It is difficult to understand why use persists and is so widespread, given the kind of testimony we heard earlier today, and the news media reporting that has been going on over the past year or year and a half about PCP. However, we have learned that although users universally report some negative aspects of use, a number report positive aspects as well. The extremely negative effects do not occur consistently, and are therefore, unpredictable. This produces a very dangerous situation. A young person could use PCP or see his friends use it and experience some degree of satisfaction with only minor negative consequences. He could then be lulled into believing that the drug was not dangerous, and disbelieve reports of the extremely negative consequences, only to be affected severely himself at some unknown and unforeseeable future time.

Therefore, all of us must do all we can to inform the public accurately of these dangers, to discourage use, and to reduce availability. Mr. RANGEL. Pardon the interruption, but could you clarify that negative effect and lulling people into believing it is a safe drug? What is the difference between that and any other drug abuse? I assume they are looking for some positive emotional and physical feeling out of the drug. If somebody took it and dropped dead, that would take care of the problem.

What is the difference between this and heroin, in terms of effect? Mr. DOGOLOFF. I think there are some similarities. There are reports of the positive reinforcement that comes from heroin use, as well as its very negative consequences. Without understanding that, it becomes impossible to know why anyone would even try PCP, in view of the frequently publicized negative consequences.

Unfortunately, people use it, and see other people using it around them, without major consequences right away. Consequently, they become lulled into believing that they can do so safely.

Mr. RANGEL. That is true of any drug, though.

Mr. DOGOLOFF. Well, but more so with PCP, because of the terrible consequences that habitual use yields.

Mr. RANGEL. The only thing I am trying to say is I don't see why you would be any more baffled over PCP than you would with any drug that ultimately produces harm, whether it is from accidents, selfdestruction, or whatever it is. Naturally, people want a good effect-a high; some good feeling. I just don't want this to be taken as though it is so unusual, when in fact if kids and adults are using it, obviously they are not signing a suicide pact.

Mr. WOLFF. If the gentleman would yield for a moment, isn't it the unpredictable quality that is involved in this particular drug, the fact that it is playing almost Russian roulette each time a person tries this drug?

The fact is that people do not know the strengths that are involved, which is an important element. There are no standards for the type of dosage that is available on the street.

Mr. DOGOLOFF. Absolutely.

Mr. WOLFF. And the potency of the drug itself, each time a person takes a single joint that is laced with PCP they are discharging one of the chambers of a gun that could kill them.

I think that is the point. If they use a very minute quantity of the stuff, it may not affect them, but then again their particular system

might be attuned to something that it would trigger, and therefore cause a problem. But there is also the other factor, the factor as I understand it, that PCP can cause paralysis to an abuser, paralysis to such an extent that they cannot meet other situations that might occur, and a disorientation to the extent that they do not realize the dangers that are surrounding them. There is the classic case of someone who was in a chair and the place was on fire, and the person couldn't move in order to save himself.

Now that may or may not be true with other drugs. The person who smokes a joint that is not laced isn't going to have that type of disorientation.

We can readily understand that something that is used as a tranquilizer for an elephant of 5,000 or 10,000 pounds acting upon an individual is far more lethal than any other type of drug that we know of, unless they are using a pure product, like 100 percent heroin.

Mr. DOGOLOFF. I think that is an excellent distinction. We are obviously concerned with the magnitude of the response, and what can happen to behavior. This doesn't often happen with other drugs.

Dr. Czechowicz, from the National Center for Drug Abuse, will give the details of the pharmacological effects and the current use patterns. She will also describe efforts under the PCP Action Coordinating Commission to assess the problem, and to prepare educational materials. She will also discuss treatment and prevention programs. Law enforcement, which will be discussed in greater detail by Mr. Bensinger, is a difficult problem with regard to PCP. The drug is easily manufactured, produces enormous profits, and already has been moved from schedule III to schedule II as of February 1978. Two precursors have been put into schedule II

Mr. WOLFF. Excuse me. Why isn't it schedule I if it is so dangerous? Mr. DOGOLOFF. I understand there is legislation now pending to do that.

Mr. WOLFF. But do you need legislation for that?

Mr. BENSINGER. Mr. Chairman, our agency feels there are very good reasons for it to be in schedule I.

Mr. WOLFF. Can't you move by petition to change that?

Mr. BENSINGER. The only method by which our agency can move a schedule is with the concurrence of HEW. In discussions with them, there is a legitimate veterinary medical use for PCP, as you have described, for tranquilizing animals, basically in zoos. There is no approved medical reason for any human being to use PCP. I think that is exactly why your comments regarding the unpredictability and danger of this drug strikes so close to the core. If there would be a way by which veterinary medicine could have some method of obtaining tranquilizers, and the general public

Mr. WOLFF. Aren't there other tranquilizers available for them? Mr. BENSINGER. I am not an expert in this field. I know from an enforcement standpoint, we would like to see PCP in schedule I. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman

Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Rangel.

Mr. RANGEL. You have given us an expert opinion about HEW preventing us from putting this drug into that category. Now HEW must have given you some reason to believe that you are not going to fight their decision. I can't figure out what it is.

Mr. BENSINGER. I would suggest

Mr. RANGEL. I mean we are not just trying to protect the vets at the expense of our children.

Mr. BENSINGER. I certainly don't think we should. But you best inquire of HEW. The law prevents

Mr. RANGEL. I don't best inquire of HEW. We are talking about a drug that is killing people, we are talking about law enforcement, the Justice Department, and we are not talking about HEW stopping you or stopping those that have the responsibility for spreading this drug by giving some cockamamy excuse about veterinarians.

So we have to find out from the administration, you know, just how can these excuses be given. There may be a valid reason.

Mr. BENSINGER. Let me respond, sir. One thing I can't do is break the law. And the law prevents me as Administrator of DEA from scheduling a drug, wherever I think it should be. HEW's concurrence is necessary, legally, and it is mandatory.

Mr. RANGEL. Has it been requested?

Mr. BENSINGER. Yes.

Mr. RANGEL. In writing?

Mr. BENSINGER. We have discussed this verbally with HEW in our interagency committees

Mr. RANGEL. Let me try this

Mr. BENSINGER [continuing]. Let me finish, sir.

Mr. RANGEL. We shouldn't have to wait for HEW. Do we have anything written by HEW telling us why this drug should not be treated as a more dangerous drug?

Mr. GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. I vield.

Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman. I believe according to the existing statute, DEA or NIDA cannot place PCP in schedule I, because that schedule is reserved for drugs and substances which currently have no accepted medical usage for treatment in this country. Apparently PCP, because of its utilization in veterinary medicine, comes within that category, therefore they cannot voluntarily make a change in the regulation.

It is for that reason that we have proposed to do this through statutory language, which has already been adopted in the Senate, pursuant to Senator Bentsen's action. Here in the House, you have joined with us in cosponsoring the legislation. We hope we can get this legislation out before the end of the session.

Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman is saying HEW would not be authorized to make this change without legislation, is that right?

Mr. GILMAN. I believe that is the situation. I don't think thatMr. RANGEL. That is a different situation than what I have heard. Mr. WOLFF. If the gentleman will yield, it is not legislation that is required to change a substance from one category to another. What is required is an administrative determination that the substance itself has no beneficial health purposes for humans. If we are going to have animals placed before humans in this country, I think that we are going to be in a very serious position.

Mr. DOGOLOFF. Mr. Chairman, I will check back with HEW, and clarify the law. I will find out what is possible, administratively, in

terms of moving it into schedule I, and if it is possible to make such an administrative determination.

My understanding is that there is a very small amount produced legally each year, and it is only used as an animal tranquilizer. If that is the case, and there are alternatives available, we will move very quickly to do what we can under the law to move it and I will report back to the committee.

Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Dogoloff, the point this committee would like to make, because it is an oversight committee, is why haven't you moved before this? Why do you require this committee to stimulate you to this type of action? Why hasn't this been gone into before?

Mr. DOGOLOFF. We appreciate your stimulating us in this way. Mr. WOLFF. You shouldn't need the stimulation, that is the point. After all, you know all of this. And if this information is available, which you very clearly outline in your statement, and I am very appreciative that you are on top of all of this, but it requires action other than just merely the exposition before a committee of Congress. I think it is most important that we do not have to. We would like to work ourselves out of a job. But the more we get involved in exploring the various substances, the abuse and treatment programs, this committee is going to have to be around for a long time. I wish it were not the case.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, under the Controlled Substances Act, schedule I, part of the criteria is "drug or other substance that has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." What I am hearing you say is that regardless of whether it is human or animal or any other kind of medical treatment, that is the reason why PCP is not schedule I.

Mr. DOGOLOFF. Yes; I don't know whether it does, whether the interpretation of that includes veterinary medicine. I assume it does, but I don't know that for a fact. That is one of the things we need to investigate.

Mr. BENSINGER. Mr. Chairman, I may be somewhat out of sequence here, but I would like to be helpful. I think it should be noted that the problem in PCP basically is not diversion of legitimate product. PCP is made clandestinely, as Representative Mineta described. It can be made without any great laboratory facility, without extensive drug manufacturers' assistance. And that is not to denigrate the need of having high scheduling for PCP and its analogs and precursors. That is important; it will set policy; it will set a level for judges and prosecutors and for sentencing. But the actual ingredient is made illegally anyway.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman

Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Rangel.

Mr. RANGEL. I am out of schedule, too, but didn't you already reclassify this drug?

Mr. BENSINGER. Yes, from III to II, sir.

Mr. RANGEL. So you probably did it for the reason that you wanted to signal how dangerous this drug was, even if it was legitimately manufactured.

Mr. BENSINGER. Absolutely; and we have recently, in fact, yesterday, received from HEW, the Surgeon General of the United States,

concurrence with our recommendations to put two key analogs in schedule I.

Mr. RANGEL. So obviously you thought it was serious enough to have it rescheduled to schedule II.

Mr. BENSINGER. Absolutely.

Mr. RANGEL. Is there any reason why it is not serious enough to be in schedule I?

Mr. BENSINGER. From your perspective, none, Mr. Rangel.

Mr. WOLFF. I see that HEW has already scheduled something that we all continue to use here on the panel-tobacco-into another area as a dangerous drug. Maybe they can be persuaded to take a substance such as this and make it a dangerous drug.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, counsel has given me the law to assist the panel. There is no mention of treatment of elephants in here. I don't know if they mean, when they say treatment in the United States, is the assumption that we are talking about human beings? I don't see veterinarians or anything like that here.

Mr. WOLFF. Medical use, that is a pretty broad term. Perhaps Dr. Czechowicz can enlighten us on this.

Dr. CZECHOWICZ. Initially, when we had our meetings with FDA and DEA on the issue of recommending rescheduling, our position at NIDA was initially to recommend schedule I. However, we met together with representatives from FDA, DEA, and the Bureau of Veterinary Medicine. The Bureau of Veterinary Medicine was opposed to the rescheduling of this drug. They mentioned that the data they had accumulated revealed there was not a significant diversion of this drug from the veterinary source. They also made the point at that time that they felt it was a useful drug for this particular practice, and there was no other substitute that could be utilized.

My understanding was that on their strong opposition, of the fact that there was no significant diversion from the veterinary sourcediversion was from illicit manufacture of this drug-the final recommendation was for schedule II.

Mr. WOLFF. We are not permitting you to give your statements, but your statements can go into the record, and I think it is important that we get a little more in the way of understanding as to the solution to this problem. That is the most important part of it.

Now my understanding is the point made by Mr. Bensinger, that the analogs are the important elements that are involved here, as well as the substance itself. Because it is not the original substance that is used by veterinarians that is being abused by these kids, but it is the component parts of it that are being put together illegally. To answer the question of my colleague from New York, the point being: Can we take these substances, which are utilized in an entirely different fashion, utilized in almost everyday use for different purposes, and declare them as a schedule I drug. That is the problem. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?

Mr. WOLFF. Yes.

Mr. GILMAN. I would like to ask, would the reclassification into schedule I affect the use of this drug by veterinary medicine? How would it affect the use of the drug by the veterinarians? Does it make