[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.''
____________________