Book Review:
Drug War Heresies, by Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter
Cambridge University Press, 2001, 479 pages
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/052179997X
Reviewed by Stephen Young

The ongoing argument between prohibitionists and drug policy reformers might be boiled down to two basic perspectives. While there are nuances, reformers generally maintain that harsh drug laws make problems worse. Prohibitionists insist that without tough drug laws, drug problems would increase.

"Drug War Heresies," written by Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter, analyzes those positions and assesses some evidence used to support both. The authors carry serious academic credentials, and this is no lightweight work.

Dense with facts, citations and background from a number of academic disciplines, the book is not a quick read, but it contains useful and often complex analysis for those interested in drug reform. For someone who has read dozens of books on drugs and drug policies, much of the presentation was familiar. But there were more than a few revelations, like a thorough examination of Switzerland's notorious "Needle Park" experiment, including some positive outcomes I hadn't seen noted.

In the end, the authors express cautious support for a few mild reform strategies, while generally rejecting others, particularly the outright legalization of any prohibited drug - even marijuana. They do, however, describe the case for marijuana "depenalization" as "compelling."

The information presented is generally good, if sometimes limited. The examination of drug-related corruption didn't appear to dig too deep. The authors accept that corruption is widespread in other countries, yet they downplay domestic American drug corruption. The evidence they present supports this, but well-documented (if controversial) books on drug corruption within the U.S government by authors like Gary Webb, Alfred McCoy and Peter Dale Scott, are not listed in the bibliography.

While missing some specifics like that, the authors are usually careful to cover their bases in terms of creating a broad catalog of the harms caused by prohibition itself. But they explain that much information regarding the harms of prohibition is spotty and difficult to quantify. The book also acknowledges the limitations of data regarding drug use, but more data seems to be available regarding drug use.

Perhaps because of that broader availability of drug use data, readers may perceive levels of drug use and abuse as being dynamic, while levels of prohibition-related harm may appear to have reached a plateau.

In one instance, the authors' observations about the possible future of a kinder and gentler prohibition as it relates to medical marijuana seem downright naive. "The sensible separation of the issue of marijuana's therapeutic potential and the recreational use of the drug seems now to be accepted by the federal leadership," they suggest. Granted, this was written before the latest federal crackdown on cannabis buyers clubs in California, but it's difficult to see how Barry McCaffrey's tenure at the ONDCP raised such rosy expectations.

Slightly increased drug use and abuse seem acceptable to the authors under some reform scenarios, but schemes that would theoretically lead to greatly increased use and abuse are not accepted.

Unfortunately, the dynamics of prohibition-related harm are barely mentioned. The authors acknowledge that prohibition-related harms described relate only to the present time. They also acknowledge that prohibition-related harms have increased since the 1960s. But they don't study the other side of the coin to consider the point at which the rising harms of drug prohibition become intolerable.

The continuing failure of prohibition to meet its stated goal of creating a "drug-free America" will lead to further escalation in the drug war. This, in turn, can be expected to increase the harms associated with prohibition.

It is important to consider how drug reform could impact levels of drug use, and the authors offer reasonable discussions on the topic. But, it is also important to ask how continued, and perhaps more draconian, prohibition will impact levels of prohibition-related harm.

How many HIV infections caused by dirty needles is too many? What level of drug-related incarceration is too high? How much herbicide dumped on peasant farmland in Colombia is too much? Such queries are not posed by MacCoun and Reuter.

By failing to ask, the authors shortchange the reform position. Far from being heresy, the book offers only modest challenges to widely held beliefs about the drug war debate.
--
Stephen Young is an editor with DrugSense Weekly and the author of "Maximizing Harm," a heavily-biased book about the drug war,
http://www.maximizingharm.com/


RETURN TO DWH REVIEWS PAGE