MASSING REPLIES

My calls for more realism in the drive 'for drug reform elicited much
positive response but also some protests, especially regarding my position
on marijuana, and I'd like to clarify it. Chris Ford, Thomas Leighton and
Aaron Wilson are correct in pointing out that if pot is simply
decriminalized, rather than fully legalized, politicians can still target
low-level marijuana offenders. Yet legalizing pot would likely cause an
increase in its availability, especially for kids. In our special issue,
Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter described how, when Holland went from
the simple decriminalization of pot to its widespread sale in coffee shops,
use among youths soared. So we face a dilemma: Either decriminalize
marijuana and run the risk of having politicians like Rudolph Giuliani
continue to make war on it, or legalize the drug and risk soaring pot use
among young people, The ideal marijuana policy, I think, would be benign
neglect, with the police turning a blind eye to possession and low-level
sales. Reaching this point, of course, would require greater public
tolerance of pot, which, as the medical marijuana initiatives show, may
already be taking place.

I appreciate Patrick O'Hare's remarks regarding the distinction between
harm reduction and legalization. I should have been clearer on that point.
As he notes, harm reduction incorporates the basic principles of a
public-health approach to drugs, which I support. What I oppose is using
harm reduction as a pretext for denying that drug abuse itself (as opposed
to just drug prohibition) can cause significant harm to users and society
at large, It was in this context that I used the phrase "tough on abuse,"
which Robert Cogswell objects to. I share his concern about treatment
programs that deal too harshly with clients. What I meant is that drug
reformers should seek not simply to alleviate the ill effects of the drug
war but also to reduce the level of drug addiction in the United States and
the harms associated with it.

I find Kevin Zeese's letter curious. The reform agenda he proposes, and
which he outlined in a four-page ad in the special issue, largely overlaps
with my own. Certainly the budget allocations that Zeese and his
organization favor - two-thirds for treatment and prevention, one-third for
law enforcement and criminal justice - coincide with my recommendations. As
I try to show in my book The Fix, this was the proportion that the Nixon
Administration allotted. And, while Nixon did initiate many harmful
programs, his overall policy was very enlightened. Zeese may feel
uncomfortable in acknowledging that Nixon got there first, but this should
not blind him to the one time in US history when illicit drugs were treated
as a public-health problem, to great effect.

Michael Massing
New York City