problem, of course. But we do know that comprehensive programs that involve multiple parts of the community that are all sending the same message and that are sending those messages repeatedly are effective in preventing drug use.

General McCaffrey showed some very impressive graphs about changes in drug attitudes and changes in drug use rates. We have begun to see a change in attitudes, to see the beginning of a change in use rates. Some of that, we believe, is a result of very sophisticated prevention programming that gets initiated very early. We have to get kids before they are in middle school, and then we have to give them boosters, just like any other vaccination program. And so this programming is never simple, and it does have to be comprehensive.

One of the things that has happened in this country is the evolution of antidrug coalitions around the country. A major goal that they have had, and that I think they have done an outstanding job of, is having integrated approaches that bring in not just the schools, not just the parents, not just the churches, but to mobilize an entire community in a single strategy. As far as we can tell from the scientific research that has been done, it is an effective strategy.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Marshall, as always, thank you and the men and women of the DEA for the outstanding job that you do. I and my constituents deeply appreciate it.

Put yourself, if you would for a moment, hypothetically, in the position of a State prosecutor in a State in which there are laws against pedophilia and rape. Would you take kindly to somebody who comes out with a study and says that pedophilia is OK; therefore, I'm going to go out there and spend huge sums of money trying to make it legal and encourage people to engage in it, or rape? Mr. MARSHALL. No, sir.

Mr. BARR. Would you have any hesitancy in taking offense at that, notwithstanding their claims that this is simply an exercise of first amendment free speech?

Mr. MARSHALL. I would take great offense, and I think it would be a ridiculous argument.

Mr. BARR. Do you see that much of a distinction between those arguments and the arguments of the advocates of legalized drug usage?

Mr. MARSHALL. Being a professional 30-year law enforcement person, Congressman, I have to confess that I do not see much dif ference in it.

Mr. BARR. Thank you.

One of the things that I look at, for example, is consistency, and I think that is very important as a professional law enforcement agent. Recently, it has come to our attention that the U.S. Department of Defense is finalizing regulations to allow for the use of peyote on military bases by military personnel for so-called religious purposes. Is it your understanding that peyote remains a Schedule

I controlled substance under the laws of the United States of America?

Mr. MARSHALL. Congressman, I believe that it is. However, I believe there may be some religious exemptions for Native Americans. I am not aware of the issue with the Department of Defense. But I believe it does remain a Schedule I. If I could verify that and get back to you.

Mr. BARR. Because, it is in the criminal code. If in fact, the military allows this and if, thereafter, somebody in DEA were to come to you and say, I believe as part of my religious practice and my Native American heritage that I should be allowed to smoke peyote, would you see that as inconsistent with their duty as a sworn law enforcement officer with jurisdiction to enforce the controlled substances laws of the United States?

Mr. MARSHALL. I'm sorry, are you talking about military, sir, or law enforcement?

Mr. BARR. No, if there were a DEA agent who came to you and said, I believe that as part of my religious practice, what I deem a religious practice, I'm going to start smoking peyote. I understand that it is now allowed in the military. Would that to you be consistent with or inconsistent with their sworn duty as a law enforcement officer with jurisdiction over enforcing our Federal drug laws?

Mr. MARSHALL. Congressman, I would be very, very troubled by that. However, I think I would have to look at the religious exemption and the origins of that law to make a final decision. But I would be very, very troubled with that.

Mr. BARR. I would hope so, and I would certainly think so.

Dr. Leshner, I referred earlier to this volume, Marijuana and Medicine, that you may or may not be familiar with. We have inserted it into the record. There is quite a lengthy discussion about a lot of the harmful effects of marijuana usage, including several chapters here on its very serious detrimental effect on reproduction, human reproductivity, and in particular its effect on-and they have some very interesting slides, similar to the scientific slides that you presented here-on spermatozoa and the abnormalities that result from particularly extended marijuana usage. Are you familiar with those studies?

Dr. LESHNER. I am somewhat familiar with them. I am not sure I am familiar with all of the studies that have been done, but a great deal of work has, of course, been done on the metabolic consequences of marijuana use.

Mr. BARR. Are you familiar enough to give us your opinion on whether or not there are detrimental effects on human reproductivity by the extended use of marijuana?

Dr. LESHNER. I think it is not clear, sir. There is a substantial body of literature in animal subjects that suggests that Delta-9 THC can decrease pituitary prolactin and can, in fact, interfere with cycling in female rodents. I think some studies have been done in humans that confirm that kind of interpretation. But, as a scientist, I have to say that I am not sure all of that research has actually been done.

Mr. BARR. I would recommend you, if you could, take a look at some of the research in here. I am certainly not a medical doctor

or a scientist, but they present some compelling-both textual material as well as some graphs and pictures showing that there indeed seems to be very clear link.

Could you just very briefly explain-I noticed the chart that you have up here on methamphetamines. We have been focusing particularly this morning on marijuana, maybe to the detriment of some of these other drugs. Could you-and you may have already done this. If you have, I apologize. But by the same token I think that this bears repeating.

Could you just briefly explain for me and for anybody who might be listening or read the record of this case what that depiction of the four-they are not photographs but brain scans regarding methamphetamine use represents?

Dr. LESHNER. They are-and if you will indulge me, given the comments earlier this morning about Ecstasy, I would also like to take just a minute and tell you about the other poster as well, which I did mention in my oral statement. The measure herebright colors are more, dull colors are less-is the ability to use a substance in the brain called dopamine. Dopamine is necessary for normal cognitive functioning and the normal experience of pleasure. It is a very important neurochemical substance.

What you see on the left is the ability to bind dopamine in a control, in this case a normal individual. The second scan is the brain of the methamphetamine abuser 3 years after that individual stopped using methamphetamine. The third is a methcathinone addict 3 years later. The fourth is a newly diagnosed Parkinson's disease patient. As you know, Parkinson's is a dopamine abnormality as well, although it affects a different part of the brain.

What is significant here is that you are seeing a very long-lasting effect of drug use that persists long after the individual has stopped using the drugs. What is important about the particular brain change is that it could account for some of the mood alterations and certainly the psychotic-like behavior that persists after methamphetamine use long after the individual stops using it.

The other chart, which actually you may have seen a related study reported in the press just yesterday, is the first demonstration in humans-this is the first demonstration in humans on methamphetamine, by the way-the first demonstration in humans of the persistent effects of Ecstasy use. MDMA is Ecstasy. What you are seeing here on the top is a control individual, a normal individual. The measure here is the ability to bind another neurochemical called serotonin. Seratonin is critical to normal experiences of mood. As you may know, antidepressants can modify serotonin binding.

So there is a normal individual on top. The bottom is an Ecstasy user. In this case it is 3 weeks after that individual has stopped using Ecstasy. What you are seeing here is a persistent decrease in the ability of the brain to bind this very important neurochemical substance.

The study published yesterday actually showed in primates-I am not sure how you would do this in humans-but showed in primates a virtually identical effect 7 years after the primates were given MDMA. So that the point that I have been making is that drug use has an effect not only acutely, not only in the chronic use

condition, but that it has persistent effects that last long after the individual stops using drugs.

Mr. BARR. Would the same hold for extended marijuana usage? Dr. LESHNER. We don't know in detail.

We know in great detail-and the question was asked earlier this morning, and I would be pleased to submit information on that for the record-we know in great detail the mechanisms by which marijuana exerts its acute effects in the brain, its short-term effects. We do know that in long-term marijuana users there are persistent behavioral effects that persist 48 to 72 hours after the individual stops using marijuana. But, as far as I know, no studies have been done analogous to this that are looking so far out after marijuana use.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Dr. Leshner. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.

Mr. MICA. I would like to thank both of you. We have additional questions which we would like to submit to you for the record. I would also like to leave the record open for at least 2 weeks for you to submit additional information.

Someone commented that if we could get these charts to every parent in America, we probably would have a lot less drug use, when people could see the actual effects on their body and on their brains.

Dr. LESHNER. We are trying, sir. We are trying to do exactly that.

Mr. MICA. It is very revealing. Quite shocking.

I would also be interested if you can supply us with any similar information on the effects of marijuana, if you do come across that. I think that would be interesting to have. Also, these other drugs we will put in as part of the record.

Dr. LESHNER. We will provide you with information on that.

Mr. MICA. I would like to thank both of you. We will submit additional questions.

I would like to call our third panel at this time and excuse the second panel.

Our third panel today consists of Mr. James McDonough, the director of the Office of Drug Control Policy of the State of Florida; Mr. Scott Ehlers, the senior policy analyst at the Drug Policy Foundation; Mr. Robert L. Maginnis, a senior director of the Family Research Council; Mr. David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute; and Mr. Ira Glasser, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

I am pleased that all of you have joined us today. As I indicated before, our subcommittee is an investigative and oversight panel of Congress. We do swear in our witnesses. If you wouldn't mind standing and raising your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. I thank the witnesses. They have all answered in the affirmative.

I will also point out, most of you are new to the panel, we do ask that any lengthy statements or additional information you would like to submit to the record, we do so upon request, and that we try to limit our oral presentations to 5 minutes. You will see a little light there. We try to be a bit flexible.

With those comments in mind, I would like to first recognize and welcome to our subcommittee Mr. James McDonough, the director of the Office of Drug Control Policy created by the new Governor of the State of Florida. Mr. McDonough, welcome, and you are recognized, sir.

STATEMENTS OF JAMES MCDONOUGH, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF DRUG CONTROL POLICY, STATE OF FLORIDA; SCOTT EHLERS, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, DRUG POLICY FOUNDATION; ROBERT L. MAGINNIS, SENIOR DIRECTOR, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL; DAVID BOAZ, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CATO INSTITUTE; AND IRA GLASSER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be here.

I would like to submit my statement for the record and save you the time not going through it.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, it will be made part of the record. Mr. MCDONOUGH. I just wanted to say a few things about my observations of drug use in the United States and particularly in the State of Florida where I now, as you have pointed out, have been tasked to coordinate all drug efforts, to bring down that abuse rate. Prior to that time I worked here in Washington in the National Drug Control Office to see what I could do to help the national concerns about drug abuse.

I will tell you that Florida has a bad problem with drugs. It has enough of a problem right now that I feel any legalization of drugs would only exacerbate drug abuse further. I note that we have by my account some 8 percent of our people in Florida currently using drugs. This does not fare well compared to the national average, about 6 percent.

I have looked further. The last existing surveys in Florida which date to 1995, show me that we are about 25 percent above the national average with our youth use. So we have a problem across the board, and we have a particular problem with youths.

I think one of the reasons why we have such a problem is the vast supply of drugs coming through the State. I have taken a look at that, over the first 90 days that I have been in office down there, by going around the State. What I see, quite frankly, is shocking. In this past year, we note that the heroin death rate in Florida has gone up 51 percent in only 1 year. This is just an enormous rise in the statistics in only 1 year. It makes one shudder as to how it is going to look over the long term.

The cocaine-related deaths in the State are also up a horrific extent. We are talking about in the last 6 years, a 65 percent increase in the cocaine-related death rate. This now means that with over 1,100 deaths a year, that statistic exceeds the murder rate in Florida.

Having said that, indications are that a big part of this is related to the amount of drugs flowing through the State. I have a note that last year, Customs reported that some 60 to 65 percent of the cocaine it seized in total, nationally, was seized in Florida. I am trying to point out that there are several factors for the abnormal