Drug policy has generated two debates. One concerns the retention of our current prohibitions (the legalization debate). The other is that between what are usually called the supply-side advocates (who seek continued expansion of efforts to imprison drug sellers and detect and punish drug users) and the demand-side advocates (who accept the need for enforcement but argue that programs aimed at prevention and treatment, or demand, should receive increased funding). This paper combines the two debates on drug policy into a three-sided discussion among hawks (supply-side advocates), doves (legalizers), and owls (bold demand-side advocates) about the nature of the drug problem and the consequences of different approaches to controlling it. The author describes the increasing success of the hawks in taking control of drug policy and making it distinctively punitive. He suggests that this approach may have gone too far and that the commitment to maintaining enforcement at its current level limits the domain of policy options. He argues in favor of an "aggressive owlishness," derived from the European "harm reduction" approach.
Originally published in: Daedalus, v. 121, no. 3, 1992, pp. 15-52.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.