Pubdate: Thu, 5 Jun 2003
Source: United Press International (Wire)
Copyright: 2003 United Press International
Author: Christian Bourge

ANALYSIS: DRUG POLICY IGNORES REALITY

WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The all or nothing thinking that has long 
dominated the development of narcotics control policy in the United States 
is wrong and based upon incorrect perceptions about the nature of 
addiction, according to policy experts.

Jacob Sullum, author of the recent book "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug 
Use," says that overstatement by anti-drug crusaders about the addictive 
nature of illicit drugs and the effect of narcotics use on individuals.

"The government's own data does not support the image of inherently 
addictive drugs," Sullum said at a May 29 forum on his book at the 
libertarian Cato Institute.

Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated 
columnist, said that the false idea that illegal drugs cause behavior -- a 
concept he terms "voodoo pharmacology" -- remains central in the thinking 
about drug use in the United States and has resulted in drug policies that 
are not reflective of the reality of narcotics use. This along with the 
view that so-called "soft" drugs, such as marijuana, and "hard" drugs, such 
as heroin and cocaine, lead users down a path to anti-social or even 
criminal behavior shows the problems with the debate over drugs in America.

Sullum noted that while drugs are addictive, only a relatively small 
minority of users become addicts. He said that instead of the staunch view 
taken in the drug war, policy-makers should pursue a wiser and subtler 
approach to drug use that is motivated by the tradition of moderate drinking.

He said various drugs have been labeled as the most addictive over the 
years. In the 1970s, heroin was called the most addictive illicit drug. In 
the 1980s, the title was granted to crack, which was called more addictive 
than heroin. In the ensuing years, the title passed back to heroin when 
crack use subsided and heroin use was again on the rise.

"When the title of the most addictive drug rotates from one substance to 
another, one wonders how much the title means," said Sullum.

Mark Kleiman, professor of policy studies at the University of California 
Los Angeles and a proponent of drug law reform, said that Sullum is correct 
in emphasizing that not all drug users are addicts, but that this is only 
part of the drug use story. He said that a drug can still be socially 
devastating, even if the vast majority of people who take it do not become 
addicted.

"We observe that with Alcohol," Kleiman told United Press International. 
"Almost all Americans drink and something like eight percent have trouble 
with alcohol. Does that mean we have a small alcohol problem? No."

Dr. Sally Satel, senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise 
Institute and a practicing psychiatrist, said at the Cato forum that 
although some people can use illicit drugs in a controlled fashion, drug 
often still takes a large toll on many individuals, their families and the 
public as a whole. She said that the overstated nature of addiction by 
anti-drug activists makes it hard, but not impossible to justify some forms 
of prohibition.

"As someone who works in a methadone clinic, I certainly see the 
casualties," said Satel.

Sullum said the history of drug prohibition in the United States 
demonstrates the problems inherent in anti-drug activist's calls for tough 
government action against drug use. Smoking marijuana was once portrayed as 
causing destructive and homicidal behavior, such as that seen in the 
legendary film "Reefer Madness."

In contemporary times, anti-drug crusaders portray marijuana use as a 
practice leading to a slothful lifestyle. Sullum said that the concept that 
pot makes people unproductive is unsubstantiated. He cited a 1991 Institute 
of Medicine report that found the existing data did not show such an 
effect. Instead, studies have consistently found that marijuana users earn 
similar to or higher salaries than non-users.

Sullum added that a similar attitude about the effect of tobacco use was 
promoted by the leaders of the alcohol temperance movement in the early 
part of the 20th century.

Kleiman agreed with Sullum that the effects and addictive nature of drug 
use is overemphasized, but that this is often done for good reason. He 
noted that you don't tell a teenager that there is only a one in 100 chance 
of having an accident on a motorcycle, because warnings about the need to 
protect yourself with a helmet would likely be ignored.

Nevertheless, he said the public debate over drug use in America does need 
an injection of truth about the real impact of drugs on the individual users.

"It is certainly true that there are a number of fallacious beliefs that 
have come to dominate public opinion and political decisions making about 
drug policy," he said. "I think if people understood the nature of 
addiction, they would understand that drugs are not evil, they are merely 
risky in a particular set of ways and if something is merely risky you may 
want to regulate it in a different way."

Satel said that while Sullum is correct that drug use is the responsibility 
of the person and not the addictive nature of the drug, he fails to 
recognize the reality of the drug debate. For one, public opinion tends to 
favor restrictions on access to drugs, even marijuana.

However, she agreed that changes are needed to the nation's drug policies. 
These include the need for a greater focus on diverting individuals from 
the use of harder drugs that create the majority of social harm, such as 
heroin and cocaine.

In addition, she said that more focus must be given to diverting people who 
would not be committing crimes if they did not have a drug problem. She 
said the embrace of drug courts and other diversion methods was a positive 
development in this regard.

Adele Harrell, principal research associate at the justice policy center of 
the liberal-leaning Urban Institute, said that the long public policy 
emphasis on punishing drug users in America with criminal acts has given 
way to a more public health-centered view of the problem. Although drug 
courts and other diversion programs are clearly having a positive impact, 
she said they run the risk of over treating people who are not truly 
addicted. They also address only one facet of the America's drug problem.

"I think a public discussion about our drug use problem is clearly needed," 
Harrell told UPI.

Dr. Martin Iguchi, director of the Rand drug policy research center, said 
that drug policy is clearly in an unbalanced state, with reliance on drug 
courts to fix the problem too myopic.

"We are still over-relying on the criminal justice system to try and 
control substance abuse when a more public health-centered approach would 
be a more effective method," Iguchi told UPI.

He said that there is some movement in this direction, including recent 
discussions in New York State about reforming the state's draconian drug 
laws. Iguchi also noted that there are signs that drug policy is moving 
away from a more moral emphasis to a more secularized view.

"With that shift there is likely to be less of a perceived need to punish 
drug users out of existence and attempts to have some kinds of reforms," he 
said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Alex