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

:'654prison and who liave no—wlio agree not to commnuicate anything tiiatffoes on in the groups to the prison authorities.I think that some efforts have 1)een made, I belie\e in a XevadaState prison, possibly in one or two California State prisons, whereSynanon was l)ronght in. This may conceivably have been nsefiil there.The point that I would like to make here is that T am not saying thatI think it will never be useful, that no technique mi 11 1)0 de\eloped.What I am trying to say is that to the best of my knowledge, at thispoint in time,' the technic[ues that have been tried probably do notmarkedly influence the ultimate success.Perhaps I might add to this some studies by Valliant out of theFederal system, suggesting that there is value to a ]:)eriod of imprisonmentfolfowed by close parole supervision. In other studies, whetherthe individual Avas locked up in pi'ison or in some sort of therapeuticsettina" was unimiwrtant. The variable that made the dilfereuce wasclose parole supervision afterward.Some studies in California by Geis from the De|>artment of Sociology,California State at Los Angeles, also suggested that there wasnodiilerence, for example, between the ex-CRC, the civilly committedaddict, and the felon committed addict. Both of them, one that wentthrough therapy in the institution, one that had no therapy in theinstitution, went out, both receiving close parole suj^ervision: that ifanything, the felon i)arolees did slightly better than the CKC parolees.Tliere Arere certain other differences. The felon parolees were slightlyolder. There were some differences that might account for the slightlybetter result with the felons, but this suggests that what hap])ened inthe institution had much less to do with it than that they were followedby parole.jMr. Sandman. You talked about a drug called naloxone. I was nothere for your earlier testimony. Could you very brietiy describe that,comparing it with methadoneDr. KiJAMER. Yes: nalaxone is, of course, a narcotic antagonist. ItIs not (le])endency producing. It negates the effect of any opiate used.Of itself it has no agonistic effects, no pharmacological effects on thebody alone exce])t to negate the effects of opiates. It is a most ])roinisingdrug, especially if it were put up in a long-acting form. A pointthat I tried to emphasize earlier before this committee was that an insufficientamount of work is currently going on to develop such a longactingantagonist. Work on a long-acting nalaxone is, to the best ofmy knowledge, at a standstill, desjiite the fact that occasionally peopie state that work is going on. To the best of my knowledge, verylittle, if any, work is going on because of a lack of money.Chairman Pf.i'per. Did you say, doctor, that according to yoni- information,the research on the development of naloxone is relativelyat a standstill in the country?Dr. Ki;.\:\rKK. Yes. sir.Chairman l*F.i'rER. Do yon not regard that as a ])romising drug?Dr. Kramer. I regard it as a highly ])romising drug and I regard itas shameful that it is currently at a standstill. ])articularly considei'-ing the crisis that we are facing.]\rr. Sand^iax. Have you. or anyone connected with you, done anvtliingto promote more of a real job on this pai'ticiilar drug?