[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 24 (Friday, February 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1793-S1794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             IT'S FOR KIDS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, what responsible parent has not forgone 
something he or she wanted for the benefit of a child? We make 
sacrifices today for the tomorrows of our children. We defer doing 
things, we give up buying something, we go out of our way.
  But it is not just in our own lives that we do things for our 
children's sake. We support public education. We pass safety laws. We 
take steps to ensure the well-being of kids. We do this out of 
responsibility as parents. We do this as members of a civilized 
community that knows the importance of investing in its future through 
future generations.
  Those of us who are adults today benefited from the efforts and 
sacrifices our parents made on our behalf. And their parents before 
them.
  It is in acknowledgment of these simple truths that I wanted to talk 
briefly about this Nation's drug problems. I want to talk about the 
serious challenge that we face to the health and well-being of our 
tomorrows in the lives of our children today.
  While we were out on the recent recess, something happened that needs 
concern us. In essence that was the advancement of an effort to 
legalize drugs in this country. It was not a fair fight. The American 
public, overwhelmingly, in just about every opinion vehicle I can think 
of, has indicated its enduring opposition to drug legalization. The 
well-funded legalization lobby knows this. They know they cannot fight 
for legalization on the merits. They cannot tell the truth about what 
their real agenda is. So they resort to weasel words and fast talk. As 
the old saying goes, you can fool some of the people some of the time, 
and that's usually good enough.
  What I'm talking about in this case is that those who promote 
legalization of drugs have resorted to appealing to the public's sense 
of care and concern for the sick and dying to promote drug 
legalization. The notion that is advanced by the legalization advocates 
and their money men is that smoking marijuana is a treatment for a 
number of physical disabilities and terminal illnesses. Relying on 
anecdotal evidence and the exploitation of the public's generous and 
caring impulses, they have slipped in legalization measures in two 
States and are targeting a number of others for similar treatment. They 
are also using this approach to go around Federal controls on illegal 
drugs and international treaties that commit the United States to 
maintaining adequate drug control policies.
  Briefly, I want to review what is being claimed and the tactics that 
have been used. First, let's recall a little history. We are not 
inexperienced in this country in seeing the medicalization of dangerous 
substances. At one time in this country, individuals and businesses 
could market anything as a medicine and make any claim for its 
effectiveness. In this fashion, opiates and cocaine were freely 
marketed in nostrums sold over the counter and through the mail. The 
makers of these drugs claimed miracle cures for their products. They 
also had endless testimonials from satisfied customers on how well the 
products performed. Here was no evidence for the claims, however. There 
was an increasing number of addicts, hooked on self-administered, 
dangerous substances marketed as medicine. As a recent article in the 
New Republic noted, as a result of these freely available over-the-
counter drugs, addiction in this country soared in the early years of 
this century. Public health officials estimated that 1 in 200 
Americans, including children, were addicted.

  In addition to marketing these dangerous drugs, unscrupulous 
businesses, and individuals also sold many concoctions made from 
unknown ingredients. And they made claims that these could cure 
anything that ailed humanity.
  Again, they could call upon boxcars full of anecdotes to support 
their claims. We have coined a word for these so-called medicines. We 
call them snake oil. We also have a word for the people who pushed 
them--snake oil salesmen or quacks. Our grandparents, who had to deal 
with these practices, woke up to the fraud that was being perpetrated 
on the public. They realized that dangerous drugs were creating a major 
addiction problem. They realized that unknown ingredients were doing 
great harm, either directly by poisoning people, or by keeping people 
from seeking real treatments for real problems. They demanded better. 
They demanded that we control dangerous drugs sold to the public. They 
insisted on truth in advertising. And they required scientific support 
to establish the value of things offered to the public as medicine.
  In addition, they also took steps to ban dangerous drugs and to 
determine what drugs had medical uses that also could be demonstrated 
to be safe and effective. Based on this experience, our predecessors in 
this body passed the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906. They created the 
Food and Drug Administration in 1938 to ensure the availability of safe 
medicine. They also passed a variety of laws to deal with the use and 
distribution of dangerous drugs. We have continued these efforts.
  Among more recent efforts, were the development of schedules for 
drugs

[[Page S1794]]

that laid out categories for dangerous drugs and their proper control 
in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. These schedules include a 
classification of drugs for their potential for abuse and their medical 
value. This scheduling system gives us a handle on what science and 
experience continue to tell us about dangerous drugs. Marijuana, along 
with PCP and LSD, are included in the category of drugs with a high 
potential for abuse and no recognized medical use in its smoked form.
  But we have not stopped here. In response to public pressure in our 
last major drug epidemic, we created the drug czar's office to help 
coordinate our national efforts. We mandated better coordination of 
Federal efforts through high-intensity drug trafficking areas. In 
addition, this body continues these efforts. We have spent a good deal 
of legislative time insisting that our international partners also take 
steps to stop the production and distribution of dangerous drugs. We 
are signatories to various international treaties, such as the 1988 
U.N. convention, that commits us to maintaining a drug-free 
environment.
  These facts do not mean that various individuals stop trying to 
smuggle illegal drugs and sell them to the public. It does not mean 
that unscrupulous business enterprises or individuals stop trying to 
sell snake oil to the public. We cannot afford to abandon lightly the 
idea that things offered to the public as medicine must meet exacting 
standards and scientific validation.

  We must be cautious when confronted with sophisticated advertising 
campaigns that seek to circumvent Federal and State laws and establish 
procedures for determining safe and effective medicines.
  Indeed, it should give us pause if any group seeks to push a so-
called medicine through the electoral process. One has to stop and ask 
why. If the motive is to provide a medicine, why is it that this so-
called medicine requires an effort to by-pass science, to ignore 
experience, and to rely on methods wholly unsuited to the concern at 
hand. What we see is that various individuals are resorting to 
testimonials, anecdotes, and junk science. They do this to legitimize 
the notion that marijuana should be made available for just about any 
condition one can name. This is not a path that leads us to responsible 
public policy, sound medical practice, or a caring and compassionate 
approach to the sick.
  In the case of medical marijuana, we see an effort underway that 
seeks to by-pass good science and responsible medicine. There is no 
valid science that demonstrates the medical usefulness of smoking 
marijuana.
  Indeed, as recently as February 1994, the U.S. District Court in 
Washington, DC, denied a petition by marijuana legalization groups to 
have marijuana rescheduled. Not only did the court deny the petition of 
the legalizers, it specifically noted that their appeals for 
rescheduling were based on anecdotes and testimonials. No valid 
scientific studies were offered to support their claims. As the opinion 
notes each of the various legalization experts admitted, under oath, 
that he was basing his opinion on anecdotal evidence, on stories he 
heard from patients, and on his impressions about the drug. The science 
supporting the claims was not there.
  In fact, there is considerable and growing evidence to the contrary. 
Many of the carcinogens that accompany tobacco are present in similar 
or greater quantities in marijuana smoke. Moreover, a growing body of 
evidence indicates the serious, harmful, long-term effects for health 
and mental development from smoking marijuana. No major medical 
association or research institute supports the claim for the medical 
uses of smoking marijuana. The claims remain anecdotal. No major 
industrialized country endorses its medical use. Just recently, 
Holland, which condones limited public use of marijuana, has noted no 
medical utility for marijuana.
  On the contrary, the principal source of support for marijuana as a 
medicine comes from groups that favor legalization of drugs. Again, one 
ought to ask what is really going on when it is not the medical 
community clamoring for action but rather lobbying groups that seek to 
legalize certain drugs.
  Major funding for campaigns to support the idea of marijuana as 
medicine comes for individuals and groups that favor drug legalization 
or liberalization. The major support for the effectiveness of marijuana 
as a medicine comes from anecdotes. It is not based on science because 
the science doesn't support the claims. The legalization groups know 
this and have hit upon methods to try to legalize drugs, at this point 
marijuana, by other means.

  They make no pretense among themselves about the agenda. They do, 
however, resort to misdirection in their public pronouncements. Thus, 
they exploit the public's trust and goodwill to accomplish an agenda 
that the public has repeatedly opposed. This is not about medicine for 
sick people but about playing on people's sympathies to legalize a 
dangerous drug.
  They have sought to turn responsible public policy on its head. It is 
their argument that drugs are dangerous because they are illegal, not 
that they are illegal because they are dangerous. They would have us 
believe that our real problem is only the laws that make heroin or 
cocaine or marijuana or methamphetamine illegal for anyone to buy and 
use as they see fit.
  They would have us forget our own experiences. They would have us 
disregard the wisdom of our grandparents and others who learned a 
bitter lesson all those years ago. As Bill Bennett said, drugs are 
illegal because they are dangerous. They are not dangerous because they 
are illegal. We forget that simple reality at our great cost. And it 
will be our kids who will pay the price.
  As another old saying goes, fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, 
shame on me.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________