Task Force report : narcotics and drug abuse annotations and consultants' papers.

  • United States. Task Force on Narcotics and Drug Abuse.
Date:
[1967]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Task Force report : narcotics and drug abuse annotations and consultants' papers. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    143/172 (page 133)
    It is recommended that correctional authorities should be permitted to place barbiturate and barbiturate-like CNS drug addict prisoners in a treatment program for a period not to exceed the sentence imposed by the court in accordance with Professor Aronowitz’ recommenda- tion for Federal narcotic addict prisoners. This recommendation parallels the recommendation for addicts who are charged with crime but who have not pleaded guilty or been convicted of the charge, and the discussion accompanying that recommendation ap- plies to it also. Eligibility should be as broad as eligibility for civil commitment in lieu of prosecution.°°* Because certain aspects of the program outlined by Professor Aronowitz may be less onerous than service of a sentence outside of the program, it is not recommended, given the unreliability of present methods of diagnosing ampheta- mine dependence, that persons solely dependent on am- phetamines should be eligible for admission to such programs. For reasons suggested earlier, neither LSD nor marihuana users should be eligible. It is also recommended, however, that Federal and local correctional authorities respectively, should be permitted to designate as a place of confinement for any user (whether or not dependent) of any dangerous drug (in- cluding marihuana) any institution or other facility which is equipped to provide care and treatment for that user. This recommendation is based on section 7(a) of S. 2114 which was introduced in the first session of the 89th Congress.°°* The purpose of this recommendation is merely to assure that correctional authorities have the power to permit a sentence to be served in a place where care or treatment for the drug user is available. In all other respects the prisoner would be treated like any other prisoner. Neither length of sentence nor eligibility for parole would be affected, except that the user would re- ceive credit toward his sentence for time spent in the facility. Voluntary Commitment of Non-Criminal Addicts and Dependent Persons Both the Federal Government and the States should encourage voluntary civil commitment not related to a charge of conviction of crime. The current lack of knowl- edge about treatment does not suggest that such programs are inappropriate. Rather, it is a compelling reason for the institution of experimental voluntary programs. En- couragement of participation in such programs may well lead to the improvement of treatment and “to valuable information about the characteristics of addicts and addiction.” 5° 133 Amphetamine-dependent persons should be eligible for these programs even if they are not eligible for civil com- mitment in lieu of prosecution or participation in a treat- ment program after conviction of crime. Since participa- tion would be voluntary, and applicants would not be under criminal charge or sentence, the possibility of errors in admitting persons to such programs is not a serious objection. To insure that persons voluntarily under treatment re- main in a treatment facility for a meaningful period of time, it would be advisable to allow participation only by persons who consent to stay in a treatment facility for a specified minimum period of time, such as 6 months.*°® They could, of course, be released earlier if the administra- tors of the program determined that earlier release was desirable. The minimum selected should not be so long as to unduly discourage voluntary admissions. For the reasons discussed earlier herein it is not recom- mended that any such programs be instituted for LSD or marihuana users. Not only does dependence on these drugs appear to be rare,°1° but it would appear that users suffering psychotic reactions from them would often be eligible for voluntary hospitalization under conventional public programs for treatment of the mentally ill.5 PART IV: INTOXICANT (GLUE) SNIFFING RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that at the present time neither the Federal Government nor the States should enact legis- lation dealing with intoxicant sniffing. Public education and psychiatric referrals should be encouraged. COMMENTS There are a number of industrial substances which are on occasion used for an intoxicating effect. Among these are airplane glue, rubber cement, gasoline and paint thinner.*!2 Use, usually called “glue sniffing” is called by ‘Professor Blum “volatile intoxicant sniffing.” °° Professor Blum points out that use is quite rare and that most users are school-age children.*'* He further states, however, that some sniffers may be “susceptible to further drug experimentation on a road that may lead to further dependencies,” and that both physiological damage and mild dependency can occur.*'® According to his report, although some intoxicated children studied were assaul- tive or suicidal, violence seems to be rare.°*® Only five States have legislation expressly directed against intoxicant sniffing.*'? There is no such Federal legislation. The legislation that does exist attempts to control the problem through criminal prohibitions. This 506 See note 502 and accompanying text, supra; Aronowitz report at 16, 20-21. 507 Sec. 7(a) of S. 2114 (introduced June 9, 1965) would have authorized Federal correctional authorities to designate as the place of confinement of a Federal prisoner who ‘“‘is a narcotic addict, or is suffering from a mental or physical con- dition, and might be helped by proper care, treatment, or rehabilitation (including vocational rehabilitation)”, “‘any appropriate institution or other facility of the United States [or any appropriate State institution or facility with which the Director of Prisons had contracted pursuant to § 6(a) of the bill], which is specially equipped to provide such care, treatment, or rehabilitation.’”” When the correc- tional authorities determined that a person who was so confined “‘[was] no longer in need of such care, treatment, or rehabilitation, or that his continued confine- ment therein [was] no longer necessary or desirable’, they could transfer the person to another penal or correctional institution to complete his original sen- tence. The time spent in the special institution or facility was to be considered as part of the term of imprisonment. The sponsors of S. 2114 intended to make dangerous drug users eligible for treatment while serving sentence. See the testi- mony of Senator Kennedy of New York before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 26, 1966. 508 Aronowitz report at 23. 5 See Aronowitz report at 23-24. 510 Neither cannabis psychosis nor dependency has been described in the United States. Blum report at 13. ~e: . ; 511 The NIMH aooet on treatment of narcotic drug addiction for the President 8 National Crime Commission (revised as of June 6, 1966) states (at 22) that “Abusers of LSD or other hallucinogens who develop psychiatric symptoms _(schisophrenic- like or panic reactions) can probably be adequately handled in conventional iatri ttings.’” : Ps hom Mort at 59. The New York County Medical Society has called airplane glue a ‘‘mild hallucinogen.”’ N.Y. C’ty Med. Soc’y Report, 22 New York Medicine, No. 9, 3, 4 (May 5, 1966). 518 Blum Report at 59. ; 514 Blum Report at 59-60. See also N.Y. C’ty Med. Soc’y Report, note 512 , at 5. sy o7¢ ‘ “is Blum Report at 61, Goodman and Gilman state, “The possibility that glue sniffing’ might cause damage to the hematopoietic system, liver, and kidneys has not been excluded.” ‘‘The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 927 (3 ed. 1965). 516 Tbid. ; 817 Hawaii Rev. Laws, §53.-5.5 (Supp. 1965); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, § 81- (Supp. 1965); Md. Ann. Code, art. 27, § 313A (Supp. 1965); Maine Rev. Stat., ch. 17, § 3475 (Supp. 1966); N.J. Rev. Stat., §§ 2A: 170-25.9-12 (Supp. 1965).