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

147. Memorandum From the Chief Counsel of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (Miller) to Members of the Opium Shortage Committee¹ ²

Washington, April 13, 1973

SUBJECT:

• Growing concern of drug manufacturing companies

For the past several months, representatives of manufacturing companies involved in the production of codeine and codeine-containing products have continued to express concern about the Government’s policy of looking toward prohibition of opium production as an international goal.

Since the first of the year, BNDD alone has held discussions on at least ten occasions with various representatives of manufacturing companies, divided evenly between telephone calls and personal visits to the headquarters office. The persons involved are as follows:

Harold B. Thayer	Mallinckrodt
Stanley Anonsen	Mallinckrodt
Charles Gerfen	Mallinckrodt
A.H. Homeyer	Mallinckrodt
Philip Reed	Penick
James Verde	Penick
Cleveland F. Baker	Burroughs Welcome
William Zimmer	A.H. Robin

The central theme is that United States policy is causing a shortage of opium. Although no one seems to know precisely how the policy was so instrumental, these factors are usually cited. (1) U.S. activity in Turkey has been felt in India, where the mid-level managers seem to feel that if the U.S. could get Turkey to prohibit production —somehow the U.S. will be able to do the same thing in India; (2) India has seen the wrath of the United States representatives at U.N. functions regarding opium production, and has developed a timidity and, reluctance to make any mistakes with the fear that the U.S. will generate harsh worldwide criticism; (3) the United States has been talking for a long time about opium being the product of a declining market, and India fears that one day it will be caught with its stocks up and the market down; (4) since the U.S. continues to talk about synthetic substitutes, India feels that America has the industrial capability of wiping out the opium market; and (5) should this come about, India does not want to have on its hands hundreds of thousands of farmers dependent on legitimate opium production who may then divert their production to the illicit traffic.

All of the representatives have been consistent in one area: the use of codeine in medicine is increasing. According to their sales records, during the time when synthetics were being developed (i.e. Darvon for low pain, dextromethorphan for cough and Talwin for mid-level pain), codeine reached a plateau; it held its own—probably because of the increased population and more people becoming eligible for medical attention. It now appears, however, that codeine sales are on the upswing again. One manufacturer estimates that codeine consumption in the U.S. will increase from 36,000 kilos in 1971 to 40,000 kilos in 1973. Even if this estimate is high, at least we can predict with certainty that the demand for codeine is not going down.

Based on my evaluation of the feelings of industry representatives, they are even more concerned now than ever before. They are demanding to know more about the Government’s policy; whether we are vigorously pursuing the policy or merely just letting it settle itself; whether we intend to be open and candid with India or simply leave them guessing; whether we intend to set some sort of time frame as to when opium production could come about or will we just drift along hoping the day may come when opium is no longer needed; and whether the U.S. would join with other countries in assuring India that whatever reasonable amounts it produces for a given number of years will be acquired by the manufacturing countries.

Only one manufacturer, Merck and Co., has questioned the shortage phenomenon. Each time that company is questioned, the representative says “we can’t figure out why people are predicting a crisis—we have plenty of opium (26,614 kilos) and codeine (3,076 kilos) and our customers are not making excessive demands on us.” That company does not predict a countrywide shortage of codeine and is concerned that the U.S. might be using its influence to make sure that neither of the other companies will lose any business. Merck takes the position that, “if the other companies handled their affairs so as to run out of raw materials, why should Merck be penalized for being industrious and conservative—if they lose customers as a result of their situations, that’s business.”

I believe that we should expect to be put through even more intensive indoctrination of industry’s position. Included in their requests are these factors:

(1) The U.S. should clarify its policy, and if it is decided that opium prohibition is to be the ultimate goal, then give an approximate time frame.

(2) Let India know where we stand in specific language.

(3) Arrange for early meeting, sponsored by INCB, between the producing countries and the manufacturing nations to draft a plan of future needs.

(4) Release opium from the national strategic stockpile to prevent a shortage in the U.S. until the international opium situation can be balanced. This course requires delicate handling to preclude India from cutting off the U.S. and requiring us to deplete our stockpile before selling us any opium.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 170, Acc. # 89–0022, Box 1. No classification marking. The Committee on Opium Shortage included representatives from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Food and Drug Administration, the Special Action Office on Drug Abuse Prevention, the General Services Administration, the Office of Emergency Preparedness, the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. A memorandum from Ingersoll to Krogh, January 17; National Archives, RG 170, Acc. # 89–0022, Box 1, Opium Shortage Study, indicated that the stockpile consisted of 847,974 pounds of opium and 42,000 pounds of morphine.
2. Miller updated the committee members on discussions with pharmaceutical manufacturers’representatives about an anticipated licit opium shortage and potential government responses.