Statement of Leo E. Hollister, M.D., Medical Investigator, Veterans Administration Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

[In 1970 hearings before Congress on the proposed Controlled Substances Act]

Two issues in the proposed legislation still greatly disturb the scientific community. They are a) the proposed method for scheduling dangerous drugs or substances, and b) the penalty structure for violations. The following recommendations are made:

1. Scheduling of drugs and substances should be based on criteria of the liability of abuse, the danger to individual and the danger that use of the drug may create for society. the criterion of medical use should be abandoned.

2. An expert committee should be set up under the auspices of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to decide upon the proper scheduling of drugs. The committee should be multidisciplinary, as the nature of the problem dictates and should include members of the various branches of law enforcement.

3. The modification of existing penalties for possession or use of drugs does not go far enough. A good case can be made on moral grounds against inflicting any criminal penalty on someone using or possessing drugs for personal use. Other advanced countries are considering modifications in possession laws that would make those presently proposed look Draconian.

These views are entirely personal, representing those of an investigator of long standing in the field of clinical psychopharmacology. Although I am an employee of the Veterans Administration, a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and a member of the NAS-NRC Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, I represent only myself...

While some constructive changes [such as having putting research under the jurisdiction of HEW rather than law enforcement] have been made, others are still needed. I wish to speak specifically about two aspects of the proposed legislation which may very well discredit it completely among the youth of our country who use drugs and toward whom it is directed. A discredited law is also one which is not observed . . .

I have been unable to find any scientific colleague who agrees that the scheduling of drugs in the proposed legislation makes any sense, nor have I been able to find anyone who was consulted about the proposed schedules. The unfortunate scheduling, which groups together such diverse drugs such as heroin, LSD and marihuana, perpetuates a fallacy long apparent to our youth. These drugs are not equivalent in pharmacological effects or in the danger of degree they present to individuals and to society. On the other hand, the specious criterion of medical use places amphetamines in a much lesser category, which the facts do not support. If such scheduling of drugs is retained in the legislation which is ultimately passed, the law will become a laughing stock.

The criterion of medical use should be abandoned in considering their scheduling . . .

Although marihuana is covered by the Single Convention, the rapid social change in the pattern of use of this drug demands that a special case now be made. . .

Sound medical and legal opinion throughout much of the civilized world now regards the drug-users as either foolish or sick, or both. making criminals of drug users has clogged our courts, has exacted a dreadful toll in time, money, and human misery, and has not discouraged to any appreciable extent the use of drugs. The continuation of such a policy of punishing the only possible victim perpetuates an attitude which few reasonable people believe to be sound. And although penalties have been lessened, they are still considerable . . . Of course sentences are not mandatory, they need not be applied, and the matter can eventually be expunged. But why have such a penalty at all? . . . Surely, our sense of charity toward human weakness must be offended by such a penalty structure. If our hearts were in the right place we’d put no penalty on users. Such a proposal is said to be unrealistic politically: if this is the case, and to be politically realistic, we must injure our fellows, then politics be damned!

The history of 55 years of criminal law of control of drugs of abuse in the United States has been one of unmitigated failure. One law has been repealed; one has been declared unconstitutional; and both have been the most widely disobeyed laws ever passed. If we are not to repeat the mistakes of the past, we should take a critical look at the present legislation, lest it be discredited at its inception.

Source: Statement of Leo E. Hollister, M.D., Medical Investigator, Veterans Administration Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.. Controlled Dangerous Substances, Narcotics and Drug Control Laws. Hearings before United States House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, 91st Congress, July 20-23, 27, 1970. (On HR 17463, early version of the Controlled Substances Act.) pg. 484 - 487