[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 83 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3189-H3196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONGRESS NEEDS TO ADDRESS DRUG ABUSE AND DRUG ADDICTION PROBLEMS IN 
                                AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the last speaker talk 
about our national defense, and I certainly agree that we must do 
everything in our power to make sure that our country is safe, I come 
before the House this afternoon to address another issue that certainly 
goes to our national defense. It is one that if we are not careful to 
address from many different angles, we will find that it will erode our 
country from the inside.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the subject of drug abuse, drug addiction, how 
to address this problem in this new century.
  Just a few weeks ago, President Bush announced his nominee for 
director of the National Drug Control Policy Agency. As ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources and one of the representatives of Baltimore, a city plagued 
by drugs and its related social ills, I must stress to my colleagues 
the importance of drug treatment and the significant role it plays in 
our national drug control policy.
  I appreciate the fact that President Bush and the nominated ONDCP 
director, John Walters, both of them have affirmed their commitment to 
increased funding for drug treatment and prevention.

                              {time}  1445

  I look forward to reviewing their proposals. We must work together to 
ensure that drug treatment dollars spent are spent effectively and 
efficiently and that they work to save lives, families and eventually 
entire communities.
  Drug addiction is a disease that poses a serious national public 
health crisis which requires a strong Federal response. If we do not 
act now, a whole new generation of Americans will be exposed to the 
high social, economic and health costs associated with addiction. In 
this Nation today, the annual economic cost of drug abuse and 
dependence in loss of productivity, health care costs and crime have 
been estimated at $256 billion. Before I discuss how drug treatment 
works to address the crisis, I must first outline the impacts drugs 
have had not only on my City of Baltimore but also on this Nation as a 
whole. In many instances, it disproportionately targets minorities.
  Like many communities in our Nation, Mr. Speaker, Baltimore, Maryland 
and its populace have suffered from the ill effects of drug addiction 
and its related crime. The low price, high purity and availability of 
heroin in the city have had a dramatic impact on the city's population. 
According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, one out of eight 
citizens of the City of Baltimore is addicted to drugs. They spend an 
estimated $1 million a day on illegal drugs in the city. In 1998, 252 
of the 401 heroin overdoses documented in Maryland occurred in 
Baltimore City. Baltimore is ranked second in the rate of heroin 
emergency room incidents and, as in many urban areas, illegal drug 
activity and violent crime have gone hand in hand. Open air drug 
markets in areas that are known for drugs are not only havens for drug 
dealers, users, customers and criminals, but are also hot spots for 
violent crime. It is estimated that more than 70 percent of crimes are 
committed by individuals that are under the influence of drugs.
  The Baltimore-Washington region has been designated as a High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, better known as a HIDTA. Established 
in 1994, it is one of the 28 antidrug task forces established and 
financed by the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. 
The Baltimore police department estimates that 40 to 60 percent of 
homicides are drug-related. Baltimore has endured 10 straight years of 
more than 300 homicides each year, making it the fourth deadliest city 
in the United States. I am pleased to say that the year 2000 marked the 
first time in 10 years our murder rate was below 300.
  The city has made tremendous strides in this area. I strongly believe 
that drug treatment must be made more widely available to low-income 
users without the prerequisite of arrest and involvement in the 
criminal justice system. Sadly, low-income drug users are more likely 
to become involved in the criminal justice system due in part to the 
shortage of treatment options available to them. Given this shortage, 
in many inner city areas, drug abuse is more likely to receive 
attention as a criminal justice problem rather than a social/health 
problem.
  A recently released 3-year study by the National Center on Addiction 
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, entitled ``Shoveling Up: 
The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets,'' reveals that in 1998 
States spent approximately $81.3 billion on substance abuse addiction, 
13.1 percent of the $620 billion in total State spending. Of each 
dollar, 96 cents went to shovel up the wreckage of substance abuse and 
addiction; only 4 cents to prevent and treat it. The study looked at 16 
areas of State spending, including criminal and juvenile justice, 
transportation, health care, education, child welfare and welfare, to 
detect how States deal with the burden of unprevented and untreated 
substance abuse. They found that the $77.9 billion was distributed as 
follows: $30.7 billion to the justice system, $16.5 billion for 
education, $15.2 billion for health care, $7.7 billion for child and 
family assistance, $5.9 billion for mental health and developmental 
disabilities, $1.5 billion for public safety. According to the study, 
States spend 113 times as much to clean up the devastation that 
substance abuse visits on children as they do to prevent and treat it.
  The study reports that the best opportunity to reduce crime is to 
provide treatment and training to drug and alcohol abusing prisoners 
who will return to a life of criminal activity unless they leave prison 
substance free and upon release enter treatment and continuing 
aftercare.
  Although the State of Maryland is making strides, I believe that we 
can do more. According to the CASA report, 10.2 percent of the budget 
is spent on the highlighted programs that deal with societal effects of 
drug addiction, while only .03 percent is spent on prevention, 
treatment and research. That means for every substance abuse dollar 
spent in the State, a mere 3 cents is used for treatment. We can do 
better.
  I am pleased to note that the State of Maryland's drug treatment 
funding has risen. In fact, Governor Parris Glendening has proposed a 
$22 million increase in the State funding for drug treatment in the 
next fiscal year, of which more than one-third will go to Baltimore, 
where it is desperately needed.
  Nationally, over 50 percent of all crimes are committed by 
individuals under the influence of drugs. The National Institute of 
Justice's ADAM drug testing program found that more than 60 percent of 
adult male arrestees tested positive for drugs. The National Center on 
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that 80 
percent of men and women behind bars, approximately 1.4 million, are 
seriously involved in alcohol and other drug abuse. States estimate 
that 70 to 85 percent of their inmates need some kind of substance 
abuse treatment. Less than 20 percent of the inmates receive treatment 
while in prison.
  Although drug use and sales cut across racial and socioeconomic 
lines, law enforcement strategies have targeted street-level drug 
dealers and users from low-income, predominantly minority, urban areas.

[[Page H3190]]

  Unfortunately, this law enforcement tactic has disproportionately and 
unfairly affected black men. The rate of imprisonment for black men is 
8.5 times the rate for white men. Over the last 10 years, black men's 
rate of incarceration increased at a 10 times higher rate than that of 
white men. If the current rate of incarceration remains unchanged, 28.5 
percent of black men will be confined in prison at least once during 
their lifetimes, a figure six times that of white men. Black women are 
incarcerated at a rate of eight times that of white women. The 
increasing rate of incarceration in general has had a magnified effect 
on the black population.
  Current laws regarding mandatory minimum sentencing are biased at all 
stages of the criminal justice system. These laws have had a 
devastating effect on black and Latino communities. The issue can be 
addressed by ending the disparity between crack and powder cocaine 
sentencing. The powder form of cocaine that is preferred by wealthier, 
usually white consumers, requires 100 times as much weight and an 
intent to distribute to trigger the same penalty as the mere possession 
of crack cocaine. In 1986, before mandatory minimums instituted this 
sentencing disparity, the average sentence for blacks was 6 percent 
longer than the average sentence for whites.
  Four years later following the implementation of this law, the 
average sentence was 93 percent higher for blacks. Possession of crack 
cocaine, which is prevalent in the African American community, is 
subject to mandatory minimums. Methamphetamine, which is prevalent in 
the Hispanic community, receives mandatory minimums. However, for 
Ecstasy and powder cocaine, which we know are prevalent in the white 
community, there are no mandatory minimums. We need to establish fair 
and less racially divisive and polarizing sentencing guidelines.
  In reviewing these issues and learning the facts about drugs and 
crime and their related effects on livable communities, I decided to 
further explore this issue to identify the problems and what I could do 
as a Federal legislator to fix them. In March of last year, I requested 
that the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources hold a hearing in Baltimore entitled ``Alternatives to 
Incarceration: What Works and Why?'' The proliferation of drugs in my 
city has led to an increase in violent crimes, the creation of profit 
motivated drug gangs and an increase in the prison population. The 
combination of these elements has led to the destruction of many of 
Baltimore's youth, families and communities and has been at epidemic 
levels far too long.
  Programs that combine drug treatment, social services, and job 
placement are frequently discussed as alternatives to incarceration and 
as tools in reducing the recidivism rate among offenders. The hearing 
gave us the opportunity to explore such alternatives in an effort to 
combat the growing societal cost of drug abuse and criminal activity. 
Witnesses included the chief of police, political leaders, policy 
experts and treatment graduates. We learned about a program called the 
Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison program, better known as DTAP. 
This program, run by the Kings County, New York district attorney's 
office, combines drug treatment, social services and job placement. It 
has saved lives and reduced criminal justice problems, health and 
welfare costs. With adjustments, I believe that this program could go a 
long way toward assisting nonviolent offenders to getting on the right 
path.
  Maryland's Great Disciple program initiative is another successful 
alternative that was discussed during the hearing. The Great Disciple 
program uses drug testing, treatment and escalating sanctions for 
failed or missed drug tests to reduce recidivism. The program has cut 
in half the rate of failed drug tests during the first 60 days of 
supervision and lowered the probability of rearrest by 23 percent 
during the first 90 days.
  Diversion programs like DTAP and BTC work on the premise that with 
treatment, social services and job placement, offenders return to 
society in a better position to resist drugs and crime. Such programs 
lower the costs associated with incarceration, public assistance, 
health care and recidivism. Further, they produce taxpayers that can 
make positive contributions to society.
  I am well aware that there is no simple solution to combating this 
crisis. However, I believe that this hearing provided myself and the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources with additional perspectives on how to uplift offenders, 
eradicate drug-related crime and substance abuse and ultimately 
revitalize communities in Baltimore and nationwide.
  Since that hearing, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman 
of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy 
and Human Resources introduced, and the House passed, H.R. 4493, which 
seeks to establish grants for drug treatment alternative to prison 
programs administered by State and local prosecutors.

                              {time}  1500

  On September 14, 2000, during the Congressional Black Caucus 
Foundation's 30th annual legislative conference, I hosted an issue 
forum entitled ``Fighting the Drug War; Reclaiming Our Communities.'' 
The forum featured a viewing of the motion picture ``The Corner.'' It 
is a six-part miniseries based on the true story of a family in 
Baltimore, Maryland, and their struggle with drug addiction and the 
societal and economic effects of drugs in their community.
  The film put a human face on the percentages, facts and figures you 
have heard about this afternoon. It provided a starting point for our 
discussion of real people, real issues and real lives. The panel 
included Dr. Donald Vereen, former deputy director of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy, Dr. Peter Beilenson, health commissioner 
of Baltimore, Mr. Gus Smith, father of Kemba Smith, a student who has 
been incarcerated 24 years with no parole because of current mandatory 
minimum sentencing laws. I have already discussed issues related to 
mandatory minimums and racial disparities in sentencing. I am pleased, 
however, that prior to the end of his last term, President Clinton 
commuted her sentence. Mr. Charles ``Roc'' Dutton, Baltimore native and 
director of ``The Corner,'' was also a part of the panel.
  The panel was moderated by Ms. Cherri Branson, former Democratic 
staffer of the Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. Among the various discussion 
points, those that clearly resonated included the need to address drug 
problems as a health issue, rather than a criminal justice issue, the 
treatment gap, and ``The Corner.''
  Many in the audience felt that ``The Corner'' helped them to 
understand what drug-addicted persons face on a day-to-day basis. Mr. 
Dutton spoke eloquently about his experience directing ``The Corner,'' 
the HBO miniseries about the life in Baltimore's most drug infested 
neighborhoods.
  One day, while Mr. Dutton's film crew was on location in west 
Baltimore, they heard the unmistakable sound of gunfire. The police 
officers who were providing security for the filmmakers raced off to 
the crime scene. When they returned 20 minutes later, they reported 
that a young man was lying dead in a nearby alley. Two young boys from 
the neighborhood overheard the police report, and one suggested that 
they run down the street to see the dead man. ``No,'' the other 
replied, ``we see that stuff every day. Let's stay and watch them make 
the movie.''
  Mr. Dutton's account of real life on ``The Corner'' reveals two of 
the most chilling side effects of our national drug epidemic. While too 
many of our young people are dying or living destroyed lives, younger 
children are becoming so hardened by the carnage that they may never 
enjoy the innocence of childhood.
  We can begin to save young lives by understanding that it is within 
our power to restore the local economies and social fabric of even our 
most drug devastated neighborhoods. We need only to apply the necessary 
will, commitments, and resources to this task.
  I am convinced that we can prevail in gaining adequate funding for 
drug treatment, because the crisis we face is not limited to poor 
African Americans hanging out on the Nation's urban

[[Page H3191]]

street corners. Americans everywhere now realize that drugs are one of 
their biggest problems, too.
  In Baltimore we are witnessing a growing grassroots movement that is 
leading the way toward reversing that appalling distinction. Within the 
historic East Baltimore Community Action Coalition, the Edmondson 
Community Organization and Project Garrison, private citizens are 
combining their personal commitment and their understanding of local 
drug problems with financial assistance from the United States 
Department of Justice's Weed and Seed Program and private foundation 
backing. As a result, these communities are now better able to reclaim 
their neighborhoods from drug addiction, even as they reclaim their 
streets from the drug dealers. They understand, as Charles Dutton 
observed during our Washington forum, that if we want to protect our 
children, we must do it ourselves.
  The statistics, the hearing and the issue forum I have just discussed 
all point to one important reality: treatment works. Studies show that 
prevention and treatment programs effectively reduce alcohol and drug 
problems, but such programs are severely underfunded.
  A recent SAMHSA study found that only 50 percent of the individuals 
who need treatment receive it. Nevertheless, prevention, treatment, and 
continued research are our best hope for reducing alcohol and drug use 
and their associated crime, health, welfare and social costs. The 1997 
National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study found that sustained 
reductions in drug use and criminal activity increased employment and 
decreased welfare dependence among 5,700 individuals 1 year after they 
completed treatment. Employment increased by 20 percent and welfare 
dependence decreased by 11 percent. Crack use decreased by 50 to 70 
percent, and heroine use by 46.5 percent. Homelessness decreased by 
more than 40 percent.

  Women's treatment programs show real success. Overall, 95 percent of 
the children born to women in treatment are born drug free. According 
to the 1996 data for the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Pregnant 
and Postpartum Women and Infants Program, after treatment 86.5 percent 
of children were living with their mothers.
  Drug treatment means crime reduction. A 1997 National Treatment 
Improvement Evaluation Study found that with treatment, drug selling 
decreased by 78 percent, shoplifting declined by 82 percent, assaults 
declined by 78 percent. There was a 64 percent decrease in arrests for 
crime, and the percentage of people who largely support themselves 
through illegal activity dropped by nearly half, decreasing more than 
48 percent.
  Drug treatment within and outside the criminal justice system is more 
cost efficient in controlling drug abuse and crime than continued 
expansion of the prison system. Three-fourths of arrestees test 
positive for drugs. Only 22 percent have ever been treated for 
substance abuse. In prison, treatment is only available for 18 percent 
of inmates.
  The Rand study concluded that spending $1 million to expand the use 
of mandatory sentencing for drug offenders would reduce drug 
consumption nationally. Spending the same sum on treatment would reduce 
consumption almost eight times as much.
  When we discuss ensuring that our Nation's citizenry has effective 
and efficient treatment, a cost-benefit analysis is important. For 
every penny invested in drug treatment, society saves one penny in 
stolen and damaged property, one penny in victim injuries and lost 
work, one penny in police and court costs, one penny in jail and prison 
costs, one penny in hospital and emergency room visits, one penny in 
preventing infectious diseases and one penny in child abuse and foster 
care.
  According to the California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment, 
treated substance abusers reduced their criminal activity and health 
care utilization during and in the years subsequent to treatment by 
amounts of over $1.4 billion. About $209 million was spent providing 
this treatment, for a ratio of benefits to costs of 7 to 1.
  As I speak of Baltimore, I cannot fail to mention our dynamic health 
commissioner, Dr. Peter Beilenson, trained at Johns Hopkins University. 
He has served as a key source of information for me and my staff 
regarding the extent of the drug abuse and addiction in the city of 
Baltimore.
  In March of last year, Dr. Beilenson had an editorial placed in the 
Baltimore Sun entitled ``How $40 million more can aid addicts.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will place this editorial in the Record.

                [From the Baltimore Sun, March 6, 2000]

                  How $40 Million More Can Aid Addicts

                        (By Peter L. Beilenson)

       The Consequences of Baltimore's drug problem are well-
     known: 75 percent to 90 percent of all crimes committed in 
     the city are drug-related and 80 percent of all AIDS cases 
     are a result of injected drug use.
       Many businesses have trouble locating drug-free employees, 
     and our schools are full of kids coping with at least one 
     drug-affected parent.
       If we want to be serious about dealing with Baltimore's 
     high crime and AIDS rates, and improve our economy and 
     schools, then we must be serious in addressing our drug 
     problem--which is 55,000 addicts strong.
       Part of the solution is to reform the criminal justice 
     system as Mayor Martin O'Malley is proposing, which will 
     allow the courts to focus on violent drug-related offenders. 
     However, we cannot simply arrest our way out of the drug 
     problem.
       Why? Because while we can temporarily clear our streets of 
     the most violent offenders (who are often related to the drug 
     trade), so long as the demand for drugs remains, new 
     suppliers will take their place. The only way to decrease 
     this demand is to significantly expand substance abuse 
     prevention and treatment.
       Baltimore's publicly funded drug treatment system treats 
     about 18,000 addicts a year, and does so fairly effectively. 
     In fact, a national scientific advisory group recently called 
     Baltimore's treatment system one of the best in the country.
       That doesn't mean it can't be better. The treatment system 
     is about to begin using extensive performance measures to 
     evaluate individual treatment programs.
       But the basic fact remains: We do not have anywhere near 
     the treatment capacity we need.
       Our best estimate is that about 40,000 addicts each year 
     will request treatment or be required by the courts to 
     receive it.
       For this to happen, the treatment system would need an 
     influx of approximately $40 million--in addition to the 
     current $30 million budget.
       What would this $70 million buy? It would allow for 
     treatment within 24 hours of a voluntary request or an order 
     from the courts. Immediate care is crucial because treatment 
     is most effective when addicts admit their problem and seek 
     treatment or sanctions are rapidly enforced.
       While getting clean is relatively easy, staying clean is 
     harder. The key to long-term success is keeping recovering 
     addicts drug-free. To that end, it is crucial that we address 
     other problems in their lives. Thus, the $40 million would 
     also provide enhanced services on-site at substance-abuse 
     treatment programs in the city, including mental health and 
     medical services, job readiness training and placement, legal 
     services, housing coordination and day care.
       Even in this time of economic prosperity and budget 
     surpluses, $40 million in new funding sounds like a lot of 
     money.
       But let's put it in perspective: Crime committed by 
     Baltimore's 55,000 addicts costs an estimated $2 billion to 
     $3 billion each year. The consequences of our city's 
     substance abuse problems are so detrimental to Baltimore's 
     health that fully funded and readily available comprehensive 
     drug treatment is absolutely imperative.
       I am so convinced of the importance of this funding and the 
     effectiveness of treatment in preventing crime that I will 
     make this pledge in writing:
       If Baltimore's crime rate is not cut in half within three 
     years of obtaining $40 million in additional funding for drug 
     treatment, I will resign.

  Additionally, I would like to share some of the information with you 
now. The article explains why I fight daily for expanded drug treatment 
and prevention funding.
  The drug epidemic we face in Baltimore permeates every aspect of my 
constituents' lives. Seventy-five to 90 percent of all crimes committed 
in the city are drug related, and 80 percent of all AIDS cases are a 
result of injected drug use. Businesses have trouble locating drug-free 
employees, and our schools are full of kids coping with at least one 
drug-affected parent.
  We have nowhere near the treatment capacity we need. According to Dr. 
Beilenson, the best estimate is that 40,000 addicts each year will 
request treatment or be required by courts to receive it. Dr. Beilenson 
believes that to meet the need, Baltimore City must have at least $40 
million, in addition to the current $30 million budget. He believes 
that it would allow for treatment within 24 hours of a voluntary 
request or an order from courts. Medical

[[Page H3192]]

care is most effective when the addicts admit their problem and seek 
treatment.
  Dr. Beilenson further explains that the additional funds would 
provide enhanced services on site at substance abuse treatment programs 
in the city, which would include mental health and medical services, 
job readiness training and placement, legal services, housing 
coordination, and day care.
  What really hit home for me in Dr. Beilenson's op-ed was the way he 
put it into perspective. Crime committed by Baltimore's 55,000-plus 
addicts costs an estimated $2 billion to $3 billion each year, so $40 
million is like a drop in the bucket when compared to the potential 
savings. Dr. Beilenson was so convinced that this $40 million was 
necessary for the city that he pledged to quit his job in Baltimore if 
Baltimore's crime rate was not cut in half within 3 years of obtaining 
that funding for drug treatment. That is the commitment, and I thank 
Dr. Beilenson for his continued work.
  When I urge for increased funding for drug treatment services on the 
floor, in committee, and in ``Dear Colleagues,'' please know that the 
city of Baltimore has dedicated people like Dr. Beilenson who will use 
the funds in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
  Expansion of drug treatment can stop the spread of AIDS also. In 
1997, 76 percent of the new HIV infections were among drug users. Of 
those diagnosed with AIDS, drug use is linked to more than 36 percent 
of adult cases, 61 percent of women's cases, and more than 50 percent 
of the pediatric cases.
  Alcohol and drug treatment effectively prevents HIV disease and costs 
far less than HIV medical care. Needle exchange programs also have been 
shown to reduce the spread of HIV and open the door to treatment for 
injection drug users.
  In 1996, a National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study found a 
significant reduction in risky sexual behavior among individuals who 
participated in substance abuse treatment. The percentage of 
individuals who had sex with an intravenous drug user or exchanged sex 
for money or drugs dropped by more than 50 percent.
  As I stated earlier, it is clear that our drug laws, particularly 
mandatory minimum sentencing, have fallen disproportionately on black 
males. This has led to the breakdown of many black family units, entire 
communities, and undermines efforts to reduce the impact of drug use 
and abuse.

                              {time}  1515

  We do not yet know how effective faith-based drug treatments are. In 
spite of the fact that faith-based charitable choice provisions have 
been Federal law since 1996, we have no information on how these 
programs work.
  The General Accounting Office in their 1998 report entitled ``Drug 
Abuse: Studies Show Benefits May Be Overstated,'' revealed ``that 
faith-based strategies have yet to be rigorously examined by the 
research community.''
  Last year, the National Institutes of Health and the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, in response to an inquiry from the National 
Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, wrote:

       Although there are a number of studies emerging that 
     ``faith'' or ``religiosity'' may serve as a protective factor 
     against initial drug use, there is not enough research in the 
     treatment portfolio for NIDA to make any valid conclusive 
     statements about the role that faith plays in drug addiction 
     treatment.

  As such, in early April I asked the GAO to investigate the role or 
effectiveness of faith-based organizations in providing federally-
funded social services. If Congress and the President are going to 
expand the role of faith-based organizations in fulfilling federal 
mandates via charitable choice, we must have a basis for assessing how 
these organizations have performed and the effect government support 
will have on constitutional principles, civil rights, competition 
within treatment communities, and accountability.
  Questions must be asked. Are we prepared to forgo the ``separation of 
church and State'' by allowing groups to proselytize with public funds 
or discriminate in employment and the provision of services on the 
basis of religion, sex, gender, or race?
  Who qualifies? Will we create unhealthy competition, with the more 
dominant or better-financed faiths winning the prize?
  How will our government funds be regulated? Will groups forgo the 
full expression of religious beliefs in exchange for money? Are we 
comfortable with our houses of worship becoming houses of 
investigation?
  As the son of two ministers, I recognize the role faith and 
spirituality can play in helping to treat a person suffering from drug 
addiction. Make no mistake about it, drug addiction is an illness, and 
as an illness it requires medical and psychological attention.
  Treating drug, alcohol addiction, and abuse is about treating a 
diseases, it is not about using federal funds to proselytize. It is 
about providing trained and licensed addiction counseling professionals 
to assess an individual's needs and method of treatment.
  It is not about relaxing State licensing and certification standards 
for substance abuse counselors. It is about ensuring that our poorest 
and our least-served receive the best treatment available as they 
struggle to overcome a devastating disease.
  In their time of need, they deserve and must demand accountability in 
the provision of drug treatment services. Drug addiction treatment 
demands quality resources and effective treatment. It should not be 
used as a testing ground for unproven methods of unlicensed 
professionals.
  We must never lose sight of the fact that the federal funding of drug 
treatment services is a public service, one available to every person 
everywhere. As a result, public health services must never be placed in 
a position of competing for federal funds. In treating drug addiction, 
integrity, accountability, and responsibility must be a part of any 
treatment package.
  According to the National Institute of Justice, 65 percent of inmates 
in New Jersey released from prison lack adequate access to resources 
needed in order to live productive lives after incarceration. In 
Maryland, of the annual 13,000 new commitments to prison, to the prison 
system, 60 percent are from Baltimore City. Unfortunately, many of 
these offenders return to the same neighborhoods, and because they do 
not have an alternative, often return back to the same life of drug use 
and petty crime.
  A recent survey conducted by the Maryland Department of Corrections 
identified jobs, education, and housing as the top three concerns among 
returning ex-offenders. Seventy-five percent of Maryland's inmates have 
not had job training while in prison. Further, the majority of repeat 
offenders with a sentence of 18 months or less are not in long enough 
to receive needed skills and training.
  Fortunately, community organizations and the Department of 
Corrections became involved in the Reentry Partnership Initiative. They 
recognized the increasing need for law enforcement and correction 
systems to work collaboratively and with community-based service 
providers to increase the likelihood that returning ex-offenders will 
stay out of prison, make a livable wage, and become contributing 
members of their communities.
  In mid-September of 2000, Janet Reno traveled to my district to 
participate in a round table discussion of Baltimore's Reentry 
Partnership Initiative. At that time, she called on Congress to fully 
fund the administration's request of $145 million for the reentry 
initiative in the FY 2001 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
appropriations bill.
  That funding would assist State, city, and community partners in 
their efforts; provide an integrated reentry program to help prepare 
inmates for their transition from prisons to their communities; develop 
resources to efficiently manage program services that focus on an 
offender's needs; partner with private, nonprofit, and other 
governmental services to maximize the effectiveness of key service 
providers, and reduce recidivism; cooperatively develop a comprehensive 
plan that supports an offender's post-incarceration needs, including 
coping and decision-making skills, and effective use of a variety of 
community-based social and medical services. The program hopes to serve 
250 ex-offenders during the first year.
  In 1998, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy 
launched an initiative to encourage our Nation's youth to stay drug-
free. The campaign

[[Page H3193]]

targets youths age 9 to 18, particularly middle-aged schoolchildren, 
adolescents, parents, and other adults who influence the choices of 
young people.
  To get the word out to a range of economic and ethnic groups, the 
campaign uses advertising, public relations, interactive media, 
television programs, and after-school activities to educate and empower 
young people to reject drugs.
  The campaign also partners with civic and nonprofit organizations, 
faith-based groups, and private corporations to enlist and engage 
people in prevention efforts.
  Nearly a year of research went into designing this comprehensive 
campaign. Hundreds of individuals and organizations were consulted, 
including experts in teen marketing, advertising, and communication, 
behavior change experts, drug prevention practitioners, and 
representatives from professional, civic, and community organizations.
  This campaign raises the bar for public service campaigns because it 
has an unprecedented level of accountability. It has been constantly 
monitored, evaluated, and updated to ensure that it effectively reaches 
teens and their parents.
  The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human 
Resources of the Committee on Government Reform has held oversight 
hearings on this campaign. ONDCP has demonstrated that they continue to 
meet Congress's mandates while remaining cost-efficient and effective.
  Last year, former ONDCP director General Barry McCaffrey joined me in 
Baltimore with a group of students to discuss the campaign and its 
effectiveness. General McCaffrey mentioned to me that a youth town hall 
meeting provided him with valuable information to take back to 
Washington to refine the campaign's message.
  The students shared that some people in the ads that they could 
relate to greatly added to the effectiveness of the message. One ad 
featuring the singer, Lauren Hill, particularly stood out to them. 
Several surveys have been released in the past couple months that show 
that although we have a long way to go towards eliminating youth 
substance abuse, the media campaign is making strides towards this 
goal.
  I hope that during the 107th Congress, Members will work hard to 
expand substance abuse and prevention programs so that our Nation's 
youth can live happy, productive, and drug-free lives.
  I requested $2.5 million in the fiscal year 2002 Labor-HHS-Education 
bill for substance abuse and mental health services in the 
administration's Center for Abuse Treatment account to assist the city 
of Baltimore with its efforts to provide expanded drug treatment 
services.
  The city of Baltimore suffers from an enormous drug abuse problem, so 
much so that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration called it the 
most addicted city in America.
  According to Drug Strategies, a national nonprofit research 
organization that studies drug addiction and treatment programs, 
Baltimore is home to 60,000 drug addicts. Its six drug treatment 
facilities are currently running at 104 percent capacity, and several 
thousand addicts await treatment.
  The city currently services 18,000 voluntary or court-ordered drug 
treatment patients, which is approximately 25 percent of the total 
number of people seeking treatment.
  In fiscal year 2001, Congress provided $2.21 million to assist 
Baltimore in its effort to provide treatment on request, an innovative 
drug treatment regimen aimed at ensuring that drug treatment slots are 
available for every addict who seeks voluntary treatment, as well as 
those ordered into treatment by the courts.
  In order to address the burgeoning drug epidemic in Baltimore, the 
city health department plans to utilize fiscal year 2001 resources to 
provide drug treatment services for 1,241 addicts. With an additional 
investment of $2.5 million in fiscal year 2002, the city would provide 
75 additional immediate residential care beds.
  Currently, Baltimore has the capacity to provide this 28-day regimen 
to only 75 people who request treatment. However, the city receives 
more than 100 calls each day requesting these services. Additional 
federal funding would enable Baltimore to double the capacity of its 
current intermediate residential treatment program, improve quality of 
life, and reduce the crime that is endemic among addicts.
  I requested $250 million in the fiscal year 2002 Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill for the National Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign. 
The Office of National Drug Control Policy, in collaboration with the 
Partnership for a Drug-Free America, coordinates this effective public-
private drug prevention media campaign.
  The media campaign is an integral, cost-effective, and results-driven 
component of our national drug control policy, and it is working. Since 
the campaign was launched in 1998, more kids see risks in drugs. Fewer 
see benefits.
  The critical shifts are fueling an unmistakable decline in drug use, 
as documented by two leading national tracking studies. Past-year use 
of marijuana has declined significantly. Congressional funding for the 
effort has stayed constant since 1998. However, the cost of placing 
these ads is up 23 percent.
  To ensure anti-drug messages maintain their impact, to counter 
inflation, and to address the rise in new types of drug use, more 
funding is needed. According to a recent Baltimore Sun article, 45 
percent of Americans believe it is a good idea to invest even more 
funding to protect future generations from the scourge of drug 
addiction and abuse.
  Given the campaign's reach into society and its proven ability to 
leverage hundreds of millions of private industry dollars, it will 
surely continue to be one of the most cost-effective demand reduction 
programs ever funded by the Federal government. It is a wise investment 
for our country and for our children.
  I also supported the $50.6 million funding level in the fiscal year 
2002 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill's Drug-Free Communities Act. 
This effort was spearheaded by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). 
The level of funding is necessary to build and strengthen effective 
anti-drug coalitions, a central, bipartisan component of our Nation's 
drug demand reduction strategy.
  It is crucial that communities around the country are organized to 
respond to their local drug problems in a comprehensive and coordinated 
manner. The DFCA recognizes that federal anti-drug resources must be 
invested at the community level with those who have the most power to 
reduce the demand for drugs: parents, teachers, business leaders, the 
media, religious leaders, law enforcement officials, youth, and others.

                              {time}  1530

  The bill makes Federal support contingent upon a community first 
demonstrating comprehensive commitment to addressing the drug problem, 
sustaining the effort over time with non-Federal financial support and 
evaluating the specific initiatives they undertake.
  While other priorities will constrain the amount of funding available 
for discretionary programs, the DFCA warrants the administration-
proposed increase. The community coalition approach has proven 
effective in reducing teenage drug use in communities around the 
country.
  This additional funding will allow hundreds of additional communities 
to build and sustain effective coalitions that are the backbone of 
successful local antidrug efforts.
  In conclusion, I submit to you that the data is overwhelming, and it 
is becoming increasingly difficult to help those facing addiction, 
particularly when we cannot secure desperately needed funding for a 
comprehensive drug treatment plan.
  We know that drug treatment reduces stolen and damaged property, 
injuries and lost work time, police and court costs, hospital and 
emergency room visits, rates of infectious diseases and child abuse and 
foster care.
  With appropriate funding, a comprehensive drug treatment plan could 
address the prevention treatment and after-care services our Nation 
needs.
  After-care services in particular can save jobs, families and lives. 
Effective after-care includes child care services, vocational services, 
mental health services, medical services, educational and HIV services, 
legal and financial services, housing and transportation, and family 
services.

[[Page H3194]]

  According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the best treatment 
programs provide a combination of therapies and other services that 
meet the needs of an individual patient.
  Drug addiction is a disease that poses a serious national public 
health crisis. As such, it requires an adequate Federal response; and 
if we do not act now, a whole new generation of Americans will be 
disposed to the high social, economic, and health costs associated with 
addiction.
  Ultimately, my goal is to make Baltimore a livable community through 
increased services to residents, reduction in crime and drug abuse, and 
increased citizen productivity.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following story from Time magazine for the 
Record as follows:

                   [From TIME Magazine, June 5, 2000]

                          The Lure of Ecstasy

       The elixir best known for powering raves is an 80-year-old 
     illegal drug. But it's showing up outside clubs too, and 
     advocates claim it even has therapeutic benefits. Just how 
     dangerous is it?

                            (By John Cloud)

       Cobb County, GA., May 11, 2000. It's a Thursday morning, 
     and 18-year-old ``Karen'' and five friends decide to go for 
     it. They skip first period and sneak into the woods near 
     their upscale high school. One of them takes out six rolls--
     six ecstasy pills--and they each swallow one. Then back to 
     school, flying on a drug they once used only on weekends. Now 
     they smile stupid gelatinous smiles at one another, even as 
     high school passes them by. That night they will all go out 
     and drop more ecstasy, rolling into the early hours of 
     another school day. It's rare that anyone would take ecstasy 
     so often--it's not physically addictive--but teenagers 
     everywhere have begun experimenting with it. ``The cliques 
     are pretty big in my school,'' Karen says, ``and every clique 
     does it.
       Grand Rapids, Mich., May 1997. Sue and Shane Stevens have 
     sent the three kids away for the weekend. They have locked 
     the doors and hidden the car so no one will bug them. Tonight 
     they hope to talk about Shane's cancer, a topic they have 
     mostly avoided for years. It has eaten away at their marriage 
     just as it corrodes his kidney. A friend has recommended that 
     they take ecstasy, except he calls it MDMA and says 
     therapists used it 20 years ago to get people to discuss 
     difficult topics. And, in fact, after tonight, Sue and Shane 
     will open up, and Sue will come to believe MDMA is prolonging 
     her marriage--and perhaps Shane's life.
       So we know that ecstasy is versatile. Actually, that's one 
     of the first things we knew about it. Alexander Shulgin, 74, 
     the biochemist who in 1978 published the first scientific 
     article about the drug's effect on humans, noticed this 
     panacea quality back then. The drug ``could be all things to 
     all people,'' he recalled later, a cure for one student's 
     speech impediment and for one's bad LSD trip, and a way for 
     Shulgin to have fun at cocktail parties without martinis.
       The ready availability of ecstasy, from Cobb County to 
     Grand Rapids, is a newer phenomenon. Ecstasy--or ``e''--
     enjoyed a brief spurt of mainstream use in the `80s, before 
     the government outlawed it in 1985. Until recently, it 
     remained common only on the margins of society--in clubland, 
     in gay America, in lower Manhattan. But in the past year or 
     so, ecstasy has returned to the heartland. Established drug 
     dealers and mobsters have taken over the trade, and they are 
     meeting the astonishing demand in places like Flagstaff, 
     Ariz., where ``Katrina,'' a student at Northern Arizona 
     University who first took it last summer, can now buy it 
     easily; or San Marcos, Texas, a town of 39,000 where 
     authorities found 500 pills last month; or Richmond, Va., 
     where a police investigation led to the arrest this year of a 
     man thought to have sold tens of thousands of hits of e. On 
     May 12, authorities seized half a million pills at San 
     Francisco's airport--the biggest e bust ever. Each pill costs 
     pennies to make but sells for between $20 and $40, so someone 
     missed a big payday.
       Esctasy remains a niche drug. The number of people who use 
     it once a month remains so small--less than 1% of the 
     population--that ecstasy use doesn't register in the 
     government's drug survey. (By comparison, 5% of Americans 
     older than 12 say they use marijuana once a month, and 1.8% 
     use cocaine.) But ecstasy use is growing. Eight percent of 
     U.S. high school seniors say they have tried it at least 
     once, up from 5.8% in 1997; teen use of most other drugs 
     declined in the late '90s. Nationwide, customs officers 
     have already seized more ecstasy this fiscal year, more 
     than 5.4 million hits, than in all of last year. In 1998 
     they seized just 750,000 hits.
       The drug's appeal has never been limited to ravers. Today 
     it can be found for sale on Bourbon Street in New Orleans 
     along with the 24-hour booze; a group of lawyers in Little 
     Rock, Ark., takes it occasionally, as does a cheerleading 
     captain at a Miami high school. The drug is also showing up 
     in hip-hop circles. Bone Thugs-N-Harmony raps a paean to it 
     on its lastest album: ``Oh, man, I don't even f__ with the 
     weed no more.''
       Indeed, much of the ecstasy taking--and the law enforcement 
     under way to end it--has been accompanied by brealthlessness. 
     ``It appears that the ecstasy problem with eclipse and crack-
     cocaine problem we experienced in the late 1980s,'' a cop 
     told the Richmond Times-Dispatch. In April, 60 Minutes II 
     prominently featured an Orlando, Fla., detective dolorously 
     noting that ``ecstasy is no different from crack, heroin.'' 
     On the other side of the spectrum, at http://ecstasy.org, you 
     can find equally bloated praise of the drug. ``We sing, we 
     laugh, we share/and most of all, we care,'' gushes an awful 
     poem on the site, which also includes testimonials from folks 
     who say ecstasy can treat schizophrenia and help you make 
     ``contact with dead relatives.''
       Ecstasy is popular because it appears to have few negative 
     consequences. But ``these are not just benign, fun drugs,'' 
     says Alan Leshner, director of the National Institute on Drug 
     Abuse. ``They carry serious short-term and long-term 
     dangers.'' Those like Leshner who fight the war on drugs 
     overstate these dangers occasionally--and users usually 
     understate them. But one reason ecstasy is so fascinating, 
     and thus dangerous to antidrug crusaders, is that it appears 
     to be a safer drug than heroin and cocaine, at least in the 
     short run, and appears to have more potentially therapeutic 
     benefits.
       Even so, the Federal Government has launched a major p.r. 
     effort to fight ecstasy based on the Internet at http://
clubdrugs.org. Last week two Sentators, Bob Graham of Florida 
     and Chrles Grassley of Iowa, introduced an ecstasy 
     antiproliferation bill, which would stiffen penalties for 
     trafficking in the drug. Under the new law, someone caught 
     selling about 100 hits of ecstasy could be charged as a drug 
     trafficker; current law sets the threshold at about 300,000 
     pills. ``I think this is the time to take a forceful set of 
     initiatives to try to reverse the tide,'' says Graham.
       What's the appeal of ecstasy? As a user put it, it's ``a 
     six-hour orgasm.'' About half an hour after you swallow a hit 
     of e, you begin to feel peaceful, empathetic and energetic--
     not edgy, just clear. Pot relaxes but sometimes confuses; LSD 
     stupefies; cocaine wires. Ecstasy has none of those immediate 
     downsides. ``Jack,'' 29, an Indiana native who has taken 
     ecstasy about 40 times, said the only time he felt as good as 
     he does on e was when he found out he had won a Rhodes 
     scholarship. He enjoys feeling logorrheic: ecstasy users 
     often talk endlessly, maybe about a silly song that's playing 
     or maybe about a terrible burden on them. E allows the mind 
     to wander, but not into hallucinations. Users retain control. 
     Jack can allow his social defenses to crumble on ecstasy, 
     and he finds he can get close to people from different 
     backgrounds. ``People I would never have talked to, 
     because I'm mostly in the Manhattan business world, I talk 
     to on ecstasy. I've made some friends I never would have 
     had.''
       All this marveling should raise suspicions, however. It's 
     probably not a good idea to try to duplicate the best moment 
     of one's life 40 times, if only because it will cheapen the 
     truly good times. And even as they help open the mind to new 
     experiences, drugs also can distort the reality to which 
     users ineluctably return. Is ecstasy snake oil? And how 
     harmful is it?
       This is what we know:
       An ecstasy pill most probably won't kill you or cure you. 
     It is also unlike pretty much every other illicit drug. 
     Ecstasy pills are (or at least they are supposed to be) made 
     of a compound called methyl- 
     enediosymethamphetamine, or MDMA. It's an old drug: Germany 
     issued the patent for it in 1914 to the German company E. 
     Merck. Contrary to ecstasy lore, and there's tons of it, 
     Merck wasn't trying to develop a diet drug when it 
     synthesized MDMA. Instead, it's chemists simply thought it 
     could be a promising intermediary substance that might be 
     used to help develop more advanced therapeutic drugs. Thee's 
     also no evidence that any living creature took it at the 
     time--not Merck employees and certainly not Nazi soldiers, 
     another common myth. (They wouldn't have made very aggressive 
     killers.)
       Yet MDMA all but disappeared until 1953. That's when the 
     U.S. Army funded a secret University of Michigan animal study 
     of eight drugs, including MDMA. The cold war was on, and for 
     years its combatants had been researching scores of 
     substances as potential weapons. The Michigan study found 
     that none of the compounds under review was particularly 
     toxic--which means there will be no war machines armed with 
     ecstasy-filled bombs. It also means that although MDMA is 
     more toxic than, say, the cactus-based psychedelic mescaline, 
     it would take a big dose of e, something like 14 of today's 
     purest pills ingested at once, to kill you.
       It doesn't mean ecstasy is harmless. Broadly speaking, 
     there are two dangers: first, a pill you assume to be MDMA 
     could actually contain something else. Anecdotal evidence 
     suggests that most serious short-term medical problems that 
     arise from ``ecstasy'' are actually caused by pills 
     adulterated with other, more harmful substances (more on this 
     later). Second, and more controversially, MDMA itself might 
     do harm.
       There's a long-standing debate about MDMA's dangers, which 
     will take much more research to resolve. The theory is that 
     MDMA's perils spring from the same neurochemical reaction 
     that causes its pleasures. After MDMA enters the bloodstream, 
     it aims with laser-like precision at the brain cells that 
     release serotonin, a chemical that is the body's primary 
     regulator of mood. MDMA causes these cells to disgorge their 
     contents and flood the brain with serotonin.

[[Page H3195]]

       But forcibly catapulting serotonin levels could be risky. 
     Of course, millions of Americans manipulate serotonin when 
     they take Prozac. But ecstasy actually shoves serotonin from 
     its storage sites, according to Dr. John Morgan, a professor 
     of pharmacology at the City University of New York (CUNY). 
     Prozac just prevents the serotonin that's already been 
     naturally secreted from being taken back up into brain cells.
       Normally, serotonin levels are exquisitely maintained, 
     which is crucial because the chemical helps manage not only 
     mood but also body temperature. In fact, overheating is 
     MDMA's worst short-term danger. Flushing the system with 
     serotonin, particularly when users take several pills over 
     the course of one night, can short-circuit the body's ability 
     to control its temperature. Dancing in close quarters doesn't 
     help, and because some novice users don't know to drink 
     water, e users' temperatures can climb as high as 110 
     [degrees]. At such extremes, the blood starts to coagulate. 
     In the past two decades, dozens of users around the world 
     have died this way.
       There are long-term dangers too. By forcing serotonin out, 
     MDMA resculpts the brain cells that release the chemical. The 
     changes to these cells could be permanent. Johns Hopkins 
     neurotoxicologist George Ricaurte has shown that serotonin 
     levels are significantly lower in animals that have been 
     given about the same amount of MDMA as you would find in just 
     one ecstasy pill.
       In November, Ricaurte recorded for the first time the 
     effects of ecstasy on the human brain. He gave memory tests 
     to people who said they had last used ecstasy two weeks 
     before, and he compared their results with those of a control 
     group of people who said they had never taken e. The ecstasy 
     users fared worse on the tests. Computer images that give 
     detailed snapshots of brain activity also showed that e users 
     have fewer serotonin receptors in their brains than nonusers, 
     even two weeks after their last exposure. On the strength of 
     these studies as well as a large number of animal studies, 
     Ricaurte has hypothesized that the damage is irreversible.
       Ricaurte's work has received much attention, owing largely 
     to the government's well-intentioned efforts to warn kids 
     away from ecstasy. But his work isn't conclusive. The major 
     problem is that his research subjects had used all kinds of 
     drugs, not just ecstasy. (And there was no way to tell that 
     the ecstasy they had taken was pure MDMA.) ANd critics say 
     even if MDMA does cause the changes to the brain that 
     Ricaurte has documented, those changes may carry no 
     functional consequences. ``None of the subjects that Ricaurte 
     studied had any evidence of brain or psychological 
     dysfunction,'' says cuny's Morgan. ``His findings should not 
     be dismissed, but they may simply mean that we have a whole 
     lot of plasticity--that we can do without serotonin and be 
     O.K. We have a lot of unanswered questions.''
       Ricaurte told TIME that ``the vast majority of people who 
     have experimented with MDMA appear normal, and there's no 
     obvious indication that something is amiss.'' Ricaurte says 
     we may discover in 10 or 20 years that those appearances are 
     horribly wrong, but others are more sanguine about MDMA's 
     risks, given its benefits. For more than 15 years, Rick 
     Doblin, founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for 
     Psychedelic Studies, has been the world's most enthusiastic 
     proponent of therapeutic MDMA use. He believes that the 
     compound has a special ability to help people make sense of 
     themselves and the world, that taking MDMA can lead people to 
     inner truths. Independently wealthy, he uses his organization 
     to promote his views and to ``study ways to take drugs to 
     open the unconscious.''
       Doblin first tried MDMA in 1982, when it was still legal 
     and when the phrase ``open the unconscious'' didn't sound 
     quite so gooey. At that time, MDMA had a small following 
     among avant-garde psychotherapists, who gave it 
     to blindfolded patients in quiet offices and then asked 
     them to discuss traumas. Many of the therapists had heard 
     about MDMA from the published work of former Dow chemist 
     Shulgin. According to Shulgin (who is often wrongly 
     credited with discovering MDMA), another therapist to whom 
     he gave the drug in turn named it Adam and introduced it 
     to more than 4,000 people.
       Among these patients were a few entrepreneurs, folks who 
     thought MDMA felt too good to be confined to a doctor's 
     office. One who was based in Texas (and who has kept his 
     identity a secret) hired a chemist, opened an MDMA lab and 
     promptly renamed the drug ecstasy, a more marketable term 
     than Adam or ``empathy'' (his first choice, since it better 
     describes the effects). He began selling it to fashionable 
     bars and clubs in Dallas, where bartenders sold it along with 
     cocktails; patrons charged the $20 pills, plus $1.33 tax, on 
     their American Express cards.
       Manufacturers at the time flaunted the legality of the 
     drug, promotion it as lacking the hallucinatory effects of 
     LSD and the addictive properties of coke and heroin. The U.S. 
     Drug enforcement Administration was caught by surprise by the 
     new drug not long after it had been embarrassed by the spread 
     of crack. The administration quickly used new discretionary 
     powers to outlaw MDMA, pointing to the private labs and club 
     use as evidence of abuse. DEA officials also cited 
     rudimentary studies showing that ecstacy users had vomited 
     and experienced blood-pressure fluctuations.
       Most therapeutic use quickly stopped. But Doblin's group 
     has founded important MDMA studies, including Ricaurte's 
     first work on the drug. Sue Stevens, the woman who took it in 
     1997 with her husband Shane--he has since died of kidney 
     cancer--learned about the drug from a mutual friend of hers 
     and Doblin's. She believes he helped Shane find the right 
     attitude to fight his illness, and she helps Doblin advocate 
     for limited legal use. Soon his association will help fund 
     the first approved study of MDMA in psychotherapy, involving 
     30 victims of rape in Spain diagnosed with post-traumatic 
     stress disorder. In this country, the FDA has approved only 
     one study. In 1995 Dr. Charles Grob, a UCLA psychiatrist, 
     used it as a pain reliever for end-stage cancer patients. In 
     the first phase of the study, he concluded the drug is safe 
     if used in controlled situations under careful monitoring. 
     The body is much less likely to overheat in such a setting. 
     Grob believes MDMA's changes to brain cells are accelerated 
     and perhaps triggered entirely by overheating.
       In 1998, emergency rooms participating in the Drug Abuse 
     Warning Network reported receiving 1,135 mentions of ecstasy 
     during admission, compared with just 626 in 1997. If 
     ecstasy is so benign, what's happening to these people? 
     The two most common short-term side effects of MDMA--both 
     of which remain rare in the aggregate--are overheating and 
     something even harder to quantify, psychological trauma.
       A few users have mentally broken down on ecstasy, 
     unprepared for its powerful psychological effects. A 
     schoolteacher in the Bay Area who had taken ecstasy in the 
     past and loved it says she took it again a year ago and began 
     to recall, in horrible detail, an episode of sexual abuse. 
     She became severely depressed for three months and had to 
     seek psychiatric treatment. She will never take ecstasy 
     again.
       Ecstasy's aftermath can also include a depressive hangover, 
     a down day that users sometimes call Terrible Tuesdays. ``You 
     know the black mood is chemical, related to the serotonin,'' 
     says ``Adrienne,'' 26, a fashion-company executive who has 
     used ecstasy almost weekly for the past five years. ``But the 
     world still seems bleak.'' Some users, especially kids trying 
     to avoid the pressures of growing up, begin to use ecstasy 
     too often--every day in rare cases. In one extreme case, 
     ``Cara,'' an 18-year-old Miami woman who attends Narcotics 
     Anonymous, says she lost 50 lbs. after constantly taking 
     ecstasy. She began to steal and deal e to pay for rolls.
       Another downside: because users feel empathetic, ecstasy 
     can lower sexual inhibitions. Men generally cannot get 
     erections when high on e, but they are often ferociously 
     randy when its effects begin to fade. Dr. Robert Kiltzman, a 
     psychiatrist at Columbia University, has found that men in 
     New York City who use ecstasy are 2.8 time more likely to 
     have unprotected sex.
       Still, the majority of people who end up in the e.r. after 
     taking ecstasy are almost certainly not taking MDMA but 
     something masquerading under its name. No one knows for sure 
     what they're taking, since emergency rooms don't always test 
     blood to confirm the drug identified by users. But one group 
     that does test e for purity is DanceSafe, a prorave 
     organization based in Berkeley, Calif., and largely funded by 
     a software millionaire, Bob Wallace (Microsoft's employee No. 
     9). DanceSafe sets up tables at raves, where users can get 
     information about drugs and also have ecstasy pills tested. 
     (The organization works with police so that ravers who 
     produce pills for testing won't be arrested.) A DanceSafe 
     worker shaves off a silver of the tablet and drops a 
     solution onto it; if it doesn't turn black quickly, it's 
     not MDMA.
       The organization has found that as much as 20% of the so-
     called ecstasy sold at raves contains something other than 
     MDMA. DanceSafe also tests pills for anonymous users who send 
     in samples from around the nation; it has found that 40% of 
     those pills are fake. Last fall, DanceSafe workers attended a 
     ``massive''--more than 5,000 people--rave in Oakland, Calif. 
     Nine people were taken from the rave in ambulances, but 
     DanceSafe confirmed that eight of the nine had taken pills 
     that weren't MDMA.
       The most common adulterants in such pills are aspirin, 
     caffeine and other over-the-counters. (Contrary to lore, fake 
     e virtually never contains heroin, which is not cost-
     effective in oral form.) But the most insidious adulterant--
     what all eight of the Oakland ravers took--is DXM 
     (dextromethorphan), a cheap cough suppressant that causes 
     hallucinations in the 130-mg dose usually found in fake e (13 
     times the amount in a dose of Robitussin). Because DXM 
     inhibits sweating, it easily causes heatstroke. Another 
     dangerous adulterant is PMA (paramethoxyamphetamine), an 
     illegal drug that in May killed two Chicago-area teenagers 
     who took it thinking they were dropping e. PMA is a vastly 
     more potent hallucinogenic and hyperthermic drug than MDMA.
       Most users don't have access to DanceSafe, which operates 
     in only eight cities. But as demand has grown, the incentive 
     to manufacture fake e has also escalated, especially for one-
     time raves full of teens who won't see the dealer again. 
     Established dealers, by contrast, operate under the opposite 
     incentive. A Miami dealer who goes by the name ``Top Dog'' 
     told TIME he obtains MDMA test kits from a connection on the 
     police force. ``If [the pills] are no good,'' he says, 
     customers ``won't want to buy from you anymore.'' It's 
     business sense: Top Dog can earn $300,000 a year on e sales.
       As writer Joshua Wolf Shenk has pointed out, we tend to 
     have opposing views about

[[Page H3196]]

     drugs: they can kill or cure; the addiction will enslave you, 
     or the new perceptions will free you. Aldous Huxley typified 
     this duality with his two most famous books, Brave New 
     World--about a people in thrall to a drug called soma--and 
     The Doors of Perception--an autobiographical work in which 
     Huxley begins to see the world in a brilliant new light after 
     taking mescaline.
       Ecstasy can occasionally enslave and occasionally offer 
     transcendence. Usually, it does neither. For Adrienne, the 
     Midwestern woman who has been a frequent user for the past 
     five years, ecstasy is a key part of life. ``E makes 
     shirtless, disgusting men, a club with broken bathrooms, a 
     deejay that plays crap and vomiting into a trash can the best 
     night of your life,'' she says with a laugh. ``It has done 
     two things in my life,'' she reflects. ``I had always been 
     aloof or insecure or snobby, however you want to put it. And 
     I took it and realized, you know what, we're all here; we're 
     all dancing; we're not so different. I allowed myself to get 
     closer to people. Everything was more positive. But my life 
     also became, quickly, all about the next time I would do it * 
     * * You feel at ease with yourself and right with the world, 
     and that's a feeling you want to duplicate--every single 
     week.''

                          ____________________