of controls. In both, the strictest controls are applied to drugs and substances in schedule I. The least restrictive controls are applied to drugs and substances in schedule IV of the Convention and schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act. In addition, the Convention requires controls over the importation and exportation of psychotropic substances in a manner similar to, although not identical to, the requirements imposed by the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (title III of Public Law 91-513) respecting the control of narcotics and certain other substances. According to the Office of the Attorney General in a March 14, 1975, letter to the Speaker of the House transmitting similar proposed legislation, the control measures which the Convention requires each party to implement are largely satisfied by the provisions of the comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Attorney General's letter cited the following examples: "... Under the Convention, each party must license manufacturers and distributors of psychotropic substances; sections 301 through 304 of the 1970 act provide for registration of these persons. Each party must restrict the use of schedule I (hallucinogenic) substances to scientific and very limited medical purposes; section 303 of the Controlled Substances Act (title II of the Comprehensive Act) limits access to such substances to qualified researchers. Psychotropic substances generally must be dispensed only upon a physician's prescription; this Convention requirement is satisfied by prescription requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Each party must require all handlers of psychotropic substances to keep records of all these substances manufactured, distributed or dispensed; section 307 of the Controlled Substances Act already imposes such recordkeeping requirements. Importation and exportation of psychotropic substances must be controlled in a manner similar to the requirements imposed by the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, which is title III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970." In addition to these specific control requirements, the Convention requires parties to take enforcement and regulatory actions against illicit trafficking in psychotropic substances and to apply penal sanctions against persons convicted of serious offenses. Finally, where possible, it requires parties to establish programs of drug abuse prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. These requirements can all be complied with under existing U.S. statutory requirements. However, Public Law 91-513 (enacted in 1970) does not contain provisions to authorize administrative action to conform U.S. drug controls to those under international laws which the U.S. ratified after the date of its enactment. (It did, however, provide such authority to conform controls under the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Export and Import Act with controls under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics and other international agreements in effect prior to the date of enactment.) Thus, neither the Controlled Substances Act nor the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act currently provide specific authority and procedures to enable the United States to comply with the requirements of the Convention. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT There are two drugs controlled under the Convention which are not currently controlled under the Controlled Substances Act. These drugs, pipradrol and SPA, are stimulants controlled in schedule IV of the Convention. These drugs do not have current medical uses in the United States and are not manufactured domestically. Although the committee is unaware of plans of any domestic producer to manufacture these drugs, the committee's proposal contains a provision which would require the Attorney General to issue an order controlling these drugs in schedule IV of the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule IV was selected as an appropriate schedule to assure that, with respect to these drugs, the minimum control requirements under the Convention would be met. The usual findings and procedures required under section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act would be waived to avoid delay in the scheduling of these drugs. In providing for the scheduling of these drugs in schedule IV, it is not intended that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare be proscribed from subsequently initiating proceedings to transfer these drugs to another schedule or to remove them from a schedule in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Controlled Substances Act and as appropriate to meet the obligations of the United States under the Convention. * The committee proposal specifies that nothing in the Single Convention or the Convention on Psychotropic Substances or other treaties or international agreements shall be construed to limit the provision of treatment, education and rehabilitation as alternatives to conviction or criminal penalties for offenses involving any drug or other substance subject to control under any such treaty or agreement. In this regard, the committee notes that the Convention on Psychotropic Substances does not require specific criminal sanctions of fines and terms of imprisonment for illicit distribution or possession of the psychotropic substances it controls. It generally requires each party (subject to the constitutional limitations of each party) to treat intentional, illicit distribution of these substances as a "punishable offense." Article 22 of the Convention provides that offenses shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a party. It also provides that when abusers of psychotropic substances have committed offenses, a party may provide either as an alternative to or in addition to punishment, that such abusers undergo measures of treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation, and social reintegration. These provisions of article 22 are consistent with the committee proposal. The committee wishes to note that the Convention does not require parties to impose any type of criminal sanctions for the simple possession of small quantities of psychotropic substances controlled under the Convention, since a party need not treat such p meaning of article 22. The these substances and the illi distribute these substances p ous offenses" under article 22 for causing damage to the he particularly of people residi offense is committed. H.R. Rept. 95-1193, 95th Cong., 2d Congressional and Administrative Ne A Joint House-Senate Explan commented in part: TITLE II-PCP CRIMINAL PE The increases in the penalties ing the unlawful distribution of alarming increase in the illicit a ful substance. Although legislati stance basis presents some practic popular abusable drugs become abusers and new "fad drugs" appe distribution of PCP warrant spec tremely harmful to humans and tured. It is recognized that ultin involving the illicit distribution of ules I and II of the Controlled Su to make them comparable to those I and II of the Act. It is well rec drugs can be as harmful and as sul Section 202 of the Senate amendm U.S.C. 830] to the Controlled Subst tablishes the requirement that anyon ports piperidine (a chemical used in report such transactions to the Attor phasized, however, that this new sect lish a reporting system for piperidi tended as a new regulatory system or trolled Substances Act to cover precu now covered. It is rather intended to b gram to study and determine whether i the illicit manufacture, distribution, and TITLE III-FORFEITURE OF PR Section 301 of the Senate amendment Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. party need not treat such possession as a "serious offense" within the meaning of article 22. The illicit possession of large quantities of these substances and the illicit possession with the specific intent to distribute these substances probably fall into the category of "serious offenses" under article 22 if these offenses have a serious potential for causing damage to the health of people other than the offender, particularly of people residing in other countries [in] which the offense is committed. H.R. Rept. 95-1193, 95th Cong., 2d sess. (1978), pp. 3–6, 9-10; [1978] U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, Vol. 7 (1979), pp. 9498-9501, 9504-9506. A Joint House-Senate Explanatory Statement of Titles II and III commented in part: TITLE II-PCP CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND PIPERIDINE REPORTING The increases in the penalties for offenses [21 U.S.C. 841] involving the unlawful distribution of PCP are intended to respond to the alarming increase in the illicit availability and abuse of this harmful substance. Although legislating penalties on a substance-by-substance basis presents some practical difficulties particularly as oncepopular abusable drugs become obsolete as the drug of choice of abusers and new "fad drugs" appear on the scene, penalties for illicit distribution of PCP warrant special attention because it can be extremely harmful to humans and because it can be easily manufactured. It is recognized that ultimately the penalties for offenses involving the illicit distribution of all non-narcotic drugs in Schedles I and II of the Controlled Substances Act should be increased o make them comparable to those for narcotic drugs in Schedules and II of the Act. It is well recognized that some psychotropic rugs can be as harmful and as subject to abuse as narcotic drugs. Section 202 of the Senate amendment adds a new section 310 [21 S.C. 830] to the Controlled Substances Act. This new section eslishes the requirement that anyone who distributes, sells or imts piperidine (a chemical used in making phencyclidine) must ort such transactions to the Attorney General. It should be emsized, however, that this new section is solely intended to estaba reporting system for piperidine transactions. It is not ined as a new regulatory system or as an expansion of the Con-d Substances Act to cover precursor substances beyond those covered. It is rather intended to be implemented as a pilot proto study and determine whether it can be effective in reducing icit manufacture, distribution, and use of PCP. TITLE III-FORFEITURE OF PROCEEDS OF ILLEGAL on 301 of the Senate amendment amends section 511 of the led Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881), which currently pro vides for the forfeiture of certain types of property if such property is used, or intended for use, in the manufacture or distribution of illegal drugs or used or intended to be used to facilitate certain violations of the Act. The types of property covered under the current law include illicit abusable drugs, raw materials and equipment used in manufacturing such drugs, property used to contain or conceal such drugs, vehicles used to facilitate the transportation of such drugs, and any records, books, or formulas used in violation of Federal illicit drug laws. The Senate amendment expands section 511 of the Act to provide for the forfeiture of the following additional types of property: (1) All monies, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for illicit controlled substances. (2) All proceeds traceable to such an exchange for illicit controlled substances, and (3) All moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any controlled substance law violations. Due to the penal nature of forfeiture statutes, it is the intent of these provisions that property would be forfeited only if there is a substantial connection between the property and the underlying criminal activity which the statute seeks to prevent. . . . ... Cong. Rec., Vol. 124, No. 162 (daily ed., Oct. 7, 1978), pp. S17647-817648; [1978] U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, Vol. 7 (1979), pp. 9518-9519, 9522. The Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-633, 92 Stat. 3768) had been introduced in the Senate as S. 2399, 95th Cong., 2d sess., by Senator John C. Culver, on Jan. 20, 1978, and was identical with H.R. 9796, introduced during the first session of the 95th Congress in the House of Representatives by Congressman Paul G. Rogers, under date of Oct. 27, 1977. For Senator Culver's statement in support of S. 2399, see Cong. Rec., Vol. 124, No. 2 (daily ed. Jan. 20, 1978). pp. $136-S137. The Department of State had supported both bills. See, letters from Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations Douglas J. Bennet, Jr., to Congressman Harley O. Staggers, Chairman, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Mar. 10, 1978, Dept. of State File No. P77 0169-0409, [1978] U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, Vol. 7 (1979), p. 9507, and to Senator James O. Eastland, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Mar. 10, 1978, Dept. of State File No. P78 0017-1134. The Department had urged expeditious action on each bill, pointing out that the United States had been a leading advocate for adoption of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances in 1971. For the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, done at Vienna, Austria, Feb. 21, 1971, see S. Ex. G, 92d Cong., 1st sess. (1971). The Convention had entered into force (though not for the United States) on Aug. 16, 1976. Sec. 501. The Congress finds that (1) the consequences of moder advances are of such major signifi policy that understanding and app science and technology by officers States Government are essential diplomacy; (2) many problems and opportun ern diplomacy lie in scientific and tec (3) in the formulation, implemen technological aspects of United Stat States Government should seek out a and private industrial, academic, an cerned with modern technology; and (4) the effective use of science and relations for the mutual benefit of all opment and use of the skills and metho DECLARATION OF Sec. 502. In order to maximize the be adverse consequences of science and techno eign policy, the Congress declares the fol the United States: (1) Technological opportunities, imp should be anticipated and assessed, an should be implemented to influence suc ments in ways beneficial to the United St (2) The mutually beneficial applicat bilateral and multilateral agreements and United States and foreign countries or (1515) Chapter 12 CIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS 8 1 Scientific Affairs Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1979, Public v 95-426, approved October 7, 1978 (92 Stat. 963), sets out, under eV, "Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy," the followcongressional findings and declaration of policy in this regard: FINDINGS Sec. 501. The Congress finds that (1) the consequences of modern scientific and technological advances are of such major significance in United States foreign policy that understanding and appropriate knowledge of modern science and technology by officers and employees of the United States Government are essential in the conduct of modern diplomacy; (2) many problems and opportunities for development in modern diplomacy lie in scientific and technological fields; (3) in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of the technological aspects of United States foreign policy, the United States Government should seek out and consult with both public and private industrial, academic, and research institutions concerned with modern technology; and (4) the effective use of science and technology in international relations for the mutual benefit of all countries requires the development and use of the skills and methods of long-range planning. DECLARATION OF POLICY Sec. 502. In order to maximize the benefits and to minimize the verse consequences of science and technology in the conduct of forn policy, the Congress declares the following to be the policy of United States: (1) Technological opportunities, impacts, changes, and threats hould be anticipated and assessed, and appropriate measures hould be implemented to influence such technological developents in ways beneficial to the United States and other countries. (2) The mutually beneficial applications of technology in lateral and multilateral agreements and activities involving the nited States and foreign countries or international organiza(1515) |