is subject to arrest, detention in a jail or juvenile hall, and even incarceration in a juvenile institution. Many runaways fall into this pattern; 265,600 were estimated as arrests last year according to the FBI. Running away is the seventh most frequent cause of arrest even though it is only one of the 21 categories of arrest recognized by the FBI which applies only to those under 18.

Many runaways are placed in detention. For example, during the last 3 years, 4,700 runaways were detained an average of 8 days each in the San Diego, Calif., juvenile hall. Many runaways, especially females, are eventually incarcerated in juvenile institutions. It was reported that half of the inmates in both the Indiana and Illinois Training Schools for Girls were runaways in 1973.

Even more serious than the legal consequences of running away are the dangers faced by young runaways on the street. Most runaways flee their suburban family life to go to the city. Being young, unfamiliar with the urban scene, and often without money, they are easy marks for the drug pusher, the hustler, or the street thug. Testimony developed at the hearings linked the runaway incident to the use of dangerous drugs and to petty theft, especially shoplifting. Runaways often have to sell drugs or steal to support themselves. In this way, the runaway incident often serves as the young person's initial contact with the police and the world of criminal activity. The longer the community ignores the underlying problems which cause it, the greater the likelihood that future behavior will be far more serious.

During the past year, the Runaway Youth Act was reintroduced with minor changes as S. 645. Although most youth serving organizations and groups supported S. 645 the measure was not without opposition. In fact the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) opposed the bill primarily on the ground that existing legislation was adequate to meet the needs of these youths. Although the veracity of this argument was the subject of considerable discussion it was without dispute that after five years HEW was doing close to nothing to meet the needs of these children and their families. This bill was reported by the Subcommittee on May 1, 1973, and by the Judiciary Committee on June 4, 1973 (S. Rept. No. 93-191). The Runaway Youth Act was considered and passed by the Senate on June 8,

1973.

III. THE ABUSE OF CONTROLLED DRUGS

During the 91st Congress the Subcommittee devoted a considerable portion of its time to the issues of drug control, drug abuse and the adequacy of federal drug control legislation, culminating in the passage of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (PL 91-513). The overall purpose of the measure was to improve the regulation of the manufacture, importation and exportation of controlled substances covered under its provisions, so that widespread diversion. traffic and abuse then occurring would be more effectively curbed. This past year the Subcommittee has continued its oversight activities relative to these statutes and endeavored to insure that the production and distribution of dangerous drugs is effectively monitored and that the degree of control adequately reflects current and predictable patterns of abuse.

A. SEDATIVE ABUSE: BARBITURATES AND METHAQUALONE

The Subcommittee has proceeded with its study of the increasingly critical problem of drug addiction and abuse among our nation's young people, with particular emphasis on the growing abuse of sedatives, especially barbiturates and methaqualone. Unlike the popular stimulant drugs "uppers" of the late sixties, these drugs-"downers"are taken to dull senses and awareness. We have found that a shockingly large percentage of our high school, and even elementary school population have become involved in the abuse of these dangerous drugs. Unfortunately, these drugs are not generally viewed with the alarm that we view heroin, although we know that the effects of their abuse may be even more devastating. The Subcommittee has heard from numerous witnesses of their increasing dependence and eventual addiction, and of the delinquent, often criminal activity, to which their drug habits led them.

The extent of barbiturate diversion and abuse, the clear potential for even greater abuse, and the inadequacy of federal controls on barbiturates have been documented in the Subcommittee staff report, "Barbiturate Abuse in the United States" 92d Congress, 2d Session, (December 1972) and the many hundreds of pages of testimony in our volume, Barbiturate Abuse 1971-1972.

Much of this abuse occurs because of the overproduction and diversion of legitimately produced sedatives to illicit markets. Diversion occurs at all levels of distribution. This is accomplished by thefts, employee pilferage, unauthorized and illegal sales, forged prescriptions and in some instances excessive and even unlawful prescribing and dispensing. All too often, however, the family medicine cabinet is the source of supply for a young person's first experience with these drugs. Obviously, these drugs, whether diverted from a manufacturer, a wholesaler, retailer, or a practitioner are not meeting legitimate research, medical and industrial needs as intended by the 1970 Act.

During the course of the Subcommittee investigation, several legislative proposals were developed to strengthen existing controls over the production and distribution of sedatives and to facilitate law enforcement efforts to trace legitimately produced drugs diverted to illicit markets. The first bill, S. 983, would transfer four commonly abused shorter-acting barbiturate-amobarbital, butabarbital, pentobarbital, and secobarbital-from Schedule III to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act. The proposed rescheduling would subject these particular barbiturates to production quotas, stricter distribution controls, and more stringent import and export regulations. The second bill, S. 984, would require all manufacturers of solid oral form barbiturates to place identifying marks or symbols on their products. The third bill, S. 985, would require the incorporation of tracer ingredients in controlled substances including barbiturates.

By moving these drugs to Schedule II the Attorney General is required to establish production quotas based on legitimate needs; to establish more rigid security requirements throughout the legitimate chain of distribution; and, to more vigorously control import and export of the substances. All of these measures aim to curb the diversion and the use of these drugs for other than lawful purposes.

Late in 1972 the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs endorsed the Subcommittee proposal to reschedule the barbiturates and acknowledged that their decision was, in part, based on the Subcommittee investigation which focused national attention on the problem of barbiturate abuse. This past year, nearly 111⁄2 years after representatives of the Food and Drug Administration first assured the Subcommittee that their recommendation would be forthcoming, the FDA announced, at a Subcomittee hearing, their concurrence with the proposal to reschedule the barbiturates. Finally, in November 1973, the most popularly abused barbiturates were placed under Schedule II controls.

Concurrent with the barbiturate investigation, the Subcommittee assessed the abuse and abuse potential of similar drugs. Our investigation revealed that methaqualone, a non-barbiturate sedative hypnotic, which is pharmacologically equivalent to the widely abused barbiturates, was becoming a favorite drug of abuse, particularly among juveniles. Many abusers mistakenly thought that these "sopors" and "quaaludes", as they are know on the streets, were a safe substitute for barbiturates. Most alarming was the fact that abusers were combining this drug with alcohol, wine and beer. As with barbiturates, this is a deadly mixture. Because of the casual consideration given to methaqualone and its escalating abuse it was thought to have an even greater potential for abuse than the barbiturates.

In March and April the Subcommittee conducted three days of hearings on S. 1252, developed by the Subcommittee, a bill to place methaqualone under Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act. Testimony was taken from 27 witnesses, including federal, state and local officials, representatives of the medical and drug research communities, experts in emerging patterns of drug abuse, individuals who had experienced the horrors of methaqualone dependency and representatives of the manufacturers of methaqualone, two of whom appeared only after subpoenas were issued requesting their participation. As with the barbiturates, the Subcommittee found that diversion was occurring at all levels of distribution and that controls to curb these abuses were grossly inadequate. In one instance alone 600,000 capsules, with a street value of from $300,000 to $600,000, were stolen from a warehouse. It was the consensus of the witnesses that S. 1252 would provide the controls necessary to more effectively curb such abuses. Following these three days of highly publicized hearings, the FDA announced their decision to recommend Schedule II controls for methaqualone. Later this year, after an administrative hearing requested by a major manufacturer of the drug, methaqualone was placed under Schedule II of the CSA.

During the coming year the Subcommittee will pursue vigorously its efforts to curb the illicit traffic and abuse of sedatives with a high potential for abuse and conduct a vigilant review of the procedures followed by the Drug Enforcement Administration in establishing quotas and other regulatory controls for the barbiturates and methaqualone.

B. ILLICIT METHADONE TRAFFIC AND ABUSE

The Subcommittee continued its investigation of illicit methadone traffic and abuse. The use of methadone in the treatment of heroin addiction involves unique and unusually great risks of diversion and criminal profiteering. When Congress conducted its extensive review of drug control legislation in 1970 the problem was not of significant dimensions; but changes in medical opinion and government policy, which now encourages the broadest possible application of methadone in the treatment of addiction, have drastically altered the situation within the last several years. In 1968, there were fewer than 400 addicts enrolled in methadone programs nationwide; today there are more than 60,000 addicts enrolled and in excess of 400 programs.

This rapid expansion of methadone programs and the quantity of methadone dispensed has simultaneously provided increased opportunity for diversion of the drug into the illicit market. Illegal methadone has several primary origins: careless or unscrupulous physicians, thefts and diversion from programs, and patients enrolled in methadone programs.

In some communities, one or more physicians have contributed substantially to the illicit traffic. A physician in the District of Columbia was recently convicted on 22 counts of illegal methadone distribution. It was alleged that he sold 11,000 prescriptions-815,000 10 mg. doses-and accumulated more than a quarter of a million dollars for his efforts. In California, state agents recently arrested a pair of methadone runners carrying 2,000 methadone pills destined for Southern California. Several Arizona physicians were allegedly the sources for these pills.

Employees and volunteers associated with methadone programs have been implicated as sources of illegal methadone. It appears, however, that such diversion is usually unwittingly permitted and can be attributed to poor organization and loose controls. A more recent phenomenon has been armed robberies of methadone clinics in Baltimore and New York City. In both instances, substantial amounts of methadone were stolen.

Such criminal activities can be very profitable. Average daily dosages range from 40-180 mg. The street price for 10 mg. of methadone ranges from $2-$10. In Los Angeles, the street price for 40 mg. of illegal methadone is reportedly $10. The Subcommittee understands that as part of an effort to determine the sources of diverted methadone, Southern California methadone programs have decided to place a flavor-tracer in their methadone.

Abusers use methadone in a variety of ways. Many prefer methadone to heroin because it is readily available, cheaper, and they find that the euphoria is of longer duration and higher quality, particularly if injected intravenously. Others buy illegal methadone to insure against withdrawal when heroin is unavailable; to boost the effects of cocaine and amphetamine and enhance their euphoric efforts; to reduce the size of their heroin habits: or to sell to others.

A survey of recent applicants for Miami methadone programs found that 40 percent were using illegal methadone along with other drugs. and 7 percent were using solely illegal methadone. In relative terms.

the extent of methadone abuse does not presently rival heroin abuse, but the trend is alarming.

Illicit sales lead to addiction of others. Polydrug abusers and experimenters are among the regular purchasers of illegal methadone. Methadone programs may create a demand as well as supply it. A recent study of 55 heroin addicts terminated from methadone maintenance programs found that 35 percent were abusing illicit methadone along with other drugs, and 8 percent were abusing solely methadone. Many of these new addicts are younger and less experienced with drug use than the typical heroin addict. Some doctors express concern that unless we rigidly control the distribution of methadone we may be creating a new generation of methadone addicts.

The impact of illicit methadone traffic is vividly documented by the staggering number of methadone overdoses and deaths. In New York City, 100 deaths directly attributed to methadone have been reported in the first nine months of 1972, or 15% of all narcotic deaths as compared with 10% in 1971. In Washington, D.C., methadone has been more lethal than heroin. In the first six months of 1972, methadone deaths numbered 26 and heroin 19. Methadone accounted for 14% of the narcotic related deaths in 1971, and 40% of the recorded narcotic related deaths in 1972. Most of the dead are younger people, primarily teenagers who took methadone orally, although some injected it.

A related problem is the increased number of accidental methadone poisonings. Within nine months of opening Detroit's methadone maintenance clinic, 19 children were treated for methadone poisoning. Within the next seven months, 27 others were treated. Several young children died as a result of these methadone poisonings.

In response to the growing incidence of methadone diversion, Senators Cook and Bayh introduced legislation, S. 1115, to require separate registration of practitioners who utilize narcotic drugs in the treatment of addiction and to provide for special methadone security requirements. These amendments to the Controlled Substances Act provide the appropriate federal agencies with more adequate tools to facilitate their efforts to investigate and curb the diversion and abuse of narcotic drugs used in the treatment of narcotic addicts.

In order to obtain first-hand knowledge of the problems experienced by methadone programs, Senators Cook, Hruska and Bayh visited numerous clinics and centers throughout the country. The Subcommittee concluded its hearings on this measure in Washington, D.C. in April 1973. A total of 60 witnesses testified during the 5 days of hearings. The Methadone Diversion Control Act of 1973, S. 1115 as amended, was reported favorably by the Subcommittee on May 21, the Committee on May 31, and passed by the Senate on June 8, 1973.

C. IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL DISPENSING AND USE OF DRUGS BY ATHLETES

Throughout the Subcommittee's investigations of the diversion of legitimately manufactured drugs to illegal uses numerous reports regarding the improper use of controlled substances in athletic competition were uncovered. In response to the increasing evidence of abuses in this area and to the concern of many regarding the health and welfare of athletes, particularly those in high school and college pro