1992 Daedalus - Thinking Seriously About Drugs PDF

Thinking Seriously about Alternatives to Drug Prohibition
Author(s): Ethan A. Nadelmann

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Daedalus, Vol. 121, No. 3, Political Pharmacology: Thinking about Drugs (Summer,
1992), pp. 85-132
Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027122 .
Accessed: 18/11/2011 11:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Daedalus.
http://www.jstor.org
Ethan A. Nadelmann
Thinking Seriously About Alternatives to

Drug Prohibition
Four years after the notion of drug legalization reemerged

into public view, the time has come to step back and evaluate
what it is all about and where it should be headed.11 cannot
help but write as one who has become closely identified with the
notion, but I also write as one who has tried to step back from the
debate over drug legalization and analyze critically its contributions,
missteps, and potential to beneficially redirect drug control policies.
My principal interest lies not in the debate itself but in the future of
psychoactive drug use and drug control policies in the United States
and abroad. This article is thus not a response to the many critics of
drug legalization, nor even a dispute with those who have favored the
notion with somewhat different arguments and suppositions. It
generally refrains from repeating thewell documented costs of drug
prohibition or the reasons why we need to consider alternative
approaches.2 And it pays scant attention to the political context of

the debate or the political future of drug control policy. Its objective,
rather, is to create and advance a more informed and sophisticated
public discourse about alternatives to drug prohibition?one that

breaks free from the intellectual and moralistic confines of contem
porary prohibitionist norms.3
My specific objectives are fourfold. The first is to identify and

examine the essential differences that separate those in the reasonable
middle ground of the debate. The second is to offer new ways of
thinking about radical alternatives to current drug prohibition poli
cies, to identify the sorts of questions that must be asked, and to
Ethan A. Nadelmann is Assistant Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at the Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.
85
86 Ethan A. Nadelmann
suggest how theymight be addressed. The third is to provide evidence

in support of the proposition that even a radical decriminalization of
drug prohibition will not result in the sorts of dramatic increases in
substance abuse that self-identified critics of drug legalization fear.
And the fourth is to propose a drug regulatory model that eliminates
many of the worst consequences of drug prohibition without repro
ducing the unfortunate consequences of our alcohol and tobacco
control policies.
Many of the ideas and arguments presented in this paper were
proposed and developed in meetings of the Princeton Working

Group on the Future of Drug Use and Alternatives to Drug Prohibi
tion. This group, composed of eighteen scholars representing more
than a dozen disciplines, is currently pursuing each of these four
objectives. This article should thus be read as a synopsis of a
collaborative work-in-progress, the final version of which will be
completed in late 1993.1 anticipate thatmany of the ideas advanced
below will be revised and refined as the working group proceeds.
THE "LEGALIZATION" LABEL
To legalize or not to legalize? That, as two pairs of drug policy
skeptics have recently written, is not really the right question.4 The
appropriate question ismuch broader, and it is one that incorporates

the "legalize or not" question respect to particular
with psychoactive
drug products: What, simply stated, are the best means to regulate
the production, distribution, and consumption of the great variety of
psychoactive substances available today and in the foreseeable fu

ture? For a variety of reasons, the efforts of myself and others to
answer that highly complex question have been captured by the label
of "legalization." The term itself proved immensely successful in
drawing the attention of tens of millions in the United States and
elsewhere to what was at once a radical sounding but quite sensible
critique of American drug control policies. But it exacted a stiff price

with its implication that the only alternative to current policies was
something resembling current US policies with respect to alcohol and

tobacco. Few of those publicly associated with legalization in fact
advocated such an alternative, but the misimpression has stuck in the
public mind.
Alternatives to Drug Prohibition 87
Legalization has always meant different things to different people.

From my perspective, it has been first and foremost a critique of
American drug prohibitionist policies which stresses the extent to
which most of what Americans commonly identify as part and parcel
of "the drug problem" are in fact the results of those policies. The
failure of most Americans to perceive the extent and content of this
causal relationship, and to distinguish between the problems that
stem from the misuse of drugs per se and those that stem from drug
prohibitionist policies, remains the single greatest obstacle to any
significant change inAmerican drug control policies. The recognition

of this causal relationship does not, it should be stressed, lead
automatically to a public policy recommendation that all of drug
prohibition be abandoned. But itdoes suggest that alternative policies
less dependent upon prohibitionist methods are likely to prove more
effective.
Legalization also implies a set of policy objectives at odds with the
government's proclaimed objectives of fighting a war against
drugs
and creating a drug-free society. Any drug control strategy, I and
others have argued, should seek to minimize both the negative
consequences of drug use and the negative consequences of the
policies themselves. This is as true of public policies with respect to
alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine as it is of policies directed at limiting
the misuse of cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine, opiates, hallucino
gens, and all other drugs. It is imperative, for instance, that any drug
control policy distinguish among casual drug use that results in little
or no harm to anyone, drug misuse that causes harm primarily to the
consumer, and drug misuse that results in palpable harm to others,
and then focus primarily on the last of these, on
secondarily
preventing the misuse of drugs, and little if at all on casual drug use.
It is also imperative that any drug control policy be assessed not only
in terms of its success in reducing drug abuse but also in terms of its
direct and indirect costs.
Implicit in the legalization critique of American drug control

policies are in fact two different types of arguments. At one level, it
points out the ways inwhich drug prohibition per se is responsible
for many drug-related problems. By criminalizing the production,
distribution, and use of particular drugs, drug prohibition fundamen
tally transforms the nature of the drug markets, the ways in which
people consume drugs, the lenses through which much of society
views the drug problem, and the range of policies deemed appropri
ate for dealing with drug abuse. On another level, however, the
critique advances a far more modest claim, which is that there are
better and worse types of drug prohibition, with the Dutch "harm
reduction" approach epitomizing the former and the American "war
on drugs" the latter. Indeed, for many of those characterized as
advocates of drug legalization, the Dutch model offers an alternative
that is preferable not only to current US policies but also to the
extreme libertarianmodel. The ideal set of drug control policies, from
this perspective, can be found somewhere between the Dutch exam
ple and the libertarianmodel.

The harm reduction (orharm minimization) approach emerged in
theNetherlands and Great Britain during the 1970s and early 1980s.
It has since become increasingly influential both in those countries
and in other parts of Europe and Australia as public health and other
officials have recognized the need for more innovative and less
punitive policies to stem the transmission of the HIV virus by illicit
drug users.5 Harm reduction policies seek to minimize the harms that
result from illicit drug use. Rather than attempt towean all illicit drug
addicts off drugs by punitive means, harm reduction policies begin
with the acknowledgement that some users cannot be persuaded to
quit. These policies then seek to reduce the likelihood that they will
contract or spread diseases such as hepatitis and AIDS, overdose on
drugs of unknown purity and potency, or otherwise harm themselves

or others. Proponents of harm reduction policies typically favor an
assortment of drug treatment programs including the use of metha
done and other maintenance programs. They insist on the need for
needle exchange programs. They recommend public health and
community outreach efforts to maintain contact between health

service providers and illicit drug users. And they demand that drug
policies acknowledge, both in law and policy, the human rights of
drug users. Also implicit in most harm reduction approaches is the
notion of "normalization," which posits that the harms associated
with illicit drug use are best minimized by integrating drug users into
normal society rather than isolating them in separate clinics, pro
grams, markets, and neighborhoods.6
The relationship between the harm reduction approach and the
notion of drug legalization remains ambiguous. Some proponents of
the harm reduction approach vigorously oppose any broader trend
toward disassembling the drug prohibition system. They are quick to

out that much of the opposition they have encountered stems
point
from fears and perceptions that the harm reduction approach repre
sents no more than a stepping stone to legalization. Others insist that
a harm reduction approach taken to its logical and sensible conclu
sion would more closely resemble a legal regulatory regime than the
current prohibition system. Any harm reduction approach, they
argue, must reduce not just the harms to users but also the many
other negative consequences of drug prohibition: the violence that
accompanies illicit drug markets; the corruption of public officials;
the de facto subsidy of organized crime; the incarceration of hun
dreds of thousands of people; the deprivation of individual liberties;
and so on. All agree, however, that modest efforts to reduce the
negative consequences of status quo policies are better than no efforts

whatsoever.
LEGALIZERS, PROHIBITIONISTS, AND THE COMMON GROUND
The basic analysis advanced by most "legalizers" is remarkably

similar to that advanced by those who have appeared as the most
sensible, progressive, and nonideological among the prohibitionists.

Both generally agree on the basic diagnosis of American drug
prohibition, on the need to assess drug policy options in terms of their
costs and benefits, and on the set of objectives noted above. The
"progressive prohibitionists" largely acknowledge that casual drug

use is not a problem in and of itself, and the legalizers grant that some
policies designed to reduce overall levels of drug use may be effective

in reducing the overall negative consequences of use. There is a
shared recognition that many dimensions of the American war on
drugs represent a form of overkill, that more modest criminal justice

measures can accomplish the same objectives as successfully as the
harsher measures, and that a more vigorous adherence to public
health precepts and objectives will result in a superior mix of drug
control policies. Both further agree that a dramatic expansion in the
availability of drugs in society will likely increase the cumulative

consumption of drugs. And both agree that it is important to draw
distinctions among different drugs, and among different formulations
of the same drugs, in designing drug control policies. Stated other
wise, few in either camp believe that marijuana, or coca tea, should
be treated the same as crack cocaine.
This common ground is fundamentally at odds with the views
expressed by the more conservative and reactionary prohibitionists.
Articulated most vigorously by President Bush's first Drug Czar,
William Bennett, this perspective has demonstrated no interestwhat
soever in analyses of costs and benefits or in the need tominimize the
negative consequences of drug control policies. Casual use of illicit
drugs has been depicted as an immoral form of activity as well as a
dangerous source of contagion requiring the treatment of users.7
Social science research and public health precepts are of value only
insofar as they conform with their ideologically based assumptions
and policies. There is, in short, no room for dispassionate dialogue
concerning any policy alternatives that do not appear tougher than
what has been tried before.8 Combining a penchant for punitive
sanctions with a view of drug use best described as "pharmacological
Calvinism,"9 the reactionary prohibitionists have insisted that the
only legitimate objective of drug control policy must be the elimina
tion of illicit drug use.
The common ground is also at odds, albeit not quite so fundamen
tally, with the conservative libertarian perspective on drug control.10

For those libertarians who believe as an absolute matter of principle
in the sanctity of individual sovereignty over property and the
freedom of contract, no governmental controls on the commerce in
drugs are acceptable no matter what the consequences. Other liber

tarians aremore utilitarian in their thinking, placing their faith in the
freemarket and assuming that the dual policy objectives would best
be accomplished in the absence of governmental interventions. Less
committed libertarians start from ?he same assumptions about the
magic of the free market but acknowledge that modest governmental
controls, particularly truth-in-advertising and labelling requirements,
may be necessary to correct for the excesses and abuses that the free
market invites. All of these libertarians tend to support themore civil
libertarian commitments to individual privacy and freedom in the
choice of one's lifestyle?although they insist that freedom of con
tract includes the freedom of employers to insist upon drug testing as
a condition of employment. Civil libertarians, by contrast, tend to
regard the freedom of contract with less deference than the right to
privacy. They are more apt to speak of a right to consume drugs,11
and are more likely to integrate considerations of social justice and
public health into their principles and policy calculations.

Putting aside the perspectives of the reactionary prohibitionists and
the hardcore libertarians, there are two principal differences among
the progressive legalizers and the progressive prohibitionists. The first
reflects disagreements as to the weight that should be accorded to
such values as individual liberty, privacy, and tolerance in calculating
the costs and benefits of different drug control policies.12 Most
legalizers weigh these values heavily, with the more committed civil
libertarians regarding them as absolutes that cannot be compromised
and other progressive legalizers perceiving them as highly important
but not inherently immune to some restraints. At the very least, most
legalizers insist, the possession of modest amounts of drugs for
personal consumption should not be the subject of criminal laws. The

progressive prohibitionists are sympathetic to such values but accord
them much less weight, both because they perceive them as under
mining efforts to reduce drug abuse and because they are more
willing to defer to majoritarian opinion in defining and weighting
them. Confronted with potential trade-offs between levels of drug
abuse and levels of coercion at drug users and sellers, most
directed
legalizers are willing to concede modest increases in drug abuse levels

in return for reductions in the numbers of those punished for using
and selling drugs. Progressive prohibitionists, by contrast, are far
more willing to limit individual liberty to the extent a
they perceive
potential gain in public health.
The second major difference of opinion involves the assessment of
the vulnerability of the American population to the substantial
increases in drug availability thatwould follow from any of themore
far reaching drug legalization schemes. Where most prohibitionists
can envision the possibility of a fiftyfold increase in the number of
people dependent upon cocaine, and conclude that the future of the
nation might well be at stake if cocaine were made as available as
alcohol, most legalizers regard such estimates and predictions as the
unsubstantiated folly of doomsayers.13 Both agree that substantial
research is required to better estimate this vulnerability, but thewide
disparities are primarily a reflection of visceral fears, beliefs, and
instincts regarding individual and collective human nature in the
context of American society. Whereas most both
legalizers perceive,
instinctually and intellectually, ample evidence of a fundamental

societal resilience, most progressive prohibitionists share with their
more reactionary allies a fundamental pessimism the
regarding
susceptibility of American society to a dramatic liberalization of drug
availability.
The roots of this viscerally based debate can be found in a related
difference of opinions regarding the balance of power between
psychoactive drugs and the human will. Prohibitionists typically see
the balance favoring the former, with its potential to disrupt and
destroy the lives of consumers. Legalizers, by contrast, emphasize the
latter, with its assumption that the balance of basic human desires in
most people effectively limits the destructive potential of drugs. For
most prohibitionists, the relevant evidence includes the worst case
examples of drug addiction and other

abuse, the experiments on
captive rats, monkeys, and other nonhuman animals to determine the

addictive liability of different drugs, and the biological evidence of
withdrawal symptoms in human beings following sustained con
of particular drugs. Most legalizers, by contrast, focus on
sumption
the less dramatic but more abundant evidence of casual and con
trolled use, insist that the "set and
setting" of drug use are at
drug
least as important as the drug itself in determining a person
whether
becomes a drug abuser, and see the animal studies and biological
evidence as less significant than the abundant historical, cross
cultural, and contemporaneous evidence of individual and societal

resilience vis-?-vis all psychoactive drugs. ("Set is a person's expec
tations of what a drug will do to him, considered in the context of his
whole personality. Setting is the environment, both physical and
social, in which a drug is taken.")14 Many prohibitionists seem to see
some psychoactive drugs as possessed of powers akin to those of the
man could resist. Most
Sirens whose alluring voices no legalizers, by
contrast, perceive such a notion as absurd. They find more persuasive
the substantial evidence that most people (including children), given
sufficient information, are unlikely to use a drug in the first place, that
most of those who do try a particular drug tend either to stop shortly
thereafter or to use it inmoderation, and that even most of those who
become addicted to a drug or otherwise misuse it, ultimately mod
erate or stop their use.
These differences, however, still leave abundant room for common
ground on how drug control policies can be reformed in the short

term. For even though the progressive prohibitionists sharewith their

more reactionary allies a deep seated fear of greater drug availability,
lack the reactionaries' political and moral commitments to
they
repressive policies. And even though most legalizers feel substantial
revulsion for the more punitive prohibitionist measures, they recog
nize both the inevitability of, and the need for, some criminal justice
accompaniments to any regulatory regime. The public health model,
with its emphasis on reducing morbidity and mortality, appears to
provide something of an ideologically neutral set of guidelines and
parameters for working out a set of policies?
preferable drug
although legalizers are wary of the totalitarian potential of a public
health model taken to its logical extreme. Both legalizers and most
progressive prohibitionists also perceive merit in the harm reduction
policies developed by the Dutch as well as local authorities in
England and Australia?even if they differ as to the extent to which
those policies could be adapted to the American environment.
There is also a shared assumption, from which only the most
libertarian of the legalizers dissent, that government does have an
important role to play in shaping and improving the lives of its

citizens. Where all sides differ is in their view of the appropriate
means by which government should pursue this,with the progressive
prohibitionists viewing criminal justice and other coercive mecha
nisms as perfectly acceptable and often efficient means and the
progressive legalizers favoring less coercive measures ranging from

education and voluntary treatment programs to broader provision of
social services. There also is something of a consensus that the top
priority of drug control programs should be to minimize the harm
that drug users do to others, with the secondary priority involving the
more traditional public health objectives of minimizing the harm that
drug users, and especially children, do to themselves. But underlying
even this consensus are differing assumptions the appro
regarding
priate reach of social control measures designed to detect and curtail
the illicit use of drugs. Thus even among those who identify them
selves as proponents of a "public health" approach to the drug
problem, there are some who sympathize deeply with the legalizers
but prefer to keep theirmore ideological, liberty-based, values out of
their analyses, and others who see criminal justice sanctions and civil
commitment laws as useful means with which to coerce drug users
into treatment programs.15
The fact that legalizers and progressive prohibitionists have so

much in common is significant for a number of reasons. First, it
suggests that there is a basic framework of analysis, predicated upon

assessment of costs and benefits, that is regarded as
systematic
intellectually legitimate by all serious analysts of drug control policy.
The fact that the evaluation of the costs and benefits varies greatly
depending upon one's ethical values and ideological assumptions
does not negate this. Second, it suggests that the current framework
and direction of drug prohibition policies in the United States are
fundamentally at odds with any conceivable policy predicated upon
either health precepts or notions of harm reduction. Indeed,
public
the only way to explain and justify many current policies is by
reference to the fears, prejudices, and primitive moralisms of those
who have transformed control policy into a modern version of
drug
an authoritarian crusade. Third, it suggests that the debates among
the legalizers over the design and evaluation of alternative drug
control policies may well be of interest to many who share neither all
of the legalizers' values nor their visceral confidences.
THE DRUG POLICY SPECTRUM
It should be clear by this point that drug legalization and drug

do not represent simply radical alternatives to one
prohibition
another and that there is no single version of either one. Virtually all
drug control policies incorporate elements of both prohibition and
legal availability. Alcohol, for instance, is regarded as a legal drug but

it is illegal to sell it to anyone under the age of twenty-one, illegal to
drive while under its influence, and
illegal, in many states and
localities, to consume in public or to sell or buy except from

or government-licensed outlets. Many of the
government-controlled
same prohibitions increasingly apply to cigarettes and other tobacco
products. Nicotine gum, which is substantially less harmful than

smokeable tobacco, cannot even be purchased over-the-counter.
Cocaine and most opiates are typically regarded as illegal drugs, but
both are prescribed by doctors, the former for nasal and dental
surgery as well as (in a few cases) treatment of pain, the latter as a
treatment for pain or, in the case of methadone, as an
prescribed
authorized alternative to illicit heroin. The distinction between legal
and policies becomes even more
regulatory policies prohibitionist
obscure when one surveys the broad spectrum of alcohol control
policies that have been employed around the world during the past
century; the same is true of opiate control policies and, to a lesser
extent, public policies directed at the control of most other psycho
active drugs.
Nonetheless, one can distinguish between prohibition and legal
ization in at least two significant respects. The sharper distinction
concerns whether or not a drug can be purchased over-the-counter,
which is to say that it can be purchased legally by adults without first
obtaining permission from a government agency or government
licensed agent such as a doctor. The more ambiguous, but equally
important, distinction is between those policies that rely primarily on
criminal sanctions to control the misuse of drugs and those that rely
primarily on the informed choices of citizens as shaped by public

health policies, regulatory structures, and honest drug education.
It can be useful to think about alternative drug control policies as
arrayed along a spectrum, with the strictly prohibitionist and highly
punitive at one end, the unregulated free market at the other end, and
a wide array of regulatory policies in the middle. It requires minimal
insight, moreover, to recognize that any drug control policy driven
principally by public health considerations and stripped of the

moralistic and authoritarian impulses that motivate contemporary
policy would have little use for many of the more punitive measures
in evidence today. The hard questions begin when values such as
privacy, tolerance, and a presumption against imprisonment for most
nonviolent drug-related activities are factored into the analysis of
costs and benefits. They become even tougher to answer the further
we venture along the policy spectrum into the relatively unknown
territory of untested
regulatory mechanisms and over-the-counter
availability of drugs that currently can be purchased, if at all, only
with a doctor's prescription.
Why venture into the unknown terrain of a truly nonprohibitionist
drug policy given both the difficulties of evaluating the consequences

of such a policy and the unlikelihood of it being favored by amajority
of Americans within the foreseeable future? There are four reasons,
each of which are developed below. First, only such a policy can
dramatically reduce the many negative consequences of drug prohi
bition. Second, it helps us to address fundamental questions about
the basic need for a drug prohibition system?in particular long
unexamined assumptions about the differences between psychoactive

substances and other consumer items as well as the vulnerability of
the population to a broader availability of psychoactive drugs. Third,
drug policy is one area inwhich libertarian assumptions regarding
the magic of the free market may be more right than wrong. And
fourth, the future may bring both new drugs as well as new ways of
altering our states of consciousness that are not readily to
susceptible
governmental controls and that transform the ways in which Amer
icans think about drugs and consciousness alteration.16
Thinking seriously and systematically about radical alternatives to

current drug prohibition policies requires a degree of intellectual
"stretching" that is relatively unusual in policy analysis generally and
virtually unknown in the specific case of drug control policy analysis.
This stretch is best accomplished by asking two complementary
questions: How do we best maximize the benefits of the freemarket
model and minimize its risks? And how do we best retain the
advantages of drug prohibition while minimizing its direct and
indirect costs? This stretch can be visualized by focusing on the
extremes of the drug policy spectrum, with the free market at one end
and contemporary American drug prohibition near the other end,
and then trying to stretch each toward the other by applying notions
of harm minimization to each.
The stretch from contemporary prohibition is, of course, the easier
and more familiar one. It begins with a known quantity, the status
quo, which is far easier to evaluate than theoretical alternatives?
even if many causal relationships resist precise identification. The
tendency of policy analysts and policymakers to focus on options that
fall within or close to the realm of politically acceptable options
means that farmore thought and discussion have been devoted to the
more modest revisions of current prohibition policies. Many of the
initial steps that one can envision already have been taken in the
Netherlands, England, Australia, and elsewhere. And even many of
the steps that might be taken beyond what is currently happening
abroad still require no radical changes in either the structure or the
mechanisms of prohibition.
The further one stretches from the contemporary prohibition
model, however, in terms of reducing criminal justice and other
coercive controls on the distribution of drugs, the more difficult it
becomes to evaluate the consequences. It is, for instance, not that
difficult to estimate the consequences of making marijuana, heroin,

and other strictly prohibited drugs available by prescription, or of
legalizing the sale and possession of syringes and other drug para
phernalia, or of extending the limited decriminalization of marijuana
possession enacted by eleven states during the 1970s to the entire
country. There are powerful reasons to believe that each of these
policy changes would substantially reduce the undesirable conse
quences of drug prohibition and present only modest risks in terms of
public health. But it is quite another thing to estimate the conse

quences of making cocaine, amphetamine, morphine or heroin more
readily available to registered addicts, and surely an evengreater

intellectual challenge to evaluate the consequences of making these
drugs legally available over-the-counter. That challenge cannot be

met, I suspect, by taking contemporary prohibition, and the patterns
of drug use that have emerged under it, as the starting reference
points.
EVALUATING THE "SUPERMARKET" MODEL
Starting from the alternative extreme of the policy spectrum, the free
market, obliges us to focus on the question that lies at the heart of the
debate between legalizers and prohibitionists of all stripes:What
would be the consequences for American society of having virtually
no drug control
policy whatsoever? for instance, that
Imagine,
Congress passed a law granting the freedom of drug consumption
and even production and distribution the same legal protections as
the rights of freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. And
imagine that "supermarkets" existed all around the country in which
drugs of every variety could be purchased at prices reflecting nothing
more than retailers' costs plus reasonable profit margins and sales
taxes. This is, of the nightmare scenario portrayed
course, by the
opponents of legalization?even if it is not the policy favored by
virtually any of those identified as proponents of legalization apart
from the most hardcore libertarians.17 But it also bears a close
resemblance to the relatively free market in drugs found in late
nineteenth-century America?a period characterized by a fairly high
rate of opiate and other drug consumption but dramatically fewer
drug-related problems than we see today.18
The great advantage of this model is that it eliminates virtually all

of the direct and indirect costs of drug prohibition: themany billions
of dollars spent each year on arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating
hundreds of thousands of Americans, the diversion of scarce govern
mental resources from dealing with other, more immediately harm
ful, criminal activities, the tens of billions of dollars earned each year
by organized and unorganized criminals, much of the violence,
corruption and other criminal activity associated with the illicit drug
markets, the distortion of economic incentives for inner-city resi
dents, the severe problems posed by adulterated and otherwise
unregulated drugs, the inadequate prescription of drugs for the

treatment of pain, the abundant infringements on Americans' civil
liberties, and all the other costs detailed in the extant literature on
drug prohibition and legalization.
The great disadvantage of the supermarket model is its invitation
to substantial increases in both the amount and the diversity of
psychoactive drug consumption. What needs to be determined as best
as possible are the magnitude and nature of that increase and its
consequences. Among the more explicit assumptions of the legaliza
tion analysis is that the vast majority of Americans do not need drug
prohibition laws to prevent them from becoming drug abusers. By

contrast, prohibitionists typically assume that most Americans, and
at the very least a substantial minority, do in fact need such
laws?that but for drug prohibition, tens of millions more Americans
would surely become drug abusers. The supermarket model provides
no immediate insights into which perspective is closer to the truth,
but it does suggest two important approaches on analyzing the
implications of a free market.

First, it is imperative that analysts broaden their horizons to
examine not just potential changes in the consumption of drugs that
are currently illicit but changes in the cumulative consumption of all
substances. Virtually all human beings consume psy
psychoactive
choactive substances. Alcohol and caffeine are certainly the two most
common in theUnited States today, followed by nicotine, marijuana,
and a variety of themore popular prescription drugs used to alleviate
feelings of depression and anxiety. With the notable exception of
alcohol, which has retained its preeminent position throughout the
history of American psychoactive drug consumption, all other drugs

have witnessed substantial changes in their levels of consumption.
Some of these changes have been a result of changes in drug laws.
Others have reflected the emergence of new drugs, or new formula
tions of familiar drugs, as well as changes inmedical prescription
practices, new marketing techniques, changing fads and fashions in
recreational drug usage, and broader changes in popular culture as
well as particular subcultures. The notion of a truly free market in
drugs obliges us to consider what would happen if alcohol, nicotine,

and caffeine no longer were artificially favored over other drugs by
virtue of their legal status. One strong possibility is that other
drugs?including some that are common in other societies, some that
were once more popular in America than they are today, and some
that have yet to be designed or discovered?would compete with and
substitute for those drugs that are most familiar to Americans today.
Indeed, one of the silver linings on the black cloud of greater drug
use under different legalization regimes is the prospect that less
dangerous drugs would drive out the more dangerous ones. By most
accounts, alcohol and tobacco represent two of the most dangerous
drugs that have ever entered into common usage in human society.
Between them, they present a high proportion of all of the harms
associated with other drugs that have experienced widespread usage
at one time or another. Tobacco, especially when consumed in the
form of cigarettes, is both highly addictive and readily identified as a
cause of cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other ills. Alcohol can
be highly addictive for some users; consumed in abundance, it can
cause death by overdose in the short-term and cirrhosis of the liver
and other diseases in the long-term. It also is strongly associated with
violent behavior and accidental injuries in a great variety of societies.
There is no reason to assume that their predominant position in the
hierarchy of favored psychoactive substances will persist forever, and
good reason to believe that the desirable functions they serve can be
replaced by other substances that pose far fewer dangers to the health
of consumers in both the short and long-term. The samemay well be
true of relatively less dangerous drugs, such as caffeine, which might
well lose out in the competition to other psychoactive substances,
such as low potency coca and that may
amphetamine products,
improve performance more effectively with even fewer negative side
effects.
The possibility of dramatic substitution effects under a freemarket
regime suggests that the most important issue in evaluating the
consequences of such a model is neither the overall of

magnitude
consumption nor the number of drug users under such condi
drug
tions, but rather the magnitude of the negative consequences that
would result: the immediate effects of drug misuse on the health and
behavior of the user; the debilitating effects of sustained misuse; and
the deadly effects of sustained consumption. Each of these effects may
also be of consequence for nonusers ranging from those who love or
live with drug abusers to those who depend upon them in the
workplace to those who encounter them on the roads. The evaluation
of these consequences, and the assessment of which are more or less
serious, inevitably involve ethical judgments. But is important to
recognize that public policy can seek to shift patterns of drug use and
even abuse in safer directions by favoring drugs, sets, and settings
that cause less harm to users and others. It is, in short, possible for the
undesirable effects of drug use to decrease significantly even as the
amount and diversity of drug consumption increase substantially.
Indeed, ifwe really seek to be truly objective in our assessments,
what needs to be
calculated are not just the cumulative negative
consequences but the positive ones as well.19 Proponents of the public
health perspective as well as substantial segments of the American
population are reluctant to speak of the positive benefits of psycho

active drug use except to the extent they conform with conventional
notions of physical health and medical treatment. Alcohol's benefits,
for instance, are defined primarily in terms of their potential to reduce
heart disease, and those of prescription drugs entirely in terms of their
capacity to alleviate pain, depression, anxiety, and feelings that
normal Yet most people use drugs because
disrupt functioning. they
a variety of personal benefits that
enjoy the effects and many perceive
are rarely measured or social scientists. Some of
by physical, medical,
these resemble the effects approved by medical and public health
criteria, but they typically are not interpreted as such either because
they involve an informal form of self-medication or because they
the common one not have to use
confront value judgment that should
to be or feel a certain way. The moderate
psychoactive drugs
consumption of alcohol as a social lubricant, and of coffee and other
caffeinated beverages as a mild stimulant to increase alertness, are
probably the most easily accepted and widely acknowledged non

medical benefits associated with nonprescribed psychoactive drug
consumption. But it is also the case thatmillions of Americans justify
their past use and/or explain their current use of marijuana, cocaine,
hallucinogens, and a variety of other drugs in terms of the benefits
that they have derived from their consumption of those substances.
Such claims are easily belittled in a society that adopts the notion of
"drug-free" as its motto, and are often dismissed by scientists who
find such benefits particularly difficult to measure. Nonetheless, it
seems inherently unreasonable to dismiss entirely the perceptions of
consumers, especially when the negative consequences of their con
sumption are not apparent. We thus have no choice but to calculate

the consequences of changes in drug consumption not just in negative
terms but as a net calculation that incorporates both positive and
negative consequences.
The second perspective suggested by the supermarket model is that
the potential negative health consequences of a free market, or of any
other substantial change in policy, are best assessed by considering
the respective susceptibilities of different sectors of the population to
such changes. I proceed from two assumptions: that it is possible to
distinguish among sectors based upon their susceptibility to drug

abuse and hence their vulnerability to changes in drug policy; and
that close examination of both current and historical patterns of drug
use and abuse, as well as other patterns of human behavior, provide
important clues into the nature and degree of susceptibility under
alternative regimes. Implicit in the second assumption is the recogni
tion that Americans, and most other people, already live in a society
in which powerful psychoactive substances are widely available to
both adults and children. One need only consider the easy availability
of alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine virtually throughout the country;
the continued ease of obtaining marijuana and other illicit drugs in
much of the country; the extensive presence of powerful psychoactive
substances, generally prescribed by medical practitioners, in the
medicine closets of American homes; and the entirely uncontrolled
availability throughout the United States of many other psychoactive
substances, ranging from gasoline and glue to the wide array of drugs
available over-the-counter in pharmacies.
What conclusions can be drawn from an analysis of the cumulative
consumption of psychoactive drugs in this country? First, virtually all

Americans consume psychoactive substances?and even the small
minority who appear to abstain entirely, such as the Mormons, seem
to compensate by consuming substances that are not traditionally
viewed as psychoactive, such as sugar and caffeinated soft drinks.
Second, a substantial majority of Americans consume these sub
stances only in moderation, suffering little or no harm as a result.
Third, the drugs that prove most addictive to most Americans are
those, such as cigarettes and caffeinated beverages, that can be easily
integrated into everyday life with minimal hassle or disruption.
Fourth, all drugs, even cocaine,
heroin, and other drugs
virtually
most associated with destructive patterns of consumption, are con
use 20
sumed in moderation by most of those who them. Fifth, a
substantial majority of those who enter into destructive patterns of
eventually pass on to either abstinence or moder
drug consumption
ate patterns of consumption.21
When we focus on those who appear most susceptible to destruc
tive patterns of drug consumption, further conclusions are apparent.
First, while certain types of drugs are more difficult to use in
moderation than others, the principal determinants of destructive
drug use patterns involve not the pharmacology of the drug but the
set and setting inwhich the drug is consumed. That iswhy alcohol
consumption among conquered aboriginal groups and cocaine con
sumption among some inner-city populations have more in common

with one another than either does with patterns of alcohol or cocaine
consumption among less vulnerable sectors of the population. In
deed, no set and setting is more
conducive to extensive and severe
drug abuse than the combination of poverty and maladjustment to a
mainstream society. Second, those who engage in destructive patterns
of consumption with one drug are the most likely to repeat that
pattern with other drugs; conversely, those who demonstrate an
ability to consume alcohol and common prescription drugs respon

sibly, or who have succeeded in either stopping or dramatically
curtailing their consumption of tobacco, are much less likely to
engage in destructive patterns of consumption with other drugs.
Consider the results of recent polls on drug use in theUnited States.
one-third of Americans over the age of twelve claim
Approximately
that they have not used alcohol in the past year, and close to half
report that they have not consumed any alcohol in the past month.22
In a December 1990 Gallup poll, 43 percent of those polled described
themselves as abstainers from alcohol?up from 29 percent in the
years 1976-1978.23 Among African-Americans, the proportion who

claim to abstain from alcohol is 58 percent.24 Of those Americans
who did drink within the past month, only one in ten (or about 5
percent of the household population) reported that they had drunk
heavily during that time.25Approximately 75 percent of all Ameri
cans over the age of twelve have smoked at least one cigarette;
slightly less than 30 percent report that they smoked within the past
month, of which half consume about a pack or more a day.26 With
respect to marijuana, about 33 percent of Americans have used it at

least once, 11 percent in the past year, 6 percent in the past month,
and about 1 percent on something resembling a daily basis.27 There
is reason to believe that there is substantial overlap not only between
those who drink heavily and those who smoke heavily, but also
between those two groups and those who use illicit drugs heavily?
although detailed cross-tabulations of available surveys are required

to reach more exact estimates. Indeed, one also finds substantial
overlap with those who engage in compulsive gambling and other
harmful activities. The principal exception to this substantial overlap
may involve the misuse of tranquilizers and other prescription drugs,
especially among women. Even if we assume that self-reports of
alcohol and tobacco consumption tend to underreport actual con
sumption by 30-50 percent, we stillmust conclude that at least 70

percent of Americans are resistant to the sorts of temptations and
risks posed by the easy availability of cigarettes, and that more than
90 percent either refrain from powerful drugs altogether or else
consume them responsibly and in moderation. This conclusion
strongly suggests that a very substantial majority of Americans are
immune to any far reaching liberalizations in drug availability for the
simple reason that they do not really need drug laws to prevent them
from entering into destructive relationships with drugs.
The important question is thus not whether or not millions of
Americans would change their patterns of drug consumption under a
radically different drug control regime?since there is good reason to
assume they would?but rather whether those patterns would be
more (or less) destructive than their current patterns of con
drug
sumption. Among the tens of millions of Americans who abstain
from alcohol consumption, it seems reasonable to assume that they
would have little interest in, and perhaps substantial moral reserva
tions against, consuming other powerful psychoactive drugs. Among
the even larger number of Americans who consume alcohol in
moderation, despite the great potential for that drug to be consumed
in a destructive fashion, it is also reasonable to assume that the same

individual and societal restraints that protect them against alcohol's
seductive powers would control their consumption of other sub
stances. For the vast majority of Americans, therefore, the principal
danger posed by a freemarket in drugs has little to do with drugs like
crack cocaine, since so few Americans would be likely either to try it
in the first place or, if they did try it, to continue to use it. (Public
opinion polls consistently reveal that few Americans believe they
would consume cocaine, heroin or even marijuana if those drugs
were legally available.)28
The greatest danger of a free market in drugs, I suspect, is the
possibility that a drug, assumed at first to be relatively safe, becomes
popular among millions of Americans and then is revealed to be far
more harmful than initially believed. This danger is one that has
proven commonplace in the annals of pharmaceutical innovation,
medical prescription practice, and inebriation, from morphine and
cocaine during the nineteenth century to cigarettes, barbiturates,
amphetamine, tranquilizers, and many nonpsychoactive drugs, in
cluding steroids, during the twentieth. It is one that has continued to

frustrate the regulatory efforts of the Food and Drug Administration
in recent decades, and that promises to persist into the future
regardless of whether or not the drug laws change substantially. But
it is fair to assume that the dangers would be greater if far more
products were to become legally available.

The most common fear of legalization, however, is usually of a
different sort, and it must be taken seriously. It is that there are
millions of Americans forwhom the drug prohibition system repre
sentsthe principal bulwark between an abstemious relationship with
and a destructive one. Under a free market regime, it is feared,
drugs
many of those who currently abstain from, or consume in modera
tion, alcohol and other powerful intoxicants would become drug

abusers, and many of those who already have demonstrated either a
for, or a pattern of, drug abuse would engage in even more
potential
destructive patterns of drug use. Underlying this fear are a variety of
current users
assumptions: that the only things which prevent many
of illicit drugs from engaging in farmore destructive patterns of drug
use are the high price and lower availability of those drugs under the
current prohibition regime; that at least some of the illicit drugs are
more seductive than those that are currently legal and/or available;
that a free market regime would inevitably invite greater levels of

drug experimentation, which in turnwould lead to higher levels of
use and abuse; that many people would be more likely to comple
ment their current drug use with newly available drugs than to
substitute those for their current preferences; and that the heightened
societal tolerance for more varied psychoactive drug use that would
likely accompany a free market regime would lend itself to higher

levels of drug misuse.
Even if we assume that the vast majority of those who now
consume drugs safely would continue to do so under a
psychoactive
free market regime, and further assume that a substantial proportion
of those who currently misuse illicit drugs would be no worse and
quite likely better off under a freemarket regime, the fact remains
that there is a relatively small, but indeterminate, proportion of
Americans for whom the drug prohibition system provides not just
the image but the reality of security. Figuring out, with some measure
of confidence, the magnitude and composition of this vulnerable
population is among the most important intellectual challenges
confronting those who take seriously the need to estimate the
consequences of alternative
regimes. designing And
policies that
minimize the magnitude of this at-risk group without resorting to
criminal justice and other coercive measures is surely an even greater
challenge.
Most of those who would suffer from the absence of the current
drug prohibition regime can be found among those who currently

smoke cigarettes and/or abuse alcohol. The first group includes both
those adolescents and adults who have demonstrated a willingness or
ability to disregard the well known consequences of cigarette smok

ing, as well as those adults who have demonstrated an inability to
abandon a dangerous habit. The second group, which overlaps
substantially with the first, includes those adolescents and adults who
have demonstrated an inability to control a powerful psychoactive
substance, i.e., alcohol, despite the existence of increasingly strong
social controls. There are certainly others who neither smoke ciga
rettes nor abuse alcohol who would enter into destructive relation
ships with other drugs if they were more readily available, but there
is (as I already have suggested) good reason to doubt that their
numbers would prove substantial.
In trying to predict which drugs will prove most popular in the

future, who will use them responsibly and who will do so destruc
tively, it is important to keep inmind why people use drugs and why
they use the drugs they do. The choice of drugs formost members of
most societies can barely be described as a choice at all. Dominant
cultures strongly favor some drugs over others, hence the preferred
position of alcohol throughout much of the world, with different
societies evidencing a preference for beer, wine or distilled liquors, or
of coffee in most Islamic societies and quat in some, of kava in some
South Pacific islands and coca in the Andes. Alcohol's dominant
position no doubt stems aswell from the fact that its simplemeans of
production was easily discovered millennia ago by awide diversity of
societies, so that itwas not merely readily available in most societies
but also provided with substantial opportunity to entrench itself.29
Tobacco's secondary position somewhat similarly can be attributed
to its great success in sweeping the globe and becoming entrenched in
a great variety of societies before the emergence of any international
capacity for its suppression?although its powerful addictive quali

ties must also be given credit for ensuring that markets once
penetrated remained markets thereafter. As for substances such as

kava, betel nut, coca, cannabis, opium, and various hallucinogens,
each has benefited, not unlike alcohol, from being an indigenous
product.
To the extent that drug consumption patterns and preferences can
really be described as a choice, it is fair to say that people choose

those drugs that give them what they want. Most people can in fact
be described as rational consumers even in their choice of psychoac
tive drugs. They use drugs because they seek or like their effects,
whether those involve relief from pain, reduction of stress and
anxiety, release from inhibitions, stimulation of the senses and the
intellect, enhancement of physical or mental or any of
performance,
the many other psychoactive effects of drugs. Most people, moreover,
tend to limit their consumption in order to minimize the negative
consequences, whether those involve hangovers, heart disease or
cancer. The evidence from a broad variety of cultures suggests that
the single most important determinant of a drug's popularity is its
capacity to be integrated into ordinary liveswith minimal disruption.
It is important to recognize that the same notion of rational drug
consumption applies to some extent even to those who are engaged
in highly destructive patterns of consumption. For many hard core

drug users in the inner cities and among aboriginal populations, their
intensive involvement with powerful drugs provides a
powerful
source of relief from emotional and other psychological pain, some
excuse for isolating themselves both from mainstream society and
difficult personal responsibilities, and (particularly for those most
engaged in the day to day hustling for the means to procure their
expensive drugs) a source of self esteem and motivation to keep
getting out of bed in the mornings despite the absence of any
promising prospects in their lives. This is not to say, of course, that
the destructive drug use patterns of those living on the edge of despair
can be described as entirely rational. But it is to say that even hard
core drug abusers tend to prefer drug consumption options that
minimize the risks of death in both the long and the short-term; the
growing evidence about the willingness of intravenous drug addicts
to takemodest steps to reduce the likelihood of contracting theHIV
virus attests to this.30Relatively few hard core drug addicts can be
described as truly committed to an early death. It is thus reasonable
to assume that even most current and potential hard core drug users
will, if given the choice, opt for drugs that are, at the very least, no
more dangerous than those consumed today.
One can supplement the notion of rational drug consumption,
which focuses on the individuals' preferences, with another notion
also drawn from libertarian philosophy. It is that societies, like
individuals, generate nonlegal social norms
in the absence of govern
mental prohibitions and other restrictive laws. Societies, simply
stated, are not entirely at the mercy of free markets, but retain the
potential to create self-protective mechanisms designed to minimize
the risks presented by such markets. Indeed, some libertarians argue,
one of the more significant costs imposed by governmental prohibi
tions is the withering of societal norms that often operate more
powerfully and effectively than governmental interventions. Evidence
in support of this argument can be found in anthropological and
sociological studies of traditional and modern cultures alike, wher
ever patterns of human intercourse are allowed to evolve in the
absence of significant governmental prohibitions. Particularly reas
suring in this regard are the many decriminalizations that one can
point to throughout civilized human history that were opposed by
those who feared for the civility and even the survival of society but
that turned out to be far less destabilizing than was feared. Such fears
impeded efforts to do away with restrictions on speech, press,

religion
and assembly, on relations between people of different classes and
races, on sexual and familial relations, and on the availability of
psychoactive drugs that are now integrated into modern society.31
The same sorts of unjustified fears now stand in theway of efforts to
do away with current drug prohibitions.
The arguments of the libertarians are both powerful and, at least
with respect to
the majority of society, quite convincing. They
confront, however, three counterarguments that most Americans
currently find compelling. The first is simply that drugs and drug
consumption are fundamentally different than all other commodities
and activities?so different that ordinary libertarian assumptions do
not apply. The second, like the notion of rational drug consumption,
derives from economic reasoning. It is the evidence that suggests that
levels of consumption of desirable consumer items tend to increase as
their availability increases and their price decreases. And the third is
the epidemiological evidence suggesting that the negative conse
quences associated with the use of any drug in a society are a direct
function of the overall level of use of that drug. Of these three
arguments, the first represents the weakest in terms of logical analysis
but the most powerful from an emotional and political viewpoint. It
can be repudiated by reference to the many ways in which other
commodities and activities generate the same sorts of behavior as do
the consumption of drugs, be it the alteration of consciousness, the
transformation of social behavior or the creation of dependent
relationships.32 But the belief in the unique power of psychoactive

drugs is so entrenched in our society that even highly prominent
liberal theorists, including those with strong libertarian inclinations,
either avoid the
subject altogether or else carve out awkward
exceptions to their otherwise more coherent philosophies. The sec

ond and third arguments, by contrast, present far more powerful
reasons to refrain from placing one's faith entirely in libertarian
assumptions.
There are other reasons as well to put the purist libertarian
assumptions and the supermarket model to the side. The more one
about the consequences of such a model, the more one
speculates
realizes that all sorts of additional assumptions have to be made
about the type of society that would favor such a model?and that
these assumptions are even more speculative

anything we
than
assume about the
vulnerability of
today's population to such a
model. At the very least, the sets and settings that so powerfully shape
the nature and consequences of drug use would inevitably differ
dramatically from their contemporary formulations.
Furthermore, as
soon as one engages in the process of trying to think through the
consequences of such a model, one encounters ten
the inevitable
dency to begin framing restrictions on the supermarket. Whether one
analogizes to alcohol and tobacco, or to the

nineteenth-century
model of widespread drug availability, one confronts the tendency
both in theUnited States and elsewhere to impose restrictions on the
distribution of psychoactive drugs.
THE "RIGHT OF ACCESS" MODEL
We thus return to the question: How can the risks and harms of the
free market model be reduced without undermining the many
benefits that such a model offers? And how far can the freemarket
model be stretched without giving up its essential feature? That
essential feature, itmust be stressed, is the legal availability of drugs
in the absence of any requirement that the permission of a govern
ment-sanctioned gatekeeper be obtained beforehand. It is that feature
that distinguishes the legal status of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and
aspirin from that of marijuana, cocaine, morphine, and Valium?and
that accounts for the generally greater and easier availability of the
legal drugs compared to the illegal drugs. Legal drugs are almost
always available over-the-counter; illegal drugs are not. Government
sanctioned medical authorities and pharmacists, and sometimes
additional barriers as well, stand between the illegal drug and the
person who wishes to obtain it.
It is important to recognize that legal availability does not always
connote easy availability, and that the restricted legal status of a drug
does not always make it that difficult to obtain. Legal drugs may, for
instance, be so expensive?either because of high costs of production
or high taxes?that are for all intents and purposes unavailable
they
to many potential consumers. Distribution channels may be relatively
undeveloped or otherwise circumscribed. And efforts by government
to restrict severely the availability of a legal drug without depriving
consumers entirely of the right to purchase it legally may prove
successful. Powerful evidence in support of these propositions can be

found in the alcohol control efforts of the United States, Australia,
and much of Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Whereas the
former initially favored Prohibition, the latter opted instead for
tough, but nonprohibitionist, regulatory regimes. The results were
more substantial, and more lasting, declines in alcohol consumption
and alcohol-related ills in Europe and Australia than in the United
States.33
Illegal drugs, by contrast, can occasionally prove to be highly

available. Medical practitioners often write prescriptions for mild
sedatives, and other psychoactive drugs in response to
tranquilizers,
their clients' plaints. They may do so because they believe that such
drugs
are a proper and effective way of medicating their clients, or
because that a client's satisfaction with a visit to her
they believe
doctor depends in part upon the doctor's willingness to end the visit
by writing a prescription. And even apart from such channels, illegal

can prove readily available wherever substantial markets
drugs
was the case with marijuana in
generate high levels of supply?as
much of the country during the 1970s and 1980s. The same holds
true of more localized markets, in particular the inner-city markets
for cocaine since the mid-1980s as well as for other drugs that have
attained high levels of popularity in particular neighborhoods or
cities. In cases such as these, illegal drugs may prove more available
than many legal drugs, such as alcohol, for which the hours of sale
are often restricted
by government. In many highly restricted envi
ronments, moreover, such as prisons, jails, and mental institutions,
are often more available than alcohol because their
illegal drugs
smaller bulk makes them easier to smuggle past guards and other
barriers.
The foregoing analysis suggests that it is possible to construct legal
drug control regimes in which certain drugs may be less available
than is the case under regimes. When we stretch as far as
prohibition
possible from the freemarket extreme of the drug policy continuum,
but seek at the same time to retain the basic feature of nongatekeeper
accessibility, the model that emerges is one that might be called the
"right of access"
or "mail-order" model. It is based on the notion that
adults should be entitled not merely to the right to possess small
amounts of any drug for personal consumption but also to the right
to obtain any drug from a reliable, legally regulated source respon
sible (and liable) for the quality of its products. In identifying such a
right, Imust stress, I do not mean to suggest that it is on a par with
the more privacy-based right of possession and/or consumption, but
merely that it provides a useful parameter?both ethically and
conceptually?for designing alternative drug control policies. Unlike

the supermarket model, the right of access model is one that can be
on the current drug system.
superimposed prohibition
If such a right of access were legally acknowledged by Congress or
the Supreme Court?a prospect, I recognize, with scant political or
jurisprudential potential in the foreseeable future?those desirous of

minimizing the potential threat to public health might well advocate
the notion of a mail order system. In order to ensure a right of access
to all residents of the United States no matter where theymight live,
at least one mail order source would have to be available in the
United States from which any adult could order a modest amount of
any drug at a reasonable price reflecting production costs and taxes.
Most states, cities, and other communities might well continue to
prohibit the sale and public consumption of most drugs within their
jurisdictions as they do now, but would be obliged to acknowledge
the basic right of access by mail order as well as the basic right of
possession and consumption. Some localities might also adopt, if they
had not already done so, the various sorts of harm reduction policies
that are advisable under any regime. One might also imagine many
other local variations by different states and municipalities to accom
modate the particular health, criminal justice, and moral concerns of
each. But the option of ordering one's drugs by mail would allow any
adult to opt out, in effect, of the local control system insofar as
private consumption was concerned.

The right of access notion offers us, I think, a more valuable,
modest, and realistic alternative extreme than the supermarket model
from which to stretch toward the optimal policy. As a model, it
retains in skeletal formthe essence of a legalization regime, which is
the elimination of any sort of gatekeeper?policeman, doctor, phar
macist, etc.?between the seller and consumer of drugs with the
power to deny the latter access. It thus strikes at the heart of much of
what iswrong with drug prohibition, in particular the creation of
violent and powerful black market entrepreneurs, the harms that
result from unregulated production of psychoactive drugs, and the
many infringements on individual freedoms. But it also provides a
skeletal framework that can be filled out with many of the sorts of
antidrug abuse measures that we associate with both harm reduction
approaches to illicit drug control policy and public health approaches

to alcohol and tobacco control. It has the advantage of resembling
actual models in other domains of public policy both today and in
recent history, including the alcohol distribution system in Canada
and Sweden during the early decades of this century as well in pre
and post-Prohibition United States, and the modification of FDA
policy in recent years to allow individuals to import by mail small
amounts of drugs that are legally available outside the United States
but that have yet to be approved by the FDA for the treatment of
AIDS or cancer.34 Given the among critics of
preference drug
prohibition for a fairly high degree of "local option," it addresses the
inevitable tensions among different state and local drug control
policies, between those policies and federal policies, and even (albeit
to a lesser extent) between domestic policies and international
requirements. At the same time, it offers a paradigm for addressing
and reconciling the tensions between individual rights and commu
nitarian interests that lie at the heart of so many struggles over public
policy in democratic societies.

This model is not, I must stress, a panacea, nor should it be
misconstrued as a final proposal for an alternative drug control
regime. It raises numerous questions such as how such a mail-order
system would be established and maintained, who would run it and
profit from it, who would oversee it, who would have access to its
mailing lists and other information

consumers, how consumer
about
privacy would be protected, how minors would be prevented from
taking advantage of it, how new drugs would be made available, and
so on. Most of these questions strike me as susceptible to fairly
precise answers, in good part because there are so many close

a
to mail-order system. More difficult to assess are the same
analogies
sorts of questions raised by the supermarket model and all other
alternative models, in particular those that focus on assessing changes
in psychoactive drug consumption?although I assume that they are
easier to answer with respect to a mail-order model since such a
system ismore readily integratedwith the current prohibition model

than is the case with the supermarket model.
One prominent difference between the right of access or mail-order
model and the supermarket model is that the former fails to eliminate
the black Just as some gun control

market. laws rely on waiting
the
between time a person orders a firearm and the time he
periods
obtains possession, so a mail-order system imposes a sort of waiting
a minimum of one day. It is highly reasonable to
period?presumably
assume that black markets would persist not only to supply minors?
which is presently the case with most psychoactive substances,
including alcohol and tobacco?but also to supply those who will not
or cannot wait to obtain their drugs from the mail-order system, as
well as those who want to obtain more at any one time than is
allowed by law.
We typically assume that an important objective of legalizing drugs
is to undercut the black markets and place them in the hands of either
government or government-licensed and regulated distributors. This
objective is tempered by the recognition that there are better and

worse features of illicit markets, and that a preferable drug policy
ideally would focus on eliminating the worst while tolerating the
better features. It would, for instance, attempt to undermine the
accumulation of power by organized criminals, reduce the violence
that attends such markets and generally push large-scale production
into the hands of regulated, tax paying, and collecting producers and
distributors. But at the same time, it might well choose to ignore
smaller scale illicit markets?what are often referred to less dispar
or unregulated are of value not
agingly as informal markets?which
just because they often prove more innovative and enterprising in

designing and offering new products but also because they provide an
important source of income for many people who face substantial

disadvantages in their efforts to penetrate and succeed in the more
established legitimate markets. This holds true, for instance, of both
rural producers of marijuana and inner-city entrepreneurs engaged in
the low-level distribution of crack and other drugs. Two probable
advantages of the right of access model are that itwould effectively
undercut efforts by organized criminals to create highly profitable
national distribution systems, since any adult could purchase the
drugs by mail. At the same time, itwould not eliminate many illicit
small scale, localized production and distribution systems that meet
local demands for immediate availability, rapid delivery, and special
ized products. Local authorities could choose, in effect, either to
suppress such black markets vigorously or to manage them through
conventional vice control methods. But the scale of such markets
would probably bear a closer resemblance to illicit prostitution rings
in cities that sanction regulated prostitution than to contemporary
illicit drug markets.
TRANSITION ISSUES
Few drug control regimes are static. Prohibitions, regulations, and

decriminalizations tend to evolve as new drugs emerge, as drug use
patterns shift, as other drug-related norms change, and as popular

and elite perceptions of various drugs, drug consumers and drug
problems shift. In contemplating alternatives to the current drug

prohibition regime, we need to distinguish between transition phases,
longer term consequences and equilibria, keeping in mind that there
is no drug control regime that will suffice forever. The distinction is
important with respect to issues of both drug consumption and black
markets. It is safe to assume that illicitmarkets do not just shrivel up
and die when confronted with competition from licit markets.
Rather, illicit entrepreneurs may continue to compete with licit
markets during the initial phase when licit producers and distributors
are still gearing up, having the advantage of their previous invest
ments inproduction and/or distribution aswell as their expertise. The
share of the market that is captured by legal producers and distrib
utors in the long-term, however, probably would depend more on
price, availability, competition, the intensity of continued law en

forcement efforts to suppress the remaining black market, and
changing tastes and fads among consumers. There are also important
policy questions regarding the extent to which those involved in the

illicitmarkets during prohibition should be allowed or encouraged to
play a role in legalmarkets after prohibition.
Close examination of the aftermath of Prohibition in the United
States, other postprohibition periods elsewhere, and other decrimi
nalizations, such as of gambling, prostitution, pornography as well as
of nonvice markets in countries experiencing significant deregula
tions (such as the former Soviet bloc countries) can provide impor
tant insights into how drug markets are likely to evolve.35 The impact
of decriminalization on those involved in illicit drug dealing, as well
as on those who would have become involved in drug dealing but for
decriminalization, is especially important when we focus on African
American and Latino youth in the urban ghettos. Clearly the
dramatic drop in the price of currently illicit drugs following decrim

inalization would greatly reduce one of themost powerful incentives
for engaging in drug dealing and other criminal activities. According
to a recent report by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 13 percent of all convicted jail inmates, and 19 percent of
those convicted of drug trafficking offenses, said they had committed
their offense to obtain money to buy illicit drugs.36 Dramatic
reductions in the size and profitability of the illicit markets would
also remove the powerful financial and social incentives that have
lured so many urban youth into drug dealing activities even before
they began to consume illicit drugs.
Further insights into this question can be derived both from
analyzing the response of bootleggers to the repeal of Prohibition and
from observing how illicit drug dealers adapt when illicit drug
markets decline, as seems to be the case today.37 Illicit vice entrepre
neurs seem to respond to decriminalizations and shrinkages in illicit
markets in any of four ways. Some succeed in making the transition
to legal entrepreneurship in the same line of work. Some seek to
remain in the business illegally, whether by supplying products and
services in competition with the legal market or by employing
criminal means to take advantage of the legal markets. For instance,
following Prohibition, some bootleggers continued to market their
products by forging liquor tax stamps, by strongarming bartenders
into continuing to carry their moonshine and illegally imported
liquors, and by muscling their way into the distribution of legal
alcohol. Some also fought to retain their markets among those who
had developed a taste for corn whiskey before and during Prohibi
tion. The third response of bootleggers and drug dealers is to
abandon their pursuits and branch out instead into other criminal
activities involving both vice opportunities and other sorts of crime.
Indeed, one potential negative consequence of decriminalization is
that many committed criminals would adapt to the loss of drug
dealing revenues by switching their energies to crimes of theft,
thereby negating to some extent the reductions in such crimes that
would result from drug addicts no longer needing to raise substantial
amounts of money to pay the inflated prices of illicit drugs. The
fourth response?one that has been and would be attractive to many
past, current, and potential drug dealers?is to forego criminal
activities altogether. Relatively few criminal pursuits can compare in
terms of paying so well, requiring so few skills, remaining
fairly
accessible to newcomers, and presenting attractive capitalist oppor
tunities to poorly educated and integrated inner-city youth. During
Prohibition, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Americans with no
particular interest in leading lives of crime were drawn into the
business of illegally producing and distributing alcohol; following its
repeal, many if not most of them abandoned their criminal pursuits
There is every reason to believe that drug decriminaliza
altogether.
tion would have the same impact on many involved in the drug
dealing business who would not have been tempted into criminal
pursuits but for the peculiar attractions of that business. The chal
lenge for researchers, of course, is to estimate the relative proportions
of current and potential drug dealers who would respond in any of
these four ways. The even broader challenge is to determine the sorts
of public policies that would maximize the proportion that forego
criminal activities altogether.
The need to distinguish between transition phases and longer term
consequences and equilibria also applies to the impact of decriminal
ization on potential and current illicit drug users. The initial liberal
ization of availability is likely to spark high levels of curiosity,
stimulated both by themedia and by themere fact of legal access, and
substantial experimentation with different drugs?but it is reasonable
to assume that this would moderate overthe long-term. At the same
time, the initial
reluctance of many Americans to try newly available
drugs to which they are unaccustomed may fade over time. Those
who have grown up under a prohibition system, moreover, and have
thus been influenced to one degree or another by the many assump
tions that prohibition conveys about drug use, are likely to experience
a legal regime differently than succeeding generations for whom it
will represent the norm.
GATEKEEPERS, NORMS, AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
There is also the question of how a liberalization of legal availability

will affect both the doctor-patient relationship and the role of
pharmacists. Itwould be useful to know, for example, what propor
tion of visits to doctors are motivated principally by the desire or
need to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance. Between
one-half and two-thirds of all consultations with doctors result in the
writing of a prescription.38 A legal drug regime would negate the

need for visits motivated solely by the need to obtain a prescription,
with mixed results. Some people would suffer as a result of not being
to consult with a doctor, but many others who now must
obliged
waste time and money on unnecessary doctor visits would surely
benefit. The problem of undermedication, and particularly under
treatment of pain, would almost surely be less of a problem than it is
now. But some people would surely be more likely to use inappro
priate drugs and to develop unhealthy dependencies on drugs that are
now available only by nonrenewable prescription. Better insights into
these issues can be gained by analyzing the available evidence about
why go to doctors as well as patterns of self-medication and
people
doctor visitation in other times and places inwhich there have been
fewer controls on the availability of drugs.39
The role of doctors and pharmacists as gatekeepers for prescrip
tion drugs is of course part and parcel of a broader question about
the basic need for creating and maintaining a distinction between
over-the-counter and prescription drugs. This question has been
addressed most sharply by economists, although the literature on the
broader implications of the distinction remains quite limited.40The
notion of requiring prescriptions for drugs other than cocaine and
opiates is, as Peter Temin wrote in his historical study of drug
regulation in the United States, a relatively recent notion?one that
was not consonant with the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act but that emerged in spite of a legislative intent to the contrary.41
Implicit in the notion was the belief thatmany Americans would not
act rationally in their choice and use of drugs and thus needed to be
shielded from their own irresponsibility by governmental controls.
One result was a significant constriction in the provision of informa
tion about drugs to consumers. The supposition that a
mandatory
drug prescription system plays an essential role in protecting the
health of consumers has yet to be systematically tested. One study
that employed a cross-national comparative concluded
perspective
that the prescription requirement did not yield a net benefit in health
effects.42 Another, by Peter Temin, suggested certain criteria that
could be used to determine when a drug should be restricted or made
available over-the-counter.43 These studies provide valuable insights,
but they represent only a small step in the direction of determining
the likely consequences of severely restricting or eliminating the

mandatory prescription system.
I should stress that these issues are at least as important with
respect to the urban as they are in thinking about middle class
ghettos
drug usage. Much illicit drug abuse in urban ghettos can fairly be
described as a form of self-medication for depression and other
psychological pain among people who tend not to seek out psychi
atrists and other doctors for such ills.The drugs they use to hide and
forget their pains?alcohol, illegal heroin and cocaine, and other
"street" drugs?are often more dangerous but no more effective than
those prescribed tomiddle class patients by their doctors. At the same
time, urban ghettos are full of poor people who might well benefit
from access to the same sorts of antidepressants and other drugs that
middle class Americans obtain from their doctors but who fail to
obtain them both because they eschew the illicitmarkets and because
financial and cultural limitations preclude visits to doctors. Here it is
worth pointing out the patent absurdity of the claim that drug
legalization would devastate inner-city populations. Both legal and
illegal drugs are already so widely available in inner cities that
virtually any resident can obtain them far more quickly than in
suburban neighborhoods. But a liberalization of drug availability
would make more easily available drugs that are safer than those now
sold in urban liquor stores, crack houses, and street markets. At the
same time, itwould substantially reduce the negative consequences of
prohibition?all of which are feltmost severely in the urban ghettos.

More broadly, there is good reason to think that a regime of legal
availability would substantially, even radically, transform the ways in
which Americans relate to psychoactive drugs. One might well
imagine that pharmacological experts, certified perhaps by either

government or
professional agencies, would play an increasingly
important role not so much as gatekeepers but as educators and
consultants on the preferred uses of drugs for medicinal, psychother
recreational, and other purposes. But even more impor
apeutic,
tantly, nonlegal norms would undoubtedly emerge in the absence of
current prohibitionist norms to shape the way people relate to drugs,
the ways inwhich they use them, and the cautions they exercise. Here
again, there is the question of determining which people are likely to

prefer the least potent and least risky drugs and which aremore likely
to opt for the most potent, acting, and so on. There is also
quickest
the possibility that a world of widespread drug availability might be

more norms against all forms of drug
likely to generate self-protective
taking. And it is fair to assume that far more people would assume
greater responsibility for their relationship to drugs than is currently

the case, since the gatekeeper role of doctors effectively transforms
consumers into far more passive actors.
This in turn leads to the question of how information about
psychoactive drugs could be better distributed to a population so that
it is readily available and intelligible to typical consumers. The
challenges here are fourfold. The first is to design an effective means
of distinguishing among categories of drugs so that those who
either by mail or at retail outlets are properly informed of
purchase
the risks and appropriate uses. This task could be performed by either
a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or a nongovernmental
agency such as Consumer Reports, or both. The second is to design
an information system separate from the distribution systems
whereby consumers can obtain necessary information on their own
at little or no cost. This might involve information distribution
systems accessible by telephone or other easily accessed computer
hookups. Current efforts by the FDA, and by consumer organizations
such as those promoted by Ralph Nader, to ensure that consumers
are provided with both more accurate and more accessible informa
tion may well provide something of amodel in thinking about issues
such as these. The third challenge is to create honest drug education
programs that tell children the truth about drugs without stimulating
premature desires to try them.44 And the fourth is to design public
health campaigns that effectively discourage drug misuse without
resorting to lies, scare tactics, and the demonization of people who
use drugs. The public service advertisements directed at discouraging
tobacco consumption and drunken driving provide far better models
in this respect than the "Fried Egg" ads, caricatures, and untruths
promoted by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.45

Most of what people know about drugs they have never used
comes from the commercial media. It has repeatedly a central
played
role in transforming local fads and fashions into national and even
international We can safely assume that it will a
phenomena.46 play
crucial role in the distribution of information and the shaping of
public perceptions about drugs, particularly those that are relatively
unfamiliar to most Americans. One need only imagine what impact
the news magazines' cover stories in late 1989 and early 1990 on the
new antidepressant, Prozac, would have had if Prozac were available
over-the-counter or by mail; indeed, itwould be interesting to know
what those stories actually did have on potential consumers.47
impact
How many people, for instance, visited doctors thereafter with the
intention of obtaining prescriptions for Prozac, how many succeeded,
and?even more difficult to say?how many benefited or suffered as
a consequence? Conversely, how many people who might benefit
from Prozac have not
yet tried it solely because they are unaccus
tomed to visiting a doctor to obtain assistance in alleviating depres
sion? Certainly there is good reason to fear the media's impact on
drug consumption preferences under a legal regime given its historic
and persistent incapacity to provide accurate and balanced informa
tion about psychoactive drugs.48 On the other hand, the media
occasionally has demonstrated its capacity to shape preferences in

healthier and otherwise better directions. It is certainly a loose
cannon insofar as our efforts to evaluate the future direction of drug
use are concerned. But there is good reason to devote at least some
effort to considering how the media has shaped drug consumption
patterns in the past.
The issue of advertising is a difficult one. In 1986, the Supreme
Court ruled in Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates vs. Tourism
Company of Puerto Rico that strict restrictions on advertising casino

were constitutionally permissible.49 There seems to be little
gambling
question that comparable restrictions on advertising psychoactive
drugs would also be regarded as legal.50 The difficult issues thus
involve balancing the costs and benefits of both specific types of
as well as the advertising of psychoactive products
advertising
generally. There is good reason to fear, and to curtail, the mass
promotion of psychoactive drugs that present the sorts of harm

associated with alcohol and cigarettes.51 There are also substantial
incentives to avoid a revival of medical quackery and the mass
marketing of patent medicines that once tricked millions of Ameri

cans into buying products that did them little good and occasionally
much harm. On the other hand, advertising can play a valuable role
in informing people of new and beneficial products, in luring
consumers to switch from more dangerous to less dangerous drugs,
and in promoting competition that saves consumers money.52 This is
true of both psychoactive and nonpsychoactive drugs aswell as those
used for both recreational and more
traditional therapeutic purposes.
The solution to the advertising dilemma?to the extent we are willing
to put aside First Amendment concerns?may well lie in a combina
tion of restrictions on the promotion of more harmful products with
vigorous educational campaigns to discourage their consumption.
CONCLUSION
Predicting human behavior remains, and shall always remain, an

imprecise art. Social science can provide modest into the
insights
consequences of incremental changes in regulatory structures on
human behavior. But when wetry to envision the consequences of
more far reaching in such structures, our confidence in social
changes
science insights falters. The variables are too numerous, the changes
in individual and societal consciousness too unpredictable, and the
tools too paltry to pretend that we can the future. Here
really know
history offers amore powerful guide?with its potential to shed light
on both the accretion of incremental
changes and the suddenness of
revolutionary change. But even
its lessons are limited unanswer
by
able questions regarding the potential of the future to evolve in
unprecedented ways. Ultimately our predictions are bounded by
theories of human behavior, and particularly of human and societal
vulnerability and resilience, that have more to do with our visceral
fears and confidences than any objective readings of the evidence.
When we switch from predicting the future to trying to plan it, our
preferences are determined not only by our calculations of their
consequences but also by our choices among ethical
competing
values. Such choices may be made implicitly, as when we accept
without question conventional ethical values, or
explicitly. They
establish the parameters beyond which policy options will not be
considered. They influence our calculations of the costs and benefits
of various options. And they guide us in deciding who should benefit
and who may be harmed by choosing one option over another. There
are no objective standards by which to choose among ethical values.
One can only appeal to conscience, principle, and empathy.
The challenges of evaluating radical alternatives to our current
drug prohibition system are formidable. But so are the challenges of
predicting the consequences of persisting with our current In
policies.
1960, few Americans had ever heard of LSD, and the notion that
sixty million Americans would smoke marijuana during the next

three decades would have seemed bizarre to most Americans. In
1970, few Americans gave much thought to cocaine, and most would
not have believed that twenty-five million Americans would try it
during the next two decades. By the late 1970s, many Americans
believed that marijuana would be sold legallywithin a few years. In
1980, no one had ever heard of "crack" cocaine; the notion of an
AIDS epidemic among injecting drug users seemed inconceivable;
and the prospect of a quarter-million Americans in jail or prison by
1990 for violating drug prohibition laws seemed preposterous.
Clearly, retention of our drug prohibition system provides no guar
antees about future patterns of drug use or the scale of future drug
problems. Legalization may present a wider array of possibilities, but

its uncertainties are not dramatically greater than those of persisting
with prohibition.
There are powerful reasons for taking the alternatives to
seriously
drug prohibition. The first is simply that drug prohibition has proven
relatively ineffective, increasingly costly, and highly counterproduc
tive in all sorts of ways that many Americans are only beginning to
appreciate. Nowhere is this more true than in the urban ghettos,
where the war on drugs has failed to reduce the availability of illicit
drugs or the incidence of drug abuse and offers no prospect of doing
so in the future. At the same time, these neighborhoods and their
residents have suffered the negative consequences of drug prohibition
more severely than any others. Not unlike Chicago under Al Capone,
they must live with the violence and corruption generated by prohi
bition, the diversion of law enforcement resources, the distortion of
economic and social incentives for their youth, the overdoses that
result from unregulated drugs, the AIDS that spreads more rapidly
because clean syringes are not legally or readily available, and the
incarceration of unprecedented numbers of young men and women.
Those who contend that legalization would mean writing off impov
erished inner-city neighborhoods ignore the remarkable extent to
which drug prohibition has both failed and devastated the urban
ghettos. Drug legalization offers no panacea, particularly if it is not
accompanied by more fundamental changes in the norms and
leadership of urban societies. But there is no question that it can

alleviate many urban ills at relatively little risk.
Second, there are good reasons to believe that a nonprohibitionist
regime would not result in dramatic increases in drug abuse. Public
opinion polls reveal that few Americans believe theywould use drugs
that are now illicit if they were legally available. Important implica
tions, moreover, can be derived from the observation that we already
live in a society in which all sorts of psychoactive substances are
cheaply and readily available to both adults and children. Legalizaton

would make more drugs more available than they are today, but it
would not present a situation dramatically different from thatwhich
currently exists. The same sorts of norms and interests that prevent
most Americans from misusing drugs today would persist. And even
many of those who do misuse illicit drugs would be no worse off, and
in many ways better off, under an alternative regime. Some Ameri
cans would suffer from the abolition of drug prohibition, but all the
evidence suggests that their numbers would be modest. We possess,
in short, substantial evidence of a fundamental societal resilience in
the face of widespread drug availability.
Third, there are also reasons
to anticipate positive shifts in
good
drug consumption patterns ifwe move in the direction of nonprohi
bitionist controls. The current drug control regime favors certain
legal and illegal drugs over others that may well present fewer
to both consumers and society generally. Under a legaliza
dangers
tion regime, alcohol and tobacco would no longer be artificially
favored by their legal status. Crack cocaine would no longer benefit
from the perverse dynamics of the illicit market. And traffickers and
consumers would no longer be obliged to favor more compact and
potent drugs over bulkier but more benign substances simply because
the former were less detectable. Both illicit drug abusers and respon
sible consumers, particularly among the poor, would have better
access to drugs that are safer than those that are most available now.
Drug legalization might thus result in more consumption of a wider

array of substances than is currently the case but with dramatically
fewer negative consequences.
Fourth, those who take seriously such values as tolerance, privacy,
individual freedom, and individual responsibility have little choice
but to seek out alternatives to the current system. These values are
fundamentally at odds with a prohibition regime that criminalizes the

possession of small amounts of any drug for personal consumption.
They are seriously threatened, moreover, by a war on drugs that
promotes notions of zero tolerance toward drug users, that pursues

its objective of a drug-free society with few restraints, that encourages
neighbors and family members to inform on one another, and that
incarcerates hundreds of thousands of Americans for engaging in vice
activities that were entirely legal less than a century ago.
In proposing a mail-order distribution system based on a right of
access, I have tried to offer a model that strikes at the heart of what
is most problematic about drug prohibition. I realize that such a
model is easily mocked by those with little interest in thinking
seriously about alternatives to drug prohibition. My intended audi
ence are the progressive prohibitionists and legalizers of all stripes
interested in developing the discourse about alternatives to drug
prohibition. I believe themodel offers an effective means of eliminat

ing or reducing the worst consequences of drug prohibition. It
represents the best compromise I can envision between individual
and communitarian interests. It provides for both a skeletal
rights
framework at the federal level and substantial flexibility for local
option at the state and local level. It allows for substantial latitude in
implementing public health measures and campaigns designed to
reduce drug abuse. And it offers a system that can be fairly easily
superimposed on the current prohibition system.
The model does not, to be sure, represent a panacea. It raises as
many questions as it answers. Like any other model, it has its
vulnerabilities and it is susceptible to abuse by those determined to
take advantage of it. Its potential effectiveness depends, moreover, on
the extent to which it is filled out with sensible and humane drug
control policies at state and local levels of government. But it does
compare favorably, I believe, with both the American prohibition
system and the supermarket model preferred by extreme libertarians.
It presents greater risks than the conventional, prohibition-bound
harm reduction model one finds in parts of Europe and Australia, but
it also offers far more potential to transform drug consumption
patterns in both the urban ghettos and the population at large in safer
directions.
Intellectual ruminations about supermarket models, mail-order
distribution systems, and a right of access to psychoactive drugs seem
far removed from current political debates over drug control policy in
the United States. There are, nonetheless, good reasons to develop the
intellectual capital associated with the analysis of alternative drug
control regimes. First, scholars are obliged to pursue their intellectual
inquiries unencumbered by the blinders imposed by current preju

dices and political realities. To limit the questions that one asks and
the answers that one ventures to those sanctioned by officialdom is to
forsake our moral and intellectual obligations to both our profession
and our society. Future generations are ill served if today's scholars
uniformly submit to the intellectual conservatism that so dominates

social science and public policy analysis. Second, many of the
assumptions that underlie both the current war on drugs and the
prohibition system itself have not been systematically examined for a

long time. Even those who desire no substantial revisions in drug
control policies can benefit from such an appraisal. Third, no one
knows what the future will bring. New drugs and new ways of
altering one's state of consciousness will surely emerge. The chal
lenges of regulating psychoactive drugs are certain to increase. And

the pharmacological Calvinism that dominates contemporary Amer
ican public opinion and policy analysis can only persist for so
long.
Cost-benefit analysis can, and should, play an important role in the
debate over the future of drug control policy, if only because it
provides us with the closest thing to an objective framework of
analysis for clarifying our objectives and assessing our options.
Ultimately, however, the debate over drug policy is really a debate
over competing moral visions of society. I see no merit, and much
evil, in calls for zero tolerance and a drug-free society. I also see
nothing immoral, Imust admit, about the consumption of psycho
active drugs by those who do no harm to others and who fulfill the
obligations they have assumed to others. The challenge, from my
perspective, is one of designing and promoting a control
drug policy
that combines a healthy respect for individual freedom and respon
sibility with a strong sense of compassion. These values do not trump
all others all of the time. But it is important that they be not forgotten
or pushed to the side whenever the fearful specter of DRUGS is
uttered.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to themembers of the Princeton Working Group on the Future of Drug

Use and Alternatives to Drug Prohibition for their participation in the project, and
to the Smart Family Foundation for its financial support of theworking group. I am
also indebted to the Ford Foundation and the Robert C. Linnell Foundation for their
research support. I am grateful for comments on previous drafts of this paper from
Michael Aldrich, Virginia Berridge, John Dilulio, Ernest Drucker, David Hawks,
Sylvia Law, Stanton Peele, Craig Reinarman, Sasha Shulgin, Kenneth Warner, and
Alex Wodak.
ENDNOTES
1The relationship between the current debate over drug legalization and prior
debates is analyzed in Ronald Bayer, "Introduction: The Great Policy Debate?
What Means This Thing Called Decriminalization?," Milbank Quarterly 69 (3)
(1991): 341-63.
2See the following articles by Ethan A. Nadelmann, "Drug Prohibition in the United
States: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives," Science 245 (1 September 1989):
939-47; "U. S. Drug Policy: A Bad Export," Foreign Policy 70 (Spring 1988):
1-39; and "The Case for Legalization," The Public Interest 92 (Summer 1988):
3?31. Also see James Ostrowski, "The Moral and Practical Case for Drug
Legalization," Hofstra Law Review 18 (3) (Spring 1990): 607-702; Richard
Lawrence Miller, The Case for Legalizing Drugs (New York: Praeger, 1991);
Arnold S. Trebach, The Great Drug War (New York: Macmillan, 1987); Steven
Wisotsky, Breaking the Impasse in the War on Drugs (Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood Press, 1986); and the collections of articles inMelvyn B. Krauss and
Edward P. Lazear, eds., Searching for Alternatives: Drug-Control Policy in the
United States (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1991); in David Boaz,
ed., The Crisis inDrug Prohibition (Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute, 1990);
in Ronald Hamowy, ed., Dealing with Drugs: Consequences of Government
Control (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1987); inArnold S. Trebach and
Kevin B. Zeese, eds., the three-volume Drug Prohibition and the Conscience of
Nations (Washington, D.C.: Drug Policy Foundation, 1990), The Great Issues of
Drug Policy (1990), and New Frontiers inDrug Policy (1991); ' and in Bruce K.
Alexander, Peaceful Measures: Canada's Way Out of the War on Drugs'
(University of Toronto Press, 1990).
3Recent efforts to analyze nonprohibitionist drug policy options include Doug
Bandow, "Dealing with Legalization," The American Prospect 8 (Winter 1992):
82-91; and Chester Nelson Mitchell, The Drug Solution (Ottawa: Carleton
University Press, 1990). A proposed research agenda can be found in Ethan
Nadelmann, "Beyond Drug Prohibition: Evaluating the Alternatives," in Krauss
and Lazear, eds., 241-50.
4See Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, The Search for Rational Drug
Control (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 82-110; andMark A. R.
Kleiman and Aaron J. Saiger, "Drug Legalization: The Importance of Asking the
Right Question," Hofstra Law Review 18 (3) (Spring 1990): 527-66.
5See, generally, Pat O'Hare, Russell Newcombe, Alan Matthews, Ernst C. Buning,
and Ernest Drucker, eds., The Reduction of Drug Related Harm (London:
Routledge, 1991); Peter McDermott and Pat O'Hare, eds., Reducing Drug
Related Harm: New Developments in Theory and Practice (London: Whurr
Publishers, 1992); and Nick Heather, Alex Wodak, Ethan Nadelmann, and Pat
O'Hare, eds., Psychoactive Drugs and Harm Reduction: From Faith to Science
(London:Whurr Publishers, 1993). Also see John Strang and Gerry V. Stimson,
eds., AIDS and Drug Misuse: The Challenge for Policy and Practice in the 1990s
(New York: Routledge, 1990).
6See Govert Frank van de Wijngaart, "A Social History of Drug Use in the
Netherlands: Policy Outcomes and Implications," Journal of Drug Issues 18
(1988): 481-95.
7See the firstNational Drug Control Strategy issued by the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, in September 1989 (Washing
ton, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1989), 11.
8SeeZimring and Hawkins, The Search for Rational Drug Control, 4-21, for a fine
analysis of the report and its ideological assumptions.
9SeeGerald L. Klerman,"Psychotropic Hedonism vs. Pharmacological Calvinism,"
Hastings Center Report 2 (4) (September 1972): 1-3.
10SeeThomas Szasz, Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market (Greenwood
Press, 1992); David Boaz, "The Consequences of Prohibition," in Boaz, ed., The
Crisis inDrug Prohibition-, and the speech delivered by Milton Friedman to the
Fifth International Conference on Drug Policy Reform, Washington, D.C., 16
November 1991.
11SeeDavid A. J. Richards, Sex, Drugs, Death, and the Law: An Essay on Human
Rights and Overcriminalization (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1982),
157-214.
12See,generally, the collection of articles inThomas H. Murray, Willard Gaylin, and

Ruth Macklin, eds., Feeling Good and Doing Better: Ethics and Nontherapeutic
Drug Use (Clifton, N.J.: Humana Press, 1984), in particular the concluding
article by Ruth Macklin, "Drugs, Models, andMoral Principles," 187-213. Also
see James B. Bakalar and Lester Grinspoon, Drug Control in a Free Society (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), and Douglas Husak, Drugs and Rights
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
13As John Kaplan wrote in 1988, "It is true that if the number of those dependent
upon cocaine merely doubled, we would arguably be well ahead of the game,
the costs treating those users as criminals. But what
considering large imposed by
if therewere a fiftyfold increase in the number of those dependent on cocaine?We
cannot guarantee that such a situation would not come to pass; since we
simply
cannot do so, it is the height of irresponsibility to advocate risking the future of
the nation." See John Kaplan, "Taking Drugs Seriously," The Public Interest 92
(Summer 1988): 32-50. Avram Goldstein and Harold Kalant assert more
confidently: "There is no reason to doubt that the increased costs to society [of
drug legalization] would rival those now attributable to alcohol." See Avram
Goldstein and Harold Kalant, "Drug Policy: Striking the Right Balance," Science
249 (28 September 1990): 1513-21.
14SeeAndrew Weil, The Natural Mind: An Investigation of Drugs and theHigher
Consciousness (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972, revised edition 1986), 29. Weil
credits Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert with first recognizing the importance
of these two variables. The significance of "set and setting" is examined at length
inNorman E. Zinberg, Drug, Set, and Setting: the Basis for Controlled Intoxicant
Use (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984).
15See, for instance, Lawrence O. Gostin, "Compulsory Treatment for Drug-Depen

dent Persons: Justifications for a Public Health Approach to Drug Dependency,"
Milbank Quarterly 69 (4) (1991): 561-93.
16SeeNathan S. Kline, "The Future of Drugs and Drugs of the Future," Journal of
Social Issues 27 (3) (1971): 73-87; Wayne O. Evans and Nathan S. Kline, eds.,
Psychotropic Drugs in the Year 2000 (Springfield, 111.:
Charles C. Thomas, 1971);
Alexander Shulgin and Ann Shulgin, PIHKAL: A Chemical Love Story (Berkeley,
Calif.: Transform Press, 1991); Ronald K. Siegel, Intoxication: Life in Pursuit of
Artificial Paradise (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1989), 298-317; and Henry B.
Clark, Altering Behavior: The Ethics of Controlled Experience (Newbury Park,
Calif.: SAGE Publications, 1987). A particularly bleak and pessimistic perspective
is provided inMorton A. Kaplan, "2042: A Choice of Futures?A Nightmare,"
The World & I (January 1992): 108-115.
17Note that the "needle park" experiment in Zurich, Switzerland, from 1990 to
1992 shared little in common with the sort of "supermarket" model developed
here. Production and distribution of drugs remained illegal, the place of sale was
strictly limited to one small park, and the entire scheme was developed within a
fairly strict prohibitionist context. Much the same is true of the "open air" illicit
drug markets in many urban ghettos. See Arnold S. Trebach, "Lessons from
Needle Park," The Washington Post, 17March 1992.
18SeeDavid T. Courtwright, Dark Paradise: Opiate Addiction in America before
1940 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982); and see Ethan A.
Nadelmann, "Historical Perspectives on Drug Prohibition and itsAlternatives,"
American Heritage (forthcoming).
19See, for instance,Michael R. Aldrich, "Legalize the Lesser toMinimize theGreater:

Modern Applications of Ancient Wisdom," Journal of Drug Issues 20 (1990):
543-53.
20Controlled consumption of heroin is examined in Zinberg, Drug, Set and Setting,

Controlled consumption of cocaine is examined inDan Waldorf, Craig Reinar
man, and Sheila Murphy, Cocaine Changes: the Experience of Using and
Quitting (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), and in Peter Cohen,
Cocaine Use in Amsterdam inNon Deviant Subcultures (Amsterdam: Instituut
voor Sociale Geografie, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1989).
21See Stanton Peele, Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control

(Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1989), who further observes thatmost drug
abusers eventually quit or curtail their destructive behavior without resort to
conventional treatment programs. Also see Charles E. Faupel, Shooting Dope:
Career Patterns of Hard-Core Heroin Users (Gainesville: University of Florida
Press, 1991).
22US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal
Justice Statistics?1990 (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office,
1991), 347; and US National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse: Highlights 1988 (Washington, D.C.: Department of
Health and Human Services, Alcohol, Drug Abuse andMental Health Adminis
tration, 1990), 8.
23The
Gallup Poll Monthly, Nos. 288 and 303, reprinted in Sourcebook of Criminal
Justice Statistics?1990, 347.
24Ibid.
25National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Highlights 1988, 44.
2*Ibid., 8, 45-50.
27Ibid., 17-22.
28In a nationwide poll commissioned by Richard Dennis and the Drug Policy
Foundation, 4 percent of the 1401 respondents said that they would be "very
likely" to trymarijuana if itwere legal, 6 percent said they would be "somewhat
likely," 8 percent said "not very likely," and 81 percent said "not at all likely."
Asked the same question about the legalization of cocaine, 2 percent said they
would be "very likely" or "somewhat likely," 4 percent said "not very likely,"
and 93 percent said "not at all likely." Similarly, in the annual survey of American
high school students conducted by the Monitoring the Future Project at the
University of Michigan, 73 percent of respondents said they would not use
marijuana even if itwere legal, 11 percent said they would use it about as often
as they do now, or less, 7 percent said they might try it, and only 3 percent said
they would use it more often than at present. See Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick
O'Malley, and Jerald G. Bachman, Drug Use Among American High School
Seniors, College Students and Young Adults, 1975-1990 (Rockville, Md.:
National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1991), 141-42.
29SeeRichard H. Blum & Associates, Society and Drugs (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1969), 25-44.
30SeeNational Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Evaluating AIDS
Prevention Programs (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988); and
the report by the National Commission on AIDS, The Twin Epidemics of
Substance Abuse and HIV (Washington, D.C., 1991).
31See Thomas Szasz, Ceremonial Chemistry: The Ritual Persecution of Drugs,

Addicts, and Pushers (Anchor Books, 1975).
32See Stanton Peele, The Meaning of Addiction: Compulsive Experience and Its
Interpretation (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1985); and John Booth
Davies, The Myth of Addiction (Philadelphia, Pa.: Harwood Academic Publish
ers, 1992).
33TheAustralian policy is analyzed in Robin Room, "The Dialectic of Drinking in
Australian Life: From the Rum Corps to theWine Column," Australian Drug and
Alcohol Review 7 (1988): 413-37. The British policy is assessed in Arthus
Shadwell, Drink in 1914?1922: A Lesson inControl (London: Longmans, Green
& Co., 1923). The impact of Prohibition on alcohol consumption and alcohol
related ills in the United States is assessed in John P. Morgan, "Prohibition is
Perverse Policy: What Was True in 1933 IsTrue Now," in Krauss and Lazear,
eds., Searching for Alternatives, 405-23; Mark Thornton, The Economics of
Prohibition (SaltLake City: University of Utah Press, 1992); and JeffreyA. Miron
and Jeffrey Zweibel, "Alcohol Consumption during Prohibition," American
Economic Review 81 (2) (1991): 242-47. More generally, see Ethan A. Nadel
mann, "Response to Letters," Science 246 (1989): 1102-1103; and Harry G.
Levine and Craig Reinarman, "From Prohibition to Regulation: Lessons from
Alcohol Policy for Drug Policy," Milbank Quarterly 69 (3) (1991): 461-94.
34Early twentieth-century models of alcohol control, many of which allowed adults

to import alcoholic beverages into "dry" locales, are analyzed in Raymond B.
Fosdick and Albert L. Scott, Toward Liquor Control (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1933); Leonard V. Harrison and Elizabeth Laine, After Repeal: A Study
of Liquor Control Administration (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1936); and
Reginald E. Hose, Prohibition or Control? Canada's Experience with the Liquor
Problem, 1921-1927 (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1928). The modi
fication in F.D.A. policy is discussed in James H. Johnson, How to Buy Almost
Any Drug Legally Without a Prescription (New York: Avon Books, 1990).
35See, for instance, David Dixon, From Prohibition to Regulation: Bookmaking,
Anti-Gambling, and the Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).
36US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Drugs and Jail Inmates,
1989" (August 1991), 1, 9.
37SeeMark H. Haller, "Bootleggers as Businessmen: From City Slums to City
Builders," in David E. Kyvig, ed., Law, Alcohol, and Order: Perspectives on
National Prohibition (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985), 139-57.
38See D.M. Warburton, "Internal Pollution," Journal of Biosocial Science 10
(1978): 309-19; and Ruth Cooperstock, "Current Trends in Prescribed Psycho
tropic Drug Use," inResearch Advances inAlcohol and Drug Problems 3 (1976):
297-316.
39Some of these issues are considered in John P. Morgan and Doreen V. Kagan, eds.,
Society and Medication: Conflicting Signals for Prescribers and Patients (Lexing
ton, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1983).
40But also see Chester N. Mitchell, Medical

"Deregulating Mandatory Prescription,"
American Journal of Law and Medicine 12 (2) (1986): 207-39.
41See Peter Temin, Taking Your Medicine: Drug Regulation in the United States
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), and Peter Temin, "The
Origin of Compulsory Drug Prescriptions," Journal of Law and Economics 22
(April 1979): 91-105.
42See Sam Peltzman, "The Health Effects of Mandatory Prescriptions," Journal of
Law and Economics 30 (October 1987): 207-38, and Sam Peltzman, "By
Prescription Only... or Occasionally?" AEI Journal on Government and Society
(3/4) (1987): 23-28.
43Peter Temin, "Costs and Benefits in Switching Drugs from Rx to OTC," Journal
of Health Economics 2 (1983): 187-205.
^See the excellent drug education text by Andrew Weil and Winifred Rosen,
Chocolate toMorphine: Understanding Mind-Active Drugs (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1983). Also see David F. Duncan, "Drug Abuse Prevention in Post
Legalization America: What Could It Be Like?" The Journal of Primary Preven
tion 12 (4): 317-22; I.Clements, J. Cohen, and J. Kay, Taking Drugs Seriously:
A Manual of Harm Reduction Education on Drugs (Liverpool: Health wise,
1990); David F. Duncan and Robert S. Gold, Drugs and theWhole Person (New
York: Macmillan, 1985); and Ruth C. Engs, Responsible Drug and Alcohol Use
(New York: Macmillan, 1979).
45The efficacy of antismoking campaigns is discussed in Kenneth E.Warner, "The
Effects of the Anti-Smoking Campaign On Cigarette Consumption," American
Journal of Public Health 67 (1977): 645-50; and, by the same author, "Effects of
theAnti-Smoking Campaign: An Update," American Journal of Public Health 79
(1989): 144-51. Also seeMartin Raw, PattiWhite, and Ann McNeill, Clearing
the Air: A Guide for Action on Tobacco (London: British Medical Association,
1990). The Partnership's advertisements are evaluated favorably in the Commit
tee on the Value of Advertising, What We've Learned About Advertising from
The Media-Advertising Partnership for A Drug-Free America (New York:
American Association of Advertising Agencies, 1990). More critical analysis is
provided in Richard Blow, "How to Decode the Hidden Agenda of the Partner
ship's Madison Avenue Propagandists," Washington City Paper 11 (49) (6-12
December 1991): 29-35; Cynthia Cotts, "Hard Sell in the Drug War," The
Nation 254 (9) (9March 1992): 300-302; and Lynn Zimmer, "The Partnership
for a Drug-Free America and the Politics of Fear," paper delivered to the Fifth
International Conference on Drug Policy Reform, Washington, D.C., 15Novem
ber 1991.
46See "How to Launch aNationwide Drug Menace," in Edward M. Brecher and the
Editors of Consumer Reports, Licit and Illicit Drugs (Boston: Little, Brown and
Co., 1972).
47See "The Promise of Prozac," Newsweek, 26 March 1990; Fran Schumer,
"Bye-Bye, Blues: A New Wonder Drug forDepression," New York, 18 December
1989; and themore balanced "Beating Depression," 17.5.News & World Report,
5March 1990.
48See F. Earle Barcus and Susan M. Jankowski, "Drugs and the Mass Media,"
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 417 (1975):
86-100; Patrick T. MacDonald and Rhoda Estep, "Prime Time Drug Depic
tions," Contemporary Drug Problems 12 (1985): 419-37; William Braden,
"LSD and the Press," in B. Aaronson and H. Osmond, eds., Psychedelics (New
York: Doubleday, 1970); Jock Young, "Drugs and theMass Media," Drugs and
Society 1 (November 1971): 14-18; and Craig Reinarman and Harry G. Levine,
"Crack in Context: Politics and Media in the Making of a Drug Scare,"
Contemporary Drug Problems 16 (1989): 535-77.
4M78 U.S. 328, 92 L. Ed. 266, 106 S. Ct. 2968 (1986).
50See Sylvia A. Law, "Addiction, Autonomy and Advertising," Iowa Law Review 54
(1992); and Peter Hirsch, "Advertising and the First Amendment," in Trebach
and Zeese, eds., New Frontiers inDrug Policy, 404-407.
51See Joe B. Tye, Kenneth E.Warner, and Stanton A. Glantz, "Tobacco Advertising
and Consumption: Evidence of a Causal Relationship," Journal of Public Health
Policy 8 (1987): 492-508. The debate over tobacco advertising is aired in
Advertising of Tobacco Products: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Health
and the Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1986) (SerialNo. 99-167). The debate
over alcohol advertising is aired in Alcohol Advertising: Hearing Before The
Subcommittee on Children, Family, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Committee on
Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985)
(S.Hrg. 99-16), and Beer and Wine Advertising: Impact of Electronic Media:
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Consumer Protec
Hearing Before
tion, and Finance of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985) (SerialNo. 99-16).
52SeeAlison Masson and Paul H. Rubin, "Plugs for Drugs," Regulation (September/
October 1986), 37?53, which argues for fewer restrictions on prescription drug
advertising.

1992 Daedalus - Thinking Seriously About Drugs PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1992 Daedalus - Thinking Seriously About Drugs PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1992 Daedalus - Thinking Seriously About Drugs PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thinking Seriously about Alternatives to Drug Prohibition

Author(s): Ethan A. Nadelmann

Thinking Seriously About Alternatives to

Four years after the notion of drug legalization reemerged

approaches.2 And it pays scant attention to the political context of

public discourse about alternatives to drug prohibition?one that

My specific objectives are fourfold. The first is to identify and

suggest how theymight be addressed. The third is to provide evidence

proposed and developed in meetings of the Princeton Working

THE "LEGALIZATION" LABEL

To legalize or not to legalize? That, as two pairs of drug policy

appropriate question ismuch broader, and it is one that incorporates

psychoactive substances available today and in the foreseeable fu

critique of American drug control policies. But it exacted a stiff price

something resembling current US policies with respect to alcohol and

Legalization has always meant different things to different people.

prohibitionist policies, remains the single greatest obstacle to any

significant change inAmerican drug control policies. The recognition

Implicit in the legalization critique of American drug control

ple and the libertarianmodel.

drugs of unknown purity and potency, or otherwise harm themselves

community outreach efforts to maintain contact between health

toward disassembling the drug prohibition system. They are quick to

negative consequences of status quo policies are better than no efforts

LEGALIZERS, PROHIBITIONISTS, AND THE COMMON GROUND

The basic analysis advanced by most "legalizers" is remarkably

sensible, progressive, and nonideological among the prohibitionists.

"progressive prohibitionists" largely acknowledge that casual drug

policies designed to reduce overall levels of drug use may be effective

drugs represent a form of overkill, that more modest criminal justice

availability of drugs in society will likely increase the cumulative

tally, with the conservative libertarian perspective on drug control.10

drugs are acceptable no matter what the consequences. Other liber

and are more likely to integrate considerations of social justice and

public health into their principles and policy calculations.

legalizers insist, the possession of modest amounts of drugs for

personal consumption should not be the subject of criminal laws. The

legalizers are willing to concede modest increases in drug abuse levels

instinctually and intellectually, ample evidence of a fundamental

examples of drug addiction and other

captive rats, monkeys, and other nonhuman animals to determine the

cultural, and contemporaneous evidence of individual and societal

ground on how drug control policies can be reformed in the short

term. For even though the progressive prohibitionists sharewith their

important role to play in shaping and improving the lives of its

progressive legalizers favoring less coercive measures ranging from

The fact that legalizers and progressive prohibitionists have so

suggests that there is a basic framework of analysis, predicated upon

THE DRUG POLICY SPECTRUM

It should be clear by this point that drug legalization and drug

drug control policies incorporate elements of both prohibition and

legal availability. Alcohol, for instance, is regarded as a legal drug but

localities, to consume in public or to sell or buy except from

products. Nicotine gum, which is substantially less harmful than

obscure when one surveys the broad spectrum of alcohol control

primarily on the informed choices of citizens as shaped by public

insight, moreover, to recognize that any drug control policy driven

principally by public health considerations and stripped of the

drug policy given both the difficulties of evaluating the consequences