DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 13, 1923. MY DEAR MR. PORTER: I have read your letter of to-day's date and its accompanying resolution with much interest. The object which you have in viewthat is, the restriction of the commercial cultivation of the opium poppy and the coa-leaf plant to quantities exclusively required for strictly medicinal and scientific purposes is one with which I am in entire accord. I can assure you of my deep interest in the work of narcotics control and of my willingness to forward in any way that I can the expressed views of the Congress on this important subject. I believe that the prompt passage of the proposed resolution, with the minor amendment suggested, will be an important aid in securing the desired result. If the commercial production of the raw plants from which opium products and cocaine are obtained can be minimized, the question of narcotics control will be greatly simplified. I shall be glad to place before your committee such information in regard to the narcotics-control question as is at my disposal. I am, my dear Mr. Porter, Hon. STEPHEN G. PORTER, House of Representatives. CHARLES E. HUGHES. Now, I would like to call Doctor Squire, the prison physician at Sing Sing. Before hearing Doctor Squire's statement I want to read two telegrams in connection with the doctor's testimony. The first is from the warden of the Federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kans., in reply to a telegram from me. I had better read my telegram first. WARDEN, FEDERAL PRISON, Leavenworth, Kans. FEBRUARY 13, 1923. The Committee on Foreign Affairs begins hearings to-day on my resolution for the suppression of the illicit international traffic in habit-forming narcotic drugs (period) Will you kindly inform me if your record shows the percentage of inmates who came into your institution as addicts and whether or not the percentage has increased during the last six or eight years? Wire collect. STEPHEN G. PORTER, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The reply of the warden is as follows: STEPHEN G. PORTER, Washington, D. C. LEAVENWORTH, KANS., February 13, 1923. From July, 1914, to December 31, 1922, 7 per cent of prisoners committed were drug addicts. During fiscal year 1920, 51 per cent were addicts. During 1921, 15 per cent were addicts. From July 1 to December 31, 1922, 24 per cent were addicts. The percentage of violators of the Harrison narcotic act, including peddlers, smugglers, and addicts for the fiscal year 1920 was 8 per cent. For fiscal year 1921, 20 per cent. For fiscal year 1922, 30 per cent, and from July 1 to December 31, 1922, 49 per cent. W. I. BIDDLE, Warden. Showing that our narcotic bureau has been quite busy in sending them over there. In reply to a similar telegram to the warden of the Atlanta penitentiary he says: STEPHEN G. Porter, Washington, D. C. ATLANTA, GA., February 13, 1923. Your telegram received. Fiscal years 1918, 11 per cent addicts; 1919, 6 per cent addicts; 1920, 8 per cent addicts; 1921, 15 per cent addicts; 1922, 20 per cent addicts; first half 1923, 20 per cent addicts. J. E. DYCHE, Warden. Those percentages refer to the men who were committed to these institutions. STATEMENT OF DR. AMOS O. SQUIRE. The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, please state your name and the position you hold in Sing Sing Prison. Doctor SQUIRE. I am chief physician of the Sing Sing Prison. The CHAIRMAN. And how long have you held that position? Doctor SQUIRE. With the exception of seven months since the first of 1916. The CHAIRMAN. During your service in that position, have you had occasion to observe the addicts committed to that institution? Doctor SQUIRE. I have. The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would proceed, Doctor, in your own way, and state what you have observed. Doctor SQUIRE. I regret, Mr. Chairman, owing to a death in my family and the burial taking place yesterday afternoon, I was unable to prepare a statement in my office, but on arriving at Washington this morning I dictated a few notes at the New Willard which will give you a little outline or will probably give you a key to asking me questions. I believe that if the joint resolution as prepared is reported on favorably and carried out in every detail that it will be one of the big factors in lessening crime. I know of no other way of stopping the use of narcotic drugs. I might say here that probably you are aware of the fact that Sing Sing Prison being a State prison takes care of nothing except people who have committed the crime of felony. We have no cases of misdemeanor or minor offenses and only those who are sentenced for not less than a year. Mr. COOPER. How many prisoners, on an average, have you there? Doctor SQUIRE. Our average population is approximately 1,250, and we received last year 1,457 new ones. We receive approximately between 65 and 70 per cent of all the felons of New York State, owing to the fact that we take our men from greater New York, which, of course, as you know, includes the boroughs and up the Hudson River as far north as Poughkeepsie, which is the most congested portion of the State of New York. Mr. FISH. Is the Wingdale Prison open yet? Doctor SQUIRE. Wingdale is not open. It is only partially completed. Mr. BEGG. If the prison terms for these addicts were longer would not the results of the treatment be more lasting. Doctor SQUIRE. I will answer that in this little statement. I am very glad you brought that out. It is my opinion, based upon some years' experience at Sing Sing Prison, that a certain per cent of drug users obtain it from those who smuggle it into our country. That drug addiction is on the increase there is no doubt in my mind. To illustrate, since 1919, comparing it with the year ending June, 1922, showed an increase of 900 per cent in the number of drug addicts admitted to Sing Sing Prison. There has been a radical increase since 1919. I believe that very little of these narcotic drugs are obtained either from physicians or druggists, but at least 90 per cent or more of those using it obtain it from drug peddlers. Of course, the only evidence I have on that is the statement of the drug addict. A very small per cent of the patients that come under our jurisdiction at prison began the use of drugs because of pain. The most prevalent drug used is heroin. Probably 75 per cent of the drug users admitted to prison take heroin. The next most frequent is morphine, and cocaine is the least used. We have had several who have taken all three. I believe that we would take an advanced step in the world if we eliminated entirely heroin being produced, as we could do very well without it in the practice of medicine, and it is the most convenient way for drug addicts to obtain their desired effect. There is no comparison, in my mind, between the effect of alcohol and narcotic drugs upon the physical and mental status of the taker. There is some hope for one addicted to alcohol, but there appears to be little or no hope with one who starts the drug habit. The statement that “ once an addict, always an addict," does not express the absolute truth, but it is not very far wrong in the underworld, as we have had patients come to prison suffering from drugs, spending several years with us, and within a month after their return to society would resume the drug habit. I know that, because they will be sent back to the prison. A large number of men and women commit crime in order to obtain money, either in the form of grand larceny or robbery, to satisfy their craving. As I understand it, the average addict consumes from $4 to $8 a day worth of drugs, depending upon the greed of the drug peddler. It is quite difficult for a casual observer to detect the user of drugs so long as his system is supplied with a substantive quantity. This bears out the statement of the previous speaker, that there is no problem that we have to be more acute in than in the treatment of the drug addiction problem. I want to publicly deny the statement that I saw recently in the press in New York, where someone stated in court that it was as easy to get drugs in Sing Sing as it was on Broadway. That, to my mind, is an untruth. It is only when he is unable to procure it that it is apparent. A person may take drugs for years without its being known. I remember one time when a patient came to me whom I had known most intimately for 20 years, who was a paregoric fiend. I had no knowledge of it until he came to me at one time and asked me if I would not give him some paregoric as he was not able to procure it just at that particular time. I believe that a large per cent of the men who are convicted of crime who are drug addicts would not have committed the crime had it not been influenced by the drug habit. I have never seen a user who did not desire to be freed from the habit, and in fact are the more grateful patients that a physician has to deal with. I would, however, be very careful in limiting the amount being produced so as not to interfere with the legitimate use of morphine and cocaine for medical purposes. I lay great stress on that because those of us who are practicing medicine know the valuable agency that morphine is in cancer and advanced tuberculosis. Now, these statistics which I have may not compare well with other institutions. It may be that in view of the fact that we gather our prisoners from Greater New York, which may be the place where there is more dope, although I do not know that, but probably it would not compare with interior cities, but I recall that in the year 1916 we received during the whole year when we received 940 prisoners only ten addicts during the year. Mr. SABATH. Out of how many? Doctor SQUIRE. Out of 940. That was the number of new admissions. In 1917 we received approximately 1,071, and we only had four drug addicts during the entire year. That was the lowest I ever recall. In 1918, out of 1,171 we received 11, and in 1919, out of 1,073 we received 13, and I might say that for a period of six years prior to 1919 the average was 13 a year. For the fiscal year 1920, out of 1,490 prisoners we had 33, which was an increase of over 100 per cent. In 1921 out of 1,414 we received 93 drug addicts, which was an increase of 500 per cent, and last year, 1922, out of 1,457 received at the prison, we received 132 drug addicts, which is an increase of about 900 per cent over the average prior to 1919. The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, you state that addiction to these drugs is sometimes responsible for the commission of crime. I recall a case in my home city of Pittsburgh where four men of the best families, men who bore splendid reputations, burglarized a large department store, and when they were brought into court it was found that they were all drug addicts. Has that been your experience. Doctor SQUIRE. My opinion is that it is a very difficult task to make an accurate survey of the number of drug addicts there are in the country. We find that true even in our own small communities. There are people whom I never thought were drug addicts until the time arrived when they could not procure it and I treated them professionally. I believe that you will never be able to lessen drug additions until you do as the resolution provides, and stop the production, because I am satisfied that there is so much money in drug peddling that as long as it is produced it will be sold in that way. I might say that a great many drug addicts tell me that they have first been influenced to take a drug because the drug peddler had given them samples of the drug. The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, I understand you have considerable trouble keeping the drugs out of Sing Sing and that they are brought in in various ways. Doctor SQUIRE. The present method of even receiving visitors to-day in Sing Sing Prison is that when a man has a visitor he is taken in an adjoining room and stripped before he goes in the visiting room and sees his relative or friends, and on his return from the visiting room he is stripped, so that we find out that he does not bring anything back with him. We have been fairly free of drugs in the prison. We have not been able to find any in about a year. We had one chap who produced some that he paid $50 for and some time ago we even examined the rectum of men as they were admitted to the prison because we have found them putting it in finger capsules and putting it in their rectum. I will say that apropos of what has previously been stated, our experience in the prison, and that is all I can testify to, has not been that this had been a condition due to ex-service men. Mr. COOPER. I would like to ask you a question right there. The first witness yesterday, Doctor Lambert, said that of the various drugs mentioned in the resolution, there was one, heroin, which had no legitimate place in the medical profession. Doctor SQUIRE. I feel the same way, Congressman. Mr. COOPER. Then so far as we are concerned, in your judgment a law could be passed absolutely to suppress the manufacture of that drug. Doctor SQUIRE. That would go a long way toward solving this problem, because heroin is the most popular drug used by drug addicts. It is the most convenient one used because they can snuff it up their nose. Mr. COOPER. And it has three times the strength of morphine. Doctor SQUIRE. Yes; and a very peculiar thing, I believe, is that heroin produces an effect upon the personality so that all respect is lost. Mr. COOPER. That is what the first witness testified to yesterday. Doctor SQUIRE. I did not read his testimony, but that is my opinion. Mr. COOPER. Now, that would leave for legitimate purposes of the medical profession an ample supply of these drugs. Doctor SQUIRE. Yes. 36054-23-4 Mr. COOPER. And, of course, that supply should be placed under strict regulation both as to importation and manufacture and everything else. Doctor SQUIRE. Yes. Mr. COOPER. And that one drug ought to be suppressed and entirely prohibted. Doctor SQUIRE. Yes; I think so. I have been practising medicine for 24 years, or it will be 24 years this spring, and, of course, years ago we did use heroin frequently in chest conditions, but I have not prescribed heroin in 20 years and I do not think the average practitioner of medicine has. Mr. COOPER. You say there has been an increase within recent years, but for many, many years there has been a very great narcotic-using evil in this country, has there not? Doctor SQUIRE. There is no question about that. Mr. COOPER. At the time of the enactment of the Harrison narcotic law I recall distinctly how physicians said that it was an evil which must be curbed because of the destruction it was working among men, women, and children. Doctor SQUIRE. In know from my private practice that there was considerable drug addiction even years ago. Mr. COLE. Doctor, have you given the matter enough consideration so that you could give us an opinion as to the effect of prohibition, if any, in increasing this drug habit? Doctor SQUIRE. No; I am not in position to do that. I have asked drug addicts whether they had been previously addicted to drink, and I have not been able to trace in the history of the men who have come to the prison that they had substituted drug addiction for liquor. I have not found that, but I do say that there is no comparison The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt you to ask you this question: The man who craves liquor in any form craves a stimulant. Is it likely that he would crave a narcotic as a substitute? Mr. COLE. Cocaine is a stimulant. Mr. MOORES. So is heroin. Doctor SQUIRE. They are all stimulants. Mr. MOORES. Whiskey is a depressent. Doctor SQUIRE. They put you in a dream state. I do not know why people take alcohol, whether they expect to assume that state or not. It has not been my personal observation that that has been a factor. Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moores has just made a statement which I think is one of great importance. He interrupted to say that whiskey is a depressent. The CHAIRMAN. It is with some people. Mr. COOPER. I have always thought that at a banquet it was an exhilerator. I never heard of serving a depressent at a banquet. Mr. COCKRAN. The day after it is depressing. Mr. CONNALLY. Doctor, may I ask you what has been your observation with reference to the administration of the Harrison Narcotic Law. Has that law had a tendency to decrease the use of drugs or otherwise. Doctor SQUIRE. Of course, I do not know, but I do not believe, Congressman, that a very large amount of the drugs that drug users use come from physicians or druggists. If you mean that the Harrison Law regulates those two agencies, I think it is a good deal like the Volstead Act, because I do not imagine there is but very little alcohol consumed that is bought from the druggist. They get it from the bootlegger. Mr. CONNALLY. Does not the Harrison law prohibit the importation of it and regulate its manufacture? |