LEGALIZATION ISSUES

Acknowledgements

Though compiled from many sources, this guide evolved from a single event: the Anti-Legalization Forum held at the DEA Training Academy in August 1994. Five major city police officials provided invaluable assistance to the project: Superintendent Matt L. Rodriguez, Chicago Police Department; Chief Ruben Ortega, Salt Lake City Police Department; Chief William K Finney, St. Paul Police Department; Chief Joe Samuels, Oakland Police Department; and Chief Dennis E. Nowicki, Charlotte Police Department. Other participants, whose contributions to the discussions are acknowledged with gratitude, were from:

Office of National Drug Control Policy National Institute on Drug Abuse National Families in Action California Office of Criminal Justice Planning Office of Drug Control Policy, State of Michigan Office of the District Attorney, Multomah County, Oregon Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University BOTEC Analysis Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts DEA Headquarters DEA Seattle, Miami, and Chicago Field Divisions
Facilitators: Kenneth F. Heckey, Esq., Washington, D.C. Kunz and Company, Arlington, Virginia The Walsh Group, Bethesda, Maryland 



Letter of Introduction
Dear Reader:

You and I are frequently faced with the need to address many of the positions which are advocated by those calling for the legalization of drugs. More and more, the debate on legalization is being given public airing in the media. Average citizens, fed up with crime and drugs, are being told that legalization is a reasonable alternative to the crime problem that so many communities are struggling against.

You and I know that legalization is not an alternative, but rather a surrender which will further reduce our quality of life. Ninety percent of the American people agree that legalization of drugs would complicate an already devastating situation. Health and social costs associated with the increased availability of drugs would break our economy. Crime would not decrease. The moral fiber of our country would be torn apart.

Those who advocate legalization have many motives. But they frequently do not have answers to a lot of the questions we are asking. Legalization is an abstract to many of them. But I can tell you first-hand, from my thirty-four years' experience as a law-enforcement officer at the state level, the damage caused by drugs is real and lasting. It's not the drug laws, or the enforcement of the drug laws, of our nation that are causing harm-- it's the drugs themselves.

Because we're often called on to speak to the issues, I asked a number of professionals from the law enforcement, health, and academic communities to come together for two days to discuss how we can best address the arguments against legalization. I am well aware that local law enforcement officials are on the front line in the battle against drug abuse. For that reason I asked several police chiefs to participate in the Quantico Conference to give their expertise and guidance as we formulated our response to these issues. This guide represents most of the issues and arguments raised during that time. It is intended as a resource for you as you are faced with the questions and issues associated with the debate on the legalization of drugs. While many professionals participated in the session, the views represented in this document are the position of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

They represent the consensus of the assembled group without necessarily attributing each and every position to the personal views of each participant.

Please feel free to use the guide in whatever way you feel is appropriate. The debate on the legalization of drugs cannot be won if we remain silent.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Constantine
Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration 



Why This Guide Is Necessary
Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization was developed by the Drug Enforcement Administration in response to requests by law enforcement executives, community leaders, substance abuse prevention counselors, parent and family advocates, and others for DEA's help in responding to legalization issues and questions.

We well understand that responding to these issues and answering the questions can be a challenge. Questions about legalization often touch on many issues: crime, violence, criminal justice and economic costs; health, behavior and development; the quality of family, community and social life; and employment and productivity.

Few are prepared to answer such diverse questions thoroughly, let alone stay current on the research and spot the flaws and distortions in others' arguments. Yet, questions are asked and they must be answered. This booklet offers you a strategy and resource for doing so.

Discussions about legalization are usually abstract and theoretical, which suits proponents of legalization fine. A dialogue without boundaries or benchmarks works to their advantage. For those engaged in the day-to-day work of the real solution to America's drug problem--;reducing the supply and the demand for illegal drugs, as well as addressing the criminal activity caused by drug trafficking and use--taking time out to discuss legalization questions can be a frustrating undertaking. Speaking Out offers you the resource information to discuss this issue in a reasonable and informed manner. 

The DEA Position

DEA is unequivocally opposed to the legalization of illicit drugs.

Legalization in any form would likely:

1. reduce the perception of the risks and costs of use;
2. increase availability of and access to harmful drugs;
3. increase demand, use, abuse and addiction; and
4. remove the social sanction against drug abuse that is reinforced in legislation.

The present social problems in the United States, including crime, health problems and poverty, are substantial and can only worsen if drugs become legal. The arguments for legalization are a sad and bitter offering to the most vulnerable segment of our population. Legalization would increase risks and costs to individuals, families and communities--indeed, to every part of the nation--without compensating benefits.

Any proposal with the potential to do these things is unacceptable. As public policy, it is fundamentally flawed. 

Who/When/Where To Use 
When DEA asked law enforcement executives, community leaders and prevention advocates exactly what they want and need to address legalization questions, the answers were clear. They said,"It is essential that the facts regarding the true implications of the legalization issue be made known. Help us to explain this complex issue to our families, friends and fellow citizens. Put it in words everyone can understand. And give us the support we need to continue to make the case until it doesn't have to be made anymore."

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization is the first step in helping to deliver the credible, consistent message about the risks and costs of the legalization of drugs to people in terms that make sense to them. The anti-legalization message is effective when communicated by representatives of the Federal Government, but takes on even more credibility when it comes from those in the community who can put the legalization debate in local perspective.

DEA will undertake the ongoing work of responding to your inquiries, updating and expanding the guide as necessary and evaluating its usefulness and impact. We invite you to provide your views on this publication. We hope Speaking Out will be used in several ways. For local law enforcement executives, community leaders, prevention advocates and others, it should serve, first, as an open invitation to join in making the affirmative case against legalization. Second, it provides background and practical answers to the most commonly asked questions about the legalization of drugs. 

Remember

There are a few things to remember when discussing the legalization issue.

First, according to reliable public opinion polls, the majority of the American people and lawmakers agree that drugs should not be legalized.

Second, when discussing legalization, it is important that all available information and experiences be brought into the open. This can be accomplished by asking the tough questions. Some of these questions are listed below. Insist that any discussion be based on a specific definition of how legalization should be implemented, not an abstract theory.

Third, don't lose faith. This is a long and difficult effort we are undertaking to get our issues on the table and be heard. Eventually, the climate will change and pro-legalization arguments will again be out of fashion. While the debate appears to be cyclical, having more resonance in certain circumstances, we must continue to impress upon audiences, and ultimately the American people, that legalization would be a devastating defeat to the commitment that so many have made to living free, healthy and unfettered in our nation. 

Anti-Legalization Forum

In August 1994, in an effort to identify compelling arguments against legalization, DEA sponsored a two-day Anti-Legalization Forum at Quantico, Virginia, for experts in the field. Several police chiefs, representatives from Government agencies and private sector authorities gave their time to this important task. The participants were asked to refine the arguments that can be made against legalization and evaluate ways to address the legalization issue in an effective and meaningful way.

Three groups were formed to discuss various aspects of the legalization debate: Social/Economic issues, Health Effects, and Crime and Violence. All of the arguments espoused by legalization proponents impact on these three areas, and many of the s outlined in this publication cross-cut the topics discussed by the three groups. At the end of the two-day session, group leaders presented the recommendations of each group.

While individual groups arrived at specific conclusions, there were a number of general concerns and ideas raised by all participants:

Reprinted with permission from Tribune Media Services

What Motivates Legalization Proponents?

Some of the media, certain quarters in academia and some frustrated Americans see legalization as an option which should be discussed. The panel discussed some of the factors possibly motivating advocates of legalization in order to appreciate the complexity of the debate. The group noted that many who advocate legalization are attempting to "normalize" the behavior of drug-taking and that many are people who have tried drugs without significant adverse consequences.  
Others see potential profit in legalizing drugs and still others simply believe that individual rights to take drugs should be protected. The group also acknowledged that the legalization concept appeals to people who are looking for simple solutions to he devastating problem of drug abuse

1. Questions To Ask
   There was consensus among the participants at the Anti-Legalization Forum, too, on the need to ask a number of questions of those proposing legalization. Too often, the specifics of how to implement a system for distribution and sale of legalized drugs are never discussed. Instead, simplistic rhetoric is used to deflect serious consideration of the many questions that must be thought through before one can evaluate the ramifications of their proposals. This is the great weakness of the pro-legalization position. Participants in the Forum suggested that the following questions be asked consistently in order to illustrate the shallowness of the legalization concept.
   
   Should all drugs be legalized?  
   
   Who will determine which segments of the population will have access to legalized drugs?  
   
   Will they be limited only to people over eighteen?  
   
   Will cocaine, heroin, LSD and PCP be made available if people request them?  
   
   Who will sell drugs? The government? Private companies?  
   
   And who is liable for damages caused by drug use and the activities of those taking drugs?  
   
   Who will collect the revenues generated by the drug sales?  
   
   How will a black market for cheaper drugs be controlled?  
   
   Who will bear the costs to society of increased drug use?  
   
   How will absenteeism and loss of productivity be addressed by business?  
   
   Will the local drug situation in a community dictate which drugs are sold where?  
   
   How will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs of increased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect?  
   
   Will people still need prescriptions for currently controlled medications, such as antibiotics, if drugs are legalized?  
   
   Will legal drugs require prescriptions?  
   
   Can anyone, regardless of physical or medical conditions purchase drugs?  
   
   How will we deal with the influx of people to the United States who will seek legal drugs?  
   
   Can we begin a legalization pilot program in your neighborhood for one year?  
   
   Should the distribution outlets be located in the already overburdened inner city?  
   
   
   The Ten Claims
   The three groups discussing legalization at Quantico touched on a number of significant issues. It was evident to the participants that the pro-legalization arguments have remained fairly consistent over the years and that there are ten major claims that can be made in opposition of legalization.  
   
   We have attempted to provide the ten simple, compelling claims to help you frame your arguments against legalization. The claims are backed up by facts, quotes and statistics. Periodically, these will need to be updated to ensure that the most current information is being used to craft arguments against legalization.  
   
   Claim I:  
   Crime, Violence and Drug Use Go Hand-in-Hand.  
   
   Claim II:  
   We Have Made Significant Progress in Reducing Drug Use in this Country. Now Is Not the Time to Abandon Our Efforts.  
   
   Claim III:  
   Legalization of Drugs Will Lead to Increased Use and Increased Addiction Levels.  
   
   Claim IV:  
   Any Revenues Generated by Taxing Legalized Drugs Would Quickly Evaporate in Light of the Increased Social Costs.  
   
   Claim V:  
   There Are No Compelling Medical Reasons to Prescribe Marijuana or Heroin to Sick People.  
   
   Claim VI:  
   Legalization and Decriminalization of Drugs Have Been a Dismal Failure in Other Nations.  
   
   Claim VII:  
   Alcohol Has Caused Significant Health, Social and Crime Problems in this Country, and Legalized Drugs Would Only Make the Situation Worse.  
   
   Claim VIII:  
   Drug Control Spending Is a Minor Portion of the U.S. Budget, and Compared to the Costs of Drug Abuse, Spending Is Minuscule.  
   
   Claim IX:  
   Drug Prohibition Is Working.  
   
   Claim X:  
   Drug Legalization Would Have an Adverse Effect on Low-Income Communities 
   
   
   

Know What You're Getting Into Before Speaking Against Legalization

Legalization can be a very complicated subject to discuss and it would be almost impossible for any individual to be completely prepared, current and credible on all the aspects of the legalization issue. Also, it's one thing to make your presentation effectively when you're the only speaker of the evening, quite another to come off looking good when equal time goes to someone speaking in favor of legalization--especially if that person is a pro at public debate.

No matter what the setting, we recommend couching your message in affirmative terms because legalization is about drugs and drugs are as controversial a topic as any facing the American people. Many times, even those listeners who have no sympathy for the idea of legalization might say, for instance, "Can't we do better somehow than we're doing now about our drug problems?" The answer is surely yes. This question, by the way, provides an opportunity for you to remind all the people in the seats that they must help deal with the problem. It is your chance to ask them: Do you know about the demand reduction and prevention solutions at work in your community? In your neighborhood, in the schools, in job training and workplace settings, in jails and in treatment and prevention centers? What do you do now and what are you willing to do? How much are you prepared to spend to make it better?

The discussion can and usually will touch on several areas of scholarship: medical science, the behavioral and social sciences, law and criminal justice, economics, international matters, and historical and cross-cultural analysis. While it is not necessary to be a specialist in all the disciplines, it is wise to be knowledgeable and comfortable with some essential questions and answers.

Arguments in favor of legalization, as mentioned earlier, often draw overly broad conclusions from limited data or research, rely on hypothetical arguments and lean heavily on research that is outdated, discredited or "uncredited," meaning that it hasn't been subjected to rigorous review by the researcher's colleagues prior to publication.

Not all discussions of legalization issues take place in formal or structured settings. Frequently, questions are raised in the course of presentations on other subjects, often in the context of discussions such as "Can we really stop the flow of drugs in the United States?" The answers you provide to these inquiries may be even more important and persuasive than your views offered in a debate setting because they are specific and direct and may occur in one-on-one situations. 

Some Do's and Don'ts

Do insist that proponents define what they mean by legalization: what drugs will be legalized, age limits, who regulates, who distributes, etc.

Don't assume the defensive position. Always remember the burden of proof is on the proponents of legalization. They are the ones suggesting that access to drugs be drastically increased.

Do maintain credibility. That is, if a point can't be refuted, admit it.

Do stick to the point.

Don't get bogged down in side issues, such as the needle exchange program, the medical use of marijuana, and the emerging issue of cultivation of hemp.

Do remind audiences that during the early part of the 20th Century, the United States struggled with the consequences of legalized drugs and concluded that the costs to society were far too great. The historical record is a valuable lesson to those contemplating legalization.

Do insist that the debate be defined to allow questions to be asked of advocates. 

Invitations: Handle With Care

When invitations to participate in discussions about the legalization of drugs or to make formal presentations are received, responses will need to be consistent and clear. One approach is to accept such invitations only as part of an interdisciplinary team, perhaps one law enforcement person, one medical-scientific person and one grassroots prevention person. But the inviting group may specify that it wants only one spokesman for the anti-legalization viewpoint and that there will be a legalization proponent speaking for the other side of the question. You may be asked to discuss the drug issue with no specific reference to the legalization issue. Be prepared anyway. Whether the format is one-on-one or team versus team, before you say yes you should insist on answers to some questions about ground rules. The answers to these questions should be requested and received in writing.

The answers to these questions will influence your decision to accept or decline the invitation. If you decide to go ahead, they should also affect planning for participation. If these questions cannot be answered or if the inviter is not willing to commit the answers to paper, the invitation should either be declined or all parties should be well aware that they are entering the unknown.

Bear in mind that even a sponsoring group that is neutral may just be looking for a way to fill up a program. They may look on a legalization debate as entertainment--the rowdier the better. If that is so, and the proposed discussion is merely a device to get an overworked program chairman off the hook, or get the organization some publicity, you would probably be wise to reject the invitation. Your experience should be sufficient to enable you to decide whether the inviters are serious. If they are, they won't object to your list of questions, because the questions show that you are serious too. And they will give your suggestions for changes in format, if any, a respectful hearing. 

Resources

1. Bibliography 

2. Resource Personnel

3. Who's Who in the Legalization Debate 

1. Bibliography 

Books 

Benjamin, Daniel K. Undoing Drugs: Beyond Legalization. Basic Books, 1991.

Bugliosi, Vincent. Drugs in America: the Case for Victory. Knightsbridge, 1991.

Gorman, Thomas J. The Myths of Legalization. California Narcotic Officers Association in cooperation with the California Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, 1994.

Krauss, Melvyn and Lazear, Edward P., editors. Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States. Hoover Institution Press, 1991.

Inciardi, James A., editor. The Drug Legalization Debate. Sage Publications, 1991.

Szasz, Thomas Stephen. Our Right to Drugs: the Case for a Free Market. Praeger, 1992.

Zimring, Franklin E. The Search For Rational Drug Control. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Newspapers and Newsletters 

Auletta, Ken. "Six Doses of Reality Are Injected in the Argument for Legal Drugs." New York Daily News, December 17, 1989.

Bennett, Sandra. "Therapeutic Marijuana: Fact or Fiction." Drug Watch, July 1992.

Bennett, William. "Mopping up after the Legalizers: What the 'Intellectual' Chorus Fails To Tell You." Washington Times, December 15, 1989.

Bent, Daniel. "An Eye Opener for Judges on the Health Effects of Marijuana." Drug Watch, March 1992.

Buckley, William F., Jr. "The Weed of Crime Bears Bitter Fruit." New York Daily News, June 10, 1993.

Cohen, Roger. "Amid Growing Crime, Zurich Closes a Park It Reserved for Drug Addicts." New York Times, February 11, 1992.

Collins, Christopher and Collins, Susan. "What Savings?" Baltimore Sun, March 20, 1990.

Corcoran, David. "Legalizing Drugs: Failures Spur Debate." New York Times, November 27, 1989.

DuPont, Robert L. and Goldfarb, Ronald L. "Drug Legalization: Asking for Trouble." Washington Post, January 26, 1990.

Kerr, Peter. "The Unspeakable Is Debated: Should Drugs Be Legalized?" New York Times, May 15, 1988.

Kilpatrick, James J. "Drug War: Good News, Bad News." The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, September 13, 1990.

Krauthammer, Charles. "Legalize? No. Deglamorize." Washington Post, May 20, 1988.

Labaton, Stephen. "Reno Questions Drug Policy's Stress on Smuggling." New York Times, May 8, 1993.

LaFranchi, Howard. "Heavy Legal Drug Use in Spain Prompts Calls for Tougher Laws." Christian Science Monitor, November 7, 1991.

Lapey, Janet D. "Marijuana as Medicine Refuted by NIH Scientists." Drug Watch, August 1992.

Mann, Peggy. "Reasons To Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs." Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, September 1988.

Moore, Mark H. "Actually, Prohibition Was a Success." New York Times, October 17, 1989.

Ostrow, Ronald J. "Study Finds Acceptance of Marijuana for Therapy." The Oregonian, May 1, 1991.

Peterson, Robert E. "Stop Legalization of Illegal Drugs." Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, July 1988.

Pike, Otis. "Drug War Needs New Direction." Chicago Sun-Times, May 13, 1993.

Radonich, Timothy. "Controlling Drugs through Legalization." Northwest Libertarian (newsletter), September 1990.

Raspberry, Wiliam. "Legalize Drugs? No." Washington Post, May 14, 1988.

Regional Drug Initiative of Portland, Oregon. "Position Paper in Opposition to the Legalization of Drugs," September 1990.

Rosenthal, A.M. "Dismantling the War." New York Times, May 18, 1993.

Sander, Tom. " 'Weedotherapy' Works: Government Should Legalize Marijuana as Medicine." Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, March 6, 1993.

Schmoke, Kurt. "Decriminalizing Drugs: It Just Might Work--And Nothing Else Does." Washington Post, May 15,1988.

Schuchard, Marsha Keith. "Marijuana: An Environmental Pollutant." Parents' Resource Institute for Drugs (PRIDE).

Schuckit, Marc A. "Should We Legalize Cocaine?" Drug Abuse and Alcoholism Newsletter, June 1990.

Skolnick, Jerome H. "Drugs: More or Fewer Controls?" Los Angeles Times, June 22, 1988.

Thomas, Kathy. "On Legalizing Marijuana: Let the FDA Do Its Job!" Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, September 1988.

U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys. "Prisoner Survey Provides Look at Violent Crime." Violent Crime NET, May 1993.

Zucchino, David. "A Push to Make Drugs Legal." Philadelphia Inquirer, July 5, 1992.

(Authors of following articles were not identified.)

"Business Tax Incentives Can Help Win Drug War," Washington Times, December 15, 1989.

"The Case for Slavery." New York Times, September 26, 1989.

"Drug report: Drop in Teen and Casual Use," USA Today, September 6, 1990.

"EURAD Examines Harm Reduction." EURAD Newsletter, Spring 1991.

"How Much is a Baby Worth?" New York Times, December 15, 1989.

"Making Drugs Legal Won't Win the War." USA Today, December 15, 1989.

"Mistakes of the Legalizers," The Washington Post, April 13, 1989.

"Needle Exchange Is an Approval of Drug Use in the Most Destructive Way." Drug Watch, March 1992.

"Poll Finds 90% Favor Keeping Drugs Illicit." New York Times, September 15, 1988.

"Student Exercise for Marijuana Activist Group Given National Media Attention To Influence Court Case." Drug Prevention Newsletter, June 1991.

"There are Better Ways than Legalization To Fight the Country's Drug Problems." Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, April 17, 1993.

Periodicals 

Bennett, Georgette. "Legalization: Would It Work?" National Law Journal, September 26, 1988.

Courtwright, David T. "Should We Legalize Drugs? History Answers. No." (See also entry for Nadelmann, Ethan A.) American Heritage, February/March 1993.

Current, William F. "Arguments Against Legalization of Illicit Drugs," Employee Assistance Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1990.

Currie, Elliott. "Towards a Policy on Drugs." Dissent, Winter 1993.

Dennis, Richard J. "The Economics of Legalizing Drugs." The Atlantic, November 1990.

Farley, Christopher John. "Hello Again, Mary Jane." Time, April 19, 1993.

France, Steve. "Should We Fight Or Switch?" American Bar Association Journal, February 1990.

Kleiman, Mark A.R. "Should Some Illegal Drugs Be Legalized? Legalization: A Simplistic Solution to a Complex Problem." Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 1990.

Kleber, Herbert, M.D. "Our Current Approach to Drug Abuse -- Progress, Problems, Proposals." New EnglandJournal of Medicine, February 3, 1994, Vol. 330, No. 5.

Kondracke, Morton M. "Don't Legalize Drugs." The New Republic, June 27,1988.

Linn, Lawrence S. and Yager, Joel. "Physician Drug Legalization Fraught With Danger, Uncertainty." Narcotics Control Digest, June 22, 1988.

Lipman, Arthur G. "The Argument against Therapeutic Use of Heroin in Pain Management." American Journal of Hospital Pharmacists, May 1993.

Montagne, Michael. "The Argument for Therapeutic Use of Heroin in Pain Management." American Journal of Hospital Pharmacists, May 1993.

Nadelmann, Ethan A. "Should We Legalize Drugs? History Answers. Yes." (See also entry for Courtright, David T.) American Heritage, February/March 1993.

Sweezy, Martha. "Why Heroin Should Be Legalized." Smith College Studies in Social Work, Vol. 61, #2, 1991.

Teasley, David L. "Drug Legalization and the 'Lessons' of Prohibition." Contemporary Drug Problems, Spring 1992.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Fact Sheet: Drug Data Summary." Drugs & Crime Data, November 1992.

Weisheit, Ralph A. and Johnson, Katherine. "Exploring the Dimensions of Support for Decriminalizing Drugs." Journal of Drug Issues, Winter 1992.

Wilson, James Q. "Against the Legalization of Drugs." Commentary, February 1990.

"Arguments Against Legalizing Drugs." Drug Abuse Update, September 1988.

"Physicians' Attitudes Toward the Legalization of Marijuana Use." Western Journal of Medicine, June 1989.

"Should Some Illegal Drugs Be Legalized: Legalization is the Answer." Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 1990.

Other 

Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. "Marijuana Scheduling Petition, Denial of Petition, Remand. 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. 86-22]" (Administrative Law hearing).

"Drug Legalization: Getting to No." Dr. William Olson, 1994.

"National Drug Control Strategy: Reclaiming Our Communities from Drugs and Violence," The White House, February 1994.

"Panacea or Chaos? The Legalization of Drugs in America." Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D., presented in Distinguished Lecturer in Substance Abuse lecture series, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY, January 15, 1993.

Russell, John S. and McNicoll, Andre. "The British Experience with Narcotic Dependency," Alcohol and Drug Commission, Ministry of Health, Province of British Columbia.

"Report of the International Control Board for 1992." International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations.

"State and Local Spending on Drug Control Activities." Office of National Drug Control Policy, October 1993.

"Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box." Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Colombia University, September 1995. 



2. Resource Personnel  
The Drug Enforcement Administration has Demand Reduction Coordinators stationed in these field offices:

Atlanta Field Division
75 Spring Street, SW, Room 740
Atlanta, GA 30303
404/730-3197

New England Field Division
50 Staniford St., Suite 200
Boston, MA 02114
617/557-2205

Chicago Field Division
230 S. Dearborn St.
Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60604
312/353-1427

Dallas Field Division
1880 Regal Row
Dallas, TX 75235
214/767-7151

Rocky Mountain Field Division
115 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112
303/784-6300

Detroit Field Division
357 Federal Building
231 W. Lafayette
Detroit, Ml 48226
313/226-6419

Houston Field Division
333 West Loop North
Suite 300
Houston, TX 77024
713/681-1771

Los Angeles Field Division
255 E. Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213/894-5632

Miami Field Division
8400 N.W. 53rd Street
Miami, FL 33166
305/590-4604

Newark Field Division
Federal Office Bldg, Suite 806
970 Broad Street
Newark, NJ 07102
201/645-3424

New Orleans Field Division
3838 Causeway Blvd., Suite 1800
Metairie, LA 70002
504/840-1032

New York Field Division
99 10th Avenue
New York, NY 10011
212/337-1260

Philadelphia Field Division
600 Arch Street, Suite 10224
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215/597-7866

Phoenix Field Division
3010 N. 2nd Street, Suite 301
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602/640-5700

St. Louis Field Division
7911 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 500
St. Louis, MO 63105
314/425-3241

San Diego Field Division
402 West 35th Street
National City, CA 91950
619/585-4355

San Francisco Field Division
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Room 12215
San Francisco, CA 94102
415/556-6413

Seattle Field Division
220 West Mercer, Suite 104
Seattle, WA 98119
206/553-1402

Washington (DC) Field Division
400 Sixth Street, SW, Room 2558
Washington, DC 20024
202/401-7817

Assistance may also be obtained by contacting:
Demand Reduction Section
DEA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20537
202/307-7936.

Other Resources 

Robert Peterson, Director
Office of Drug Control Policy
State of Michigan
Grandview Plaza
206 East Michigan Avenue
Lansing, Ml 48909
517/373-4700

Sue Rusche
Executive Director
National Drug Information Center of Families in Action
2296 Henderson Mill Road Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30345
404/934-6364

Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D.
President, Phoenix House
164 W. 74th Street
New York, NY 10023
212/595-5810

Herbert D. Kleber, M.D.
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse
Columbia University
New York, NY 10019
212/960-5570

Robert L. DuPont, M.D.
President
Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc.
6191 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20852
301/231-9010

Otto and Connie Moulton
Committees on Correspondence
57 Conant Street, Room 113
Danvers, MA 01923
508/774-2641

Mark S. Gold, M.D.
Department of Neuroscience and Psychiatry
College of Medicine
University of Florida
Box 100244
Gainesville, L 32610-0244
904/392-3383

Dr. Bill Olson
National Strategy Information Center
1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 202/429-0129 

3. Who's Who in the Legalization Debate

Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics
1735 Willard Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009

Alliance of lay persons, medical professionals and policymakers concerned with the medical use of cannabis in treating the side effect of chemotherapy experience by cancer patients, and in aiding glaucoma, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis patients. Works to end federal prohibition of cannabis in medicine and to "construct a medically meaningful, ethically correct and compassionate system of regulation which permits the seriously ill to legally obtain cannabis." 



Drug Policy Foundation
4455 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
202/537-5005

Promotes alternative methods such as legalization, decriminalization and medicalization of currently illegal substances, including marijuana and heroin, to curb drug abuse while protecting the rights of the individual. Assists in litigation to change federal drug possession laws; maintains Medical-Legal Advocacy Project to provide legal aid in cases involving medicine and law. The group believes that legal drugs, clean needles and effective drug treatment would vastly improve the health of addicts, slow the spread of AIDS, and decrease crime. Strongly opposes the use of urine tests in employment. 



Drug Watch International
P.O. Box 1454
Elmhurst, IL 60126-2127
708/530-8999

A drug information network designed to track policy and to counteract what it calls "misinformation distributed by pro-drug legalization advocates." They bring information, policy recommendations and research about drugs to the public, news media, Congress and international governments and organizations. They are dedicated to the support of demand reduction programs and combatting the idea of legalizing drugs. 


National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
202/483-5500

Public education organization working for change in U.S. policy regarding marijuana. Seeks an end to all criminal penalties for personal possession, use, and cultivation of marijuana. Provides speakers for interested groups; collects and disseminates educational material and information; and provides testimony for legislative committees. 



National Families in Action
2296 Henderson Mill Road
Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30345
404/934-6364

National Families in Action is a direct education and prevention organization that seeks to educate society about the dangers of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs by disseminating accurate information and to help citizens use that information to identify and resolve problems that contribute to substance abuse. 

Hits since October 19th Revision

Send mail to terry.ware@usa.net with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: October 20, 1998