On June 10, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, Egil ("Bud") Krogh, Jr., Jeffrey Donfeld, Arnold R. Weber, Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, Manolo Sanchez, White House operator, and Clifford M. Hardin met in the Oval Office of the White House from 3:08 pm to 4:24 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 516-010 of the White House Tapes.
Transcript (AI-Generated)This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.
Yeah, yeah.
What are we talking about?
We've broken it down to about three phases.
The immediate future is about the next 40 days, then from June 15th, phase two, for about 60 days.
And then phase three, Dr. Chappie has been working with the Pentagon starting on Monday of this week, after we had our
That's the way to program their identification and the treatment, where to do it, how to do it.
So we've had a number of long meetings with them.
Dr. Jaffe has given them some suggestions, expert suggestions as to how we can identify them quickly.
And all we can do is Dr. Jaffe can go through the diagnosis of the problems he's seen and weigh out his strategy over the next two or three months.
Well, let me get back to your point in terms of our
They said we cannot put this out as a serviceman program.
So what are we, is this something clear?
How are we coming on the overall program?
The overall program right now, maybe, as far as you understand, what we want to do is, it must be put out as a, it must be presented as a national rather than a serviceman.
This will be one part of the overall package, which will go next week, which includes this new organization, rehabilitation, training, education, research, covering everybody.
And international affairs as well as domestic law enforcement, domestic treatment.
This will be one piece, but because it is so critical right now, we thought we should do this part of it.
Fundamentally, we're concerned with the problem of approximately 31,000 servicemen returning.
31,000 that are there now?
Yes, returning within the next 30 to 40 days.
If their estimates are correct, and they were probably low, 10% of those are active drug users.
How many of those are hardcore, how many of those are simply people who've been using someone is not clear.
However, I think it's critical that some treatment be given them, and that these servicemen not be simply released into the civilian population, because the capacity of the civilian treatment programs is just not there.
It's much more difficult to tool up to treatment.
The immediate response that I'm going to present to you is far from what we consider ideal.
It's what we can do immediately.
And what we can do is to identify the drug user using urinalysis techniques.
Identify them at two points, the points of departure.
People with positive urines or heroin will be detained five to seven days for simple detoxification.
At that point, they'll be transported back to the United States.
Those who have no further service time will be referred to whatever VA or civilian facilities are available, and there are typically few.
It's almost a non-referral.
Can you set up something where we can, I'm afraid, fill that gap?
We can begin at the intermediate and long-term time.
There will be some of them that will be slipping through the system in the short run.
Those servicemen, however, for their service time, will get additional treatment.
So approximately for their service time, they'll get a cure or, you know...
In the United States.
They're not ready for immediate discharge as soon as they get to the United States.
Why is that?
The service.
Well, the VA doesn't spend some time to tool up.
They can't do it.
That's the Army tool, I'm telling you.
Would you like a tea or coffee, Coca-Cola?
No, thank you.
Marijuana?
Okay.
Well, uh...
The author says it can make a huge difference.
You've got that book that I sent out to Crowe.
But it doesn't matter.
I always give him meetings.
Bring it in.
I'd like you to talk for Dr. Daddy to see it.
I mean, I think he'd be interested in writing it, but he probably knows you very well.
I mean, the head of medicine for Greenwich Field, the copywriter's probably the only one who brought it on.
He's aware of your work.
He just digresses on it.
It's a book.
I don't know if the book is apocryphal or not.
I want you to take a look at it.
It's probably nice for you to know.
I feel very strongly that this whole program
Could we not?
Of course, zero in on the service man, zero in on the heroin problem.
That's the immediate problem, the most dangerous.
But this whole field of drugs generally, which I know you can't bite it all off right away, but let's be sure that we get into that.
Let's get HEW to start cracking down on some of these people.
What do you feel?
I think we have to move on all fronts, but we have to set priorities to contract energy.
Do what you can, but with the money and the personnel.
I might say that the basic rationale for the urgency of the service component is because
You know, they're really feeding into the civilian component.
It's really all one, just an equilibrium.
And if they were not to do this, it would simply overload the civilian thing.
And I think we can make this into an integrated, comprehensive view of the situation.
that will eventually have to rule out discipline and VA capacity because the servicemen who are leaving, who do not want further treatment, will not be very susceptible to treatment if they're held against their will.
They just generally become instigators and they destroy the capacity for treatment of those servicemen who are willing to stay longer or have more time to serve.
The immediate response then is detection.
Detection five to seven days, detoxification.
Then two groups are coming back.
One group with more service time, one group ready for immediate discharge.
Over the next 30 to 45 days, those who are given immediate discharge have been given a lift and promise and we pray fervently that they won't relapse because there's not much that we can do for them at this time.
However, one can say that they were not actively physically dependent at the time they left, and that at least is some accomplishment.
They'll all be identified.
They'll know all of them starting perhaps within four days.
That would be useful.
Yes.
Or whatever.
I don't know what it is.
It's essential.
It's helpful.
It helps to know.
Because in this immediate response, we will begin to do some crude but useful surveys of what the real extent of drug use is,
in the troops newly arriving, because right now we'll be identifying only those leaving.
Furthermore, we will begin to follow up those who left recently and find out what happens to them.
This may be a different brief deferral in the future.
They may not relapse to the same extent.
That feeling of what's happening in some capacity may be ill-advised.
Maybe they do much better than we can expect.
And if we can get that data, we can know just how desperate we have to feel.
That will be part of this next 30 to 45 days.
Now, starting somewhere around July, the figures using now up to 60,000 are based upon what I talked to a private.
He estimated 60% of his unit were heroin addicts.
And they're just ballpark figures that people are getting desperate about.
Furthermore, we will not wait until somebody makes an issue about Europe.
That screening will be done within the next three or four weeks.
We will know the extent of hardcore drug use in Europe before it becomes a major issue.
I see.
You can work on that at the same time.
Yes.
We have the cylinders to do both.
Yes.
You have enough of the machines.
Well, we have a technique by which we can collect the specimen, extract the drug with a piece of paper, save the piece of paper in a file, and get to it when we can.
It's not credible how soon we get to it.
It's been around for about five years.
It's a little piece of iron exchange and paper.
And the capitals on the paper absorb the drugs.
You take the piece of paper out, it dries up.
You write the name on it.
You can file it and analyze it any time next year.
And it can be transported in an envelope, so you don't have to have the facility data.
These three things, one need not do immediate analysis.
So we can move, in terms of these three things, all over as quickly as we can tool up and design the appropriate statistical procedures, so that we know what the data means.
Could I just make a suggestion here in terms of this position?
This would be very important.
What day is this going to be done?
Thursday is our scheduled day for all of these.
It is very important.
I think you ought to take it also as far as the districts are concerned, not from the perspective of the White Institute.
You say, did you ever, have you ever taken a poll of Berkeley students?
Harvard students?
Harvard students?
No, no, I've seen some of these, about 70%.
Use drugs.
How many use how?
I don't know.
But the point that I make is this.
I think what you say is that, sure, young people generally, whether they're in the service or not, they may use them.
So I wouldn't like to get the impression that, you see, the issue could be very, very difficult.
We seem to say, well, the whole drug problem grew out of the war.
It didn't.
It was there long before the war, and it's going to be there a hell of a lot longer after the war.
Now, the way to do it, it seems to me, is to say, all right, so you've got, how many, 60,000, or what is it, or how many?
There have been, uh, how many in Vietnam?
Three million.
What's the percentage there?
It was finally in Vietnam.
So you take your percentages and get a good perspective.
I think it's very important.
The purpose is not to downgrade the problem of Vietnam or Europe or that matter.
The purpose is not to allow the issue to be diverted.
If you divert it that way, then it'll just become a great big harangue.
about the evils of the service.
My boy went into the service and became a drug addict.
Now this is the case.
My boy stays out of the service and goes to Harvard.
I'd say anybody who goes to Harvard has got just as much of a chance to get drugs as Vietnam.
Probably a little more, even afforded more there.
Even though Vietnam is very cheap.
There are different kinds of drugs.
It's hard to find LSD in a few little places.
It is.
Not as much heroin, it's not as expensive.
I think it's important to point out that there's a hell of a lot of drug addicts, and it's a different life.
The Ivy League schools, I mean, just get this right down.
What do you got?
You got the dropouts in Vietnam.
You got the elite in Harvard and Columbia and Yale and so forth.
And those people, the hires, I mean, they were on drugs in Vietnam.
Now, I want that given right now.
This is really important.
This is true.
employment opportunities.
But the other reason is they're afraid they're going to be actors.
Well, you see, what are you going to say?
If you tell them,
If you tell a businessman that he's got a much higher chance when he hires a veteran of having a drug addict than when he hires a non-veteran, he's going to hire a non-veteran.
So you see, like you said, your picture is made very well showing, as I know the reason why, because it costs so little.
And the guys out there in the environment, people in Asia, anybody who's been in South Asia, India, all those countries, I mean, it's a natural tendency.
But we've got to be sure that we don't be
to destroy the chance for veterans to come back and get a chance to go, you know, I think that we may even do that, but from that point of view, I think it's very important, very important that you, because of you, coming from you as an expert, you can play that role.
Don't smear this whole group of young Americans who simply happen to be exposed out there.
There may be evidence, or at least some hope, that this is not a typical person who starts heroin and therefore will not relapse when they come back, which is a study.
How could that be?
Is this a different kind of heroin?
No, because generally people begin to use drugs in their own environment.
They learn to use them.
It becomes part of the fabric of their lifestyle.
Their friends use them.
They're using them in social situations.
So the boys who are using them now are using them in a foreign land, in a unique context, among men they'll never see again, buying from people they may never see again.
When they return, it's a new identity.
Hopefully, they're as likely to throw a grenade at a civilian as they are to use heroin.
In other words, the identity of a soldier is also gay.
hopefully perhaps the identity of drug users should.
In contrast, the ones that we've seen for the last 30 years become drug users in their neighborhood, we take them out and treat them, but then we put them right back in the neighborhood where the drug is part of the fabric of their lifestyle.
That's particularly true, though, that they take the blacks, where you find that 48% of all heroin users are black.
Basically, they take them out and they go right back in, right?
This is precisely the issue.
And the issue for optimism
And we'd like to be able to demonstrate that that optimism is well-founded, which is one of the reasons that it may not be as horrible and as abysmal in terms of the outlook for having used heroin.
And it would have been if these same young blacks, for example, first used the heroin in the neighborhood.
I don't know how long it will take us to get that data, or whether or not this optimism is well founded, but we'll try to get it.
And if it turns out that the relapse rate for heroin users from Vietnam is perhaps 20%, whereas heroin users who begin staying back in the ghetto is 85%, the kind of treatment we can offer, it says that, again, this may not be as visible as we're used to thinking about it.
And we'll strive to get that data to see if this is well-founded.
Let me say that in this immediate response, it's a simple intoxication process.
It's a lick and a promise, nothing more.
And we won't claim to have it be anything more.
And I think that unless we move quickly to something more extensive, there'll be criticism.
Let me tell you what the concerns of the military are with respect to a longer period of treatment in Vietnam.
First of all, as you stack people up,
There's a morality.
They expect it to go home, not to delay.
There's maybe perhaps a discipline.
A lot of... And among this group,
They have some character disorders, some instigators, and if you pile them all together, there's an issue not only of morale, but of discipline.
I think the military is concerned about riot, other kinds of things.
Secondly, as you stack them up there for longer-term treatment, they're worried about the possibility of an attack that could cause some casualties.
Again, this would look bad.
We tried to keep them, but something happened.
I raised that point with the other morning, and I said, listen, you see, at the present time, for example, the casualties last week were down to day 19.
They were all simply terrorist bombs.
I mean, nothing clear.
We're not in any offensives.
We're basically in defensive positions, and that's what will be the situation from now on, probably.
But you see, if you could just might be so lucky as to have one of those crazy
Those missiles that they have are very uncertain.
hit one of these places and you knock all the 100 guys to be kept there two weeks too late.
That's exactly what the military said.
And we forget it.
That's right.
You just can't run that risk.
But on the other hand, I want to hear the argument, because I raised this point myself.
I understand, from what you told earlier, that you said if you could keep them there 60 days, you'd have a much better chance to do the job.
What's the argument for that?
Maybe that's a word I want to tell.
What we were trying to...
If you have 60 days after, if you have to get to the airport and see a desire to do it, do you want a program that you could keep them in 60 days after their turn left?
What I was hoping is a program that would keep them at non-drug uses for minimum, minimum of 60 days before they left.
Which means you have to move the diagnosis back in time 60 days from the point of departure.
Then they could do that.
And then suppose they have, they're still using, keep them there for 60 days.
No, I think if they were still using up to the time we might detoxify them there,
and then perhaps try to get them into more treatment.
But I think if we began to reward some soldiers who were non-drug users, as evidenced by urine tests, for a minimum of 60 days prior, they might leave 10 days earlier.
In other words, perhaps we could reward the non-drug users
Without penalizing the drug user, but simply saying, well, we still found drugs within 60 days of the time you were here.
We'll put you through a detox program and send you back.
I'm getting to that.
If I can give one more concern to the military.
We talked about discipline, morale.
We talked about potential casualties.
They're also concerned about how can you rehabilitate when heroin capsules, 95% pure, $2 and they're all over it.
So they feel that some of this muscle cost here is the same amount perhaps that he does.
There's a 40-volt difference.
What does it take for an individual to be on heroin?
Does he have a shot a day?
It varies, I don't know.
They're sorting it.
I would get one capsule of heroin and use that as 250 milligrams, whether it's snorted or smoked.
One capsule could give somebody a habit.
What does it cost an individual to be a heroin addict in New York City today?
Owes $50 to $75 a day unless he sells it, in which case he simply sells a little extra and uses some of his own.
If he's not a seller, he's got to steal or earn $50 a day.
except by committing crimes.
So our concerns have been, of course, that somebody would begin to commit a crime, appear before a judge, and lay the onus of his difficulty on the service for treatment, which is our sense of urgency for getting adequate treatment, so that it can be done.
But it seems to me the argument you're giving on the service, I think the rest of the team, I can see the argument the other way, but there are too many risks.
And so we have to just deal with it, temporize with it, and find a better way.
The intermediate phase would be to treat, again, near detoxification, but hopefully we would have more treatment available on this side, more military facilities, and we could begin to transfer people into the VA, which by that time would be tooled up, perhaps 45 days from now.
Anybody who left then would certainly have left a treatment facility.
Now furthermore, there is one other option that has to be explored.
We certainly cannot negotiate this with the military, but one way to get extra treatment without demoralizing people, without exposing them to risk, without exposing too much discipline, you know, generally too much disciplinary problem and certainly reducing heroin availability would be to bring the drug user home on a transport.
That would give us three weeks to
Good.
For deep house.
Now, the ways of checking is that people get seasick, that cross the border.
That's fine.
That's an easy one.
We can look into that kind of thing.
It can take more than three weeks, too.
Yeah.
Slow boat.
I went to the media once.
If they're...
If they're there, if I remember it.
Even if we don't lose her, even if we didn't transport her, we shouldn't have to use the tips and anchors and detoxification facilities, which would in some way reduce her availability, control with respect to discipline, and maybe reduce the possibility of casualties with those rockets.
Now...
This has to be worked up, because there's not many places where you can try that.
If there are no compelling reasons why this can't be done, it's something that will be seriously explored.
Ideally, and it may take several months to get there, we will move the diagnosis back.
so that we will be training men at least 60 days prior to their departure, giving them an incentive to remain drug-free during that time by periodic healing tests.
The ones who are drug-free, perhaps we can leave a little earlier, those who haven't remained drug-free would now undergo detoxification at a slow boat home.
Now that's some incentive to slow boaters group.
Now, lastly, we're going to have to deal with the issue of drug users there who are not scheduled to come home even in the next six months.
We have to develop an expansion of the amnesty treatment program, make it more systematic, more extensive.
Well, the Amnesty Program would be there in Vietnam.
Now, if it turns out that the programs are so low-key that the man can't be available to serve equally as his compatriots who are not drug users, that would not be considered service time.
If, on the other hand, it's so close to the base of operations that even though these groups and other things keep him out there with a gun if necessary, then we have the option of saying, look, this will not be detracted from your service time.
If you're exposed to the same risks...
We'll consider it service time.
If you're not, it doesn't count.
It will be added on to your time in Vietnam.
That may be a fair and equitable adjudication to this issue.
It will be flexible about it.
Now, those things will have to be geared up.
People will have to be trained.
And we'll have to, I think, engage
in more intensive education.
If the man comes out of it successfully, he should not be stigmatized.
He should be permitted to serve further and obtain honorable discharge.
He will obviously fit after a certain amount of time into the group that's being screened when his signal date comes.
If he's not a drug user, fine, he's all finished with it.
Now, lastly, we have two other problems, which is we really would like to be able to exert some pressure on the incidence and prevalence of this.
Maybe we would like to
Try some educational things, some other kinds of incentives and demonstrations that would convince people that perhaps using heroin over there is not a wise idea.
We have several ideas to this extent.
We believe that some of these men are just convinced that if you snort it or smoke it, nothing will happen.
That's not the case.
We have ways of demonstrating this.
There are drugs called narcotic antagonists, which do absolutely nothing to people who haven't used narcotics.
The tiniest dose of such a drug to somebody who has will precipitate withdrawal symptoms.
They'll feel sick.
We can do this anonymously.
We can give everybody drugs.
They make their own diagnosis.
You know who's straight around here, who hasn't used.
You know who should use heavily, and you know what should have used.
If you need to be further convinced, you know, if you're not sick, you know, fine.
But if you are sick,
then that could demonstrate to you that you only have to use a few days when you're snorting or smoking, and you do begin to get sick on that.
That would involve an impulsory injection of some kind?
Yes.
There would be a minor and minimal morbidity risk.
It's possible, of course, that somebody who's late, ready to have a heart attack could, even if they were seriously sick, die.
On the other hand, if our data is correct, that the active herd loser in the urban areas can expect to have a
a 1% probability of dying each year, meaning 1% of 1,000 drug users who return to use heroin will die each year, even though they may be the 18 to 20 age range, then of 1,000 people who return to relapse, 10 may die.
We expect that the mobility of this thing would be less than 1 in 10,000.
So we have a 100-fold benefit ratio.
And it doesn't mean we're taking that kind of risk, and it may work.
It's certainly worth looking at it, and certainly a group of scientists would say we think it's worth even that small risk to demonstrate that physical dependence does occur in a relationship.
So much for the immediate, intermediate, and long-term developments.
The long-term idea, of course, is to get maximal reduction of use to education, to incentives to remain drug-free.
And we think, perhaps, the greatest incentive will be the simple reality that we can now diagnose heroin use.
The troops are convinced, at this point, that they can smoke in front of the commanding officer behind them, but you can't tell.
And that will end partially within 10 days, and probably entirely within 60 days.
As our testing facilities are in full operation... Do we have a problem compelling your own testing?
Not the Army.
And they do it all the time, so it's nothing new.
They are, for purposes of indignity, working at crash speed on a saliva test.
You put a cotton blot in your sheet, you take the cotton blot out and analyze it, and then you can spill it out to the sterilizers.
So if one doesn't have the ejection, he's diggity for urine tests.
Oh, they use them on women's tests for diggity.
Women are much more difficult in getting peed into a bottle.
Now, the idea of such a way of treatment is so accurate.
Having already minimized the number of people using, having gotten most people, hopefully, to discontinue at least 60 days prior to leaving Vietnam, so there isn't this problem, there'll still be a small floor of people still using.
We'll detoxify them, and by the time we get them back, perhaps on the boat,
We'll still have a full range of civilian and VA services, primarily VA, to which they can be transferred.
So they don't even leave the Army as a discharged person who's only had 10 days of treatment.
If they're going to leave, they're going to leave.
Perhaps you need medical advice from a treatment facility.
At that point, the illness is on bandage.
Dr. Chapman, maybe I can explain a little bit of that link-up between the man who came back who was discharged and those who were still in the military and what happens to them because we're trying to work out the authorities now.
So we have a positive link-up between the person who has been identified as a heroin user and the treatment facility.
That's the story now.
Well, as Bud indicated, the objective is to provide adequate care and treatment for all narcotic addicts, both military and non-military.
And that essentially involves a balance of facilities, both in the defense medical system, the VA system, and with private and other public agencies.
It's difficult to identify at this time what would be the appropriate balance of facilities
but you don't know the extent to which the military would retain people within the military system.
In part, as you described it, it's a matter of options.
So what we're supposed to do in the new agency is give the director of that new agency the authority to assign addicts for treatment in any facility, federal or otherwise, on a contract basis to ensure adequate treatment.
and to ensure proper balance between facilities.
Now there is an immediate problem with the VA, and I don't think we should have any illusions.
Presently the VA has five drug rehabilitation centers, which on average have a capacity of 15 patients for in-house treatment and 200 a day on an outpatient basis.
They have provision for 30 centers
additional centers which were to be in place at the end of fiscal 73.
Part of the plan is to accelerate the development of these centers so that they're in place at the end of fiscal 72.
You know, the authority that we give to the head of the director is to utilize any facilities at a particular point in time.
That's right.
So he could use public health service.
He could use CNN and Halfway House.
And then he'd try and iron it out, you know, as you get a better assessment of the need and distribution in service and how you'd have an adequate balance of facilities without dealing with the other problem that OMB is sensitive to.
And that's building up VA to a point, committing to facilities 10 years from now.
I know the president is going to be confronted with the problem that you have now in terms of certain open capacities and costs.
The VA is a very, it's about the most inefficient organization.
We've got a variety of reasons.
And the real problem, the real problem,
That's right.
If you get in and go ahead and build it up, they'll build something we'll have forever.
We'll never get rid of it.
You never can get rid of a bed in a VA hospital, even though you've got half of them in it.
That's right.
You never can put anybody else in them, even though half of them are empty.
It's the damnedest thing I've ever seen.
Some hospitals, even though we have a whole lot of Johnson's, are probably in renaissance.
So we should give major priority to assisting the VA contract for those services.
Well, or have the project, the head of the new agency, have the authority to contract with the private and other public institutions.
That's correct.
If there are other institutions there that take the contract?
Now, there is one other problem in using the VA, which might require legislation, and that's the fact that in order to get VA services, you have to be a veteran, and that rules out people with dishonorable discharges, puts BCDs
in an ambiguous state, so one of the things we contemplate is, if necessary, an amendment to the law to ensure treatment for anybody who incurred the habit while in service and became an addict.
As a matter of fact, he's the one in front of it.
He's the fellow, you see, who under the influence of narcotic or other character disturbance attacked the sergeant, so he gets a desirable discharge even though there's amnesty for drug addiction.
And we don't want those fellows to fall between the tracks.
I would assume that's the preferred way to go.
So this is just one piece of the overall package that will be going next Thursday.
And these working groups now have produced some material on international affairs, what we're going to do diplomatically with various countries.
Some of them will be represented here on Monday that are being brought back.
Also, we have some other legislation and criminal sanctions, but we're probably not going to go to a death penalty, as we just omitted that from the bill last year.
So we're working on that to find something that fits in.
Maybe the penalty thing is gone as far as we feel it has.
I think so, sir.
You don't think much of that?
The penalties are sales.
Suppliers.
I think that they have to be severe enough to be meaningful.
I'm really sorry.
That is, no, I, I... That, that's, it gets to be counterproductive.
Yeah, but I was thinking of what we were thinking about in this, I'm trying, I'm trying to think of whatever the big suppliers need on this crime.
I, I could tell them all.
I don't do anything with that penalty.
Has anybody ever considered an equal penalty for the policeman who takes a bribe from one of those?
Yes, there ought to be a part of the conspiracy.
Yeah, but the worst you can get him on is bribery.
He's a silent partner who takes his money from the club.
As a matter of fact, for the law, a conspirator just gets the same...
Well, I guess he is a conspirator.
He's a politician.
That's the irony of it, that they are all silent partners and yet in the last 15 years I'll bet you can count the number of policemen who have been prosecuted for their conspiracy and their participation on the fingers of your hands.
The policemen in this case are non-facers.
He has no specific intent, I see, with regard to a specific act of sale.
He just takes pride.
He just turns around and walks away.
In other words, my God, they ought to do well.
But that, of course, is something that has to be handled locally.
We can't do that nationally, you see, because you're not going to find a lot of federal...
My God, I would recommend that very, let's get a recommendation strongly in there for any law enforcement, any individual, any law enforcement official who conspires or whatever you want to call it.
Why not?
It's a weird kind of government decision.
It is.
It's what we're doing with the police right now with police killings and arrests.
I'm not sure the timing of that.
Okay.
Yes.
And there are some good ones.
And what's going to happen to them?
I think probably the rest we're going to do is urge states and local governments to do something like this, because our own law enforcement is BNDD.
And pretty much we have that covered.
So it would only be encouraging laws like that to be enacted.
And you couldn't do anything directly federally about local police and their involvement in preparing their uniform acts.
How about through LEAA?
Is there any ?
There ought to be a reform action on that.
There really should be.
My God, that is a... That is right.
You know, Whipsaw goes in there, you know, and he goes out and tries to live on his $7,000.
The bad cop makes $20,000 taking bribes on something that was brought away.
Well, in a sense, Mr. President, if they take bribes... That's always a low form of life, too.
If they take bribe from numbers, I feel less incentive that they take bribes from guys selling heroin to children.
And that is one issue that has to happen.
The only ones that you have any sympathy for are the users.
The users have got into it, so that's that.
But anybody that is, anybody who colludes in any way with this sort of thing, who is not a user, you've got no sympathy for them.
And they should just throw the book away.
If something happened on that level to let them know that this kind of non-teasiness is really considered a major offense against society, you might multiply the local enforcement troops against this several hundredfold.
Because everybody would know this is something you don't walk away from.
But, for example, you know, I used to live in Hanson.
No, as a matter of fact, the thing that strikes me most... No, I have not recommended it in any place.
It just strikes me that in the history of this, nobody has ever come up with the idea that the policeman who walks away has to take a bribe from his own apartment.
Why not, rather than just making a high up statement to the National Association of Police Chiefs, tell Wilson to put him to effect right here in the district of Columbia?
Can he do that?
I mean, he could.
Now, what is he?
Now, we have to wait.
That would have to have a law.
That's a terrible law.
We need some legislation.
I know, but it is.
You see, just limit him to the district.
The district could be a model place.
The district is Ronald O'Reilly's people.
And just tell Wilson that, uh, that, uh, let's get, let's get a,
We'll act.
You'll set our standard in conjunction with the other.
We don't want to impugn our police department singularity, but we want to say this is a nationwide problem, that we're going to do it, and that's where we can all stay true.
But I see, you see, by doing that, rather than saying, look, we call upon police departments throughout the country to pass law, we've got to call upon city councils to pass laws,
on policing.
Let's just have, let's see what we can do here in the District of Columbia to deal with this specific problem.
Pointing out at the same time, this is the greatest police department.
You can't get all that stuff.
Or perhaps we're tired of it.
Good cops are part of the same brush.
It can really matter.
Let the Chief, let the Chief recommend it.
Let the Chief recommend it.
That's it, you know.
Here's Jerry Wilson, a good straight arrow follow.
He says we're not allowed to.
Well, let's see what we can do there.
Or, is there anything we can do?
The iron is the policeman has the option of never touching him.
All he does is take his money for walking away.
He can't do anything to him.
He never possesses.
He never sells.
The worst thing that can happen after he's made $25,000, he can't see.
He can't talk to anybody else.
I see the park is just like walking on the other side of the street.
That's all.
Well, I think it's a good idea, without impugning the police, but let it come from the police.
Let them all like Wilson.
Let him come up with it.
Let us do it here.
And then that will set some of these other people free.
Now, taking that as an overall part of the joke, the price of heroin will initially go up as you begin to sleep.
The police will then get into action because there's no more incentive and the risk is too high to be involved.
We really have to be geared up then to treat all those people who can no longer buy heroin.
And it's all part of this coordinated kind of thing to really move treatments that nobody has to wait for treatment.
They get into it when they want to.
Because if you're all successful with this, there's not going to be that much heroin around to finally bring it to some degree under control.
What is your, what is the name of it?
Have you, are you, when we talk about treatment, do you have a variety of, are you an addict of any one?
Methadone, is that your?
I think methadone.
Which one?
Well, my bag is that anybody who has only one response is repertoire.
You know, he is singularly myopic.
Yeah.
In fact, it takes a lot of different.
Do you use a psychiatrist too?
Occasionally.
But rarely.
So rarely that we do not permit psychotherapy in the program as such in Illinois.
Because it's a waste of effort.
On the other hand, there are the occasional physicians who suppress the nurse, the people who have real psychiatric difficulties.
I'm not going to rule it out entirely, but I just didn't permit it in the program.
Don't get that great big bang, though, because they might be right.
They have enough problems here to solve.
Primarily, we would use groups and we would train non-professionals to run those groups.
We've done it.
Very, very effective.
That's great.
That's great.
Our program is primarily built on more than 50% of our staff.
Well, that's true.
60% of our staff are people who prior to coming with us did not take a job and had been in prison.
And now, so most of our budget goes to people who never held jobs before.
But they can't ever sign.
Yes, they cannot.
Well, so amazingly well, some of them sit for my children.
They take my wife to various places.
They come in and I have a feeling that I can trust them with my life.
And they change that much.
or change those homes?
I don't know anything about it, but let me ask you about it.
I ask this because this is a question of what about methadone?
Do you buy the argument that methadone is the worst?
Absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
Methadone is a keystone in the treatment of heroin addiction.
It's funny, when I was here talking to David, he was here recently.
He didn't know much about it, remember?
He said, but I have a lot of cards and such, don't they?
Because Bud's sending a lot of information.
And the letter was obviously done by one of the staff people who may do a little more about what was going on.
And what David did was not familiar with the treatment so far.
He could afford not to.
I would take care of that sitting down.
I see.
We have about 18 facilities in the city of Chicago, and we're on about the state of Illinois, under Dick Oberlin.
I see.
The state is not so interesting.
The tradition in Chicago is that the state is responsible for mental health.
Heroin addiction was put in the Department of Mental Health so there was no burden on the city.
So quietly, the state was assuming the burden for heroin addiction.
And the mayor didn't know because the mayor's Department of Mental Health just wasn't his office.
If he got involved, it cost him something.
He did.
Doctor, can you explain how methadone is used in the programs?
It's not totally methadone.
Well, as I said, we have many responses in our repertoire.
We have therapy in communities like Synanon and Daytown Village.
And for that, for young people who have only been on heroin for a little while, someone can do it beautifully.
But it's very selective.
It's a very controversial group that is effective for a very select group.
But they have most of their time available to go around giving speeches on how they've been converted.
There's a certain evangelical quality to it.
Which is not bad, but the difficulty is that they are not very critical about themselves.
They think they have the only way and they are willing, all too willing to denigrate other approaches because they were helped by this one.
The others came possibly to give us value, even though the evidence is that most people are not helped by their particular approach.
It is sufficiently useful, however, that we have this component of our program.
We also have methadone as a major component.
Now, we use methadone in two ways.
First of all, we detox some people.
We use the methadone as a transient treatment.
We put people on methadone from Harlem to methadone, and we get them off in a matter of months.
A lot of people want that.
Strangely enough, many drug users don't want to stay on methadone indefinitely.
They would like to come on.
They would like to be as free of the need for treatment as anyone else.
Unfortunately for many of them, they can't make it without methadone.
Within a period of a few weeks or months, they relapse the heroin use and put them back on.
But some do make it.
have been on methadone for a year, have been off of methadone for two years, and they're functioning quite well, holding very fine jobs.
Very recently, on one of our facilities, a bank made a donation at 2 a.m. to one of our programs, which is run by a nonprofit corporation.
The check was signed by the executive secretary, who herself had texted that program the year before.
Sorry, what are the terms of this?
What's the relationship between the banks?
What's the relationship between them?
It's still about 4 to 1, about 20%.
20% women, 80% men using early.
And they work out that women are much tougher to treat for many reasons.
Once they get it.
But they do it on fire.
Apparently not.
Right.
The other way to use methadone is, of course, simply to keep people on methadone over a prolonged period of time.
Gradually they become tolerant to it.
You can't tell that somebody's on methadone when you talk to them.
It looks in every way perfectly normal, except you must take methadone every day.
If he stops, he gets a methadone.
Exclusively orally.
Well, we don't even use a pill.
We dissolve it all in juice.
And that makes it impossible to dissolve it in LSD.
Well, they do that optionally.
You can take LSD anyway.
But methadone is a obligatory dispense in juice, so people have to drink it.
It makes it difficult to sell it.
And in general, we try to get most people ingesting the direct observation in a clinic so that they can't sell it on the street.
Now that obviously is ideal.
Method of this has to be given every day.
You can't expect a man to hold a job and work and come to a clinic seven days a week.
See, I'd rather take some home.
And that causes some problems.
This is something we're trying to solve, something we're trying to minimize.
We will have, I hope, within a year,
for general availability.
That drug can last, like methadone, the rest of the week.
Three days.
Well, it already happened the last three days.
We'll work on one that lasts a week.
So we can get it Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and there's no drug on the street.
That's a drug we developed at the University of Chicago.
We sort of unburied it.
It was so long-acting, it was useless before this problem was there.
And we disinterred it.
We tried it out.
And we can treat people equally effectively by giving them this medicine three times a week, and there's no medicine on the street.
And there's no medicine for people to inject accidentally.
Every once in a while, an addict who's in treatment will leave his medicine lying around carelessly.
As some people do with aspirin, something else in the childhood, drinking.
And it's a very big dose.
It's like they die from aspirin or other things, but the papers always pick it up and make a major issue if one or two people in the entire country die of methadone, whereas we have 50 or 100 deaths every year routinely from aspirin.
It's never reported.
I'm a nominator.
Oh, sure.
If you take a little, take the bottom 24 aspirin, because if that's the dose, it's very much retrieved.
The reason we're going with this type of treatment, I think, is because of the goals that we're shooting for.
People that are in places like Synanon, Phoenix House, Daytime Village, Odyssey House, our goal is to have a person completely drug-free.
The problem is he's only drug-free so long as he is connected with that type of clinic.
We want to have a person that is a job-holding, law-abiding, taxpaying citizen.
And with this type of treatment, where methadone is provided, some job counseling, some psychotherapy, family counseling, legal services they've built up in some of these programs, like here in the District of Columbia, if we have a man in a job, with his family, paying taxes, that's about the best that we can do.
I feel that should be the goal of this kind of treatment.
Dr. Judd, why don't you mention the reduced criminal recidivism rates in some programs?
Yes.
Here...
Washington, for example, where they've been able to actually get the arrest records, they've been able to show some dramatic decreases in arrest rates on people treated, and primarily those treated with methadone.
We just had an independent study done of our patients in treatment in Chicago, about Chicago Law School, where they got the arrest rates.
And we see at least a minimum of a 40% decrease in crime as measured merely by arrests.
We suspect the reduction in crime is considerably greater
Because some of the arrests that people get into are for vagrancy.
They're the same policemen who start picking them up, thinking they're addicts, although they're not anymore.
And you do see major decreases in crime, without question, when one uses methadone.
And one of the goals we have for Illinois, for example, is to make treatment so available that nobody will ever be able to say, I committed a crime because I felt sick and had to steal to buy the drug.
We will make treatment, if you will, instantly available.
If you feel sick, you need a drug, you come to us.
We'll put you instantly on methadone.
And you can't sort of cop out to the judge that you had to do this.
This was your option to do it, to steal.
You didn't have to.
We were here and ready.
And that's the goal.
Now, how long will it take us to get to that in Illinois?
I don't know.
We've moved from zero to almost 2,000.
And we're building gradually, and we continue to build.
But that's a problem every community faces across the nation.
If it has 300 people, it still has to start with one.
It has to train staff.
It has to work out the procedures.
So that's the goal.
And these kinds of centers are part of this overall omnibus approach, sir?
So we're talking about the civilian population.
Education, research, training, prevention, everything that has to do with non-law enforcement, that would be there as well as some law enforcement increases.
The Bureau of Customs has come in with a request to get an increase in that.
They came in with an overly generous request.
Somebody's got to have that time.
Now, Mr. President, on the diplomatic side, after your Monday meetings at 10 o'clock, then we'd like to have these ambassadors go back home and contact the governments of the countries
And then we'd like to have a follow-up from somebody in the White House going out to these embassies in a reasonable interval of time and whacking them again on a follow-up basis.
So we'll have this story rolling, so to speak, over a period of months.
with these follow-on issues.
He's in Italy.
We can put him to work.
He's probably good enough.
So, I could have somebody run over to this office.
Yes.
Either Dr. Jaffe or Krogh or somebody to go out of.
We'll take him to work.
I mentioned one other form of treatment that I think we should have if we can invest enough in the research of the function for some people within a year or so.
That is the availability of certain medications which are not narcotics.
They're not white methadone.
They're narcotic antagonists.
It's almost an immunizing drug.
You take it and it produces no effect, but you can't feel the effects of the narcotic.
Which means if you take it, you get no effect.
If you take it regularly, you can't get hooked.
You can't even get an overdose.
This might be the ideal kind of medicine to use with a young person who's being treated, who's just starting to use her.
You don't want to put him on methadone.
He doesn't want to be in a psychiatric hospital.
He doesn't want to spend 12 months in a therapeutic community being indoctrinated to be a cynicist or a member of a village.
This medication, probably with enough push, can be developed in a very rapid way and become available for research.
We do have certain medications that have this property now.
They just don't have the right mix of properties.
They're not long-acting enough, for example, to be used.
You'd still have to be revolutionary.
Oh, no, this would not take hard medications in this scenario.
Oh, you can use them as hard medications once you have drawn them.
We have, and some of the people in our program made it to the critical phase of returning to the community only because we maintained them on one of these medications.
But right now, they're hard to use.
I would consider the research programs, and I don't know if I have it in this field,
Probably not.
Probably be able to push them more.
Provide you have more money in the program.
We have more research on this, too.
We have to look for that.
It's not a reason.
We're trying to get better people that are the same old clutches.
This would expand and go to our products and packages.
This is one of the reasons we put it in this package specifically for this type of research.
In fact, Pepper called for a billion for research on this type of package.
that's student mental health and all the rest of it, they don't change a goddamn thing.
And we've got to go over it all together.
They've got to change the people, they've got to change the emphasis, they've got to change the approach.
We're just not right there so that everybody who's a GSA 5 can be a GSA 6, which is the way that they usually have up here, you all know.
Right.
Or build a nicer building, a lot better, some better.
So that's your, you're going to watch this.
You understand how any money will go away in this future.
Because of pain, but not because of the waste of money, because we want something done.
And it cannot be done without somebody doing it.
Do you think there are enough bright people within you that they would give the right sense of the game to you?
I must say that there are some within and some without.
I think you're going to have to get some new people from it out.
I think if you don't have at the present time a sense of urgency and drive and imagination and so forth, then you're going to die soon.
What I've had is I've been able to enjoy those drills and so forth, but...
The guys from the outside will come in, they'll break a little china and stir them all up and that's what you do.
They can get some of the others home in the bed.
So do you remember this last thing about the budget?
Well, the proposed agency would transfer the authority to the director of the agency.
And if the agency doesn't do the job, that is the NIMH, he has the authority to go outside and give it to justice.
Anybody?
Cut, cut, cut.
That's the way to go.
No team is going to be spared.
Now, one organization, a great government, is EGW.
Not because of their recent commitments at all, but because the bureaucracy over there wants to do its own thing.
It's an utter failure, a disaster, generally.
with a few guys that are, generally, it's just a disaster that a lot of people don't believe.
So, if you don't have any confidence in it, start that way and then let that prove it.
Understand?
That's the bottom.
Now, at the same time, don't even think that we're a justice union.
Everybody cares.
Even though we're in prison and the rest of us, and they're hacked all through the government.
You know what I mean?
You've seen the state of the world.
Worse than federal, just more.
Well, that probably isn't a good one there, but we really have to shake it up, particularly the HEWF.
There's another thing you've got to remember is, of course, there's tremendous competition.
You will find generated people in this field are more interested in preserving their honey package than they are in getting the job done.
The AGW will be fighting this way, and this will be fighting this way.
Whenever you see that, the head will be knocked.
Take it out of there.
Kick it aside.
Cut their budgets.
Fire.
Anyway, the only approach that's going to do it
They've got to be shaking.
The tree's got to be shaking hard.
Yes, sir, this agency has had them all shaking to their roots.
But now, let me ask this, and this agency can do this, not through legislation.
No, through legislation.
How do we start?
In the short run, we're going to set up an office here.
The legislation, my God, might take the time they get through screwing around with the legislation.
We won't have anything.
This is sexy stuff.
It's sexy stuff.
It would be an honor if they want to follow that.
I don't put it together.
But while I'm on my way, let me say to you, there are lots of things I can do without you.
That's what we need to do, is to give him all of our help.
For example, you got on that boat and I advanced the other day.
You were the master.
You were to act from the beginning as if you had the office.
From the beginning.
You understand?
Crack their damn heads and say this is being done.
And I don't.
We are not going to sit here and say, well, legislatively, this is our job.
The hell with it.
They aren't going to have a job when the legislation passes.
And I mean it.
We have got to really crack, particularly that crowd at AGW.
I know those people.
I've seen them sit around and undercut everything.
They'll do it here, too.
They'll do it here, too.
They're only interested in building their own bureaucracy.
They really are.
Except for Dan.
I'll say, you think this narcotics guy's pretty good.
So, good call.
Yes, sir.
I think he's done a good job, given the problems that he's had.
I think he's somewhat pedestrian, right?
He's a policeman.
He's a policeman, but I mean, I've seen some policemen that are not pedestrian, too.
So he's, I think he basically stands up there for what he's doing, but I don't think he gets all wound up in the numbers, the facts, and the other things.
Well, he's not a reaper.
That's not a reaper.
Well, we know that.
We've heard it several times.
But what I'm getting at is that maybe he has control.
Don't move around with that.
We want you to look over every damn person in this business, and even if it's a cabinet office.
They go silent.
It's the only way it's going to work.
Because we tried everything else.
We met a year ago about this, John.
Didn't we?
Two years.
Two years ago.
We got all these people in and we got in the movie actors and the dogs and everybody else.
My God, but nothing's happening.
Well, it's got worse.
I wouldn't say that, Mr. President.
In terms of the bureaucracy.
Oh, I see.
Well, most of you, as you know, as I picked up a few calls, in terms of the bureaucracy, you now have the board of the central control of law enforcement, which you didn't have in Chicago.
It was scattered all over.
Where did we scatter it from?
It was removed from every board of two justices.
Who's in charge of justice?
Mr. John, you have a severe customer.
We still haven't pulled along.
We have a buffeting shirt, but it's 200% better than the one that we put together.
That was a compliment.
That was a compliment.
Let me say it.
I am deliberately overstating because what I have just said, those who talk to you, those who hear us, are going to tell you.
I just believe this.
We have done a lot.
We have pulled along.
We have raised the penalty.
We are spending more money.
We're picking up more stuff.
I mean, those holes, those three glass, the holes are pretty good, but they didn't even notice they picked up $180 or if they saved it or something.
Does that mean anything?
No.
The only thing that counts is what percentage of the stuff that's coming in are they picking up.
If the percentage has gone up 50% and their holes have gone up 20%, it only means it's easier for them to pick it up if that much more is coming in.
The holes in the ship are bigger, so they can stay on the rock.
production worldwide has drastically changed in the last two years.
Gone up.
Gone up.
Oh, yeah, it's a different kind of commodity, and the people up in Laos are producing it on a far more sophisticated way.
Is this the time to raise this possibility of... What's the secret weapon?
This would, you know, it may sound dramatic, but it would have to be kept in the secrecy of the Manhattan Project.
It's conceivable, although not entirely possible, that we brought in an entomologist and said, we want you to breathe a pest that's specific to the opiate body.
I don't know how long it would take to cover it.
And you're spraying it on all four of them.
But the only thing you can do is to take fly air and bring it over to drop them all over again.
You know, you can save them in with a little kind of gadget.
The point is that if the pest is right, when it finishes eating the coffees, it dies.
It's like a silkworm.
When it leaves all the mulberry leaves, you have no more silkworms.
It's specific to the mulberry leaf.
Now, it may very well be that that can't be done, but it's certainly worth a try.
But it's a gun that you can hold to the head of people who insist on raising the opium poppy.
Now, wait a moment.
How can we get it used?
Well, you say, look, you can go to a foreign country, suppose the Turks say, we still want to grow poppies.
Yeah, I think it's a little secretive, goodness sakes.
If somebody drops it, it's like how does that happen?
It's the same with the Japanese beetle got to our rose bushes.
You know, they can send it over.
It got you somehow.
Sure.
But anyway, it might have some diplomatic repercussions if they knew.
Draw it.
Draw it.
No, wait.
I'll tell you.
Get that.
Get that follow-up.
Not Mexican.
It's grown in America.
Orlock.
He's got it in America.
Better put our friend Land to work on this.
Land is a kind of man.
Land to tell us who is the best entomologist in the country.
This ought to be done.
Here's one thing that you could get done either at the university.
I think there's a man at Cornell, if I'm not mistaken.
Cornell is an excellent department.
Or if you get in Davis, California, Davis, of course.
This is a great idea.
It's a great idea.
Why isn't it possible?
Do they grow such things?
They do develop such things.
You just sort of start to feed the bugs with poppy and then they eventually...
I have a lot of good entomologists who do it, Mr. Preston.
There must be ways to do it.
Have they done that for other plants?
Nobody has ever tried to destroy crops.
Well, listen.
Now, wait a minute.
It's a matter of time.
Within sanctions.
No, as a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, there is something, you know, like you take the, they use, you take the Mediterranean group flag or something, I think that is destroyed by a, another kind of, I know what it is, I know what it is.
Harlan told me about it.
I think there's a way.
Harlan, please.
Secretary Harlan.
It's a very interesting thing.
I mean, we've got all these scientists.
We spend, I think, what, $3 million a year for science?
What do we get out of it?
Not a goddamn thing.
Except raising salaries of all the university professors so that they can come down and demonstrate.
I need a little bit about this budget.
I'm really, I'm, I'm, the best friend Mason Silas has ever had is a chariot, but I must say sometimes you've got to give him a project.
Huh?
Why not?
Hello.
What's that?
Two things.
I hope you'll note we went with you on grain.
Yeah.
We're going to take a lot of heat now from the labor guys, and I want to be darn sure that you can quietly get the word around to some of our great people that we met.
You're not going to get an immediate reaction, but looking to the future, it has great possibilities.
Right.
Now, the thing to do here, too, is to get somebody.
Our guys ought to be good enough to know how to do a little trading.
So the easiest place to make the first move is the Chinese.
The reason is that the west coast longshoremen will load ships.
The east coast longshoremen will not.
So the Chinese thing is made order.
Yeah, oh yeah, that kind of a shit would be fine.
Now, the other thing I was wondering about is, you were telling me the other day about how they developed some sort of an insect where, to fight another insect, you know, where the, to stop a pest.
And, you know, as I recall, my memory is not clear, but something where
It's a parasite, but will it die, you know what I mean, after, what was it, you recall?
Yes, no, yeah, I'm not sure, but either you or Borlaug.
You know, what it is, it's either for the fruit fly or for, what are they, the one insect attacks, and you develop it so that it, I think it was Borlaug.
Do you remember the conversation?
Yeah.
That's what I mean.
In other words, you could bring in an insect to wipe out another insect.
That's the gypsy moth.
Yeah.
The gypsy moth?
Yeah.
But they develop those.
They develop the insects for the purpose of wiping out another one.
Now, have you developed insects?
Do you have instances where insects could be developed, which, for example, could go in and destroy certain crops?
Like take an opium crop, poppy crop.
See what I mean?
Why wouldn't it be?
Wouldn't it be?
Well, let me tell you, let me do some thinking about that among your people.
Let's suppose, suppose you had a project.
The project, in other words, there must be some insects that love to eat poppies.
Now, we'd like to find out how you get those, how you breed them, and, you know, you see what I'm getting at?
They've got these very small insects so we can transport them.
Yeah, very quiet.
No, seriously though, it is something that is just an intriguing idea that a fellow wrote to me about.
And I just, he said, he said, you're an agricultural leader and developed this and that and the other.
He mentioned a lot of things.
In fact, the one you told us about had to do with an insect where it was very, they died after,
You sterilize the man, and then turn him loose.
And you do that with radiation, and turn them loose.
I know it is.
I know it.
Yeah, I know.
That was what you were telling me about.
We were talking about it, you know, when this other column was here, you know.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Right.
But insects destroy insects.
But now what we're talking about is insects that destroy, in other words, not a chemical, but an insect, you see, that could destroy, that could work on a poppy.
Or a virus or something of that sort.
That's right.
Well, absolutely.
Absolutely.
But only if you can come up with something.
You understand?
It's a possibility.
Let's suppose, for example, that you could get a country to say, all right, we want to knock it out, and people continue to grow the darn stuff.
Then if you've got a virus that can knock this thing out, maybe that's the answer, rather than an insect.
Of course.
OK?
It's in the text.
He killed a cattle.
And the screw worm, a female, breeds only once and dies.
So what they did, these scientists over at the Department of Agriculture and Children,
They took all, they took male spermworms by the thousands.
They sterilized them.
And then they proceeded to turn them loose.
And it just killed the population because they would breed with the females.
The females die at late age.
The eggs are sterile.
They do not reproduce.
And they die.
Of course, the males eventually die.
So that's what we need.
We need a sewer where we can make some of these puppies.
That would be pretty hard to talk for a female.
That's your little problem.
Uh, you hope to be ready by, uh...
First, do this.
But, yes, sir, you're supposed to read this book.
I'm not reading it, but look into it, because it's another aspect of the problem.
And second, Cole can't write them.
He says that there are half of us in pillow factories in New Jersey, right?
He says they've been operating for years.
He says every doctor in New York knows it.
And he says that bill label, now, these understand these rumors.
I don't know if that's about the pillow factory.
That's what's on the bill, or something on the other side.
I think you will.
Thank you.