By James A. Inciardi

Global Issues USIA Electronic Journals, Vol. 1, No. 7, July 1996.

The following is the Postscript Summary of the above titled 153-page essay written by the author and commissioned by the U.S. Information Agency. Its views are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions or policies of the United States Information Agency.

Portions of this essay previously appeared in: James A. Inciardi, "Against Legalization of Drugs," pp. 139-220 in Arnold S. Trebach and James A. Inciardi, Legalize It? Debating American Drug Policy (Washington, D.C.: American University Press, 1993).

The arguments for legalization are seemingly based on the fervent belief that the country's prohibitions against marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs impose far too large a cost in terms of tax dollars, crime, and infringements on civil rights and individual liberties. Though the overall argument may be well-intended and appear quite logical, I find it to be highly questionable in its historical, socio-cultural, and empirical underpinnings, and demonstrably naive in its understanding of the negative consequences of a legalized drug market. In counterpoint:

1. Although drug prohibition policies have been problematic, it would appear that they have managed to keep drugs away from most people. High school and general population surveys indicate that most Americans don't use drugs, have never even tried them, and don't know where to get them. Thus, the numbers "at risk" are dramatically fewer than is the case with the legal drugs. Or stated differently, there is a rather large population that might be at risk if illicit drugs were suddenly available.

2. Marijuana, heroin, cocaine, crack, and the rest are not "benign" substances. Their health consequences, addiction liability, and/or abuse potential are considerable.

3. There is extensive physiological, neurological, and anthropological evidence to suggest that people are of a species that has been honed for pleasure. Nearly all people want and enjoy pleasure, and the pursuit of drugs --whether caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, opium, heroin, marijuana, or cocaine --seems to be universal and inescapable. It is found across time and across cultures. Moreover, history and research have demonstrated that "availability creates demand."

4. Crack-cocaine is especially problematic because of its pharmacological and socio-cultural effects. Because crack makes its users ecstatic and yet is so short-acting, it has an extremely high addiction potential. Use rapidly becomes compulsive use. Crack acquisition thus becomes enormously more important than family, work, social responsibility, health, values, modesty, morality, or self-respect. Because of its chemistry, crack is easy and inexpensive to produce, and it will likely remain so, regardless of its legal status. A benefit of its current criminalization is that since it is against the law, it doesn't have widespread availability, and proportionately few people use it.

5. The research literature on the criminal careers of heroin and other drug users have convincingly documented that while drug use tends to intensify and perpetuate criminal behavior, it usually does not initiate criminal careers. In fact, the evidence suggests that among the majority of street drug users who are involved in crime, their criminal careers were well established prior to the onset of either narcotics or cocaine use.

6. There is a large body of work suggesting that drug abuse is overdetermined behavior. That is, physical dependence is secondary to the wide range of influences that instigate and regulate drug-taking and drug-seeking. Drug abuse is a disorder of the whole person, affecting some or all areas of functioning. In the vast majority of drug offenders, there are cognitive problems, psychological dysfunction is common, thinking may be unrealistic or disorganized, values are misshapen, and frequently there are deficits in educational and employment skills. As such, drug abuse is a response to a series of social and psychological disturbances. Thus, the goal of treatment should be "habilitation" rather than rehabilitation." Whereas rehabilitation emphasizes the return to a way of life previously known and perhaps forgotten or rejected, habilitation involves the client's initial socialization into a productive and responsible way of life.

7. The focus of the war on drugs can be shifted. I believe that we do indeed need drug enforcement, but it is stressed far too much in current policy. Shift a portion of those funds to criminal justice-based treatment programs.

8. Drug control should remain within the criminal justice sector for some very good reasons. The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program clearly demonstrates that the majority of arrestees in urban areas are drug-involved. Moreover, recent research has demonstrated not only that drug abuse treatment works, but also that coerced treatment works best. The key variable most related to success in treatment is "length of stay in treatment, " and those who are forced into treatment remain longer than volunteers, and by remaining longer, they benefit more. As such, compulsory treatment efforts should be expanded for those who are dependent on drugs and are involved in drug-related crime.

9. Since the "war on drugs" will continue, then a more humane use of the criminal justice system should be structured. This is best done through treatment in lieu of incarceration, and corrections-based treatment for those who do end up in jails and prisons.

Having said all of this, where do we go from here? Is any purpose served by further debating the legalization of drugs? People on both sides of the discussion seem to be galvanized, unwilling to make substantial concessions to one another. The government of the United States is not going to legalize drugs at any time soon, if ever, and certainly not in this century. So why spend so much time, expense, and intellectual and emotional effort on a Quixotic undertaking? Aside from the positive or negative merits of the legalization thesis, it represents a problematic approach to a very complex predicament.

Finally, there is far too much suffering as the result of drug abuse that is not being addressed. Many things warrant discussion, debate, and prodding on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and the White House lawn. More drug abuse treatment slots, a repeal of the statutes designed to prosecute pregnant addicts and prohibit needle exchange programs, and the wider use of treatment as an alternative to incarceration -- all of these are worthy of vigorous consideration and lobbying. But not legalizing drugs. It is an argument that is going nowhere.

James A. Inciardi, Ph.D., is a professor and the Director of the Center for Drug and
Alcohol Studies at the University of Delaware.

Top