ANALYSIS: DRUG POLICY IGNORES REALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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