Cook Philip J, Reuter Peter
Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Addiction. 2007 Aug;102(8):1183-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01837.x.
To reflect on the divergence and overlap between alcohol and illicit drugs with respect to both current policies and policy research.
For demand reduction, there is considerable overlap in programs and services for prevention and even more clearly for treatment. For supply controls there is mostly divergence, reflecting the difference in legal status. Research generally follows the same pattern. However, a cross-cutting research agenda on the supply side has merit.
Even in a prohibition regime, law-enforcement agencies have considerable discretion. A systematic, pragmatic, 'evidence-based' use of that discretion to reduce harm is possible. It can be accomplished only by a continuing program of policy research that measures the harms of drug use and drug enforcement, assesses the effects of current policies on both these sources of social cost and explores alternative strategies. There is a similarly important project for alcohol and tobacco control policy. The goal for research on alcohol and tobacco is to document the extent to which supply controls can be effective in reducing harm; the additional goal for illicit drugs is to document just how much the current ideologically driven approach is costing the public.
反思酒精与非法药物在当前政策及政策研究方面的差异与重叠。
在减少需求方面，预防项目和服务存在相当大的重叠，治疗方面的重叠更为明显。在供应管控方面，大多存在差异，这反映了法律地位的不同。研究总体上也遵循相同模式。然而，一个关于供应方的跨领域研究议程具有价值。
即使在禁令制度下，执法机构也有相当大的自由裁量权。有系统、务实且“基于证据”地运用该自由裁量权以减少危害是可行的。这只能通过一个持续的政策研究项目来实现，该项目要衡量吸毒和毒品执法的危害，评估当前政策对这两种社会成本来源的影响，并探索替代策略。酒精和烟草控制政策也有一个同样重要的项目。酒精和烟草研究的目标是记录供应管控在减少危害方面能有效的程度；非法药物的额外目标是记录当前受意识形态驱动的方法给公众造成了多大代价。
