and believe that the time was not wasted as sometimes I feel it has been.

Thank you very much, Doctor.

The Chair calls Dr. Thomas E. Bryant, president of the Drug Abuse Council.

We welcome you, Dr. Bryant.

It is nice to see you.

You may proceed with your testimony, sir.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. BRYANT, M.D., PRESIDENT, DRUG ABUSE COUNCIL

Dr. BRYANT. Thank you very much, Senator.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity that your committee's invitation affords me, to come before you today to discuss some of the current issues surrounding marihuana usage in this country.

For those of you who may not be familiar with the work of the Drug Abuse Council, it was established in 1972 by a consortium of private foundations to serve as an independent source of information, policy evaluation, and research funding in the field of drug use and misuse. The council was created in response to a widely felt need for concerted action in the private sector of our society.

Our charter at the council was spelled out in "Dealing With Drug Abuse: A Report To the Ford Foundation," published in 1972. Our rationale can perhaps best be expressed in the conclusion to chapter 1:

It is of fundamental importance that man has and will inevitably continue to have potentially dangerous drugs at his disposal, which he may either use properly or not, and that neither the availablty of these drugs nor the temptation to misuse them can be eliminated. Therefore, the fundamental objective of a modern drug abuse program must be to help the public learn to understand these drugs and how to cope with their use in the context of everyday life. An approach emphasizing suppression of all drugs or repression of all drug users will only contribute to national problems.

From that perspective, we at the council applauded the publication of the first report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding," issued in March 1972. To us it represented a milestone in tempering the public dialog concerning marihuana by stripping it of the fear and panic which had previously clouded the search for a rational national response.

Since both you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Javits were members of the National Commission, I need not tell you or other committee members what was contained in its report. But, for the record of this committee's hearings, I would like to briefly share with you my impression of the importance of the National Commission itself and to sketch some of its principal findings and recommendations.

I believe that the Commission in its two reports has set forth the most comprehensive critique of drug practices and policies ever issued in this country. And after 2 years of exhaustive study and analysis, the Commission itself, with all of its variety of background and outlook, achieved a consensus on a wide range of critical drug issues.

I found myself in substantial agreement with the analyses and recommendations of both reports when I first read them and I find myself with that same agreement today.

It was a distinguished commission headed by the Honorable Raymond Shafer, former Governor of Pennsylvania, sprinkled with respected and thoughtful medical, academic, law enforcement, and congressional Members. The Commission's first report recommended that possession of marihuana for personal use no longer be a criminal offense and that casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit, nu longer be an offense. Those who have studied the first report, unfortunately still few in number, know that it was a responsible one, based on extensive investigation and analysis.

While the recommendations contained in the second report of the National Commission, issued 1 year later in 1973, are not on their face as controversial as those in the first report, the commentary and rationale concerning other drug use and misuse represent significant departures from the present underpinnings of public policy. For example, the policy assumption that an appropriate or feasible societal objective is to eliminate "nonmedical" drug use is discarded. And the policy assumption that individuals should not be allowed to risk their health. by using drugs is considered a peripheral, rather than a focal, concern. Or, the final example, the value judgment that use of drugs for the explicit purpose of mood alteration is per se undesirable is questioned. I had hoped that the Commission's first report would set the tone for a rational and dispassionate look at what was going on in this country regarding our response to marihuana and indeed there were some encouraging signs. Within 18 months after the report was made public, the State of Oregon abolished criminal sanctions for possession of 1 ounce of marihuana or less and replaced them with a civil fine of $100 or less, similar to a traffic violation. The Oregon model was similar to that recommended by the National Commission-an official policy of discouragement of use by the imposition of a civil sanction, the elimination of criminal penalties. Criminal sanctions are retained, however, for possession of over 1 ounce, for selling and for cultivation. The Drug Abuse Council commissioned a survey in Oregon during October of this year-the first anniversary of the new legislation-to assess what changes, if any, have occurred in marihuana usage during the last year and to find out what impressions Oregonians have of their new law. The interpretation of the results of such a survey is necessarily limited since no similar data existed prior to the passage of the decriminalization legislation and since many other factors could have influenced changes in use and attitudes other than the law itself.

The survey was conducted by Bardsley and Haslacher, Inc., of Portland, Oreg., a respected marketing research firm, and consisted of several questions asked as part of a longer, regularly scheduled survey of public opinion on a variety of issues. The sample for the survey interviews, which were face-to-face personal interviews, was of the adult population aged 18 and over. The firm used standard sampling methods, and like all surveys which do not question everyone, the results are subject to certain specified ranges of variation. The Council staff is now preparing an analysis of the Oregon survey results which will include a detailed discussion of the sampling techniques used and the range of variation. I will present that analysis for the record of this hearing as soon as it is completed.

43-888 O-75 - 6

The preliminary analysis of our survey data indicates several interesting points. These points are especially timely since the survey was conducted 1 year (54 weeks) after the effective date of the current Oregon law.

Nineteen percent of the survey sample have used marihuana.
Nine percent of the survey sample currently use marihuana.

Of the 81 percent of the survey sample who have never used marihuana and the 10 percent of the survey sample who have used marihuana but no longer do so, the following reasons were chosen for their nonuse: Possibility of legal prosecution, 4 percent; not available, 2 percent; not interested, 53 percent; marihuana may be dangerous to my health, 23 percent; other, 9 percent; and undecided, 9 percent.

Of those currently using marihuana, 6 percent report that they have used it less than 1 year; 91 percent for more than 1 year; with 3 percent unsure. All of the less-than-1-year users are between 18 and 29 years of age.

Of those currently using marihuana, the following changes were reported in usage during that last year: No change, 52 percent; increased, 5 percent; decreased, 40 percent; and undecided, 3 percent.

The survey sample differed sharply on its view toward the present Oregon law and other legal alternatives.

Fifty-eight percent favored the present Oregon law or favored changes making sale and/or possession of small amounts legal.

Thirty-nine percent favored stiffer penalties for possession of small amounts and use in private. Practically all of this 39 percent favoring stiffer penalties have never used marihuana.

In summary, the survey seems to indicate that the number of individuals using marihuana has not significantly increased in Oregon in the year since its decriminalization law went into effect. And of those using marihuana, a large percentage report a decrease in consumption, while only a small number report an increase in use. Lack of interest or health concerns seem to be the primary reasons for nonuse or cessation of use, while lack of availability or legal sanctions seem to be peripheral concerns. A significant division of attitude toward the present law and stiffer penalties is shown.

All 50 States and the District of Columbia have already reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor the first-offense marihuana possession. with the Texas legislature among the most recent to approve such a reduction in May 1973. Texas had been the only State in the United States where a person convicted of possession of marihuana could be sentenced to life imprisonment. The Texas legislature experience in revision of its drug laws is worth noting because it contains a message which should serve as a caution to all of us who are concerned not only with a reasonable marihuana response but with an appropriate response to a variety of drug usage.

The legislative trade-off in Texas for a reduction in marihuana penalties was the establishment of harsher penalties for other selected. drug use and possession. A monograph commissioned by our council, "Pot Luck in Texas: Changing a Marihuana Law," by Paul Danaceau, scheduled for release next month, includes the following description of the Texas drug law's nonmarihuana provisions:

First, the legislature raised the penalty for the only two non-narcotic drugs its members could name, "speed" and LSD. Second, the legislature established harsher penalties for non-prescription drugs (LSD) than it did for prescription

drugs such as amphetamines and barbiturates. Third, instead of basing its penalty schedules on knowledge of a drug's pattern of use and capacity for causing social harm, the legislature established penalty schedules that represented nothing more scientific or sophisticated than the extent to which most members personally disapproved of the various drugs and substances.

Mr. Danaceau observes that the legislators did in fact believe that a "get tough" drug bill was the only path to marihuana reform; they didn't want the voters back home to think they were "soft" on drugs. Yet, even with the new legislation, possession of up to 2 ounces of marihuana is punishable with up to 6 months and $1,000, 2 to 4 ounces with up to 1 year and $2,000.

Decriminalization of simple possession of marihuana has been endorsed by respected national groups in the 2 years since the National Commission's report: the National Council of Churches, the American Public Health Association, the American Bar Association, the National Education Association and many others. The State and local groups endorsing decriminalization range from the Vermont Bar Drug Law Reform Committee which went even further calling for legalization with tight controls, to the law and legislation committee of the New Jersey Narcotics Officer's Association which called for decriminalization while stressing at the same time that they were "absolutely and unalterably" opposed to the use of marihuana.

Against this backdrop, it is disturbing to compare the number of marihuana arrests as reported by the National Commission with those of more recent date. Because major responsibility for endorsing the possession laws lies at the State level, I shall concentrate on the data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation tracking the continuing increase of State arrests. State arrests rose dramatically (1,000 percent) during the 5 years from 1965 to 1970, according to FBI figures cited by the National Commission. From 1965 to 1970 the number of arrests jumped from 18,815 to 188,682. The percentage increase from 1971 to 1973 was not nearly as dramatic (close to 80 percent), but in absolute numbers the climb was from 225,828 in 1971 to 420,700 in 1973, an increase of 195,000 arrests. These figures are tabularly summarized as follows:

STATE ARRESTS (AS REPORTED BY NATIONAL COMMISSION AND FBI UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS)

The marihuana records for the District of Columbia for the years 1970-73 provide some insight into the nature and circumstances of arrests. District of Columbia marihuana arrests jumped from 266 in 1970 to 2,553 in 1973. It should be noted, according to figures of the morals division of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, that of total marihuana arrests in 1973, 91 percent of them were for

simple possession-a percentage which closely corresponds to national estimates. A summary of total marihuana arrests and percentage of that total which was for simple possession is included below:

The circumstances leading to the arrest of persons in the District of Columbia for simple possession are varied. In 1973, for example, 4.5 percent came as a result of a marihuana investigation, 6.4 percent were incident to investigations of narcotics and other drugs, 39 percent were incident to arrest for other criminal offenses, 7.3 percent were incident to arrest for traffic offenses and 43 percent were described as "spontaneous." A full tabular summary for the years 1970-73 is included for the record.

What all this means is not entirely clear. The 10.9 percent of arrests resulting from marihuana or other drug investigations would tend to support law enforcement claims that they are no longer going after the simple possession of marihuana. But, on the other hand, 43 percent of the arrests are described as spontaneous, where there were no prior police investigations or arrests. Spontaneous is described by the morals division to be those situations where "the subject arrested was observed in possession of marihuana in the presence of the arresting officer." Traffic spot checks are also included in this category. That seems to mean that in the District of Columbia alone, in 1973, more than 1,000 persons were arrested for no other reason than simple possession of marihuana.

The 39 percent of simple possession arrests incident to criminal offenses is clearly the most troubling in terms of social policy. A breakdown of the nature of the criminal offense is not available. The mere presence of the drug or even that the offender is a known user of marihuana does not establish a causal link between the marihuana and the offense. Indeed, with the widespread and pervasive use of marihuana we would expect that a large number of individuals would possess it