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

—69criminal groups within this country have been in the business of divertingamphetamines, for example?Mr. RossiDES. Oh, yes.Mr. Wiggins. Do we change the nature of the enemy in any way ?I would like you to comment on the ease or difficulty of controllingdiversion from lawful manufacturers in the United States as distinguishedfrom lawful producers of natural poppy elsewhere.Mr. RossiDES. I would refer the diversion problem to the Bureau ofNarcotics and Dangerous Drugs, which has the responsibility for preventingillegal distribution of dangerous drugs. (See testimony ofJohn Ingersoll, Director, BNDD, on Jmie 2, 1971.)There is no question that there are efforts by organized crime tosteal the pills, and one of the reasons for the Drug Abuse Act of 1970was that before there were not the proper controls on the manufactureand distribution in following production down the line so that you hada controlled system. It was a simple thing to sell a million pills to apost office box number in Tijuana and then smuggle them back intothe United States. It was really very simple.My own feeling is if we are able to be more successful in stoppingheroin from coming in, organized crime would naturally try to divertto dealing in pills. But again it is a manageable problem. It is somethingwe are trying to do in the area of cargo theft. It is not thatdifficult to develop a system at the ports of entry.Mr. Wiggins. Is it more manageable than the difficulty you areexperiencing in preventing the importation of heroin ?Mr. RossiDES. I haven't looked at it enough. In my judgment itwould be. But you have got to remember that a lot of pills are produced.I hadn't thought of the comparison of the problem, but it isnot—let me put it a different way. I would rather face the problemof increased effort to divert the pills that would come from a sucessfuleffort to prevent the heroin being smuggled into the United States,I think that is far more manageable and we can move in that area bycareful controls by the manufacturers themselves in many ways.Chairman Pepper. Mr. Steiger ?Mr. Steiger. Yes, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Secretary, you have been very candid, and I appreciate it. Inyour relations with Interpol and with other enforcement people fromthese other countries, as a cold, practical matter if there were to besomehow we could achieve international agreement that would banthe poppy, how rigid do you think the internal enforcement would be,say, in Turkey, and I might add that the seven privinces which nowproduce, which Turkey has reduced the legality of the poppy, it ismy understanding and you indicated the same thing, that still hadabout 90 percent of the existing poppy production. So it really soundsgood to go from 20 to seven, but we haven't reduced the productionby 30 percent.In those areas of five or 10 poppy producers, as a practical, politicalmatter, how tough would their enforcement be ?Mr. RossiDES. Well, even on the question—if it were made illegal ?Mr. Steiger. Yes ; how tough would the Turkish police be on theirpeople ?Mr. RossiDES. I think we have to commend the new Turkish Governmentfor its forthright statement. The first time that a publicstatement has been made, and I do commend them for that.