Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–3, Documents on Global Issues, 1973–1976

151. Minutes of a Joint Meeting of the Cabinet Committees on Drug Abuse¹ ²

Washington, November 27, 1973

SUBJECT:

• CABINET COMMITTEES ON DRUG ABUSE, MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1973

PARTICIPANTS:

• THE PRESIDENT
• SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY KISSINGER
• ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT BORK
• SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE CASPAR WEINBERGER
• SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION CLAUDE BRINEGAR
• COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT MELVIN LAIRD
• DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, ROY ASH
• ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS DONALD JOHNSON
• DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE KENNETH RUSH
• DIRECTOR OF THE FBI CLARENCE KELLY
• DIRECTOR OF THE CIA WILLIAM COLBY
• ADMINISTRATOR OF DRUG ENFORCEMENT JOHN BARTELS
• ROBERT DUPONT, SPECIAL ACTION OFFICE FOR DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION
• DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OMB FREDERIC MALEK
• UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE J. PHIL CAMPBELL
• UNDER SECRETARY OF LABOR RICHARD SCHUBERT
• ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY EDWARD MORGAN
• WILLIAM J. HANDLEY, STATE DEPARTMENT
• ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE DOMESTIC COUNCIL GEOFFREY SHEPARD
• WALTER MINNICK, OMB

The joint meeting of the Cabinet Committees on Drug Abuse was called to order by the President at 10:35 a.m.

The President opened the meeting by citing the Administration’s record of progress in combating heroin abuse and emphasized the continuing priority which he intends the drug control program to have.

The President expressed his pleasure with the successes our drug enforcement efforts have had, both at home and abroad. He was particularly heartened by the progress which has been made in France and Turkey.

These programs, combined with increased availability of treatment facilities, have made it possible to begin winning the battle against hard drugs.

The President stated, though, that the road ahead was a long one and that our initial successes should not be used as an excuse for any lessening of the level of effort being made. He asked the Cabinet to give new impetus to the attack on newly emerging problem areas and to do an even better job in combating the old.

Mr. Laird then asked Mr. Shepard to summarize significant organizational developments.

Mr. Shepard described (1) the creation of the Drug Enforcement” Administration under Reorganization Plan No. 2 and the resultant consolidation of all drug law enforcement efforts in a single agency, (2) the transfer of drug treatment responsibilities to the newly created National Institute for Drug Abuse within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, (3) the restructuring of the international program to bring it more fully under the Secretary of State, and (4) the creation of a new program coordinating office in OMB.

Mr. Shepard then introduced the new drug team: John R. Bartels, Jr., Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration; Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Director of the Special Action Office of Drug Abuse Prevention; and Ambassador William J. Handley, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for International Narcotics Control.

The President asked if there were any other organizational problems which required resolution.

Mr. Laird responded by suggesting that two Assistant Secretary level working groups be established—one for treatment and one for law enforcement—to parallel the existing Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control structure.

Mr. Bartels would chair the law enforcement committee which would operate under the auspices of the Domestic Council Committee on Drug Enforcement. Dr. DuPont would chair the treatment working group which would serve a similar function for the Domestic Council Committee on Treatment.

The President emphasized that he wanted to continue his personal involvement in drug control as appropriate and instructed Mr. Laird to assume personal responsibility for overseeing the operation of the federal anti-drug effort. He also asked Mr. Laird to inform him as frequently as necessary of drug problems requiring Presidential attention.

The President then turned the meeting over to Mr. Laird and departed with Secretary Kissinger.

Dr. DuPont reported on the federal response to the heroin epidemic of the late 1960’s and described indicators which show that heroin addiction has begun to decline. Because of this success, there is now more treatment capacity than there are heroin addicts voluntarily seeking treatment. He stressed, however, that many (perhaps 250,000) heroin addicts remain untreated because they have not sought treatment.

Dr. DuPont then asked the Committee to consider his suggested demand side policy initiatives.

He recommended that we maintain a level budget, increase outreach efforts to reach the non-volunteer, establish vocational rehabilitation programs, and open up treatment facilities to non-opiate abusers.

Secretary Weinberger agreed with Dr. DuPont and stressed that adoption of the recommended policy guidelines would demonstrate the President’s commitment to the drug problem and maintain the level of effort needed to build on successes to date.

Mr. Malek agreed with Dr. DuPont’s recommendation but recommended that we not commit ourselves to new non-opiate initiatives. He stressed that we could continue to treat the non-opiate drug abuser in our existing facilities, but should separately consider aggressive outreach for polydrugs and the budgetary implications of any policy initiatives adopted.

A summary of agreed upon demand side policy initiatives is at Tab B.

Mr. Laird turned the meeting over to Deputy Secretary Rush to consider the international agenda item.

Mr. Rush indicated that, despite successes in the past, strong new diplomatic initiatives were needed to bring new heroin sources under control.

Ambassador Handley called for concurrence with the recommended options in the international issue paper (summarized at Tab C).

He stressed that the new international smuggling problem differed from the old.

The new areas of concern are: (1) Mexico, (2) the Golden Triangle (tri-border area of Burma, Thailand and Laos), and to a lesser extent, (3) Pakistan and Afghanistan. In these areas, opium is grown illicitly (as opposed to Turkey’s where licit diversion was the issue) and is harder to locate and interdict.

Ambassador Handley expressed his perception of a continued, high level of Congressional concern over international drug trafficking, citing the recent across-the-board support he received for an important new drug assistance program we are attempting to negotiate with the Government of Burma. He said that Congress was willing to spend whatever was necessary to get the job done overseas.

Ambassador Handley stated that the recommended Golden Triangle initiatives, particularly in Thailand, would be essential to gaining control over the drug trafficking problem in that area.

Ambassador Handley said that the most serious problem is the increasing supply of drugs originating in Mexico, which has been designated by the Cabinet Committee Working Group as the highest priority drug country overseas. Mexican heroin, once confined to the West and Southwest, is now reaching even the East—and has recently been reported in wholesale quantities in Washington, D.C.

In response to a question by Mr. Laird on India’s controls, Ambassador Handley explained that the Indian situation required monitoring. Perhaps 100 tons (of an approximate eleven hundred ton licit crop) are diverted, though none so far has reached the United States to his knowledge. Ambassador Handley, stressing the potential diversion problem, stated that publicly expressed overconcern with a licit opium shortage might have the unfortunate effect of pushing India into dangerous, hard to control overproduction.

Mr. Ash asked for details concerning the increasing amounts of brown (Mexican) heroin reaching markets and inquired as to the willingness of the Mexican government to respond effectively to the opium/heroin problem.

Mr. Bartels responded by indicating that about 50% of all heroin seized in the U.S. is now of Mexican origin versus only 8% in fiscal 1972. Because of the general decline in heroin availability, this corresponds to perhaps a 200–300% increase in absolute quantities of Mexican heroin smuggled into the U.S. during this same time period. This increase also portends the establishment of new Mexican-based drug distribution networks which, if not disrupted now, could become as entrenched as the old Turkish-French-American connection.

Mr. Bartels stated that Mexico’s President and Attorney General are concerned about the heroin problem but that similar concern is too rarely found at the working level.

He discussed the major difficulties in halting the Mexican production and smuggling: (1) Mexico’s relatively high priority on marijuana, (2) an inadequate and underpaid police force (about 300 Federal Police in all of Mexico), and (3) the extremely rugged and uncontrolled areas where opium is grown and transshipped.

Mr. Bartels expressed satisfaction with recent Mexican willingness to step up a joint U.S.-Mexican eradication campaign and to start a new program with DEA and Mexican Federal Police targeted on major traffickers in Western Mexico.

He stated that while the new interest and commitment was encouraging, the new initiatives outlined in the option paper would be required to achieve measurable short-term progress.

Mr. Bartels then outlined the need for an orderly expansion of his overseas agent force to meet new trafficking threats. He cited the increase from 29 men overseas in 1969 to 168 today, and indicated his perception that further expansion overseas would be highly effective.

Mr. Colby expressed his support for all the proposed overseas initiatives.

Mr. Malek agreed that more resources would be required overseas. He stated that OMB, State and Justice would work to determine what mix of reprogramming and/or new resources would be required to support implementation of the expanded effort.

He also stated that the key is a high level of attention by our Ambassador to Mexico and Thailand; this will require the personal attention of Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Rush.

Mr. Rush and Mr. Laird concurred, citing the past exceptional drug performances of our Ambassadors to Turkey, France and Vietnam as example of what could be done.

Mr. Laird then asked Mr. Minnick to report on the problem of the medicinal opiate shortage.

Mr. Minnick explained that increased worldwide demand, coupled with crop problems in India, has produced a potential shortage of medicinal opiates. First public indication of such a shortage may come during this winter’s flu season.

The only short-term solution is access to the opium stockpile. A bill providing release authority is pending in Congress. Mr. Minnick stated that he expected passage of the bill within two to three weeks, which would permit an initial stockpile release by mid-January.

For the longer term, Mr. Minnick stated that a number of options are being considered and a decision paper will shortly be sent to the President.

Secretary Weinberger said that the seriousness of the problem should be brought to the attention of the public, Congress and the President. He stated that we should immediately: (1) expressly acknowledge the shortage of medicinal opiates, (2) search actively for alternate opium sources, and (3) present the problem to the President. He stated that one goal we should seriously consider would be U.S. independence from foreign sources of supply.

Mr. Ash supported consideration of domestic supply and indicated that staffing for a Presidential decision paper to include consideration of various supply options would be completed this week.

Mr. Handley stated that the special February session of the U.N. Commission on Narcotics Drugs would address the long term supply issue.

Mr. Laird asked Mr. Minnick to submit the option paper as soon as possible.

Mr. Laird summarized Committee decisions on the above topics. It is agreed that: (1) an outreach program should be aggressively pursued to bring non-volunteer heroin addicts into treatment; (2) existing treatment capacity should be maintained; (3) existing facilities should be opened to non-opiate abusers but there should be no public commitment to solve the nation’s polydrug abuse problem; (4) approval in principle of the international initiatives proposed by Ambassador Handley; and, (5) no decision is made on the magnitude or source of additional budget resources required to implement the approved initiatives - resources issues will be worked out jointly by OMB and the affected agencies.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 a.m.

1. Source: Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 359, Subject Files, Narcotics, Volume V, January 1972–December 1973 (2of 3). Confidential. Forwarded on December 3 to all participants. The international initiatives proposed by Ambassador Handley are published as Document 150.
2. Committee members discussed the international drug control situation and initiatives to enhance U.S. efforts abroad.