Drug-Regulation Policy Advisory

The Drug-Regulation Policy Advisory involves the development and advocation of rational drug control policies based on scientific evidence. An objective is to provide legislators and community leaders with the best 'expert opinion' on drug regulation (e.g., what drugs to regulate and how to regulate them) and related topics (e.g., Internet 'prescribing' of psychoactive compounds). Advocacy of harm-reduction strategies, such as methadone maintenance and needle-exchange programs, is another objective because this policy is strongly supported by the scientific evidence as well as by humanitarian concerns.
 
 

Background Public and government policy regarding psychoactive drugs often does not seem to follow common sense nor the scientific evidence. The issue of whether an individual should be permitted to 'recreationally' use psychoactive substances is a moral issue, perhaps best left to the individual and those involved in 'moral education.' The issue of whether the use of certain psychoactive substances have documented deleterious effects on the individual and/or on society can be studied scientifically. It is the mandate of science to provide unbiased factual information so that the individual and those charged with governing individual behavior (e.g., legislators) can make informed decisions.

 

Examples

Case 1: Current laws provide much more severe penalties for possession of "crack" cocaine than for the powder form of cocaine (i.e., cocaine hydrochloride). Because 'crack' cocaine use is much more prominent with inner-city minority groups, this policy of differential criminal penalties is viewed by some as racially motivated--black urban youths are more likely to be arrested for "crack" cocaine use than white suburban youths who are likely to be arrested for powdered cocaine use.

Case 2: Several Presidential committees and numerous expert scientific committees have concluded that sufficient evidence exist for limited use of marijuana for certain medical conditions.

Some Specific Recommendations

• Maintain severe criminal penalties for trafficking 'hard drugs' such as cocaine and heroin that have a well-known high addiction liability. These drugs are deleterious to both the individual and to society. Reduce the criminal penalties for drug users possessing small quantities of these drugs. These individuals are the victims of their own addictions, and medical treatment not incarceration is appropriate. Equate the criminal penalties for possessing and selling equivalent amounts of "crack" and powder cocaine. The current laws are clearly discriminatory and these punitive measures have not diminished the spread of inter-city "crack.".

• Relax the current Federal laws regarding medicinal marijuana, permitting its use for a limited number of conditions where its psychoactive as well as its clinical effects are beneficial. Follow the progressive lead of several states (e.g., California) and Canada where medicinal marijuana is currently permitted.

• Expand harm-reduction efforts such as needle-exchange programs. Use New York state's syringe availability demonstration program as a model for a rational approach to this problem that minimizes the risk of encouraging illicit drug use. Provide information regarding 'safer' drug-use practices to current intravenous drug users and to 'high risk' individuals.

• Prohibit Internet 'prescribing' of highly addictive compounds such as the narcotic analgesics (e.g., OxyContin) and the psychomotor stimulants (e.g., Ridalin). The clinical use of these compounds requires careful assessment on a case-by-case basis to minimize abuse and potential addiction. Physicians should be encouraged to provide adequate medication for clinically documented conditions while assessing the possible long-term adverse consequences of such treatment. (Current U.S. prescribing practices often under medicates conditions involving chronic pain.)