[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MIXED SIGNALS: THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY ON MARIJUANA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 4, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-112
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-246 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan Vacancy
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Operations
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
TIM WALBERG, Michigan GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 4, 2014................................. 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Michael P. Botticelli, Deputy Director, Office of National
Drug Control Policy
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
APPENDIX
Article: ``Earl Blumenauer Wants Obama To Drop Marijuana From
Dangerous Drug List.''......................................... 44
Responses to questions submitted for the record to Michael
Boticelli...................................................... 46
MIXED SIGNALS: THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY ON MARIJUANA
----------
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversightand Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Turner, and Connolly.
Also Present: Representatives Cummings, Blumenauer, and
Cohen.
Staff Present: Will L. Boyington, Majority Press Assistant;
Molly Boyl, Majority Senior Counsel and Parliamentarian; Linda
Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Mark D. Marin, Majority Director of
Oversight; Emily Martin, Majority Counsel; Katy Rother,
Majority Counsel; Laura L. Rush, Majority Deputy Chief Clerk;
Jessica Seale, Majority Press Assistant; Sarah Vance, Majority
Assistant Clerk; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of
Administration; Courtney Cochran, Minority Press Secretary;
Adam Koshkin, Minority Research Assistant; and Leah Perry,
Minority Chief Oversight Counsel.
Mr. Mica. Good afternoon. I would like to call this
subcommittee hearing of the Subcommittee on Government
Operations of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee to
order.
Welcome, everyone. Sorry for our late start. We did have
votes that delayed the beginning of this hearing, but we will
go ahead and proceed.
Let me just cite, first, the order of business. We will
hear statements from members as they return from votes or,
through unanimous consent, we will also include their
statements in the record.
We have one witness today, Mr. Michael Botticelli, from the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, who is joining us. We
will hear from that witness and then members will be able to
question the witness.
So usually the chair gets a couple extra minutes of
introductory statements for launching the hearing, and I will
go ahead and get started as we have other members join us. I
see our ranking member of the full committee has joined us;
hopefully Mr. Connolly will be here.
I would also like to ask unanimous consent that our
colleague from Oregon be permitted to participate. Without
objection, so ordered. And I think we have several other
members joining us. We will ask unanimous consent to have them
join us too.
Our normal procedure is we will go through the members who
sit on the committee and then defer to you, both in opening
statements and in our questioning. So, again, as members
return, we will begin that process.
Mr. Issa, the chair of the full committee, always likes us
to have the chairs remind folks why we are here, why we do what
we are doing as the Government Oversight and Reform Committee,
and our mission statement, which is simple, that taxpayers sent
us here to oversee taxpayer dollars, programs, how they are
expended. Congress both authorizes and appropriates laws, but
the oversight function is extremely important and it keeps us
focused on our responsibility, making certain that programs
work, that taxpayer dollars are wisely spent, that Washington
and the people who represent hardworking Americans do have,
again, accountability of our Government. So it is an important
responsibility.
The focus of today's hearing is really going to focus on
where we are on some of our Federal drug laws, policy, and
enforcement. As most of you know, there is a growing disparity
between what our laws say at the Federal level, now our laws at
the local and State level, complete opposites in some cases,
and various officials from the President of the United States
to administration officials going in different direction on the
question of legalization of marijuana.
As most of you also know, 20 States and the District of
Columbia have taken steps to legalize marijuana for medical
purposes, and in 2012, Colorado and Washington legalized
marijuana at the State level for recreational use. The only
problem with this is we do have conflicting Federal statutes. I
asked the staff to pull out Federal statutes and these are
actually the Federal statutes: Title XXI sets up a schedule and
it classifies substances and sets really the highest level of
narcotics that are under Federal jurisdiction and the
responsibility of enforcement. So this is the Federal law and
that is where we are at this point.
What has taken place is, again, these States have taken
actions, and localities. But, again, we have heard what the law
is, we have seen what States are doing, and, unfortunately,
there is chaos as it relates to where we are going and what our
policy is as far as what is allowed, what is legalized, and now
enforcement is going to react.
To compound this, in our society we all look to the
President for leadership, regardless of what party is, and the
current President has made some statements of late. In fact,
just a few days ago President Obama said, ``I don't think it is
more dangerous to alcohol,'' referring to marijuana. And then
he said, ``It is important for it to go forward because it is
important for society not to have a situation in which a large
portion of people have all, at one time or another, broken the
law and only a few select people get punished.''
That was a statement by the President of the United States
in regard to legalization, so again you have a growing I call
it schizophrenic approach to what is going on and where we are
and where we may go.
At the same time the President of the United States, our
chief executive, is making that statement, I have an article
from The Washington Post and the DEA operations chief of the
Drug Enforcement Administration called legalization of
marijuana at that State level reckless and irresponsible,
warning that the movement to decriminalize the sale of pot in
the United States will have severe consequences.
Then it is also interesting to see the path that the
Administration is also heading down. This is another article I
just came across, and it said that the Department of Justice is
now looking at releasing lower level drug criminals who were
sentenced under tough laws. In fact, this article says, ``In an
unprecedented move, the Deputy Attorney General, James C. Cole,
asked defense lawyers on Thursday to help the Government locate
prisoners and encourage them to apply for clemency'' drive as
part of the Obama Administration to deal with changes again in
law; and again we have an approach that is very fractured
between Federal, State, and local agencies and officials, as
you can hear from what I just said.
The witness that we have before us is actually under the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. It was set there some
years ago as part of the White House to help coordinate, again,
national policy on drug use and abuse, and in spite of the
Federal prohibitions on marijuana, the Department of Justice
issued a policy memorandum that explicitly declines to enforce
Federal marijuana laws in States that have legalized it for
recreational use. In fact, illegal marijuana dispensaries in
Colorado and Washington are facing the realities of operating
outside the Federal law and the Department of Justice recently
announced they will be issuing guidance that will allow
Federally-regulated banks to serve these illegal businesses.
Let me say, too, today we are only going to hear from
ONDCP, but I do plan to try to have a continuum of dialogue on
where we are going with this, and we invited the Department of
Justice; they declined, wanted a little bit more time. We will
give them the time and then have them in. I would like to also
have DEA and other agencies and then hear from some of those
that have worked in the field of trying to help both the
Country and our citizens and youth deal with the illegal
narcotics question, so we will get representatives of some
various groups.
I might recall for the benefit of my colleagues I chaired
the criminal justice drug policy subcommittee from, I think it
was, 1998 to 2001 and held the very first hearings ever held in
Congress on the subject of marijuana. Saying that, we would
also invite, I think it is normal, some of the other folks to
participate in the discussions of where we are going.
So the other thing that we have to consider today is that
about $25 billion was provided for drug control programs, that
is $25 billion, in fiscal 2012, enforcement and a whole host of
other activities; $10.1 billion, or about 40 percent, was
provided for prevention and treatment programs. So we have a
big financial stake in some of these programs and where we are
going. In fact, 15 Federal agencies administer 76 programs
aimed at drug abuse and prevention. Despite all that, illicit
drug use is in fact increasing with our adolescents, and
marijuana currently accounts for 80 percent of illicit drug use
by our adolescents.
I think these are probably the most recent statistics,
usually some of these fall more than a year behind, but the
2011, the latest statistics we have, show that adolescent use
of marijuana was the highest it has been in eight years. First-
time users of marijuana have unfortunately increased under this
Administration, hitting also in 2011, my most recent data, a
10-year high. Well, maybe that is not a good term to use on
this. Adolescent use of marijuana is associated with increased
use of drug dependence, criminal activity, and even, again, the
more potent marijuana that we have on the market today
affecting the IQ and also possibly the genetic makeup of folks.
ONDCP, and we will have a representative to speak for
themselves and that Department today, has consistently worked
to reduce the prevalence of marijuana use and focused on
evidence-based prevention messaging. In 2013, the National Drug
Control Strategy, the President's message to Congress, and he
gives us a message with that title every year, said, ``The
importance of prevention is becoming ever more apparent.
Despite positive trends in other areas, we continue to see
elevated rates of marijuana use among young people, likely
driven by declines in perception of risk.'' That is what the
official document that was sent to us said.
So given the recent statements to the media in the past
couple weeks claiming that marijuana is no more dangerous than
alcohol, it appears that, unfortunately, the President may in
fact be a major contributor now to some of the declines we see
in the perception of risk and what we are going to see in the
future.
So, again, our hearing today will focus on our major agency
dealing with this, the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
We will hear statements and hopefully some idea of where we are
going. I have a number of questions and we have had a lot of
interest from members on both sides of the aisle to find out
what direction the Administration and our Federal laws are
heading in the future on the question of marijuana use and
legalization.
With that, I am pleased to welcome, with perfect timing,
and we do have the full committee ranking member, but our
ranking member of the subcommittee is Mr. Connolly, the
gentleman from Virginia. You are recognized in whatever order
you wish to proceed.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, thank you, but, as certainly a
courtesy, I would defer to Mr. Cummings, the ranking member of
the full committee, if he has a statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Connolly, and to
you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you both for holding this
hearing.
And you are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, this is a very
complex and difficult issue. I want to also thank Deputy
Director Botticelli for testifying before the subcommittee.
This is also a quickly changing issue, and the positions of
conservatives and progressives alike are evolving as we learn
from experiences of States with legalization initiatives.
According to a Gallop poll taken in October, 58 percent of
the American people favor the legalization of marijuana. Over
the past eight years, 20 States and the District of Columbia
have passed laws permitting the use of marijuana for medical
conditions; and in 2012 Colorado and Washington chose to
legalize, tax, and regulate limited amounts of marijuana for
recreational use.
I believe the purpose of today's hearing is worthwhile: to
review the position of Federal agencies with respect to States
that are legalizing marijuana both for medicinal purposes and
recreational uses.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy serves a very
critical role in balancing our Nation's drug control efforts by
coordinating Government-wide public health and safety
initiatives that address drug use and its consequences in our
communities. In addition, the Department of Justice is charged
with enforcing the Federal Control Substances Act and it issued
guidance to prosecutors in August on marijuana enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, I am thankful that ONDCP is here today, but,
as you know, I believe this hearing would have been more
informative with the Justice Department at the table. I know
our offices worked together to try to find a mutually
acceptable date, and your decision to move forward today with
ONDCP alone is not your prerogative. I hope we can continue to
work together in a bipartisan way, as we have in the past, to
get the viewpoints of the other agencies involved.
Personally, I share your concerns about the negative health
effects of marijuana, particularly on the youth in my district
and across the Country. Even when it is used for medicinal
purposes, people should understand very clearly that smoking
marijuana is dangerous to their lungs and their hearts, and it
results in a wide range of negative health effects.
Apart from health concerns, however, I also have serious
questions about the disparate impact of the Federal
Government's enforcement policies on minorities. After
reviewing the FBI uniform crime reports and State databases,
one article found ``police arrest blacks for marijuana
possession at a higher rate than whites in every State and
nearly every city and county, despite the two races using
marijuana at equal rates.'' My home State of Maryland has
similar disparities in enforcement. In October, the American
Civil Liberties Union issued a report finding that ``police
arrest blacks for marijuana possession at higher rates than
whites in every county in Maryland,'' accounting for 58 percent
of arrests for marijuana possession.
These disparities have a real impact on people's lives,
their families, and their communities. An arrest for even the
smallest amount of marijuana can disqualify a person from
public housing, student financial aid, or even employment for
life. These are the exact opportunities that so many low-income
individuals need to lift themselves out of poverty.
I think the President was exactly right when he said last
week middle-class kids don't get locked up for smoking pot;
poor kids do. African-American kids and Latino kids are more
likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the
support to avoid unduly harsh penalties and, I would add to
that, records, criminal records that remain with them for a
lifetime.
For these reasons, Maryland has chosen to decrease
penalties to 90 days for possession of marijuana in small
amounts. It also required courts to consider a defendant's use
of medical marijuana as an affirmative defense and it permitted
research on medical marijuana.
Mr. Chairman, I previously served as the ranking member of
the subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Drug Policy, so I
understand that there are various components to this debate.
But one thing does concern me greatly: how in some States one
can purchase marijuana and the people in my State and in my
district are getting arrested and serving sentences. It just
seems to me there is something not right about that I am hoping
that you will address that, Mr. Botticelli, because these are
serious consequences. It is one thing when you have equal
enforcement, but it is another thing when some people are
engaged in purchasing marijuana in the streets and other ones
in the suites. So what happens is that you have unequal
enforcement and you have many African-American young men, as
you well know, spending long sentences sitting in prison, while
others law enforcement don't even touch.
So those are the kinds of concerns that I have, Mr.
Chairman, and I am hoping that we will get to some of that
today. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Mica. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Turner, you had no opening statement.
We will go back to Mr. Connolly.
Before I do Mr. Connolly, ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, be allowed to participate
on this panel. Without objection, so ordered.
We are also joined by Mr. Davis, who will be recognized
after Mr. Connolly because he is on the committee, but not the
subcommittee. And we will go in alphabetical order and we will
hear from Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Cohen next.
Mr. Connolly, you are up.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing to examine the Federal response to State
marijuana laws.
I want to be clear from the outset. I am not unsympathetic
to the concerns raised by skeptics on decriminalization. As a
child of the 1960s, I witnessed firsthand the ravages of drug
abuse among so many friends and so many idols my generation had
in both Hollywood and in the music scene. I count myself,
frankly, a skeptic.
Further, as a former senior professional staff member on
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one of my jobs was the
authorization of the International Narcotics Matter Bureau of
the State Department, and I traveled the world looking at
production and distribution of illicit drugs and saw the damage
caused. But it must also be noted that simply ramping up
criminal penalties, such as enacting mandatory minimum
sentences through the Boggs Act and the Narcotics Control Act
of the 1950s, did not prove effective in countering the very
movement and the very ravages I just talked about in the 1960s.
In addition, as a member of Congress, it has been
disappointing to visit countries such as Afghanistan, only to
find that many of the current international narcotics control
challenges are the very same ones I looked at in the 1980s.
Further, despite my wariness of outright marijuana
legalization, I am alarmed by the figures contained in a recent
FBI report that found, in 2011, 750,000 Americans were arrested
for marijuana law violations, which amounts to one American
every 42 seconds; and that rate outpaced the total number of
arrests made for violent crimes that same year.
In 2010 alone, even in the face of budget shortfalls,
States spent an estimated $3.6 billion enforcing marijuana
possession laws, a total that represents a 30 percent increase
compared to the amount spent a decade earlier, and this in a
time of extreme budget constraints at the State and local
level. In an era of constrained budgets, this drastic increase
in enforcement costs raises the important question over how
effective we are prioritizing limited law enforcement
resources.
It is troubling that despite four decades of Federal
efforts to enforce the criminalization of the manufacture,
distribution, dispensation, and possession of marijuana, the
United Nations World Drug Report found that while global
cannabis consumption stays fairly stable, marijuana use is
actually increasing here in the United States.
The Federal Government's ineffectiveness in significantly
reducing marijuana becomes even starker when one contrasts our
Nation's failure to stem rising marijuana use and trades with
the results of our Country's anti-tobacco campaign, which has
actually been pretty successful. Without resorting to a policy
prohibition or criminalization, our Country has brought
tremendous resources to bear in an effort to prevent and reduce
tobacco use, especially among young people, and those efforts
are working. Our Nation cut adult smoking in half, from 42.4
percent in 1965 to 18 percent in 2012.
Employing data-driven tactics, States and municipalities
have continued to refinance the tobacco initiatives, enacting
policies focused on creating smoke-free environments and
increasing the price of cigarettes. Just today there was a new
campaign announced by the United States Government aimed
specifically at teenage smoking to deter it.
These types of policies have led to impressive results. For
example, California successfully lowered its adult smoking rate
from 16.3 percent in 2000 to 12.7 percent 12 years later. And
with respect to reducing frequent cigarette use among youth
nationwide, the CDC reports the decrease has been dramatic,
falling from 16.8 percent in 1999 to just 7.3 percent in 2009.
Our steady progress in reducing tobacco use serves as a
valuable reminder that the best policy is to prevent and reduce
the use of harmful substances need not always be, and perhaps
shouldn't be, total prohibition and criminalization.
Beyond questions of effectiveness, Congress must also not
forget the issue of equity, which the distinguished ranking
member eloquently pointed us to. Research has found that in
2010 black Americans were nearly four times as likely as white
Americans to be arrested and charged with marijuana possession,
even though both groups use marijuana in roughly equal
percentages.
Worse, the data indicates that these racial disparities are
even greater when you dig down to the State level, black
Americans being eight times as likely as whites to be arrested
in certain States; Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota, for example.
I cannot help but view all of this data through the prism
of my time in local government, where we prioritized results
over ideology and we allowed evidence to guide policy,
particularly when addressing matters of public health and
safety. I have long believed that the Federal Government
governs best when it truly listens and learns from the States,
which for decades have served as the laboratories of our
democracy. The citizens of the States across the Country seem
to have spoken loud and clear; they want their local
governments to have the opportunity to innovate, and even
experiment, with regulatory and enforcement frameworks
governing marijuana use specifically. I believe it is in our
national interest to let those ongoing laboratories of
democracy proceed and while we learn from them.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I thank you for
your indulgence.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
We will hear now from the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I too
want to thank you for holding this hearing. I think many of us
approach it with mixed feelings and mixed emotions. Over the
weekend, I have been involved in several conversations simply
with friends and relatives, and I don't think in any of those
did we reach any conclusions. We all had different feelings,
different thoughts, different ideas. I would like to be
associated with the comments relative to the disparities in
arrest that the ranking member made, as well as Mr. Connolly.
Quite frankly, I think that my State, the State of Illinois,
has a shameful record. There are a lot of things that I am
proud of my State about, but when it comes to this kind of
disparity it is hard to imagine that it actually does exist and
that it is continuing.
Mr. Botticelli, I would like to ask some questions relative
to the role of ONDCP as we explore this issue and as we talk
about it, and as we try and clarify what the role of your
office might be relative to the prospective legalization of
marijuana. According to the National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 1993, your office is not permitted to
use any Federal funds to conduct any study or contract relating
to the legalization for a medical use or any other use of a
substance listed in Schedule I of Section 202 of the Controlled
Substance Act, which includes marijuana. How does this
congressional mandate restrict your ability to examine the
spreading legalization of medicine marijuana and its alleged
benefits?
Oh, we are doing--well, I am delighted to continue in a--
Mr. Mica. No matter. It is a little hard to hear you, Mr.
Davis. Just a little bit closer.
Mr. Davis. That is generally very unusual; I am usually
easy to hear.
In a recent Gallop poll for the first time, a majority of
Americans were in favor of legalized marijuana. In addition,
there is a clearly growing tide of States that have moved to
legalize medicinal marijuana, and I, for one, have held the
position for quite a while that it could and should be used for
medicinal purposes.
However, I am not sure about the whole question of
promoting in any way, shape, form, or fashion the usage for
other reasons, because I am afraid that, as I have seen with
alcohol in the community where I live, there are stores where
individuals are lined up before 9:00, waiting for them to open,
and I am fearful that we might see the same thing with the
dispensation of marijuana.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing and I yield
back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
We will now hear from Mr. Blumenauer, the gentleman from
Oregon.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
committee's courtesy in permitting me to join with you in this,
and I think it is a timely and important hearing.
I agree with the chair that the Federal Government is not
necessarily coordinated on this. I agree that the committee has
a responsibility to deal with the use of Federal dollars, and I
think you referenced $25 billion spent on drug enforcement
overall. And I certainly agree wholeheartedly with the dangers
of adolescent use of marijuana.
I think the question before us that we might be able to
explore today, and I hope we are able, under your leadership,
to move further is just how best are we going to address those
issues.
We have been engaged in an experiment of over 40 years of
prohibition of marijuana, which has failed spectacularly. Fifty
million people use it annually; about half the American public
adult population has used it. As a couple of my colleagues have
referenced, a majority of Americans now think it should be
legal. And if you ask that question differently, if you say
should the Federal Government respect the decisions of the
States, like we do with alcohol, that percentage goes up even
higher.
Mr. Chairman, I noted last week in your State almost
700,000 signatures were delivered that will require a vote in
the fall on Florida becoming the first southern State to
approve medical marijuana, and recent surveys indicate about
two-thirds of the population now says they support it, and I
have seen one survey that is much higher than that.
We have talked about the costs. I think if we shift from a
prohibition-enforcement-incarcerate and, instead, deal to tax
and regulate, it is going to mean probably, conservatively,
$100 billion of public dollars available over the next 10
years.
It is outrageous that 8 million people have been arrested
in the last decade. And as several of my colleagues have
mentioned, it is outrageous that African-American youth,
primarily young men, are almost four times as likely to be
arrested as white youth, even though, in fact, there is
evidence that the white youth use marijuana as much or more
than African-Americans. And I think it was Mr. Cummings who
referenced some of the disparities in different regions. There
are some areas in Louisiana where that disparity is 11 times
greater for African-American youth.
I do think the Administration needs to think through what a
comprehensive approach should be. The President has
acknowledged what most Americans know: marijuana is, frankly,
not as dangerous to your health as tobacco, it is not as
addictive.
Congress is also out of touch, I would suggest, because
Congress established the schedules that you referenced in your
opening statement. According to what we have in statute,
marijuana is Schedule I, which puts it on a par with LSD and
heroin, has no medicinal properties, and is more dangerous than
coke and methamphetamines. And I don't think you will find any
sheriff, any district attorney, or any health expert who would
remotely suggest that that is true.
We are in a situation now where there is nobody who checks
the identification of an adolescent. They are not asked to
prove their age. There is no license that a drug dealer loses.
Mr. Connolly's comments about the progress that we have made
with tobacco, which is highly addictive and still kills
hundreds of thousands of people a year, is significant, and I
am hopeful that with this committee's leadership we can look at
how maybe we rationalize this, that we don't interfere with the
States where 146 million people live where it is perfectly
legal to buy marijuana under State laws, most of it according
to votes of the people.
And there are little things that we can do to fix
anomalies. Federal law forces legitimate marijuana businesses
to be entirely cash; they can't get a bank account, and
delivering their tax payments with shopping bags full of cash,
if you care about money laundering, if you care about tax
evasion and theft, is crazy. It is just crazy. And we tax these
legally authorized, under State and local law, businesses two
and three times more heavily than we treat other businesses. I
note Mr. Norquist, Grover Norquist joined me in a press
conference on legislation I have to fix that.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your dealing with this issue. I
appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to be with you, and I
hope you can help shine a light and we can have this important
conversation.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for joining us.
Just one thing I will point out. When I showed the schedule
today and I had heard the President say that Congress had to
resolve this matter, the staff, in their briefings to me, said
that actually they have the authority to change that without
Congress. So that is something I want to get into with Mr.
Botticelli and where they intend to go on this, but some good
points.
Let me yield now a gentleman also not part of the panel but
came to the hearing, thank you, Mr. Cohen from Tennessee.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Mica. First, I want to thank you
for allowing me to participate. I enjoyed serving under you on
Transportation Committee. Secondly, I would like to incorporate
by reference all of the things that have been said that are
politically correct on this issue as if I said them. Basically,
I agree with most of them.
And I want to thank the President. I don't think the
President has been schizophrenic. The President hasn't gone
nearly as far as I would like to see him go on this issue
because it is a freedom issue. But the President has gone
somewhat in enlightening the public as to priorities and as to
Louis Brandeis and the laboratories of democracy, and we are on
the right path.
I would submit, with all due respect to my fellows on the
other side, that schizophrenia, which my father was a
psychiatrist and taught me something about, could be described
as a party that talks about saving money all the time and being
concerned with deficits and being totally driven by that, but
not being concerned and saving money when people are in jail
for marijuana and mandatory minimums that judges have said were
awful, and for non-violent, first-time offenders who are
serving lifetime sentences in jail, costing us $30,000 a year,
and the population of jails has gone up 800 percent in the last
30 years. That is schizophrenia. You are concerned about costs
and cutting costs, but not when it is jailing a population.
I think it is schizophrenia when you offer State issues and
preemption and priorities and giving power back to the States,
but not when it comes to them having passing laws concerning
marijuana. Then you are not for State initiatives and State
priorities. And I think there is a certain schizophrenia for a
party that talks about civil liberties, but not when it comes
to personal liberties on this subject.
So sometimes politics makes strange bedfellows, and whether
they are in the same bin as McMurphy or not is another issue to
be discussed.
Mr. Botticelli, your hands are tied on Schedule I, but it
is ludicrous, absurd, crazy to have marijuana in the same level
as heroin. Ask the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, if you could.
Nobody dies from marijuana; people die from heroin. And every
second that we spend in this Country trying to enforce
marijuana laws is a second that we are not enforcing heroin
laws. And heroin and meth are the two drugs that are ravaging
our Country, and every death, including Mr. Hoffman's, is
partly the responsibility of the Federal Government's drug
priorities for not putting total emphasis on the drugs that
kill, that cause people to be addicted and have to steal to
support their habit; and heroin and meth is where all of your
priorities should be. And it is not just Mr. Hoffman, a
brilliant actor at 46 years of age, who first went to
prescription drugs and then came back to heroin. That is our
two major issues, I guess.
I had a young friend, son of a girl I dated, who died of a
heroin overdose about two years ago. I went to a party in
Memphis recently; not Vermont, where the governor spent his
entire state of the State hour address talking about the
ravages of heroin in his State, but Memphis, Tennessee, where
four women, give or take my age, well, maybe 15 years younger--
sometimes I lose perspective--talked about heroin being a great
problem among their children and in the Memphis community, and
about another young man who had died of heroin. Heroin is
getting into the arms of young people.
And when we put marijuana on the same level as heroin and
LSD and meth and crack and cocaine, we are telling young people
not to listen to the adults about the ravages and the problems,
and they don't listen because they know you are wrong. Because,
as Mr. Mica said, we know a lot of young people smoke
marijuana. They shouldn't. Young people should be being young
people. The most precious commodity in the world is time. Young
people have lots of time; Mr. Mica and I don't have that much
more time. That is just the realities. And when you are young,
enjoy being young; playing ball, taking it easy, just doing
kids things and learning. And you shouldn't be doing drugs, but
they are; and we need to make sure that we keep them alive. We
need to educate them, but our efforts ought to be toward meth
and heroin. That is where our efforts should be. And it
shouldn't be Schedule I.
Anybody that goes to jail for marijuana is a crime, when
people, for possession, are taking their liberties away. It is
a waste of money, it is a waste of resources; it is a crime
committed by our Government. There is a cultural lag in this
Country, and this Congress is a leader in it.
My time has expired. I thank the committee for allowing me
to express myself. I will participate in questioning and yield
back the non-existent remainder of my time.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman and thank each of the
members for their opening statements.
We will now turn to our witness at this hearing. The
witness is Mr. Michael Botticelli. He is the Deputy Director of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Mr. Botticelli, it is the custom and practice of our
committee and subcommittee, as an investigative oversight panel
in Congress, to swear in our witnesses, so if you would stand,
please. Raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give before this subcommittee of Congress is the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
[Witness responds in the affirmative.]
Mr. Mica. The witness answered in the affirmative and we
will let the record reflect that.
Mr. Botticelli, you are the only witness today, so we won't
hold you too much to the five, but we will try to keep you
within that. If you have additional information you would like
to have submitted to the committee, the subcommittee, we would
welcome that through the request of the chair. Again, we thank
you for your participation and we will recognize you now for
your opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL P. BOTTICELLI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Mr. Botticelli. Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to address the public health and safety issues
surrounding marijuana in the United States. My name is Michael
Botticelli. I am the Deputy Director of the White House Office
of National Drug Control Policy. Before I was sworn into this
position in November 2012, I was the director of the Bureau of
Substance Abuse Services in the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health. I have over 20 years experience working in
public health. I also served a variety of leadership positions
and roles for the National Association of State Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Directors. In addition, I am proud to say that I am
one of 23 million Americans who is also in long-term recovery
from addictive disorders.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy was established
by Congress in 1988 with the principal purpose of reducing
illicit drug use, manufacturing and trafficking, drug-related
crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences. We
produce the National Drug Control Strategy, which is the
Administration's primary blueprint for drug policy. This
strategy is a 21st century plan that is based on science and
research.
I am here today to testify specifically about marijuana,
the considerable public health consequences associated with the
drug, and ONDCP's ongoing efforts to reduce and prevent its use
and related consequences throughout the Nation.
In 2012 alone, nearly 32 million Americans aged 12 and
older reported using the drug within the past year, making it
the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States.
Unfortunately, although overall marijuana use rates in the
United States are well below what they were in the late 1970s,
they have increased in recent years. Since 2007, current
marijuana use among Americans 12 or older has increased from
5.8 percent to 7.3 percent in 2012, a difference of over 4
million people.
While national survey indicate that marijuana use rates
among young people aged 12 to 17 have decreased from 8 percent
in 2002 to 7 percent in 2012, this trend masks recent increases
in use among young people, particularly between 2008 and 2011.
Science tells us that as youth perceptions of marijuana
decline, their use of marijuana goes up. And data from the 2013
Monitoring the Future Survey reveal that the perceived harm of
using marijuana regularly among eighth and tenth graders is at
its lowest point since the survey began collecting this
information in 1991, and among high school seniors it is at the
lowest since 1978.
We also know that marijuana has considerable health and
safety implications for users themselves, their families, and
our communities. In 2012, approximately 4.3 million Americans
met the diagnostic criteria for abuse or dependence on
marijuana, more than any other drug. Marijuana use can have
implications for learning and memory, and long-term use of
marijuana begun during adolescence is associated with an
average eight point lower IQ later in life. And we are
concerned about major increases in marijuana's potency, which
has tripled over the past 30 years.
The consequences of marijuana use are particularly acute in
our healthcare and substance use disorder treatment system. In
2011, marijuana was involved in nearly 456,000 emergency
department visits nationwide, and in 2012 approximately 314,000
Americans reported receiving treatment for marijuana use in the
past year, more than any other illicit drug and trailing only
alcohol and pain relievers. These figures represent a sobering
picture of this drug's very real and serious consequences.
This Administration has been consistent in its opposition
to attempt to legalize marijuana and other drugs. This
opposition is driven by what medical science and research tells
us about the drugs. We know that calls for legalization often
paint an inaccurate and incomplete picture of marijuana's
significant health consequences. And while voters in Colorado
and Washington voted to legalize the sale and distribution of
marijuana in their States, the vote does not change the
negative public health consequences of marijuana. Even
advocates of the law in these States acknowledge the negative
public health effects and maintain that underage use should not
be permitted.
As you indicated, chairman, in establishing the Controlled
Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a harmful
drug and made the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana a
serious crime. Recent State laws have not changed the Federal
status of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, and
the Department of Justice's responsibility to enforce the CSA
remains unchanged.
As the Department of Justice has noted, Federal drug
enforcement resources prioritize and target serious crimes of
dealing, violent crime, and trafficking. The Department of
Justice has not historically devoted resources to prosecuting
individuals whose conduct is limited to possession of small
amounts of marijuana for personal use on private property.
Recent Department of Justice guidance is consistent with this
position and focuses on protecting public health and safety in
States and communities, a goal shared by the entire
Administration.
Office of National Drug Control Policy strategy has
supported a wide variety of programs to prevent illicit drug
use from occurring, to treat those with substance use disorders
in order to avoid involvement with the criminal justice system,
and encourages criminal justice system reforms to more humanely
and more effectively treat those with substance use disorders
through health interventions.
To this end, we have supported a variety of community
prevention efforts. One such powerful tool is the Drug Free
Communities Support Program, a program funded by the Office of
National Drug Control Policy. DFC coalitions across the Country
have identified marijuana as a significant problem in their
communities. Recent evaluation data indicate that where DFC
dollars are invested and coalitions operate, substance use is
lower. We are working with our congressional partners on
reauthorization of this vital program.
Our Above the Influence media campaign, which is being
transitioned to the partnership at DrugFree.org is another
important national tool for informing and inspiring young
people to reject illicit drugs, including marijuana.
We also know that there is a significant treatment gap in
the United States. Only one in 10 people who meet diagnostic
criteria for a substance use disorder get care for their
disorder, and often that is because of lack of insurance
status. We recognize that we need to provide treatment for
those who are dealing with the consequences of drug use. The
Affordable Care Act will expand coverage for substance use
disorder treatment. An estimated 27 million people, previously
uninsured Americans, will have coverage that includes a
substance use disorder benefit. In addition, ONDCP has
identified reducing drug driving as a national priority. Data
from the Department of Transportation show that in 2009
cannabinoid use was reported among 29 percent of fatally
injured drivers who were tested for the presence of drugs.
In conclusion, ONDCP continues to work with our partners to
reduce the public health effects of substance use, including
marijuana. We know that there are ways to prevent and reduce
substance use in America, and we look forward to working with
Congress on this objective. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Botticelli follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Thank you. We will turn to questions.
I am going to yield first to Mr. Turner, who has another
obligation.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate that. I do
have another objection. This gives me an opportunity to ask our
question.
Mr. Botticelli, in your statement I was very taken by the
sentence that says, ``The Administration continues to oppose
attempts to legalize marijuana and other drugs.'' So the
natural question to you is has the Office of the National Drug
Control Policy been asked to weigh in on marijuana legalization
battles that are going on in the States? If yes, what advice
have you given during those battles and do you plan to
proactively weigh in on future legislative initiatives? If you
continue to oppose it, what have you done?
Mr. Botticelli. Our role in terms of legalization efforts
has been to provide constituents at both the national, State
level, and community level with accurate information as it
relates particularly to the health consequences.
Mr. Turner. How do you do that? What constituents? Do you
post it on your website? Do you actively get in touch with the
decision-makers? Do you engage in the dialogue that is
occurring during these debates?
Mr. Botticelli. We do it through our website by putting
information on our website.
Mr. Turner. Going to my next question, despite the
implementation of what allegedly are legal dispensaries, the
DEA has found illegal operations and has raided several
marijuana dispensaries in Colorado. How confident are you that
100 percent of the drug trade in Colorado is free from the
influence of drug cartels?
Mr. Botticelli. Sir, unfortunately, I am the only
representative at this hearing today, and I would ask that you
defer those questions to either Department of Justice or DEA.
Mr. Turner. We will do that. The only reason why I ask you
this question is because when you stated in your written
testimony what your role was, you said it was, we are
established by Congress for the principal purpose of reducing,
and I see the line here, drug-related crime and violence and
drug-related health consequences, trafficking, and so I thought
you would have a statement with respect to drug cartels.
Third question, what are you doing to ensure that marijuana
will not be exported from legal States to illegal States?
Again, seeing that from your written statement that is
certainly part of what you were tasked with by Congress. What
do you see there, sir?
Mr. Botticelli. So, as you are aware, in the August
Department of Justice memo, they set out a criteria for any
State that is moving toward legalization in terms of States'
responsibility in implementing legalization efforts in terms of
marijuana. Clearly, one of those criteria that the Department
of Justice is looking at is preventing the States'
responsibility in preventing the transportation of marijuana in
States where it is legal to where it is not. It is incumbent
upon the States to ensure that that does not happen.
Our role, in terms of Office of National Drug Control
Policy, is to really monitor not only the public safety, that
criteria that they have laid out, but other public health and
public safety criteria to determine what is the impact of
legalization in those States as it affects those criteria.
Mr. Turner. Do you have concerns as to what you are seeing
from their monitoring?
Mr. Botticelli. At this point, we are still gathering data,
and I think it is premature to speculate in terms of those
criteria and what the impact is seeing.
Mr. Turner. Well, again, looking back to what you described
as your own congressional charter, obviously there is an
expectation on the behalf of Congress that there would be an
active role that you play. We look forward to your conclusions.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would yield
to the distinguished ranking member of the committee if he
wishes to.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. I want to thank the
gentleman for yielding.
I want to discuss what a conviction for marijuana
possession, no matter how small, means for most individuals
across the Country. With a conviction, a person loses the right
to vote, Federal financial aid and public housing assistance.
Conviction erodes employment opportunities and future earning
potential. And I can tell you that I live in a neighborhood
where The Wire was filmed, so I see a lot of young men who have
basically been sentenced to a life term of not being able to
move as a normal citizen would in this society.
Deputy Director, let me ask you this. Isn't it true that
convictions for even minor, non-violent drug possession have a
significant negative effect on an individual, their families,
community, and the Nation? Would you agree with that?
Mr. Botticelli. I would, sir. And by way of context, when
Director Kerlikowske took this position--Director Kerlikowske
is the Director of Office of National Drug Control Policy--a
former police chief in Buffalo and Seattle, took this position,
he clearly articulated that we cannot arrest our way out of the
problem; that what we need to do is really have a robust
strategy reflecting in our strategy prevention, intervention,
and treatment, and a series of criminal justice reforms that
does everything we can to divert people away from the criminal
justice problem. And I can tell you, I was in Massachusetts at
the time as the director, and it really signaled to me an
important shift in drug policy, away from a war on drugs
approach and really looking at this as a public health related
issue, particularly as it relates to the racial and ethnic
disparities that we see as it relates to drug use.
Part of the role of our office is to also look at what are
the impediments for those people in recovery, like me, who
often do have criminal records and what does that impairment
mean in terms of their ability to have a vibrant life in the
community and seek meaningful employment and meaningful
housing. So, to that end, we have been focusing on actions to
diminish those barriers.
So clearly those issues are important to us. I think you
will find that they are reflected in our strategy and making
sure that we are not dealing with this just as a public safety
issue, but how we think about prevention, treatment, recovery
support, and, again, looking at smart criminal justice reforms
to make sure that we are not incarcerating people for low level
non-violent offenders. I think, as you know, Department of
Justice has been supporting many States' efforts around justice
reinvestment and are clearly understanding, both from an
economic perspective and a humane perspective, we can't
continue to incarcerate our way out of this.
Mr. Cummings. Well, let me ask you this. How do you all
interact, that is, ONDCP, with the Justice Department with
regard to when you have some States saying recreational drugs,
you can purchase them, and then most States saying you go to
jail? I think that that is what, I think, this hearing was
trying to get to. Where are we going with that? Because it is
just seems so incredibly unfair that you would have a
situation--and like I said, I see people that are affected by
these laws every day. On the other hand, I am also concerned,
very much so, and Mr. Mica, remember when he and I were
involved in the criminal justice subcommittee, we both are very
concerned about the effects of marijuana. So how do you all try
to strike that balance?
Mr. Botticelli. I would say, representative, that that is
the entire position of our strategy, that it is not kind of war
on drugs, arrest people, send them to jail on one hand and,
quite honestly, legalize as the silver bullet to our problem;
that we believe in a much more balanced and middle of the road
approach that deals with this as a public health-related issue.
And the primary way that we do that is by setting the
Administration's national drug control strategy. Obviously,
that is transmitted to Congress. And a big portion of that is
really about smart criminal justice and innovative criminal
justice reforms that look at not incarcerating people, not
arresting people for low level violent use, but making sure
that folks have access to a wide variety of public health
interventions, too.
Mr. Cummings. And I just want to make sure you are clear.
It is just not the incarceration, you are right. I mean, when a
person gets a record, a record, they are doomed for life. So it
is not just the incarceration.
I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Would the chairman just allow me----
Mr. Mica. Go right ahead.
Mr. Connolly. If the distinguished member would yield.
Mr. Cummings. Of course.
Mr. Connolly. You and I have worked together on problems
involving the ability of people to cast a vote. To your very
last point, Mr. Cummings, is it not true that among the things
that affects them for life, it can also affect their ability to
participate in the electoral system?
Mr. Cummings. Reclaiming my time. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Well, Mr. Botticelli, you are the deputy director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. That office is under
the White House, right? Now, when the President said I don't
think, referring to marijuana as more dangerous than alcohol,
what was your reaction?
Mr. Botticelli. I think the Administration's policy has
been consistent as it relates to----
Mr. Mica. But he is the chief executive and the office that
you are in was set up under the White House to report to the
President. You just got through saying that it is dangerous, we
continue to spend resources to try to stop children and others.
You also said since the beginning of 2007 to most recent
statistics we have seen an increase in adolescent use and
abuse. Then the President said it is important that we go
forward, and he was speaking with legalization, because it is
important for a society not to have a situation where a large
portion of people have at one time broken the law and only a
select few are punished. I mean, this is in conflict with what
you were using taxpayer dollars to try to avoid. You just got
through also testifying 314,000 in treatment for marijuana,
which is only surpassed by alcohol abuse, is that correct?
Mr. Botticelli. That is correct.
Mr. Mica. So we have more use, which is there anybody here
that wants to legalize this for adolescents? I don't think so.
But we are getting more hooked, and the President comes out
with this statement. I am afraid, too, we have gone from just
say no and then we had I didn't inhale, and now it is just say
maybe or just go ahead, and it does concern me because our
youth are the most impressionable.
I was asking my staff, because I remember turning to a
political consultant, a little bit controversial, but one of
the best in the business, Dick Morris, and I had worked on some
campaigns with him and I said, Dick Morris, I believe, lost his
brother to drug substance abuse and Dick was convinced that the
way to change public opinion was with ads and you can change
public opinions in that regard. That is where we launched some
of our ads. We originally were trying to get the media, which
is about as slack as you can get in putting up ads, even though
we control the airwaves and they are supposed to be free. But
then I think the deal we cut with Clinton was to have half paid
and half donated time. Are we still doing those ads? I mean, to
influence public opinion in young people, you have ads and now
we have emails, we have Twitter and texting and a whole host of
social media. Are we paying taxpayer money to use those
techniques, which are supposed to be the most effective, to try
to curtail--again, I think we would start with adolescents.
Adults are one thing, but adolescents. Are we doing that?
Mr. Botticelli. Our office has been administering the Above
the Influence campaign, which uses a wide variety of largely
social media techniques----
Mr. Mica. Have we dropped going after marijuana?
Mr. Botticelli. So----
Mr. Mica. Have we dropped going after marijuana? Do we have
any ads? We have done a great job on tobacco, particularly, in
the last few years, but what about marijuana?
Mr. Botticelli. So I have been doing prevention work for a
long time and for a wide variety of areas. In Massachusetts,
tobacco control was under my authority, as well as substance
use. And I think what we know in terms of prevention science is
that often we have to focus on providing youth with resiliency
skills to resist a wide variety of substances.
Mr. Mica. But you are not answering my question. Is the
United States of America, under the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, do we have any programs that you are aware of
that are advertising to change the behavior of adolescents in
regard to marijuana today?
Mr. Botticelli. Yes, we are.
Mr. Mica. We are. Specific? Maybe you can provide us with
some copies. I would like to see what we are doing, because the
law is going in a different way in some of the States. I mean,
we haven't even gotten into the conflict using law enforcement
resources. Mr. Turner just talked about them coming in raiding,
Federal authorities, in States which have now taken measures
and other people have taken advantage of. But I am concerned,
again, the trend with young people. I am not sure where we are
going to go with this whole thing. I have my own opinions. I
was talking with Mr. Connolly, he has his. There is the medical
marijuana use issue; there is a recreational use; there is the
legalization use. But I think we have the most schizophrenic
policy I have ever seen as far as dealing with a social issue
and, again, with laws that are in conflict with public
spending, which is in great conflict.
Mr. Botticelli. So one of the things that I can say both in
terms of the public information campaign that we have been
running, as well as our Drug Free Communities programs that
both have had independent evaluations and they are a success,
with our drug free coalitions and through independent
evaluation of our Above the Influence campaign, that we have
been able to make significant progress; that we have evidence
of effectiveness of a wide variety of our prevention programs.
And I agree, I think many of those strategies were adapted from
tobacco campaign programs in terms of how you provide those
messages to youth. Our work----
Mr. Mica. Well, again, we have had some successes, but I
don't know exactly how much money we have been spending. We are
going to find that out for the record; you are going to provide
it to the committee. It doesn't sound like we have had much
success. You just testified actually increase in some of those
categories. Got large number in treatment. Then sort of the
icing on the cake is, by the way, our new health care will
cover it, so don't worry, you are covered for treatment. Once
you get to treatment, you are pretty bad off.
Let me ask you a question. Mr. Cummings and I chaired the
subcommittee. Everyone we had come before us said that
marijuana is a gateway drug; most people who go to the other
harder drugs start up with marijuana. Is that still the case or
has that changed? Are they going straight to other drugs now?
Mr. Botticelli. So let me respond to a number of questions
that you have raised here. So, first and foremost, if you look
at a wide variety of drug use indicators in the United States,
we have made significant progress in many areas. We have seen
reductions in youth use of alcohol; we have seen reductions in
cocaine; we have seen recent reductions in prescription drug
use. So I think we have seen that where we--and those are
direct areas of focus for our national drug control policy.
Mr. Mica. I met with local police officers last week for
breakfast and they told me two things. They said it is not
getting any better. It looks like some of the deaths have
dropped, but they said that is only because they have better
treatment, they are catching them, but actually the incidents
are up, and they shift from drugs. It is now, because of this
there isn't much risk, it is socially acceptable, go to
marijuana, but the adult population, too, is shifting back to
methamphetamines and prescription drugs, as you know, has
spiraled, misuse of them has spiraled out of control.
Mr. Botticelli. But your point in terms of the increase in
terms of marijuana use I think is particularly important, and
if you talk to Dr. Nora Volkow, who is the Director of the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, kind of the preeminent
researcher in this area,--you know, we support most of the
world's major research as it relates to drug and drug-related
issues--she will tell you that prevention science tells us that
when people see things as less risky, think of yourself and
your own behavior, that you are more likely to do it. One of
the reasons why we have had success with tobacco is kids see it
as risky. And, unfortunately, kids no longer see, the vast
majority of kids no longer see marijuana as risky. So it is no
surprise that----
Mr. Mica. Right after the President's statement, too, when
he said it is no different than alcohol. I am only reciting
what others have said. The DEA chief, one of their chiefs said
he viewed last Wednesday, I guess it was called the
legalization of marijuana at the State level reckless and
irresponsible, warning that the movement to decriminalize the
sale of pot in the United States will have serious
consequences. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Mr. Botticelli. Again, the Administration's position has
not changed as it relates to----
Mr. Mica. So you agree with what he says?
Mr. Botticelli. The President has indicated that this is a
public health challenge and that we need to deal with it as a
public health challenge.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, the President--I mean, I didn't
start this; the President made his comments, and now you have
different agencies, including yourself under the President,
saying something different than what we are hearing in some
quarters.
With that, let me go to Mr. Connolly, because you yielded.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Botticelli.
Mr. Botticelli. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Let me just say I have enjoyed your paintings
for many years. Thank you very much.
Mr. Botticelli. I wish I could say that.
Mr. Connolly. We are honored. I know. I couldn't resist.
Are you from Massachusetts, by the way, originally?
Mr. Botticelli. I am from Massachusetts.
Mr. Connolly. Where?
Mr. Botticelli. I lived outside of Boston, in Malden,
Massachusetts.
Mr. Connolly. I am from Brighton and Allston.
Mr. Botticelli. Oh, you are?
Mr. Connolly. And I can talk like that if I have to.
Mr. Botticelli. My first apartment was on Camh Avenue.
Mr. Connolly. All right. Well, glad to have you here.
To this point about the President's statement, I mean,
holding in abeyance whether he should or shouldn't have made it
or what he intended from it, how many people die from marijuana
overdoses every year?
Mr. Botticelli. I don't know that. I know it is very rare
for someone to die.
Mr. Connolly. Very rare.
Mr. Botticelli. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Now, just contrast that. Prescription drugs,
prescription drugs, unintentional deaths from prescription
drugs, one American dies every 19 minutes. Nothing comparable
in marijuana, is that correct?
Mr. Botticelli. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. Alcohol. Hundreds of thousands of people die
every year from alcohol-related deaths. Automobiles, liver
disease, esophageal cancers, blood poisoning from too much
toxicity from alcohol, is that not correct?
Mr. Botticelli. Let me----
Mr. Connolly. No, Mr. Botticelli, is that correct?
Mr. Botticelli. I think the way that you have to look at
this is that the totality of harm that is associated with a
substance, and to basically say that because marijuana doesn't
have the lethality and the overdose potential that heroin or
alcohol does diminishes, I think, the significant health
consequences that are associated with the drug.
Mr. Connolly. Well, I guess I am sticking with the
President, the head of your administration, who was making a
different point, and he was making a point that is empirically
true, that isn't a normative statement that marijuana is good
or bad, but he was contrasting it with alcohol, and empirically
he is correct, is he not?
Mr. Botticelli. I think the point here is that the
Administration's position has not changed----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Botticelli, I am not asking you that
question.
Mr. Botticelli.--and that when you look at alcohol and
substance abuse, marijuana, that we have to look at this as a
public health related issue. So I have to say this morning----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Botticelli, excuse me, no. I am asking
the questions here, Mr. Botticelli, and I am asking you, I am
directing you to answer them. If you want to add your opinion,
fine, but is it not a scientific fact that there is nothing
comparable with marijuana? And I am not saying it is good or
bad, but when we look at deaths and illnesses, alcohol, other
hard drugs are certainly, even prescription drugs, are a threat
to public health in a way that, just isolated, marijuana is
not? Isn't that a scientific fact? Or do you dispute that fact?
Mr. Botticelli. No, no, I don't dispute that fact.
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
Mr. Botticelli. But may I continue?
Mr. Connolly. Well, just a second.
Mr. Botticelli. I think----
Mr. Connolly. I hear brickbrats being thrown at the
President as if he did something reckless, and my view is he
was trying to put this into perspective, because there are
States that have decided to go down a different path, and my
friends on the other side of the aisle are all for States'
rights when it comes to guns or gay marriage or other things,
but apparently in this case States have no business getting in
the drug business.
Let me ask you this question. It looks to me like public
opinion has shifted profoundly. Twenty States and the District
of Columbia now allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes
and two States, by law, in referendum, just voted to legalize,
regulate, and tax the recreational use of marijuana. That is
almost half the Country. And then you look at Portland. In
1969, when the war on drugs began under Richard Nixon, only 12
percent of the population supported legalizing marijuana. That
same percentage today is 52 percent. That is a huge change in
public opinion.
Given all of the efforts again, as the chairman said, Just
Say No under Nancy Reagan, and all kinds of PSAs on television
and radio and newspaper in trying to make sure that we
highlighted how dangerous drug use of any kind could be, why do
you think public opinion has shifted so dramatically on the
issue of marijuana?
Mr. Botticelli. Again, from my standpoint, and I will speak
candidly, that I am not sure the public is getting a fair and
accurate view, particularly as it relates to the public health
consequences of marijuana. I think that it has been portrayed
as benign substance. I don't think that they fully understand
or have gotten information to really understand the magnitude
of the issue. So I think that that is part of the issue. And we
have seen this with other substances, we have seen this with
prescription drug abuse, that when people see something that is
legal, when they see that it is often prescribed by a
physician, people see it as benign and not harmful. So it is
not a surprise for me to see that change in public perception.
Mr. Connolly. All right, let me pick up on the point you
are making. First of all, this whole issue of is it a gateway
drug, is there empirical evidence that in fact it is a gateway
drug? Can we empirically correlate the use of marijuana to then
moving on to other more dangerous substances?
Mr. Botticelli. So we know that the earlier that someone,
and particularly in adolescence, uses marijuana, the more
likely they are to develop a dependence and go on to more
significant issues. And if you look at those folks who have an
opiate disorder, prescription drugs or heroin, they will often
tell you and you will often see that they started with early
tobacco, early alcohol, and early marijuana use.
Mr. Connolly. But, Mr. Botticelli, that is a logical
fallacy. Yes, that is true, but that begs the question of the
fact that millions of Americans, Mr. Blumenauer I think cited
50 million, have used marijuana and they didn't go on to all
those other drugs. So we have to segregate the addictive
personality from the recreational, occasional user. And, again,
I mean nothing normative by this. I already said in my opening
statement I am a child of the 1960s. I am extremely leery of
legalizing any drugs; I have seen the damage. But I want us to
be basing--the fact of the matter is the war on drugs doesn't
look like they work very well in public opinion, in demand, you
know, whereas other campaigns, such as tobacco, that are
voluntary actually have worked. So maybe we could learn
something from that, as opposed to incarcerating especially
minority populations in this Country; and that doesn't seem to
have worked either, it doesn't seem to have reduced demand.
Mr. Botticelli. Representative Connolly, so I think just
focusing on marijuana as a gateway drug obviates the total
harms associated with substance. We know many people who use
alcohol and get into problems, and they don't have an addictive
disorder. But that doesn't mean that there is not harms
associated with use. And the same is true with marijuana. We
know about one in nine people who use marijuana go on to
develop a dependency. But we also know that there are health
consequences associated with marijuana use in general, and
particularly with adolescents and young adults. So, again,
National Institute of Drug Abuse has shown that youth brain is
in development up until 25 years of age and that regular
substance use, including marijuana use, can have significant
long-term effects. We are not talking about folks who gateway
to other drugs, but we are talking about just marijuana use in
general.
So I think you really have to look at not just those people
who go on to develop addictive disorders. Yes, we need to be
concerned about that. But you really have to look at the
totality of harm. Think about the number of people who use
marijuana and get in fatal car accidents. They may not have an
addictive disorder, but clearly their marijuana use has had
significant health consequences.
Mr. Connolly. My time is long up and I thank the chair for
his indulgence. I would just say, though, the problem with that
logic is it takes us exactly where we are today. So it fills up
our prisons, even when it is really a small amount of
possession, and where the effect is we treat somebody no
different than if they committed a violent crime. And those
inequities in our prison system are the consequence of treating
marijuana exactly the way you just described it.
Mr. Botticelli. I think under this Administration we have
really tried to move away from that war on drugs and arresting
and incarcerating. So this is where we believe that there is a
balanced approach here; not legalization that has some of the
attendant public health consequences to it and not a war on
drugs approach, but really looking at dealing with this as a
public health-related issue and utilizing criminal justice
reforms to make sure that we are not arresting and
incarcerating. So our policy and our position really focuses on
that middle ground in terms of both innovative criminal justice
reforms and dealing with this as a public health-related issue.
Mr. Mica. Arresting and incarcerating. I wish Mr. Cummings
had stayed, but let me yield to the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Director, I think you partially answered the question,
because as we continue this discussion, could you refresh for
me just what the purpose and mission of the Office on Drug
Control Policy is?
Mr. Botticelli. Sure. So again we were established by
Congress in 1988 with the authority of really setting the
Administration's national drug control strategy. We produce
that strategy, we send it to Congress every year, and it really
is a blueprint, an interagency blueprint for how, one, the
Administration is going to handle drug-related issue and really
looking at this whole of Government approach to how we are
dealing. So each agency has a role to play, as well as looking
at their budgets and making sure that they are aligning their
budgets with those drug control strategies. So it sets the
Administration's drug control policy, it looks at strategic
priorities, it looks at interagency cooperation and interagency
action as it relates to how they are going to implement those
drug control strategies.
Mr. Davis. Do you make recommendations to agencies and to
Congress and to the public in general?
Mr. Botticelli. The expressed purpose of our strategy is
really to look at how the Federal Government is going to
respond and what is our policy related and how other agencies
align their work with those policies.
Mr. Davis. We have just heard a great deal of discussion
relative to disparities among population groups relative to
arrests and the judicial process. Would the agency have any
position on any of that, or would it have any recommendations,
based upon what we have just heard, about disparities and
arrests and the judicial process?
Mr. Botticelli. Sure. You know, when you look at our
strategy, and this was set in the original 2009 Obama
Administration strategy, again, it really focuses on a wide
variety of criminal justice reforms to look at that, about how
we make sure that we are diverting people from the criminal
justice system. You know, one of the things that we have been
really promoting, again with the Bureau of Justice assistance,
is the expansion of drug courts in the United States. So we now
have 2700 drug courts in the United States that are diverting
people away from incarceration and giving them treatment along
with accountability of those issues. You know, we have been
also, again, focusing on things like diminishing the barriers
for people to get jobs. We have also been focusing on smart
probation efforts. So we have been trying to implement a wide
variety of innovative criminal justice programs that really
look at moving people away from the criminal justice system.
I think the other piece, too, is looking at these public
health strategies of prevention and early intervention. The
goal of those is not only intervene early, but really minimize
the chances that people are going to intersect with the
criminal justice system. You know, often we have not dealt with
these issues early, so we want to make sure that we are
preventing those issues from happening. So that has been part
of our policy position in terms of how do we come up with
alternatives to incarceration particularly for folks with
substance use disorders.
Mr. Davis. Would you see legalization perhaps as an asset
in terms of the reduction of need for drug courts?
Mr. Botticelli. Again, I don't see that, we don't see that
as an effect when we look at legalization. Again, I think there
are concerns around legalization, is that we will see an
increase in problematic use and we might need more drug courts
if we move down the legalization pathway to do that. So I don't
think that it diminishes the need for those kinds of services,
and it might have actually an opposite effect in terms of
greater impact and greater need, both within our treatment
system and within some of our criminal justice programs like
drug courts.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Let me yield now to Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate this and I have found the conversation here to be
very useful, and I think you are highlighting the wide range of
issues that are on people's minds. I hope there is an
opportunity to continue it.
Mr. Botticelli, how many marijuana overdose deaths were
there in the most recent year you have available?
Mr. Botticelli. To my knowledge, I don't know if there have
been instances of specific overdose-related deaths.
Mr. Blumenauer. But you talked about marijuana deaths, so I
want to be clear. I am not trying to trap you.
Mr. Botticelli. No, no.
Mr. Blumenauer. How many marijuana deaths have there been
in the last five years?
Mr. Botticelli. So if you are referring to overdoses, I am
not sure of those numbers. If you are referring to fatality----
Mr. Blumenauer. Okay, then stop. Then I would like to have
you supply us with how many overdose deaths there were, because
I have heard from experts whose judgment I respect that they
don't know of any. So that would be really important for you to
provide at least to me, if not to the committee.
What is more dangerous and addictive, methamphetamines and
cocaine or marijuana?
Mr. Botticelli. So I don't think anyone would dispute the
fact that there is relative toxicity related to those drugs.
Mr. Blumenauer. What I asked----
Mr. Botticelli. But I am afraid----
Mr. Blumenauer.--what is more dangerous and what is more
addictive, cocaine and meth or marijuana. Pretty simple.
Mr. Botticelli. I think that conversation minimizes the
harm----
Mr. Blumenauer. No, I am not trying to minimize the harm. I
want to know which is more dangerous and addictive.
Mr. Botticelli. You know, again, I go back----
Mr. Blumenauer. You don't know?
Mr. Botticelli.--as a public health person, you know, one
of the things that we look at is not what is the relative risk
of one drug against another.
Mr. Blumenauer. Okay. Let me just say that I think that
your equivocation right there, being unable to answer something
clearly and definitively, when there is unquestioned evidence
to the contrary, is why young people don't believe the
propaganda, why they think it is benign. If a professional like
you cannot answer clearly that meth is more dangerous than
marijuana, which every kid on the street knows, which every
parent knows, if you can't answer that, maybe that is why we
are failing to educate people about the dangers. I don't want
kids smoking marijuana; I agree with the chairman. But if the
deputy director of the Office of Drug Policy can't answer that
question, how do you expect high school kids to take you
seriously?
Mr. Botticelli. So, representative, I didn't mean to be
disrespectful and I didn't mean to indicate that there is not
different degrees of toxicity associated with different drugs.
Mr. Blumenauer. I asked what was more dangerous. You
couldn't answer it.
Mr. Botticelli. No.
Mr. Blumenauer. I just want to say that you, sir, represent
is what is part of the problem.
Let me go a little further. Let's talk about----
Mr. Botticelli. Sir, that is exactly not what I am saying.
Mr. Blumenauer.--what kills more people, tobacco or
marijuana.
Mr. Botticelli. You know, there has been a fair amount of
tobacco-associated deaths. My challenge and the reason that I
am hesitating about answering the questions as it relates to
relative risk is I think many times that conversation gets
distorted that there is no risk, that there is----
Mr. Blumenauer. I am not trying to trap you.
Mr. Botticelli. No, no, no. But this is why,
representative, I don't want to be disrespectful.
Mr. Blumenauer. Let me suggest that your inability to
answer me whether tobacco or marijuana is more dangerous,
again, is part of the problem.
Mr. Connolly documented very clearly that we have been able
to drop dramatically tobacco use, and it kills more people than
marijuana, if you don't know that. But we have been able to
drop that without locking people up, without arresting. I think
this Administration has seen three to four million people
arrested for marijuana since it has been in office, and yet we
have been able to drop tobacco use without being coercive. We
have been using fact-based advertising and we have focused our
efforts on things that matter rather than things that don't
work. And I respectfully suggest that you and the Department
take a step back if you are concerned that somehow people think
marijuana is benign, but part of the reason is that drug
professionals can't communicate in ways that the rest of
America does.
I appreciate your being here and I welcome any written
follow-up to my questions. I am not trying to trap you, but I
am very discouraged by your inability to answer questions.
Mr. Botticelli. So let me tell you this morning I spent the
bulk of my morning with a number of parents from across the
Country who are doing everything they can do to prevent drug
use, and particularly prescription drug use, and many of them
whose kids have died of it in overdose; and I asked them what
more can the Federal Government be doing in terms of preventing
substance use and preventing the tragedies, and they told me
they cannot understand why States are moving to medical
marijuana and legal marijuana. They cannot understand it
because they understand from a very acute level the message
that legalization sends them. So this is not from a bureaucrat
in Washington; these are from parents who struggle on a daily
basis and have been devastated by addiction in their kids, and
they understand in a very dramatic and real way that legalizing
marijuana sends the absolute wrong message to our youth.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
We will recognize Mr. Cohen from Tennessee.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With all due respect, you should be listening to
scientists. I understand the parents who are grieved because
their child of an overdose. They didn't overdose on marijuana.
And you are listening to them rather than the scientists? Mr.
Botticelli, it may go back to A Few Good Men the movie, Jack
Nicholson; you can't handle the truth. The truth is the drug
war failed. Your direction on marijuana is a failure. Get to
dealing and savings kids from heroin overdoses. My young 22-
year-old friend died of a heroin overdose. Yes, he smoked
marijuana, probably the first thing he did; but that is not why
he smoked heroin, or shot it up. Maybe he did it because he
heard people like you saying they are all bad and they are all
terrible, and you can't deal with the truth and tell them,
well, maybe marijuana doesn't kill you; heroin does and meth
does. They are different. And until you deal with the truth,
the kids aren't going to believe you at all.
Now, you talked about alcohol, and you may have gotten to
this. Sclerosis of the liver, pretty serious thing. Violence
against spouses and women. People don't smoke marijuana and
beat up their wives and girlfriends. They get drunk, sometimes
they beat up their wives and girlfriends. And I know you have
your statistics. I would debate your statistics. And if you get
into your statistics about the amount of people who had
marijuana in their system who were arrested or had fatal
accidents, I would submit they probably had other drugs in
their system, like cocaine or crack, in addition to the
marijuana, or they had alcohol and marijuana wasn't the cause.
Because what I understand is people who smoke marijuana, mostly
they drive slower and they look out for the cops; they don't
drive fast and wild like people do on alcohol and cause deaths.
Maybe the reason that so many more people are smoking
marijuana now is because they are not listening, and maybe they
are doing the other drugs, too. But it also shows that the drug
war has been a failure. It has been a serious failure.
Harry Anslinger started--you know who Harry Anslinger is,
don't you?
Mr. Botticelli. I do not, unfortunately.
Mr. Cohen. Well, you should, because he is your great-
grandfather. He started this war in the 1930s and he was tuned
out too, and he did it to get--the American public had
problems, and sometimes I think we still have them, with
Hispanics and Mexicans coming into this Country, and it was a
war on Hispanics and African-Americans. And that is when they
made marijuana illegal, was in the 1930s, and it was all
directed at those people. And Latinos are just as much
discriminated against as African-Americans in disparate
arrests. It still continues to this day. It is 85 years since
Anslinger started this. And the fact that we spend so much time
arresting people is sinful.
You talked about the overall effects of marijuana. Again,
you can't name one person who has died from an overdose of
marijuana, can you?
Mr. Botticelli. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Cohen. Right. And you say the cumulative effects. Do
you know people, possibly, or heard of people who smoked
marijuana who are corporate giants, run banks, run major
corporations? Do you know about these people?
Mr. Botticelli. Yes, sir, but I also know equal number of
people, I know a substantial number of people who also have
gone on to develop significant disorders who have smoked
marijuana. Again, one in nine people who try marijuana develop
a dependency, and we know that particularly those kids who use
it earlier in their adolescence----
Mr. Cohen. Kids shouldn't use it. Kids shouldn't use it
ever. And at age 18 people shouldn't be arrested for it. Maybe
it should be 21. But kids shouldn't use it. That is something
we all agree on.
But the fact is we need to put our priorities toward heroin
and meth. What percentage of your budget goes towards heroin
addiction?
Mr. Botticelli. Sir, I don't think we necessarily slice our
budget, our demand reduction budget based on drugs. Again, our
prevention efforts are focused on preventing drug use----
Mr. Cohen. Well, isn't that a mistake, when people die from
heroin in great numbers, that the Vermont governor spends his
entire state of the State on heroin use, and we don't
distinguish and try to save people's lives? When you knock
people over at the corner store, it is not to get money to buy
a donut because you are high; it is to buy heroin because you
are hooked. That causes people to die.
Mr. Botticelli. Our office, in 2011, I think acknowledged
the burgeoning prescription drug and opiate epidemic that we
have in the United States. In 2011 we released a plan that
looks at dealing with prescription drug abuse and opiate
issues.
Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you. My time is about to run out, and
it may have. Let me ask you one thing. I corresponded, back in
2011, with, I guess, your predecessor, Kerlikowske?
Mr. Botticelli. Kerlikowske. He is actually the current
director now.
Mr. Cohen. Is he? He said back then that there was no
particular--they haven't found any medical use. To date,
however, the FDA and the Institute of Medicine have not found
smoked marijuana to be a safe or effective medicine for any
condition, nor has any medical association came out in favor of
smoked marijuana for widespread medical use.
I think that medical associations have, but are you not
aware of the fact that people use smoked marijuana to get them
through cancer treatment nausea?
Mr. Botticelli. I do, sir, and it has never been our
office's position to arrest people who have been using medical
marijuana. I think it is important for us, and again it is
unfortunate that the FDA is not here, that it is the FDA
process that ultimately determines the scientific efficacy of a
drug.
Mr. Cohen. But couldn't you try to influence it? Shouldn't
that be part of your job? I had a buddy who was a Seal. He died
of pancreatic cancer. He smoked marijuana at the end. His
mother said it was the only thing that makes Earl smile or eat.
That was pretty good.
Mr. Botticelli. So our role in this is to rely on the FDA
scientific process to determine. That is our influencing role,
is to rely on the science.
You know, I would also say, and I find it unfortunate and I
think I would ask the chairman to invite Dr. Nora Volkow, who
is the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
because that is where our policy and our sciences derive from.
We are a science-based office and a policy-based office, and I
think if you listen to Dr. Volkow, who is not involved in the
political discussion around substance use and marijuana, she
will lay out for you the scientific evidence that----
Mr. Cohen. Well, let me ask you this. You are prohibited by
law from using any funds to study marijuana legalization, for
medicinal purposes or any other reason. You are the only office
in the Federal Government that is restricted in that way and
you are required to oppose any rescheduling of Schedule I
substances like marijuana that have been approved for medical
purposes. Aren't you troubled by these constraints and don't
you think that your expertise should be allowed to be used and
study science and contribute to a positive classification of
drugs?
Mr. Botticelli. So I am not familiar. Congress put that
language in our reauthorization and I don't know the background
of that.
Mr. Cohen. Would you support legislation to allow you to
participate and to voice your opinion and to use science as a
basis for your determination?
Mr. Botticelli. Well, what I would do is support that
Federal agencies have the ability to do that, so through----
Mr. Cohen. Yours is prohibited by law. Should that
restriction not be lifted?
Mr. Botticelli. Again, I think we would have to have
subsequent conversation in terms of----
Mr. Cohen. You mean you think you should be muzzled?
Mr. Botticelli. I think that it is important that our
office not involve itself in terms of given legislation or
given activities, and I believe that that was the genesis for
that language, that the office not involve itself in----
Mr. Cohen. But the totality of the drug world you need to
participate. And if you realized that medical marijuana, as 20
States have found, can help people with cancer, with nausea,
with maybe glaucoma--Montel Williams apparently has some
benefits from it, lots of people do--that you should be able to
participate and set our drug policy straight. Your job should
be to have a sane drug policy, not to be muzzled and
handcuffed.
Mr. Botticelli. From, again, my standpoint, I am happy to
engage in a fuller conversation, is that that has not
handcuffed other offices and other Federal agencies who are
tasked with that work.
Mr. Cohen. In 1971 Congress created a commission that was
headed by Governor Schaefer of Pennsylvania to study to study
Federal marijuana policy. That commission came out in favor of
decriminalization, but it wasn't put in place. That was 1971.
Would you support a new commission to study Federal marijuana
policy?
Mr. Botticelli. So I haven't seen that legislation. I would
be happy to have further conversation.
Mr. Cohen. It is a concept.
Mr. Botticelli. Again, I think I would be happy to have a
conversation in terms of what that might look like.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Mica. Well, I thank the gentleman. We will have
additional questions; some members weren't able to attend today
and we didn't get to some responses from the witnesses that we
would like to have for the record, so, without objection, we
will leave the record open for a period of two weeks. We will
also be submitting to you, Mr. Botticelli, some questions we
will ask for a written response.
Again, I think this is our first hearing. We may have a
series. You have suggested additional witnesses and we are
going to try to work with the minority, too, and witnesses that
they request. I think this is a very serious issue and it shows
a great conflict between Federal, State, local laws, and huge
amounts of money that we are spending at the Federal level
raises a host of issues about enforcement, about education and
prevention programs, and other worthwhile efforts that we have
to try to keep substance abuse under control.
So, with that, again, I appreciate your coming out today,
being part of this hearing. There being no further business
before the Subcommittee on Government Operations, this hearing
is adjourned. Thank you.
Mr. Botticelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]