Massie. My time has expired.
And I'll yield 5 minutes to Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Massie. Thank you.
First of all, I'd like to mention that one of the smartest
men in the world is Dr. Francis Collins, who is the head of the
NIH and head of the human genome project. He said this weekend
he'd like to study marijuana a little more because he's
concerned about the possibility, possibility, never shown, of
lung cancer because people inhale deeply and because he thinks
youth shouldn't use it, which I certainly agree with--Mr.
Blumenauer made that point--because IQ's have gone down for
kids who smoked marijuana. Indeed, they shouldn't do tobacco,
alcohol, and some say seen and not heard, but that's neither
here nor there.
But he said, I don't want to sound like one of these people
that says marijuana's evil; I don't think it is. That's Dr.
Francis Collins, the number one maybe in--one of the most
intellectual, brilliant people in the world on research science
in these things, A.
B, Mr. Harrigan, you've been in this business now for close
to 30 years? Since 1987, you started at the DEA? How have you--
--
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, I started when I was 3 years old.
Mr. Cohen. Right. How have your views changed on marijuana
in those 30 years?
Mr. Harrigan. To be quite honest with you, sir, very
little.
Mr. Cohen. I was afraid of that.
Mr. Harrigan. I see the devastation.
Mr. Cohen. That's enough. The fact that it's changed very
little says a lot.
Mr. Harrigan. Do you want me to respond to your question,
sir?
Mr. Cohen. No, sir, because we have limited----
Mr. Harrigan. I'd be happy to.
Mr. Cohen. We have--I know you would. We have limited time.
The fact that it's changed very little shows that you haven't
kept up with society. You haven't kept up with science, and
it's part of the problem----
Mr. Harrigan. Science and medical I do keep up with, sir.
Mr. Cohen. All right. You mentioned in your statement
that--and read me back that sentence, ``It insults our common
values.'' I want you to read me what you said.
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, sir. I believe this is the section
you're referring to: We also know that marijuana destroys lives
and families, undermines our economy and insults our common
values.
Mr. Cohen. What are the common values it insults?
Mr. Harrigan. For me, sir, as----
Mr. Cohen. No. For--for----
Mr. Harrigan. I will tell you. I will till if you let me--
--
Mr. Cohen. You said, ``We know.'' You're speaking as the
clairvoyant voice of America. What are our common values?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, I would venture to guess all of law
enforcement, just about every single parent out there as well.
Again----
Mr. Cohen. Every single parent?
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, every single parent. It's based on,
again, medical, sir, and scientific fact, not public opinion.
Okay. I am not the medical expert, as I said before. Everything
that I do is based on my 30-plus years of law enforcement.
Mr. Cohen. Let me stop you for a minute. You said it
insults our common values. What is the value it insults?
Mr. Harrigan. What is the value it insults?
Mr. Cohen. Yeah. You said this----
Mr. Harrigan. Do we have all--I could easily go on and on,
Congressman Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. You haven't started yet.
Mr. Harrigan. Well, if you continue to interrupt me, I
would be happy to address your question.
Mr. Cohen. Answer my question, sir.
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, it--you know what, from a bare minimum,
as a parent, from--as a former educator, as a law enforcement
official for all these years, I have seen the devastation that
marijuana has caused not only on individuals, on families and
communities.
Mr. Cohen. And that--what's our common value, though? You
still haven't stated the common value. And the fact is 55
percent of Americans are in favor of decriminalization or
legalization. I have got to imagine some of them are parents or
the other 45 percent are really active. I mean, your statement
that all parents are against this is ludicrous. What do you
think, people that are in favor of decriminalization or----
Mr. Harrigan. I didn't say----
Mr. Cohen. --policy----
Mr. Harrigan. I said----
Mr. Cohen. --don't procreate?
Mr. Harrigan. I said most parents----
Mr. Cohen. You said all.
Mr. Harrigan. --would be opposed to this.
Mr. Cohen. And most is wrong, too; 55 percent of America.
Mr. Harrigan. Are they all parents?
Mr. Cohen. I don't think that the polls went into that, but
I suspect a whole bunch of them were. It's not just the
psychiatrists and the Jews and the single people. Let's get
beyond Richard Nixon.
Let me ask you this. Let me say this to you: Recreational
use, if you look in the Wikipedia, recreational drug use is
defined as the use of a drug with the intent of enhancing life,
increasing euphoria, blocking unhappy memories, or creating
pleasure.
It's your agency that talks about recreational marijuana.
I'm not quite sure recreational. To me, that's badminton or
bowling or golf. But if it's in enhancing euphoria, blocking
unhappy memories or creating pleasure, does that insult our
values?
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, it does.
Mr. Cohen. So euphoria is not an American value, and
unhappy memories being blocked is not an American value, or
creating pleasure?
Mr. Harrigan. Not through smoking a marijuana joint, in my
opinion, sir.
Mr. Cohen. In your opinion, yes, sir.
Mr. Harrigan. Yes. And, again, I am neither a medical
professional or a healthcare professional.
Mr. Cohen. How much money has the DEA gained from asset
forfeiture involved in marijuana cases?
Mr. Harrigan. Again, that would be difficult to----
Mr. Cohen. Well, then get the information for me, please. I
want to know how much money you benefit, the DEA, from asset
forfeiture laws, which make for cash register justice, from
enforcing marijuana laws. That would be very interesting for us
to know. And----
Mr. Harrigan. I will be happy to get that.
Mr. Cohen. Have you read the Schaefer Commission Report?
Mr. Harrigan. No, I have not, sir.
Mr. Cohen. Forty years old, still valid. I recommend you
read it. I'd advise you to take a look at it.
Mr. Harrigan. I certainly will.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. And let me ask one last question,
Mr.--give me time, just one second.
Your boss, Ms. Leonhart, spoke at the winter meeting of the
Major County Sheriffs Association, and she spoke about the
President and his remarks that marijuana's not more dangerous
than alcohol, and she said her lowest point in 33 years at the
DEA was learning that a hemp flag was flown over the Capitol on
July the Fourth. Do you agree that flying a hemp flag over the
Capitol should have been her lowest moment, or maybe the
killing of a DEA agent or maybe somebody who died of a heroin
overdose would have been--should have been her lowest moment?
Mr. Harrigan. Yeah. Well, I don't know if she said it
exactly as you quoted it.
Mr. Cohen. This is a quote.
Mr. Harrigan. But it is troubling. I absolutely agree with
the administrator.
Mr. Cohen. And do you disagree with the--do you agree with
her that marijuana is more--is not more dangerous than alcohol?
Mr. Harrigan. Again, marijuana is a Schedule I controlled
substance that Congress has passed, Congress has agreed to. I
am----
Mr. Cohen. We're not talking about that.
Mr. Harrigan. --the enforcement arm.
Mr. Cohen. Marijuana as a--standing on its own, is it worse
than alcohol, that kills tens of thousands of people and causes
much violence and cirrhosis of the liver and the DT's?
Mr. Harrigan. Again, marijuana is a Schedule I controlled
drug.
Mr. Cohen. You're not going to answer the question.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Mica. [Presiding.] So that was a--did you say--was that
over the Capitol or the White House that they flew the hemp
flag?
Mr. Cohen. Best of my knowledge, it was the Capitol.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well----
Mr. Cohen. Give them enough hemp, and they'll hang
themselves.
Mr. Mica. Well, just part of our discovery effort here.
Interesting.
What we're going to do is I've got a--we've got a couple of
questions. I'll yield to anyone else who may have some wrap-up
questions.
We got into--well, Mr. Harrigan, you said something, too,
that interested me. You said the same people that are involved
in--and I can't remember whether you said cocaine, heroin, but
other tough, maybe it was meth, are--were also marketing
marijuana and that this is--that was the indication I got. I
don't know if that's what you meant. And that the same--I
think--I thought you said the same people are involved.
So is that the case? And--you see this from a law
enforcement standpoint. Is marijuana sort of a sideline with
bad guys who are dealing this--these other drugs?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, Chairman, what we've seen time and time
again, again, DEA, as I said a few times, we go after the worst
of the worst when it comes to drug trafficking organizations,
we call them CPOT's, consolidated priority organization
targets. It's the old--we used to use kingpins. So, again, what
we've seen----
Mr. Mica. But in the illegal substances, the tough--I mean,
hard, hard drugs, though, you were talking about it's the same
people dealing?
Mr. Harrigan. Yeah. Principally what we see, sir, these
organizations, because, again, marijuana is a huge revenue
generator, so----
Mr. Mica. Okay. Now, most of that marijuana, has that been
coming from Mexico----
Mr. Harrigan. Yes.
Mr. Mica. --into the United States?
Mr. Harrigan. Yeah. What we see----
Mr. Mica. Now, you're seeing a shift now since----
Mr. Harrigan. That's right.
Mr. Mica. This reminds me a little bit when--some time ago
when I dealt as chair of criminal justice drug policy, the
Dutch liberalized their laws and then the Netherlands became,
like, the narcotics capital of Europe and stuff went in there.
I remember sitting with the minister of justice, I think in the
Hague, and they had opened this Pandora's box, and it came back
to haunt them. Then they came back and criminalized--I mean,
they cracked down, because it had just attracted other
elements, too, in addition to, you know, they have a very
liberal marijuana policy.
So what about, like, is this encouraging--would this
encourage people to go to Colorado and start farms? And it's
going to cut into the Mexican market, but are we seeing yet or
do you think we'll see domestic production now in the states
with the liberalization? And that's going to be hard to contain
in borders since, again, it's a fairly, oh, transferrable
commodity. What do you--where are we, and what do you think
we're going to see?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, Chairman, you sort of stole a little
bit of my thunder there, because you're exactly right. We're
seeing an increase in domestic production as well. Now, we--the
majority of the heroin that's seized here comes from Mexico,
but typically, that is low grade marijuana. I'm sorry.
Marijuana, I meant. It's low grade marijuana. We have seen--we
have information that the Mexican cartels are actually trying
to improve the THC content to, again, counter----
Mr. Mica. Compete, yeah.
Mr. Harrigan. That's exactly right, sir. So, again, we're
seeing an increase grown on private lands and indoor grows as
well. We're seeing a little decrease of growing marijuana on
public lands, but we have seen an uptick on marijuana grows on
private lands under the guise usually of medicinal use and as
well as indoor grow operations.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Then a couple of other little things. Now,
we've seen the shift in youth from tobacco--Mr. Connolly and I
were talking about it. And probably the marijuana is getting
cheaper, because the tobacco's taxed and also our programs have
been geared to stopping that, but now one of you testified,
too, that it looks like that marijuana abuse in high school is
exceeding tobacco abuse. Is that the case? Mr. Harrigan, are
you seeing that?
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh. I don't know that particular statistic, but it
is a concern to us that there is, in fact, a rise in marijuana
use in high schoolers.
Mr. Harrigan. Yeah. Sir, Chairman, if I could just clarify.
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Harrigan. I guess what you had said, tobacco versus
marijuana. That, I am uncertain as well. What we have seen is
an uptick in marijuana use amongst high schoolers.
Mr. Mica. And we've heard the citations. I think the
ranking member gave citations about the decrease and success
we've had in tobacco.
Mr. Harrigan, I hate to put you on the spot, but welcome to
a congressional hearing. Schedule I, what's your
recommendation?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, again, sir, it's not made in a void,
the determination of a drug in Schedule I. Typically what
happens, you know, a petition will be submitted. There will be
an eight-factor analysis by DEA. And then HHS will receive it,
and they have their medical experts, their scientists do an
eight-factor analysis as well.
Mr. Mica. Is that ongoing now or does anyone know? Is
anyone----
Mr. Harrigan. As far as marijuana. I am not aware of any
pending application, sir. We--DEA has----
Mr. Mica. But you would recommend against it, changing it
from Schedule----
Mr. Harrigan. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh. Chairman, there's a process, and it's--it goes
to HHS and the FDA----
Mr. Mica. Right.
Mr. Walsh. --for recommendation back to the DEA
administrator. And at this point, I believe there may be a
petition pending. I'm not 100 percent.
Mr. Mica. So it would come back to you. Would you have
final authority or just you weigh in?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, again, yes, sir. We base it--as John
just alluded to, we base it on recommendations, too, from HHS,
from FDA and NIDA. The administrator will take it under
consideration.
Mr. Mica. I just got an email as we're talking that the
District of Columbia has just voted to, I guess, liberalize
some of its marijuana policy as we're holding this hearing. I
hope we didn't influence them, but it looks like the conflict
is--and the chaos, again, in policy is becoming an even wider
spread here.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chairman, if I could----
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Walsh. --make one comment about the scheduling process.
It goes to the FDA, recommendations come back----
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Walsh. --based on a series of factors that include
efficacy as well as the potential for abuse. Then it comes back
to DEA. And the administrator, I believe, has been delegated
the authority to make the final decision by the Attorney
General.
Having said that, when Mr. Harrigan is describing that
process, in the past, the DEA has--has turned down those
petitions. To the extent that the FDA is continuing to look at
these studies and providing recommendations to the
administration, I don't think anything is foreclosed. I know
that the position of the DEA up to now has been not to
reschedule, but things change over time. I'm not saying that
they would, so----
Mr. Mica. From hearing to hearing, they're changing. So,
well----
Mr. Harrigan. Chairman, if I could just clarify, though.
DEA has never rejected an application that was approved by FDA
and NIDA. So a little distinction there, but we've----
Mr. Mica. So we need to talk to FDA and NIDA what they're
doing, what they think. And, again, that's out of your--not in
your----
Mr. Harrigan. Right.
Mr. Mica. --your end.
Just to wrap up, this is kind of interesting point here
that I've kind of viewed in my history, and I've been away from
the--you know, having the jurisdiction, but I deal in
transportation and, you know, I chaired that committee and
subcommittees. One of the things I did when I took over
transportation was try to look at how we're--I mean, you want
to talk about killing people; it's the automobile. It was about
43,000 people were dying. We got that down to, I think, 33,000.
We did some things that made some changes in the way people
conduct themselves.
Half of the deaths, and I don't know, it went back up
again, I guess, of late, but half the deaths were related to
alcohol. And I know there's a reporting mechanism, but I don't
honestly know, is there a reporting mechanism for substance
abuse such as marijuana or other substances that have impacted
the deaths, because that's a pretty big number? A lot of people
who use some of these substances, marijuana and others, mix it
with alcohol or whatever or--and I don't know how many people
have died driving a car that are blown out with this fairly
potent marijuana.
Could you tell me, do you know if that's--we inventory
that? I would like--and if we don't, maybe I should look at
trying to get--gather some data. They always say, well, this
doesn't kill anyone, but do we really know who's going down,
say, even in the thousands of traffic deaths?
Mr. Harrigan?
Mr. Harrigan. Sir, one statistic I do have, and I'll have
to find the citation for you, but it says 28 percent of fatally
injured drivers test positive for marijuana.
Mr. Mica. Twenty-eight percent.
Mr. Harrigan. Twenty-eight percent.
Mr. Mica. I had not heard----
Mr. Harrigan. Now, again, I will get the citation----
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Harrigan. --and the requisite study for you, sir.
Mr. Mica. And you don't know if it's required in the
reporting or--I guess they would do a blood test in a fatality,
so the information is available someplace.
Mr. Harrigan. Right.
Mr. Mica. Maybe that's where they gather that information.
Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh. You know, my information, Chairman, is that the
reporting is not as consistent----
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Walsh. --in that regard as it is for alcohol-related
deaths and that there is some question, particularly if there's
not a fatality, a blood test may not always be taken.
Mr. Mica. Of course, we're talking fatalities versus
hundreds of thousands of other wrecks and injuries.
Mr. Walsh. And I would just--I would note, and I believe
the DEA has the same concern, that we are highly concerned
about the increase in the rate of drugged driving, and in
Colorado, it's an issue that we're facing as well right now.
Mr. Mica. So, finally, Harrigan, I guess you and I are on
the same plane. You view this as a gateway drug, marijuana?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, Chairman, that's a great question. I
believe more testing needs to be done. I don't think it can
definitively say. It is certainly addictive. As far as a
gateway drug----
Mr. Mica. So you don't know and----
Mr. Harrigan. --I think there still needs to be----
Mr. Mica. --that's fine.
Mr. Harrigan. --more research.
Mr. Mica. And that's fine.
Well, we're going to hear from some of the experts where--
again, we've got a little bit different product on the market.
And, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just note the chairman talked about the Dutch
experience. Rand Corporation studied the Dutch experience, and
two interesting facts with legalization: Dutch citizen cannabis
use was comparable and slightly lower to its neighboring
countries, and secondly, Rand--the Rand study found no evidence
of a gateway impact with the legalization of cannabis. The
opposite, actually. So----
Mr. Mica. When was the study conducted?
Mr. Connolly. Fairly recently, I believe. We'll be glad to
get the study--2010. Yeah.
So we can all have our opinions, but, you know--and with
respect to 28 percent of fatal car accidents, I sure would like
to see that study, because I've seen studies that suggest that
the impairment level, not that one is advocating it, but
actually, when you look at statistical comparisons of
impairment on driving under marijuana use versus other, you
know, controlled and noncontrolled substances, is fairly
moderate, but I'd be glad to look at the evidence.
Mr. Harrigan, do you believe tobacco has a high potential
for abuse?
Mr. Harrigan. Again, sir, I can't comment as a law
enforcement official. I certainly--what I see, I'm not a
medical professional. I'm not a healthcare professional. But,
you know, literally thousands, hundreds of thousands of people
have died as a result of tobacco use.
Mr. Connolly. And you would agree it's addictive? It can
be--it can be addictive?
Mr. Harrigan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Have you ever had--are you aware of ever a
doctor prescribing a carton of cigarettes as a medical--for a
medical condition?
Mr. Harrigan. I am not, no, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Do you believe there's an accepted safe use
of tobacco under medical supervision?
Mr. Harrigan. Again, sir, I'm--if you're asking me to
comment as an agent, I assume if it's under the right
protocols, if it's--you have medical and scientific experts
overseeing, but again, I would have to defer to the medical
experts on something like that.
Mr. Connolly. Probable answer is no. So why wouldn't
tobacco, in light of those--the answers to those questions, why
wouldn't tobacco be a Schedule I narcotic?
Mr. Harrigan. Again, that's a decision that's made by--in
conjunction with FDA and NIDA and HHS, sir.
Mr. Connolly. In your testimony, you disparaged public
policy based on public opinion.
Mr. Harrigan. Uh-huh.
Mr. Connolly. As a student of history, why do you think
prohibition failed?
Mr. Harrigan. Why did prohibition fail? I don't----
Mr. Connolly. We actually had to have a constitutional
amendment to repeal prohibition. With the best of intentions,
after a century of activism by well-meaning people who saw the
ravages of alcohol on men, eating up their paychecks, on women
and orphans being thrown on the street and so forth, you know,
the Temperance League finally reaching its own and all that,
and after a decade of experience, it was repealed. Why--you're
a law enforcement man, Mr. Harrigan. Why do you think we had to
repeal prohibition?
Mr. Harrigan. Well, again, close to 100 years ago, sir, it
was certainly a different world. And I think, obviously, I
think what you're getting at is probably public opinion.
However, that being said, I think now, almost 100 years
later, we do have organizations, such as the DEA, such as HHS,
NIDA, FDA, that can make--draw logical conclusions based on
medical and scientific fact----
Mr. Connolly. I agree.
Mr. Harrigan. --not public opinion.
Mr. Connolly. I agree. I don't think that every law on the
books should be a matter of public plebiscite. I certainly
agree with you.
However, you would agree, would you not as--given your
background as a cop that respect for laws is also an important
part of the culture of law enforcement; that, I mean, if we
have a public that totally disdains a law or significantly
disdains a law, awfully hard to enforce it, makes the job of
the cop on the beat much tougher. Would you not agree?
Mr. Harrigan. It does make it tougher, sir, but that's not
to say it's right.
Mr. Connolly. Well, going back to prohibition, might you
not agree that the broad disdain for prohibition among the
American public had a lot to do with why we had to pass a
constitutional amendment to repeal it, because it created a
culture of disrespect for the law and affected other laws that
were terribly important?
Mr. Harrigan. But, again, I think, sir, that is what
Congress is here to do. If they determine that the laws need to
be changed, the laws need to be changed. Again, DEA's charge,
our mission is to enforce the Federal narcotic laws.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Walsh, the fact that 20 States have
changed their laws with respect to marijuana and two have
actually changed their laws to allow some recreational use,
including your beloved home State----
Mr. Mica. And the District----
Mr. Connolly. And now the District of Columbia.
Mr. Mica. Within the last hour.
Mr. Connolly. That--you know, I guess we could continue to
take the position that that doesn't make it right and that
doesn't change a thing, it's still a substance I narcotic.
It's--you know, it needs to be--people need to be arrested and
incarcerated after conviction for use and possession or for
growing, but the fact of the matter is, that's a lot of States
telling us something else about--I mean, these are legislators,
these are voters telling us something else about their views on
marijuana. Surely we at least have to take cognizance of it as
we think through future policy, don't we?
Mr. Walsh. I think, Congressman, that we do need to take it
into account, but I want to say something that I think is
really important, and I--with respect to our relationship with
the DEA on these issues. Our focus is on those eight Federal
priorities. DEA walks with us in lock step on those priorities.
They support us. They support the prosecutions that we bring
that are focused on true Federal interests, those eight
priority areas. That takes into account the fact that State
laws may vary from location to location.
DEA is also working with us to address the sort of evolving
marijuana landscape on the ground. Over time--you know, we've
always counted on State and local law enforcement to assist us
in addressing any drug problem. We continue to do that. When
State and local laws change as drastically as they have in some
places, that changes the landscape for DEA. It changes the
landscape for us. We do take it into account, but the work that
DEA does with us has always been focused on drug-trafficking
organizations and sophisticated operations that pose very
serious public safety risks.
So I feel duty bound really to defend how DEA has responded
on the ground and our relationships with them in Colorado to
try to address these things, even acknowledging that the point
that you make, Congressman, about changing public opinion is a
real one.
Mr. Connolly. And I--listen, I'm a skeptic about
legalization and decriminalization. I'm--you know, so my
questions are much in the category of devil's advocate for you
two, but I'm not convinced one way or the other, but I am
troubled by the statistics this hearing has forced me to look
at. And that's why I said there are two questions for me:
Efficacy. Is it working? Because you can be right as rain and
feel good about the high principals you're espousing, but if
the--but if it's in fact a failing policy, I don't think that
serves any good public good. And secondly, the issue of
equality. And I hear what you say about the eight areas you
want to focus on, and I applaud the fact that you want to go
after the cartels and the organized crime and try to get them;
they're vicious. They're violent. They've destroyed whole
communities and destabilized the southern part of our border
and the northern part of our neighbors. But the fact of the
matter is 750,000 people in this country, not all organized
crime, got arrested last year for marijuana use or possession.
And so the inequalities of law enforcement domestically
continue.
Mr. Walsh. But----
Mr. Connolly. And if you look at who is in prison for this
reason, it's three-quarters nonwhite.
Mr. Walsh. Congressman, I do want to clarify one thing,
though. The 750,000 arrests number that you're putting out
there reflects local, State and Federal law enforcement. A lot
of--the vast majority of those arrests are pursuant to State
law and local law. That's not something that DEA is enforcing
on a day-to-day basis. What they do with us, the Department of
Justice, is focus on the sophisticated operations.
Mr. Connolly. But, Mr. Walsh, it's all in the context. You
can say that, and I agree, but on the other hand, the
insistence that there's no scientific basis for questioning
whether marijuana ought to stay as a substance I narcotic
certainly contributes to why State and local governments are
enforcing it as if it were. That comes from the Federal level,
not the State and local level. They're not making up the
science here.
Mr. Walsh. But Congress--if I could go back to your point
about public opinion, which I think is a valid one. There are
many States in the United States where marijuana is not about
to become legal or--whether for recreation or medical purposes,
there are many States. So public opinion varies across this
country.
We as Federal law enforcement have to enforce the law in a
consistent way in every State. That's the challenge that we're
facing right now. That's the challenge DEA faces in trying to
fulfill their anti-drug mission that--and that we face in
trying to fulfill our anti-drug mission. So that's why those
eight factors are so important, is because they set forth in
clear guidance, at least from my point of view, very clear
guidance what are the true Federal interests. That's where
we're putting our attention.
Mr. Connolly. And I really appreciate that. And I think,
with respect to public opinion, it's tricky business. As I said
to Mr. Harrigan, I agree, you can't--you know, the law can't be
a matter of just pure plebiscite; you know, let's all vote on
the ones we like, and the ones we don't, and the ones we like,
that will be the law.
But on the other hand, what has happened with respect to
marijuana is public opinion is shifting and shifting radically
away from the policies that have dominated this subject, at the
Federal level anyhow, for the last 40-plus years. What does
that mean for us? What cognizance should we take of that, and
what, in light of that, should we re-evaluate, if anything?
And then there is the other data we've gone through in this
hearing that I do think raises questions about where we are
right now on marijuana use. And I thank the chairman for having
the hearing, because it's most illuminating. And I thank you
both for being here and for your service.
Mr. Mica. I might follow up with a question and ask you if
you have the statistics. I keep hearing this 750,000 people
arrested or in jail, of how many of those are State, local and
then Federal. From what I ascertain from Mr. Harrigan is most
of the Federal people are the big dealers, and they are--
they're also involved in other things. You're not picking up
people smoking a joint.
Mr. Harrigan. You're absolutely right, Chairman.
Approximately 99.8 percent of Federal prisoners arrested for
narcotics are in for drug trafficking, not possession.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, if you could give us----
Mr. Harrigan. Sure.
Mr. Mica. --that.
Mr. Harrigan. I'd be happy.
Mr. Mica. And maybe--I don't know if there's any breakdown
of what they've--well, sometimes you get they plead to a lot
lower offenses. That's one of the things.
Boy, I could get into this a little bit more, because now
that I heard--are you involved at all, Harrigan, or they talk
to you, Walsh, on--I heard that they're looking at a whole bank
of granting, not amnesty, but sort of a blanket pardon for
people who were on certain--convicted of certain offenses. I
guess it was--was it with cocaine? Crack cocaine? Yeah. Is
that--you haven't heard anything on that?
Mr. Walsh. Certainly not some sort of a blanket pardon. I
know that the----
Mr. Mica. We had--in fact, we entered in the record some
commentary from some folks that said that's being considered,
so because, again, we've changed the law, and there's a
disparity in the conviction, and there were, like, 8,000 or
something. That's a fairly significant number.
But that's--I'm diverting a little bit. If you can get us
the--any exact information, Mr. Harrigan, again, on those
cases, it would be good, because I keep hearing that number.
Mr. Massie, waiting most patiently.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh, the 4-page memo of August 2013 has eight points
in there, but it's--at the end of the day, it's only 4 pages,
and it leaves it up to you, the U.S. attorneys, to exercise
discretion on interpretation.
To my question to Mr. Harrigan a while ago about industrial
hemp, isn't it the same section of the Controlled Substances
Act that precludes marijuana federally that precludes growing
of industrial hemp as well? Can you tell me what your
interpretation of that is in Colorado? If you, for instance,
came to know that a farmer in Colorado was growing industrial
hemp, would you prosecute that case, for instance?
Mr. Walsh. Well, Congressman, I want to be careful about
not speculating on future cases, because you--one thing I've
learned is that there are factors and aggravating factors and
mitigating factors; you just never know until the case actually
arrives on your doorstep. But I would say this, the policy
process that Mr. Harrigan referred to is underway right now.
Until that's done, I'm certainly taking a very cautious
approach to any prosecution that is purely hemp-based. We need
to see how that turns out, and then we'll make decisions based
on that final guidance that we get.
Mr. Massie. But if a case comes to you before that final
guidance is issued, you would have to make a decision.
Mr. Walsh. It--depending on the circumstances, I think we
might defer a decision, but I will tell you, clearly, without
speculating on future cases, which is hard, that for the
moment, we're waiting to see how the policy process plays out
before we make those sorts of decisions.
Mr. Massie. Just----
Mr. Walsh. Which I hope will be a quick--quick and----
Mr. Massie. I hope it'll be quick, too. We're waiting in
Kentucky, and we haven't decided to legalize marijuana, for
instance, but industrial hemp could be a productive crop. I
mean, I'm just trying to use layman's understanding of this 4-
page document and the eight points and a little bit of common
sense, but it seems like if growing industrial hemp didn't step
on any of these eight points, which I don't think it would--I
don't think it would lead to marijuana possession on Federal
property, for instance, or violence and the use of firearms.
Industrial hemp could be valuable; I don't think it's going to
be that valuable that firearms will become involved. But it
just seems to me that that--I would hope, in Colorado, if a
case comes to you that a farmer is growing industrial hemp and
you don't have your guidance yet, that you would exercise the
same sort of interpretation that I have, which--and this is a
way, actually, we are trying to understand it in Kentucky,
because it's not an academic exercise. We have people ready to
grow industrial hemp, but they don't want to go to jail.
Mr. Walsh. Congressman, certainly without specific guidance
on hemp, I have to exercise my overall prosecutorial judgment
and discretion, and the memo that we received in August of 2013
influences that. It's not the final word.
Mr. Massie. Okay. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Harrigan, I want to follow up to a question that Mr.
Mica asked and your answer to it. It was a statistic about what
percent of automobile accidents, I think, where the users
tested--or the occupants or drivers tested for marijuana usage.
Was that number--what was the number?
Mr. Harrigan. Twenty-eight percent, Congressman.
Mr. Massie. Twenty-eight percent. Was that just fatalities
or accidents?
Mr. Harrigan. Those were fatalities. Not just accidents;
fatalities.
Mr. Massie. And so the test that they do, can it determine
if, for instance, the level of THC in the person's body was
high enough to degrade their judgment, or could it have
indicated that somebody in the past month had used marijuana?
Mr. Harrigan. Sir, I don't know, to be honest with you. I'd
be happy to get you some more information on that, but I know
it's something they are trying to perfect that test to
determine the THC level in someone's system.
Mr. Massie. So what--do you know what the standard
procedure is in an autopsy to determine if somebody--at what
level of THC was in their blood?
Mr. Harrigan. I don't, sir. No, I don't.
Mr. Massie. I would presume it's sort of taking the blood
and doing the tests like if you were going to get a job or in a
criminal case or something, but that it's hard for me to
imagine that there's some test that undertakers or, you know,
medical professionals do during the autopsy that could tell
them whether the person was impaired or under the influence.
Mr. Harrigan. Well, again, it may be requested by the
respective law enforcement component that was involved in that
particular fatality.
Mr. Massie. So if the test showed that--all it indicated
was that somebody in the last 2 years had used marijuana, maybe
all that statistic shows is that 28 percent of people use
marijuana.
Mr. Harrigan. It could. Again, I can't speculate as to what
or not it shows, sir.
Mr. Massie. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Harrigan. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Well, first of all, I want to thank our two
witnesses, both for their patience and also for their
participation and enduring the weather challenges we've had.
This is an incredibly lively, interesting, informative
subject.
Mr. Connolly and I were just talking. We hadn't paid much
attention to it before the beginning of this year, but just a
lot of the information you provide helps enlighten us as to
where things are.
We're continuing this. It's an interesting time, an
interesting subject, and maybe a transition in our society, but
we do have conflict in laws, State, Federal; policies that are
all over the place, and we've got to sort it out, see where
we're going and do the right thing.
But we thank you both for participating.
I thank--we've had some lively interest from other members.
Fortunately the snow kept some of the others away, but--and we
will leave the record open for 7 days, and we may have
additional questions for you to respond for the record.
There being no further business before the Subcommittee on
Government Operations, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]