Tonight, from Boston, The Advocates. William Rusher Guest advocate Jack Cole. And the moderator, Michael Dukakis, .

Good evening, and welcome to The Advocates. Every week at this time we look at an important public issue in terms of a practical choice. Tonight our question involves the treatment of drug addicts, and specifically that question is this: Should Congress enact a national involuntary commitment program for narcotic addicts? Advocate William Rusher says yes.

Between a quarter and a half million Americans are hopelessly addicted to narcotics. To support their habit they have become the biggest and fastest growing group of criminals and potential criminals in this country. New York and California already have state laws requiring these people to submit to treatment whether they want to or not. Tonight, for the sake of both society and the addict, we ask your support for a federal law to the same effect that will apply to all fifty states. With me is the man who introduced such a bill, Congressman Lou Frey of Florida, as well as Jimmy Germano, a former narcotics addict, and Mr. Roland Wood, the superintendent of the California Rehabilitation Center,

Guest advocate Jack Cole says no.

Civil commitment, the title of Congressman Frey's bill, has a nice medical ring to it, but let's face it, it means incarceration, it means locks and bars and guards. And it doesn't work. With me tonight are Mr. Neil Chayet, a very distinguished member of the Bar, former Professor of Law at Boston University; Mr. Pleasant Harris, formerly a heroin addict himself, now helping others to get out of that condition; and the director of this state's, Massachusetts, drug rehabilitation program, Doctor Matthew Dumont.

Thank you gentlemen. Before we begin, let me say that our guest advocate tonight, Jack Cole, is one of Boston's top television newsmen at WBZ television, a Westinghouse station. And now for some background on tonight's question. President Nixon, in June of this year, labeled drug abuse as public enemy number one. He may have been spurred by evidence of growing use of drugs by our servicemen in Vietnam. But the fact is that drug use is an every-day feature of metropolitan and suburban America. To meet the problem, the Administration has moved vigorously to try to stop the flow of illegal drugs from abroad. But the critical problem remains of what to do to prevent the further spread of drug use here at home, and in particular what to do about perhaps a half a million Americans who are now narcotics addicts. In Congress, Florida's Representative Lou Frey has introduced a comprehensive bill aimed at treating and ultimately curing narcotics addicts. It has been offered as an amendment to the Narcotics Addicts Rehabilitation Bill of 1956 and it greatly expands the eligible categories and the conditions under which narcotics addicts may be confined, civilly committed for treatment. The bill does provide funds for the study of the causes and effects of drugs, provides funds for research into non-addictive substitutes for dangerous drugs, it would establish a drug training institute for judges and probation officers and provide additional funds for the education of doctors, teachers and case workers. But the cornerstone of the Frey bill is the establishment of a national program of involuntary civil commitment of drug addicts, simply because they are addicts, whether criminal or not. If enacted, the Frey bill would allow an addict who has been certified to be committed, even though he has not been charged with a crime or convicted of a crime, to be committed for treatment on the petition of a relative or a law enforcement officer or a health official. True procedural safeguards are provided, mainly to assure the finding of addiction is well-founded. But once that finding has been made, that addict can then be confined for a period of up to six months and placed under additional supervision for a period of up to three years. The Frey bill does make provision for the treatment of criminal addicts as well, but tonight we will be concentrating on those provisions of the bill which establish a program of involuntary commitment of addicts who have never been charged with a crime or, if charged, have not been convicted and are awaiting trial. As a further point of clarification, it is important to understand that the very fact of being an addict is not a crime in itself, nor constitutionally can it be made one. And now to the cases. Mr. Rusher, why should Congress enact a national program of involuntary civil commitment for narcotics addicts?

Most Americans do not I think need to be convinced that drug addiction, and tonight we're talking about hard drugs not pot, is a desperately serious problem in our country today. As Mr. Dukakis has said, there are literally hundreds of thousands of addicts, and thanks to their missionary work, the number is growing every year. The states and the Federal Government are doing the best they can to stem the tide by trying to cut off the supply from abroad by prosecuting the distributors here and by persuading the addicts themselves to submit to treatment. The vast majority of these desperately sick and desperately dangerous people are in no position to help themselves. They don't want to get well. If the truth were told, they don't want to live, they want to die in the arms of the drug that has enslaved them. Meanwhile, to support their habit 95% of them sooner or later turn to crime. First by selling hard drugs to each other and to other people and then by committing burglary, robbery and other crimes. New York and California have already done what clearly must be done passed laws requiring narcotics addicts to submit to treatment whether they want to submit or not. The treatment doesn't always work, but it works far, far better than no treatment at all. I might add that it costs far, far less. What is obviously needed, however, is a federal law that will make commitment of addicts compulsory in all fifty states rather than in just two. One such bill is already before Congress. I will call first upon the man who introduced it, Congressman Lou Frey of Orlando, Florida.

Welcome to The Advocates Congressman Frey.

Congressman Frey, why is your bill necessary, who will it help?

Mr. Rusher, it will help two segments we might say in our society, one the individual addict himself, who won't help himself we know, two society. We have between 250,000 and 500,000 hard core heroin addicts in this country. The cost in terms of property itself is well over eight billion dollars. And you tell me what cost you put on the life of a young person who has been destroyed by this drug. So that the costs are many, not only to the individual but to society as a whole.

But your bill, as I understand it, proposes involuntary commitment of addicts. Why can't this be handled by a voluntary route, why can't we get the addicts themselves to submit to treatment?

We spent a great deal of time looking into this and I think personally, initially, I was drawn toward this and hoped that this would work. But it hasn't been the answer, since in the federal program between 1935 and an act that was passed in 1966,70% of the people who went into the voluntary programs busted out. In other words, when the going got tough, they walked out. We know whether it's in California or throughout the rest of this country, less than ten to fifteen per cent of the people were in voluntary programs. Talked to many of these kids who have been busted, said to them "Look, how can we help you, what can we do?" So many of them said "Look, I wish you'd have got me before I did get arrested, before I got myself in trouble. I needed the help but I couldn't get to it."

But Congressman, I know that you yourself have been worried about the risk to the civil liberties of addicts who haven't committed crimes. How have you protected against dangers to their civil liberties in your bill?

Well I think one thing we have got to understand at
first, and I think the word was misused before, we're not
talking of confinement, we're talking of commitment. That
doesn't mean that you're going to put someone necessarily in
a rehabilitation center behind bars. It does mean you have
the flexibility with the heroin addict to do with him as he
has to be treated. In other words, he can go for instance to
a half-way house, he can go on a parole status, on an out
patient status, he can check in. Or he can go to a medical
facility where he can be helped. We have required in the
bill for instance, counsel, a jury trial. He have required
that the treatment be done in 72 hours, including a physical
examination, we have tried to ---

The original diagnosis.

The original diagnosis, yes.

Is your bill then really the best way of dealing with heroin addiction, or is there some other?

Well Mr. Rusher, I wish I knew another way. We have certainly searched our souls for this kind of thing. What we have tried to do is set up a broad outline of how we can handle this problem. We know that we have to in many cases apply external motivation. These heroin addicts have to be motivated to help themselves. Furthermore, we need the flexibility. You can't talk in generalities about a heroin addict. Each one is different. The young addict who for the first time has been addicted, he should be treated differently than the person who has been three or four times addicted. You need methadone for some, you need in-patient care for others, but you need the flexibility on this to help the addict and at the same time to help society.

Congressman Frey, Mr. Cole has some questions for you,

Indeed sir. And if you will bear with me for just a moment Congressman, I have a little trouble with some of your statistics, sir. You have said, and you have said again here tonight, in a speech before the National Society of State Legislators just a couple of weeks ago, the number of addicts has been estimated as being between a quarter of and a half a million. You've said further that an addict may need $50 to $150 a day and that he thus must deal five times that worth in goods to support his habit. Now I've done a little simple arithmetic, sir, and averaging your figures, not the lowest nor the highest but exactly half way between, I've come up with 375 thousand addicts times $100 a day times five, times the number of days in a year, and that means that sixty-eight billion, four hundred and thirty-seven million, five hundred thousand dollars worth of goods is stolen every year to pay for heroin. Do you really think that's the case?

It's the outside figure. I think all the figures you'll see and the figures I've used in my report are accurate, we estimate in the congressional report that about 8.1 billion is probably the figure as best as we can see and I think if you'll check you'll find practically everybody is in that ball park, either the low or the high end.

Cole; Well I don't quite understand how we go from the arithmetic unless I have multiplied incorrectly to only 8.1 billion, but passing on from that for a time, you say further in the same speech that 98% of the addicts in New York City resort to crime to support their habit. How do you know that sir?

That was a report from the Attorney General's office of New York City.

Yes Sir, but how do you suppose they compiled those figures?

I wasn't in the Attorney General's office, but I do know a little more about the Washington statistics which pretty much bear those out. That was done basically on interviews with the police, with people in jail to break down where the money came from to support it.

Isn't it so that virtually all of the addicts whom the law knows about are addicts with whom the law has come in contact?

Certainly.

Well wouldn't that tend to support sort of assuming one's own conclusions that therefore all addicts are engaged in criminal activity?

No, I think there are enough of them that we can get a good sample. There have been several other scientific methods of breaking this out on a statistical basis but if you've read these reports, which I assume you have, you'll find that it holds up.

Congressman, let's go to the matter of principle behind this bill. You are a distinguished lawyer sir, and I want to quote to you something that John Stuart Mill said. He said, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." Would you agree with that?

Well I suppose — not necessarily, what about the law against suicide?

Well, I suppose that Mr. Mill, for our purposes would disagree that there ought to be a law against suicide, at least that it ought not to be a capital offence.

Frey; My answer obviously is that the law today doesn't follow exactly what Mr. Mill does, including the Supreme Court.

Well would you agree to this extent that we ought to be very careful about instances in which we lock people away for their own good.

Yes, you're talking again about locking them away. You
seem to be hung up on this thing. We're not necessarily
talking about locking them away in this bill, but certainly
you should and I think that's one of the reasons

Aren't you going to confine them, Congressman?

Please let me answer my question.

Yes sir.

That's why I approached this very cautiously and over a period of time to come to this thing and we're dealing with a situation where not only is somebody committing suicide, you know, but they've got a ring or a string around about eight other guys going over the bridge with them, and I am very cautious but I think this is one of the greatest problems in our country and, as I said, I don't see the alternative, I don't see any other way to handle it.

Congressman, would you agree in principle that if we could identify by statistics a segment of the population who are more likely than any other segment to commit crimes against persons, against property, we ought to lock those people away for a period of, shall we call it "pre correction" and then let them out?

No. Is that a short enough answer?

Isn't that what we're doing here sir?

No, it isn't what we're doing here. We've got an entirely different situation here that we're dealing with. We're dealing with a two-pronged thing as I said, the individual as an addict who can't help himself, who is killing himself, whose life span is shortened to about 29 years for instance in New York, and a person himself who is just in essence hurting people in society.

Gentlemen, we have a basic difference of opinion here, Congressman Frey, thank you very much indeed.

Thank you.

Mr. Rusher.

Now let us hear directly from a person who has suffered from heroin addiction himself, Mr. Jimmy Germano.

Welcome to The Advocates Mr. Germano.

Mr. Germano was for nine years a heroin addict and having beaten the habit he has founded and become executive director of Marathon House and is a prominent fighter in the field of addiction. Mr. Germano, why do you favor involuntary commitment?

Well, for two reasons. One, my own personal experience, nine years of using drugs and experience in thirty-four voluntary programs.

You tried thirty-four voluntary programs?

Unsuccessfully.

Unsuccessfully.

Right. And at the point in my life when I wound up in court and was pretty much pressured into a program, this was the turning point in my life. And two, because of the programs I have been affiliated with for the last eight years, the drug treatment programs. It seems that the people who apply themselves and who do well in the programs and who are considered successes are the people who have to be there.

Who were involuntarily committed in effect to Marathon House. And that is done how? How does some person come to be in these days involuntarily committed to one of your programs?

Well, primarily, about 88% of the people in our program come through some kind of court action, whether it be a parole stipulation, probation stipulation or whatever. Then some people are involuntarily committed not through a court process but through some other kind of external pressure that to them is very important.

It always takes some external pressure, right. Tell me what, just in terms of the cost to you, so we can compare that perhaps to the cost to society. How much did the heroin habit cost you and how did you pay for it?

Well, at the peak of my career I was spending about $150 a day and I was a crook.

$150 a day. It didn't always amount to that?

No, it averaged out a lot lower.

I suppose that's the explanation that so puzzled Mr. Cole. We were talking about maximum figures and what might be called an average figure which was still very high, and you paid for that how?

By being a thief.

By being a thief. Tell me, what about the contention which I suspect you may hear from some of Mr. Cole's witnesses that the only way to kick a drug habit is the voluntary way. There is no other way that it's really going to work?

Well I think that's a lot of crap actually. I think it's a nice liberal point of view and you can be really popular if you want to expound that particular point of view, but I think if you check into, any of the successful programs that operate around the country, you'll find that any clinician is apt to say that the type of people who do well in that program are the people who have to be there for one reason or another. That doesn't mean mental health reasons. I agree that in the long run it takes a certain self interest, the person's own interest in being healthy, that will accomplish his rehabilitate But initially, to keep him in there exposed to the program for the prescribed length of time there has to be something outside of him keeping him there.

Mr. Cole, on that earthy note, would you like to ask him some questions?

Thank you sir. Mr. Germano, you are the executive director and a founding spirit really behind Marathon House, very then qualified to tell us exactly how it operates. Would you very briefly do that sir?

Well Marathon House basically is a self help program,
therapeutic community is a technical term

Self help. Are there locks on the doors of Marathon House?

No, there aren't,

So isn't it so that if a man wants to leave Marathon House he can do so?

Yes, he can.

What happens to him then, in the case of an involuntary commitment to Marathon House?

We will notify the court and the chances are he'll be picked up on a capias, which is a warrant for his arrest, and he will be advised to return to the program more often than not, if not he may be incarcerated if he is prosecuted as a criminal, or any other situation that might exist. It's hard to say, you're dealing with a lot of different individuals.

Suppose that-some of the money in Congressman Frey's bill could come your way to Marathon House, if you would agree to put locks on the doors in Marathon House and accept in there persons who had been involuntarily committed, although not guilty of any crime, would you do that?

No, we wouldn't, because we have found that it takes a certain kind of physical setting to rehabilitate people. The program, the buildings have to be conducive to a family like atmosphere, a certain kind of intimacy. Institutions are not what we're looking for, I'm not certain what the outline of Congressman Frey's bill is but it seems to me in our earlier conversations, what we are talking about are pretty much community based programs like Marathon House the way it is now.

Well, we're talking about commitment which I take it implies at least the threat of if one does not keep up with the program in Marathon House then one goes to a place such as Lexington or Fort Worth or places like that. Let's carry that a little bit further and suppose that an individual has taken your program and has flunked it as it were and then gets thrown into Lexington or Fort Worth. What would you say his chances of succeeding are?

Well, a lot less than they would be at Marathon House that's for sure, but of course I'm biased. I think that it may be a possibility for him to gain something out of a program that Lexington or Forth Worth may offer, especially if he believes that he has to.

But the essence again of your program is those two words.

Self help.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Germano Mr. Rusher.

In conclusion on this part of my case, let me simply stress again the point. Mr. Cole is under a profound misapprehension that commitment, involuntary commitment necessarily means somehow confinement, jails, locks, bars. It doesn't. It means that the addict is required to participate in a particular program of treatment. But he will not be confined unless it has been determined not only after diagnosis; but after judicial procedures, after the right to counsel, after a jury trial if he insists upon it, he will not be confined.

Thank you Mr. Rusher. We'll be back to you for your rebuttal case, but now let's hear from Mr. Cole and why Congress should not enact a national involuntary civil commitment program for drug addicts.

Well, I hardly feel the need to say very much after Mr. Rusher has made my case for me. He just said that after a trial to determine that an individual is an addict he will in fact be confined. Now, to call confinement, which does have a connotation about it of bars and locks, commitment, it seems to me is merely to add insult to the injury. I mean, the language means what the language means. The proponents of this measure raise a specter of a quarter a million or more addicts roaming our streets. Now, because law enforcement agencies come into contact with only criminal addicts, it doesn't mean that all addicts are necessarily engaged in some form of criminal activity. Addiction itself is not a crime, even Mr. Frey's bill admits that. He talks about involuntary commitment of non-criminal addicts. Now he wants to lock them up but he says that once they are locked up they will be treated. Well, we must of course look at the past to determine what happens when one is treated in a locked up situation. The statistics from Lexington, from Fort Worth, from all the other narcotics institutions which have locks as their basic premise, are not only not very satisfying, they are profoundly disturbing, as we shall hear first of all from my first witness, Mr. Neil Chayet.

Welcome to The Advocates Mr. Chayet.

Mr. Chayet, you have written widely on this subject, you were a delegate at the United Nations Psychotropic Drug Conference, you are on the staff of Mass General dealing in this general area. Let's talk first though with you as a lawyer, as a former Professor of Law, a bit of legal philosophy. Why do we have a criminal law, why do we lock people up?

We lock people up Jack essentially because they have committed an act which is antisocial and we know is harmful to society in which there is a clearly defined code which says they must not commit that act. We do so after we have made sure that they have committed it, beyond a reasonable doubt, and give them as many procedural safeguards as we can. That is basically how we function with the criminal law.

Well, there may be an area of unclarity with reference to a lot of people who don't understand the intricacies of the law and don't understand that addiction itself is not a crime although a number of things that are necessary to become an addict, possession of heroin, are crimes. How do you explain that sir?

Well addiction is really a state of being and for time immemorial really, our system does not punish and must not punish people for what they are but for what they do, and it is the acts which these people commit which we are most concerned about and addiction is much more a state of being, a status rather than an act. I think we have to always remember this as we discuss this issue tonight.

Is there a high correlation between addiction to narcotics and crime?

I know of no evidence which shows that there is a high correlation. I know of a great deal of speculation, I know of a great deal of supposition, but I know of no evidence that shows that there is a definite relationship between crime and the addict.

Well, let's assume that that speculation is valid just for the sake of this discussion, and let's go a little bit beyond it. Do you think, as a lawyer, that a program under which we could statistically be relatively more sure than not that an identifiable segment of the population was likely to commit crimes against property and against persons, if we could show that, would it be a good idea for us to round all those people up in advance and put them away for a period of, well, as I asked Congressman Frey, pre-correction. Would that be good?

I think this would lead to a very dangerous situation. That if you isolated a certain group of people and said that such a group of people was liable to commit crimes and treated them as a wholesale group, and I think that you would lead to a great many inconsistencies and a great many dangers to what is really most fundamental, and that is our right to liberty, and that is a thing which we have always valued and I hope still value in this country regardless of crazes and so forth. I think it's the right to liberty which is most important and I think that unless we can be sure that an individual is going to commit an act the nature of which is so harmful and he is so imminently dangerous to society, I think we must not get involved in preventative detention of any kind or in compulsory confinement or treatment or altering a person's way of life. This is most important.

Mr. Chayet, one final question sir. Do you see any distinction between that kind of procedure and a procedure in which we determine for example that all persons with red hair or blue eyes or black skin were more prone to certain kinds of crimes and so we lock them up because of that statistical probability? Is there a distinction there?

I see very little distinction, Mr. Cole.

Mr. Chayet, thank you very much.

Mr. Chayet, before Mr. Rusher comes on, I'd like to ask you a question. It seems to me that the line is pretty thin here. Since an addict by definition has to possess the stuff in order to put it into him, hasn't he almost of a certainty committed a crime in order to reach the condition that you and Mr. Cote have been discussing?

Well we have to be very careful Mr. Dukakis to realize that, I think we are laying a false premise. I mean we could say that an individual who is addicted to coffee, if we made coffee illegal, then we'd have a lot of very similar problems of people who have come into a situation because of the making of a given substance illegal. I think this is something that we have to keep in mind that we have created a situation and we continually come back not against the society which has spawned this, but more and more against the individual. We can stamp it out if we commit the individual. We have to change the individual, change his life, lock him up, don't lock him up, it doesn't matter. The key here is that this is a societal problem which has to be dealt with in a way which looks outwards at society not just inwards at the one unfortunate person, the victim.

All right, let's let Mr. Rusher ask you a few questions.

Mr. Chayet, I must learn never to be surprised at testimony. You know of no correlation between crime and heroin addiction?

I said, Mr. Rusher, that I know of many suppositions, I know of many speculations, I know of no definitive study which has shown a correlation between crime and addiction.

Definitive study. You said I think, actually the transcript would say that you knew of no evidence. You have heard Mr. Germano's testimony, that he himself supported his habit by stealing. Now that is some evidence, is it not?

It is some evidence, when I spoke

Now, is it an unusual case in your opinion?

I would say Mr. Rusher, that there is ground for speculation that an individual may steal if he is an addict. I'm saying that there is evidence that persons have stolen or there is tremendous relationship between crime, but I will concede to you at this point that an individual may steal if he has to support a $100-a-day habit. And now I'll let you take me on the next step!

That is awfully big of you! Tell me, would you consider, as Mr. Cole does, that involuntary commitment equals confinement?

I would consider that confinement is one portion, one factor of the situation.

Precisely. But it doesn't by any means necessarily get involved in a case of involuntary commitment. You can have an involuntary commitment without any locks, without any bars, without any prohibition against the person's travel anywhere.

You could, but you

You could or you do?

May I complete my answer sir? Thank you. You could but you always do have the specter of that ultimate weapon and that is of confinement, and you are also interfering to a tremendous degree with the lifestyle and with the life of an individual. I think we have to keep that in mind.

The present New York and California law, as you are aware, does provide for involuntary commitment.

I am aware of that.

Would you repeal those provisions?

I would.

And turn all of those people now involuntarily committed unless they have actually committed a crime, loose?

You say turn loose, so you are implying that all of them are under confinement Mr. Rusher?

I'm talking about involuntary commitment.

Go ahead. And now that it's clarified why don't you answer the question.

The answer is yes Mr. Rusher. I would turn them
 all loose - I would turn them loose unless I could

Prove that they had committed a crime.

That's right Mr. Rusher.

Now you have not in point of fact, however, aside from your testimony tonight, always opposed all involuntary commitment of non-criminal addicts have you?

I have always opposed commitment of non-criminal addicts for the reason of addiction alone.

Yes, but with other things involved you are perfectly willing to have involuntary commitment aren't you?

What do you mean by "other things involved?"

I am about to quote your own testimony before the House Commerce Committee in July of this year. You said that the "only people we should hospitalize inpatient that is to say, as Mr. Cole would say, behind bars and with locks and things like that, against their will, that is take away their liberty. The only ones we should do this to are "those who are in imminent physical danger of either killing themselves or someone else, or destroying property, or that type of test." You provided this, I'm reading the transcript of your

That is quite accurate and quite different from everything I've said tonight.

It certainly is and I was wondering

No, I would like to respond to that. It would be a similar criterion for the commitment of a mentally ill individual. That is an individual who is about to commit, and there is a high predictability that he is going to commit an act which is extremely dangerous to himself or society. That is very different than making just the status or being an addict, that is extremely different from that situation which is contemplated by the Frey bill.

If I tell you that in New York State where I come from the life expectancy of a heroin addict is 29 years, would you consider that heroin addiction puts him in danger of destroying his life?

I would not call that the kind of imminent destruction which I have in mind.

Would you say that there is danger to the property of other people from such a person trying to afford his habit?

I would call the predictability of that danger very difficult to assume indeed and I think that we cannot make that leap that because the general statistics of life expectancy or the general supposition, the speculation, regarding stealing of property, I don't think we can translate that into saying that because an individual is an addict that we can then hospitalize him against his will.

Even though the life expectancy is 29?

Even though the life expectancy is 29.

And on that note gentlemen, we are going to have to end your testimony. Thank you very much Mr. Chayet for coming, Mr. Cole.

And I must thank my distinguished colleague Mr. Rusher for pointing out to me that Mr. Chayet is indeed a very distinguished prodigal son and we're happy to have him back on the side of justice. My next witness is Mr. Pleasant Harris who was, for some seventeen years, a heroin addict and who now is on methadone maintenance and who now is helping others by methadone maintenance and other treatments to get off of heroin.

Welcome to The Advocates Mr. Harris.

Mr. Harris, why and how did you get off heroin?

Well I was able to come off through the use of methadone maintenance with the Beth Israel Program in New York City.

Why though, did you do it?

I found that there was a terrific need I had to change the way that I had been living and this came through to me through the kinds of things that were happening with my family, with my employment, and not being able to really relate to the every day situations that occurred.

Would you say that this sort of happened within you?

It took a period of seventeen years for it to happen, but it did happen, yes.

Would you agree with Jimmy Germano that self help is really the essence of how you came around?

Well things were a little different you know, when I first started using drugs. You didn't have the different kinds of programs that you have now. But I don't think it would have been any different if I had have been forced into some kind of treatment facility when I wasn't ready to be there. A person must be ready themselves as far as recognizing what their needs are and trying to deal with it. Now I think that we should try to set up more varied programs so that this individual would have a choice of which program he wishes to go into.

You've heard that Congressman Frey wishes to commit, which includes at the very least the threat of confinement and very probably actual confinement, addicts to a place and treat them there. Do you think that would work?

Well it's rather hard to realize that the Government would spend over a hundred million dollars to place a person or to confine someone involuntarily with there not being locked doors. He can walk in and walk right out and most likely he will do so. We have found that in New York State the involuntary commitment program has really not succeeded to the expectations of the people who first planned it.

It has succeeded to some degree has it not? I mean there are involuntarily committed addicts for whom that has been of some help?

You will find a minimal number who have come through this form of treatment, you might say were forced into this kind of treatment, that it did help. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the money spent, that what was received for the money spent, would more or less recommend that further use of that particular treatment approach.

Mr. Harris, most of us are just concerned with this tonight, but for you it's a way of life so let me ask you sir, if you had the kind of money that is written into Congressman Frey's bill, hundreds of millions of dollars, to spend on the solution of the drug addiction problem in the United States, how would you spend it?

Make it a quick answer.

One of the things I would try to do first is to set up outside evaluating agencies to more or less try to determine what the programs are doing and how they are intending to do it. This I think would form a basis really for more funds being given to the more successful kinds of programs, but I also would think that these monies would also be better spent to be used in the educational aspect and also to improve, to a great extent, on the now ongoing programs, such as methadone maintenance, that are treating addicts.

Let me break in at this point and Mr. Rusher will pick it up from here.

Mr. Harris, back to this, I think rather important point, in your experience is heroin addiction related to crime'?

You might say this, that those who are addicted do find that crime does allow them to maintain their habit, but on the other hand, there are many addicts, and we have as many different types of addicts as you have non-addicts, who do not resort to crime, especially violent crimes.

I'm talking about all kinds of crime, prostitution, passing bad checks, the whole bit. How many addicts would you say resort at one time or another, what percentage, to support their habit?

It's rather difficult to say because then you have to break down exactly what you mean by certain crimes.

I don't think so, I say resort to any type of crime. Would you give me just an educated guess - you've had much more experience with this than I.

I would say over 50%.

Certainly, and the fact is I think we'll find the figure, at least from the studies we've had, is much higher yet. Isn't it a fact, I believe you did say if I understood you correctly that either the threat of incarceration of some kind or of involuntary commitment, depending on what particular kind of program a particular state has, does work in certain cases, it provides an external motivation. I took it you meant not in many cases but in some.

In our society, once they expend certain funds they wish to reap benefits from these funds, and what I'm saying is that the people who would be helped by involuntary commitment are so few as to negate the possibility of more funds coming into play.

Tell me this, if a heroin addict should by some mischance commit a crime, should his prison sentence, if he is convicted, include compulsory treatment for his addiction in your opinion?

No, because you are still stating that the individual is being forced into some form of treatment and this has been shown right down through the years that this form of treatment does not work.

And yet, and this is I guess the essential point that Mr. Germano is making that I would like to have your opinion on, Mr. Germano seemed to me to be saying that very frequently a heroin addict needs to start with some external pressure, some external inducement, some external coercion, then, when the treatment is underway, it is possible hopefully for him to develop the desire which he may not have, may not be able to formulate right off the bat, to help himself.

No, this is not so.

This doesn't work at all?

No, because it really goes back to understanding the addict and many people feel as if they have the answer that the addict does not know what might be good for him due to the fact that he has become addicted.

You feel he does?

To a great extent yes, he does, and I would like to see more programs being made available, let's say such as methadone maintenance where you wouldn't have the kinds of waiting lists that you now have for treatment, where people could be treated in a very humane way and as fast as possible.

You are on methadone maintenance yourself and you use it in place of heroin, is that correct?

I don't use it in place of heroin.

You use it in any case.

I am taking a medication, yes.

And, would you stop it if you could?

I'm on the way to doing that right now.

You are stopping it now. What, why haven't you stopped it so far?

Because there is a period of time for detoxification.

So there is a matter of motivation that has to be present here?

Well motivation along with the change of lifestyle which brings that about.

Mr. Harris, I'm afraid I'll have to break in. Thank you very much for being with us. Mr. Cole.

Thank you. I think Mr. Harris really said it all, what we need is the kind of money the Congressman is talking about and perhaps a great deal more for more programs of the kind he is on, the Marathon program, many kinds of programs. And very well qualified it seems to me, to tell us about those programs and what might be done is Doctor Matthew Dumont who is the director of the Massachusetts Drug Rehabilitation Program,

Welcome to The Advocates Doctor Dumont.

Doctor Dumont, I think it's fair to say that there is in the public mind a stereotype of the narcotics addict as a violence prone criminal. I wonder if you'd comment on that sir.

Yes, it's a very unfortunate stereotype and it has got in the way of our desperate efforts to try to do something about the problem. There is no justification for it, in fact, there is no such thing as the addictive personality, there is no indication that the addict is any more prone than anybody else to violence, or indeed to criminal behaviour of any kind.

Well, what about when he injects heroin into his person, does the drug do something to him that turns him into some kind of a violent prone person?

Quite the reverse as a matter of fact, a person who has just shot up is rather congenial and a comfortable man who is not at all dangerous.

What about Congressman Frey's idea of involuntary civil, if you will, commitment for narcotics addiction, why isn't that, and I take it you don't believe it is, a good approach to the problem?

It isn't, because while he insists on the distinction between involuntary commitment and a locked institution, the experience over the centuries with involuntary civil commitments of all kinds is that they invariably lead to the locked institution. This is true of involuntary civil commitments for mental illness. Now, there isn't a mental hospital in the country that accepts involuntary commitments that is not locked. It is a condition of an involuntary commitment by the nature of the beast. Now the experience with the involuntary civil commitments for addicts in this country with the federal centers in Fort Worth and Lexington and in the programs in New York and California have, by broad consensus, although you can't get any agreement among social scientists as not among lawyers, by broad consensus is that they have been a failure.

Doctor Dumont, as director of this State's program you are familiar I take it with the problem on a nationwide basis, ' is it not so sir, that there are waiting lists now sometimes of up to a year and even beyond for persons who want to get in on a voluntary basis?

There are indeed. There are waiting lists for every program in the Commonwealth, there is a particularly long waiting list for Mr. Germano's excellent program, and I would say that indeed the component of Mr. Frey's bill to increase the resources available to these programs is very precious and long sought after.

Let me interrupt and say that perhaps after the program you and Congressman Frey could get together and see if there isn't some money for those kind of programs. Mr. Rusher, time now for some questions.

Doctor Dumont, I am curious to know whether you agree with Mr. Harris that over 50% of addicts finance their habit by crime, or whether you agree with Mr. Chayet that there is no definitive evidence of the correlation between addiction and crime, or perhaps with both.

Well I don't know, I must say that. We have no way 
of knowing what the relationship between addiction and crime
is because there is an awful lot of sloppy thinking about
what addiction is. Everybody who uses heroin is considered
an addict and

Mr. Harris didn't have any trouble in understanding the question and he said that over 50% of addicts support their habit by crime and I think this figure is low on the basis of my own witnesses' testimony.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to say I don't know what the figure is, that we have no way of knowing at this point.

Tell me, do you favor incarcerating mental patients?

Under very special circumstances, and then with great deliberation and conflict.

You think many too many of them are at the moment under incarceration?

Absolutely.

And how about the legalization of drugs, do you favor that?

I don't understand why you are asking that, is that relevant to this issue?

I think it is, it rather tends to show us your habits of mind. Mr. Chayet, you will recall, he wanted to repeal the laws of New York and California on this subject, you want to release all but a very few of the mental patients incarcerated, now where do you stand on the legalization of drugs?

Well, the habits of my mind might be delved more effectively with other kinds of questions.

Suppose you leave that to me.

Mr. Rusher, I think we can't get onto the legalization
 of drugs issue, let's

Shall we treat that as a plea of the Fifth Amendment and go on.

We'll try another program on that issue.

All right, you approve of the Marathon program of Mr. Germano?

Indeed, it's licensed by my division and I support it.

And in point of fact, you heard Mr. Germano testify that his is a de facto involuntary commitment program?

I don't think that's the word that he used and as a matter of fact we have some disagreement there - de facto involuntary commitment.

He certainly used the words involuntary commitment.

I believe he used that word, yes. In fact, it is not an involuntary commitment.

You disagree with him about the nature of the program that he founded and of which he is the executive director?

Because the people committed to his program come from my division and they are committed under a law that is specifically and carefully a voluntary commitment law. That patient does have the right to leave, he does have the right to take his chances with a criminal proceeding, and frequently do, he is not involuntarily committed. The option is there, it remains and always will remain.

So regarding it as an involuntary commitment in effect is simply wrong?

Well, what Mr. Germano was saying that when there is a threat of some kind of sanction if the patient leaves his program, there is a greater motivation to stay at the outset and those patients who stay in Marathon House longer tend to be more successful, there is no question about that.

Doctor Dumont, in those cases, isn't the club of incarceration as a criminal really being held over the head of these people, and in that sense isn't the commitment really, in Marathon House, rather involuntary?

Well in fact there is a waiting list for patients voluntarily anxious to get into that program and that's a very painful scene in this State.

Do you admit that many addicts, I assume that you would admit that many addicts turn to non-violent crimes. I think that distinction has been made here, as distinguished from violent types of crime in order to finance their habit?

Well the distinction should have been made if it 
hasn't, yes, violent crimes are unlikely

Does that in your opinion sort of mitigate the situation?

I don't know what you mean.

I mean is burglary good, does it matter?

No, nothing is good.

Prostitution, bum checks. Why is the fact that a crime is committed by a heroin addict non-violent something that we must all consider the reason for not doing anything about it?

Well I will repeat what I said. There is no good hard evidence that there is a high correlation between addiction and non-violent crime.

None except Mr. Harris's tonight at any rate.

Well, Mr. Harris and I,I hope are entitled to disagree at times.

Well, I hope you are too and I hope you both disagree with Mr. Cole.

Mr. Rusher, I'm going to have to break in on that note. Thank you very much Doctor Dumont. Mr. Cole.

You have heard Doctor Dumont say that there is a waiting list for persons who are trying to get into programs which are now available for those who want to cure themselves. You've heard Mr. Germano say, you've heard Mr. Harris say that the essence is self help. Why don't we take the money that Congressman Frey is talking about spending, hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even more, maybe billions of dollars - for that after all, by the meanest estimates, is what this problem is costing us in this country -and make different kinds of solutions to this problem available until we find one. I submit however, that we will not find one by committing or confining or incarcerating, whatever term you want to use, it means deprivation of liberty, it means being locked up, or at the very least it means being some place where one doesn't want necessarily to be. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Cole, and now we return to Mr. Rusher for his rebuttal argument in support of Congress's enacting a national program of involuntary civil commitment for drug addicts.

If Mr. Cole would only listen, it doesn't even mean that the addict need necessarily be where he doesn't want to be. This is not some visionary future program we are talking about, a program of this type exists in the State of California and is working very well. To that purpose, I call as our next and final witness Mr. Roland Wood, the superintendent of the California Rehabilitation Center.

Welcome to The Advocates Mr. Wood.

Mr. Wood, we've been messing around here. You've probably heard this business that involuntary commitment is either confinement or unnecessary threat or a violation of a non-violent addict's civil liberties. How does it go out in California, is this necessarily true?

That is not true. The California law does protect the civil rights of the individual. The due process is protected in that he is examined within 72 hours, he must then appear before the court and the court or a jury must find that he is an addict and a danger to himself or to others before he is confined. This process does eliminate some people from commitment to the facility.

That is to say they are simply not committed to the facility and are free to roam about without any restrictions whatever.

That's correct.

Well now how has this California program really worked? Are you getting anywhere with involuntary commitment?

We certainly are. Using our statistics for 1969 releases we find that over 40% are still in the community at the end of one calendar year.

Free of drugs?

Free of drugs. Considering the fact that 82% of our men are committed to us following a conviction of a felony offense aid that only about 5% return to the institution with a new felony commitment, I think this is an outstanding achievement.

82% were committed to you with a felony offence?

That's correct.

Certainly food for thought for Mr. Chayet if he begins to wonder about a correlation between heroin and crime. Tell me, but isn't the cost of your program great? Are the people of California paying a lot for it?

Our cost per individual is only $10 per day and considering the fact that it costs somewhere between $250 to $300 to support himself by stealing, by prostitution, by writing checks in the community to support his habit, again we feel this is a wise investment of the ate's funds.

To spare Mr. Cole confusion again, that isn't $250 or $300 that he has to spend on the habit, but that he has to steal through fences in order to realize the amount he has to spend.

That is true.

Well then, and lastly sir, how essential is the involuntary aspect? Could you do this with strictly voluntary means?

No, it is absolutely essential to our program that, we've found, and we've heard from Mr. Germano and others that addicts will not stay in a program if it's not compulsory treatment. We find that these individuals, we must get their attention and then we can treat them in a non-punitive setting.

Thank you very much. Mr. Cole.

I wonder sir, if you are familiar with the work of Professor John C. Kramer.

Yes I am, very definitely.

Would you tell me the connection with your institution.

He was formerly the director of research in our institution.

Do you think he is a good man? Do you think he knows what he is talking about?

I think he has made some misstatements of facts and some wrong conclusions.

Well, let me throw a couple at you.

Is he still with your program Mr. Wood?

No, he isn't.

"Since its inception" and I'm quoting from a Boston University Law Review article with which I'm sure you are familiar sir, "the program has been virtually indistinguishable in operation from a prison program. The physical facilities are prison-like and the institution rules are prison rules. Psychiatrists and psychologists employed only the most peripheral part in the program." Would you comment sir.

That is not correct, we're somewhere between a prison and a mental hospital. We are not a prison, although we are under the Department of Corrections and certainly there is a great difference between our facility and its program and a prison atmosphere.

What are some of the differences here?

The differences are that we try to take an individual and help him to look at this problem and see what he can do to change his behaviour so that he may live drug-free in the community. We have eliminated all the aspects, the criminal connotations in relation to the Robinson decision, the famous decision in the Supreme Court.

You have eliminated all the criminality aspects of your program, sir?

I believe so, yes sir.

No locks on the doors?

There are no locks on our door, but an individual is required to stay in our program, it is compulsory treatment, and should he escape then he is prosecuted for escape.

Doesn't that amount to the same thing sir, or is there something I'm missing by way of a distinction here?

Again, keeping in mind that these individuals, for the most part, 82% of them are felony commitments and are then determined to be an addict and are then committed to our institution. The balance are addicts and are required to undergo treatment. By the Robinson decision, keeping an individual under treatment in a therapeutic atmosphere is constitutional.

Well more power to you Mr. Wood in so far as your treatment of persons convicted of felonies who have drug-related backgrounds. But we're not talking about them tonight, we're talking about persons who are not convicted nor indeed charged with any criminal activity whatever. How many of those, in your institution, have walked out cured?

About four people out of ten will stay drug-free one calendar year after release, and if you take a longer period of time, at least 59% of them will be able to spend at least one full year in the community drug-free and crime-free.

Mr. Wood, let me interject at this point. Were these people not charged with crime or threatened with criminal proceedings before they came to you, or were they faced with some kind of criminal proceeding?

Approximately ten to eleven percent of our individuals are in the institution not charged with a criminal offense. They do go through the court processes and are committed to us and after they are committed it is no longer voluntary.

The vast majority, unless they go with you, face jail I take it, is that correct?

The vast majority of this group would not until they did commit a crime in order to support their habit. About 5% of this group is, are truly volunteers. When the legislature changed the law to make a shorter period of confinement for the truly voluntaries, we did not get a flock of voluntaries into the program.

Mr. Wood, let's confine our questioning now to the area of those who have succeeded in graduating as it were from the program of involuntary civil commitment in California. And again, quoting from Doctor Kramer's work: "We have found a large proportion of those who succeed are not typical of the majority of the addict population. They are individuals who have had little or no contact with opiates, or were mainly users of opiate-containing syrup or tablets. This suggests that the likelihood of success for those individuals for whom the program was primarily intended, the heroin addicts, is even more remote than the statistics suggest."

That's absolutely incorrect. All of our people are found to be using hard narcotics, or they wouldn't be under the institution. The law provides that they must be convicted, they must be adjudicated as being addicted to hard narcotics, morphine derivatives, before they are committed to us, and that is an absolutely incorrect statement.

Does involuntary commitment always work, sometimes, most of the time? How would you characterize it?

We have followed our men and women. Today we have two thousand in the institution and six thousand out in the community, as previously indicated, we find that 40% of these individuals are still in the community one year later. Some of them have to come back to the institution for a short period of inpatient care again. This is generally around 60 or 90 days.

So that your success ratio after only one year is 40%.
So that you're locking up 60% ---

They may have to return to the institution for an additional period of treatment, but that does not necessarily mean that they are a failure. You are equating return to the institution as failure which is not correct.

Thank you very much Mr. Wood for being with us.

Despite his persistence in the rhetoric, I really do believe that Mr. Cole has come to believe that Mr. Frey's bill is not simply a matter of locking up all the drug addicts and heroin addicts in America. It is a much more sophisticated, much more thoughtful and much more humane program than that, and it will, if we pass it, if we support it, if we care, go far toward solving, if anything can, the problem of serious drug addiction in this country.

Thank you gentlemen, that completes the cases and now each of our advocates has one minute in which to summarize his case. Mr. Rusher.

As a conservative, I have dedicated my life to defending men's freedom, but I have never heard the great cause of freedom more royally abused than it has been tonight. In the name of freedom we have been told that the people whose will has been absolutely destroyed by drugs must be allowed to go on choosing suicide. In the name of freedom we have been told that the rest of us must sit idly by until the fast rising tide of drug addiction has resulted in the commission of a specific felony against us or our family or our neighbors. Well ladies and gentlemen, that isn’t what the Government of this country was founded upon, what its founders understood by freedom. Either we are going to lick the drug problem, or it is going to lick us. Are you ready to back a serious national effort to control this awful pestilence? Or do you stand with those who, in the name of freedom, would do nothing, or next to nothing, until another million lives are ruined forever and crime has become so common in America that even the criminals begin to complain?

Thank you Mr. Rusher. Mr. Cole, you also have one minute to summarize your case.

I don't think that Mr. Rusher was addressing those questions to me, but let me answer them anyway. Yes, I am ready to undertake a serious effort. I think we must, to solve the drug problem. But I am struck by a paradox here. The drug addict takes drugs, it seems to me at least, in order to escape from reality, from a world for the most part that he never made. Well, we're very rightly concerned about that in this society, both for his benefit and for the benefit of those who he might harm in order to raise money to support his very expensive drug habit. No question about that. But, is the answer to that for us to escape too? To escape into a world of unreality, a world of pretense that there exists a medical treatment for something which we know statistically simply does not lend itself to medical treatment? It lends itself very much to the kind of treatment that cures alcoholism. The individual must, from within himself, decide that he wants to change his lifestyle. Self-help is the operative word. Voluntarism. And I submit that all of the hundreds of millions of dollars that Congressman Frey wants to spend can be best spent developing programs of that kind.

Thank you gentlemen. Now it's time for you at home to act, to express your views on tonight's question. Write us: The Advocates, Box 1971, Boston 02134. What do you think? The question on which you will be voting: Should Congress enact a national involuntary commitment program for drug addicts? Send us your yes or no vote on a letter or postcard. We will tabulate your views and make them known to the White House, to members of Congress and to other persons concerned with this issue. Every one of your votes is important. So remember that address: The Advocates, Box 1971, Boston 02134. Thanks to our advocates and to our witnesses. I'm Michael Dukakis. Please join us again at the same time next week. Thank you and goodnight,

The Advocates as a program takes no position on the issue debated tonight. Our job is to help you understand both sides more clearly. This program was recorded.