The Dilemma of Drug Policy in the United States.

Among a wealth of recent books on drug abuse and policy, Elaine B. Sharp's effort stands out for its clear and concise explanation of the general failure of public policy. It shuns the common urge to prescribe solutions in favor of the application of concepts and theories from political science to illuminate the patterns that have locked policy on a narrow law-enforcement path, despite a long history of dismal results.

In Sharp's view the drug abuse issue has become easy prey of those politicians and their bureaucratic partners who are the masters of symbolic politics. They effectively use their skills to obscure policy outcomes and avoid responsibility when there are hints of things gone awry. Substantial benefits flow to the law enforcement interests that captured the issue early on and continue to "fight the good fight," and to the elected officials who every two years or so ride the emotional waves of threat and reassurance to victory.

A varied analytical tool chest is used effectively. Sharp argues that the standard policy cycle model is broken in the drug abuse policy arena as there is little interest in evaluation among policymakers or effective feedback of information in the policy process. Both John Kingdon's and Roger Cobb's work on agenda setting are pushed to their recognized limits in splendid historical discussions of policy processes in treatment, prevention, and law enforcement. The predominance of the political stream is reflected in politicians who serve as the primary policy entrepreneurs and in their use of mobilization strategies to set agendas. Jimmy Carter's failed attempt to rely on experts to pursue a balanced policy in line with an inside-access view of agenda setting is the lone exception. Original research on the drug abuse policy subgovernment deftly details the largely failed assault on the law enforcement regime over the last thirty years by treatment and prevention interests. The analysis all comes together nicely while examining the limits of policy change with careful application of Murray Edelman's view of symbolic politics. Sharp shows how mass attitudes toward drug abusers, a strong tendency toward the scientific spirit within the treatment community, and recent Republican control of the White House shape the symbolic exercise and influence the outcome.

A series of chapters that describe and assess treatment, prevention, and law-enforcement policies are less well executed. In particular, the discussion of treatment moves much too briefly through major approaches and seems to get caught in the negative tone cast by the symbolic masseuses that are so readily exposed elsewhere. For example, President Bush's drug "czar," William Bennett, who is hardly noted for objectivity, is quoted as if to confirm the skeptical view of drug treatment as the argument moves on without rebuttal. In addition, a relatively rich history of research, monitoring, and evaluation surrounding treatment programs in comparison to other policy arenas and the use of these resources within service organizations is generally neglected as attention is devoted to national policymakers. Analysis and feedback are not without problems at the front line of drug treatment but they seem to work better there than they do in Washington. These minor lapses are often remedied in summary sections or ensuing chapters, however, and the policy descriptions and assessments thus remain useful overviews.

This book, then, would serve well anyone interested in a quick study of drug abuse policymaking. It also offers students of public policy a good gauge of how far our theories and concepts can carry us.

James M. Rogers
Temple University

Return to the index.