Narcotics research, rehabilitation, and treatment. Hearings, Ninety ...

35Dr. Eddy. No.Chairman Pepper. Therefore, Avoiild you think additional Federalfluids would be in the public interest for these research programs ?Dr. Eddy. Yes.Chairman Pepper. Mr. Mann ?Mr. Mann. Thank you.Pursuing this economic problem just one step further, would therebe any allegation on the part of the opium-producing countries at thispoint, or any justifiable allegation that the United States would haveany monopoly on the production of the synthetic drugs, or that thecost of producing these synthetic drugs on a legitimate basis wouldmake the outlawing of opium economically bad for all other countries ?Dr. Eddy. I don't think so, because the know-how is present inother countries besides the United States. We do have a group ofmanufacturing countries on the one hand and presently a group ofproducing countries, if you want to call them that, the opium producers,on the other hand. But my suggestion was that we put oureffort into giving the opium producers and producing countries, economicand technical assistance so they can live without opium. Wecan't expect to do this at their cost solely. We have got to do somethingabout getting them to grow alternative crops. But once you havedone that I don't see that they have any allegation that we are takingthe bread out of their mouth.Mr. Mann. Nothing further.Chairman Pepper. Mr. Wiggins ?My. Wiggins. Doctor, do you generally concur in the observationsmade by Dr. Seevers that if the Congress were inclined to prohibit theimportation of morphine that such a statute should have immediateeffect?i->''}\Dr. Eddy. Well, I don't know—I am not sure that I know whatyou mean by immediate. As of now, no. You couldn't do it quite thatquickly.There is reluctance on the part of the physicians to use the synthetics,justifiably so. They have been fooled more than once. Heroinwas introduced as a nonaddicting substance 75 years ago. It waspromptly proved to be—that was promptly proved to be—erroneous.Demerol was introduced 30 years ago as a nonaddicting substance, eventhough at the time that it went on the market we had evidence that itwas as dependence-producing as morphine itself. The producer disagreedand claimed for a number of years, 6 or 8 years, that we werewrong, that it did not produce morphine-like dependence. Later, theydid admit that we were right, that it did produce physical dependence,and the}' have changed their advertising. It is now under narcoticcontrol—they advertise it now as a morphine-like substance.Mr. Wiggins. Doctor, we both understand that if Congress were toawait a medical concensus that we would not act at all, just because thedoctors are, as has previously been testified to, an independent lot.Nothwithstanding that, if Congress should make a determination thatit is in the public interest to prohibit the importation of morphine doyou know of any reason why that statute should not be made operativeas of its effective date, or would it be in the public interest to delay ita month, 6 months, a year, 2 years, something on that order ?