Acknowledgements

Though compiled from many sources, this guide evolved from a single event: the Anti-Legalization Forum held at

the FBI/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.