DRUGS A GRADUAL CHANGE : Challenge Is Not Whether to Decriminalize but How : A sensible policy would depend on public- health approaches rather than criminal-justice mechanisms.

It is difficult to question the many benefits of drug decriminalization: substantial reductions in drug-related crime and violence; diminished opportunities for organized and unorganized criminals; substantial savings in criminal-justice costs; reduced risks of overdoses, hepatitis, AIDS and other illnesses that result from adulterated drugs and dangerous means of drug consumption; reduced threats to privacy and individual freedom; greater opportunities to pursue prevention and treatment strategies without interference from the criminal-justice system; substantial opportunities for tax revenue from legal sales of psychoactive drugs and so on.

Reaping these benefits depends on the degree to which drugs are decriminalized and public-health policies are intelligently and competently substituted for today’s criminal-justice policies. The same is also true of the principal risk of drug decriminalization: increased drug abuse.

Libertarian approaches to decriminalization would be most effective in reducing the criminal and financial influence of the black market, but they also present the greatest risks of increased drug abuse. Less far-reaching strategies--a “medical model” that would restrict legal access to registered addicts, or a marijuana-only decriminalization model--offer more modest benefits and fewer risks.

The challenge is to come up with a balanced decriminalization approach.

There are, of course, good reasons to doubt that we, as a nation, are capable of this. Historically, the United States has tended to veer between Puritanism and individualism, between prohibitionist restraint and unbridled capitalism. There is scant evidence that we are capable of settling on sensible middle-ground policies. Still, the folly of past and present drug policies is insufficient reason for abandoning hope for a sensible policy--one dependent primarily on public-health approaches rather than criminal-justice mechanisms.

The chances of constructing such a policy are greatly improved if we accept the notion that drug policy should not aim to create a drug-free society. This makes about as much sense as trying to create a food-free or sex-free society. Coercing recreational drug users to give up their pleasure may satisfy the moral prejudices of some, but it is not much of a public-policy objective. The objective should be to reduce the harms of drug abuse and the costs of drug prohibition.

There is, of course, no agreement on how best to accomplish this. Advocates of decriminalization disagree on what role government and private enterprise should play, on which drugs should be made legally available, on whether alcohol and tobacco should be treated like other drugs, on what restrictions should be imposed on the availability of drugs, on which treatment programs are most effective, on whether addicts should be provided with drugs at little or no cost and so on. Nonetheless, the faint outlines of a consensus are apparent.

Most decriminalization advocates insist on three components for any non-prohibition policy: that drugs be legally available for sale to adults, that substance-abuse policy includes firm controls on alcohol and tobacco as well as on the previously illegal drugs and that money now wasted on drug prohibition be reallocated to finance treatment and prevention programs that give special emphasis to pre- and post-natal care, Head Start and inner-city school education. It’s necessary, in short, not just to destroy the distorted social and economic incentives created by drug prohibition. It is also crucial to invest in those who are most susceptible to drug abuse.

There is also substantial agreement on two other points: that the federal government must clear the way for state and local governments and communities to experiment with different decriminalization models; and that the process be incremental, retaining a capacity to reject whatever proves ineffective or counterproductive and to respond to changes in drug-use patterns and black-market adaptations.

Where do we begin?

Decriminalize marijuana as alcohol was with the repeal of Prohibition. That is, give the states and municipalities the flexibility to shape the regulatory system to suit local needs. Simultaneously, experiment with legislation to control abuse of alcohol and, more important, tobacco. For example, triple the federal tax on cigarettes, restrict the place of tobacco sales, ban cigarette sales through vending machines and step up counter-advertising. The array of treatment programs--drug-free and methadone maintenance--should be broadened to include job training as well as injectable-methadone, heroin and cocaine maintenance programs--all of which are returning to favor in Great Britain.

The early stages of decriminalization should also include the legal sale of cocaine and opiates in their less potent forms. Coca tea is legally available in parts of South America; it is, by most accounts, safer and healthier than coffee. During the late 19th Century, Americans consumed cocaine in a great many forms: cigars, tonics, wines and sodas. None were particularly dangerous.

Allowing such products to be made legally available once again would help alleviate popular fears of these drugs. It might aid addicts in withdrawing from their addiction to more potent drugs. It also could result in many Americans switching from tobacco and alcohol to less dangerous drugs.

Ultimately, however, the inner cities and other parts of the country that have failed to keep crack, heroin and other potent drugs out of their neighborhoods will be obliged to experiment with more far-reaching decriminalization programs. Given a persistent market for cocaine powder, crack, heroin, PCP and other potent drugs, including tobacco and alcohol, society is better off if those providing the product are inside the system.

The drug-prohibition system is, after all, one in which criminals control the drug trade, determine the potency, purity and price of drugs, as well as who sells them and where, and reap all the profits. It is also one in which drug dealers provide both jobs and role models for inner-city children. Surely, it is better for this evil to be controlled by the government and the community than by the criminal.

In the final analysis, there are virtually insurmountable obstacles to predicting patterns of drug use and abuse in the future, regardless of whether we decriminalize drugs. Government policy is, after all, only one among many determinants of drug-use patterns. It is extremely difficult, for instance, to predict how technological developments may change the nature of drug use and abuse by making available new forms of existing drugs, entirely new psychoactive drugs, or even new ways of altering one’s state of consciousness without ingesting psychoactive drugs.

At best, we can keep in mind that wars on drugs often make matters not better but worse. The only hope is to set our sights on pursuing a sensible, decent and humane drug policy that aims to minimize the harms that result from drug laws and drug use.