Jones, William R.

English

Valparaiso University

Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 8 Number 3 Spring 1974 pp.585-590 Spring 1974 I. Introductino to "Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar" William R. Jones Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William R. Jones, I. Introductino to "Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar", 8 Val. U. L. Rev. 585 (1974). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol8/iss3/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at scholar@valpo.edu. I. INTRODUCTION TO "DRUG ABUSE ANDTHE LAW: A SEMINAR"WILLIAM R. JONES*Drug abuse is a very serious problem in our society today. Oneneed only turn to the pages of the daily newspaper in most anycommunity on most any day to find proof of this fact. But recogniz-ing that there is a problem tells us little about the nature, extentand causes of the problem. Certainly it does not lead us to any easysolutions. Indeed, the whole spectrum of drug abuse is. so complex,involving as it does physical, psychological, social and legal aspects,that it is almost impossible to even identify a cause-effect relation-ship with any degree of certainty. Do drugs cause the psychologicaland social problems or do the psychological problems precede druguse and actually cause the abuse? Perhaps society's response to drugabuse, in itself, has caused much of the real problem as it existstoday. Dr. Alfred R. Lindesmith, in his article which is a part of thisseminar,' suggests this when he proposes "that twentieth centuryAmerican attempts to control or suppress bad personal habits bypunishing those who have them, have been wrong in principle andcounter-productive in practice," '2 and by his further statement that"[tihe indirect social harm sometimes produced by illicit drugs isoften the consequence of their very illegality."' Regardless of theview one may embrace, one must attempt to separate myth fromreality, to use reason instead of emotion and attempt to identify theproper cause and effect relationships in order to rationally seeksolutions.Since communication is essential, and communication is diffi-cult if not impossible when people are not talking the same lan-guage, any discussion of drug abuse should begin by attempting todefine the term itself. What is a drug? Scientists have stated that,basically, a drug is any substance that by its chemical nature affectsthe structure or function of the living organism.4 One writer has* Member of the Bar of Indiana, Florida and Kentucky; Assistant Professor of Law atIndiana University School of Law, Indianapolis.1. See Lindesmith, The Narcotic Lobby and the Drug Problem, 8 VAL. L. REv. -(1974).2. Id. at__.3. Id. at__.4. Modell, Mass Drug Catastrophes and the Roles of Science and Technology, SCIENCEJones: I. Introductino to "Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar"Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1974586 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEWobserved that "a moment's thought will suggest that such a defini-tion covers a tremendous spectrum of substances: prescriptiondrugs, over-the-counter drugs, illegal drugs, substances normallycalled beverages, cigarettes, food additives, industrial and agricul-tural chemicals, pollutants, even foods."5 But, as the writer pointsout, this definition "does not provide answers to the questions thatare typically asked when drug use and abuse are being considered,• . . [indeed] it seems to raise more questions than it answers."'Consulting a modern American language dictionary one willfind "drug" defined as: "1. A substance used as medicine in thetreatment of disease. 2. A narcotic, especially one that is addic-tive."7 Definition 1. is at the same time too broad and too narrow.Coupled with "abuse" one should classify any misuse of medicine,including the use of a medicine to attempt to cure an illness forwhich it is not indicated, as drug abuse. In this sense the definitionis too broad. On the other hand, the definition, as given, fails toinclude many substances normally included as drugs when we speakof drug abuse. For example, one criteria required to place a sub-stance in Schedule I of the United States Comprehensive DrugAbuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is that "[t!he drug orother substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatmentin the United States."9 Heroin, LSD and marihuana are all listedin Schedule I of this Act. It is in this respect, the fact that obviousproblem drugs are not included, that the definition is too narrow.Taking the second dictionary definition, we are perhaps gettingcloser to what most people mean when they use the term "drugabuse." But now additional problems of definition are experienced.When one uses the word "narcotic," is he referring to a legal classifi-cation, a medical definition or the vernacular?There is no internationally recognized definition of the term''narcotic;" international legislators have never attempted any suchdefinition. Instead, they have chosen the method of enumeratingthe substances to which the various conventions apply and have1967, at 346 (1967).5. H. NOWLIS, I CONTEMPORARY DRUG PROBLEMS, at 4-5 (1972).6. Id. at 6.7. AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 400 (Ist ed. 1969).8. 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-966 (1970).9. 21 U.S.C. § 812 (1970).[Vol. 8Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 [1974], Art. 2https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol8/iss3/2INTRODUCTION: DRUG ABUSEprovided a method for including, under the scope of the conven-tions, other substances with the same or similar effect as thoseoriginally covered. "' Nor does the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Pre-vention and Control Act of 1970" attempt a definition; rather, likethe international conventions, schedules of substances are utilized.Medically, "narcotic" has been defined as "[a] drug which, usedin moderate doses, produces stupor, insensibility, or sound sleep."12This adds little to the attempt to define drug abuse and has thedisadvantage of taking us back to one of the words in the term weare attempting to define, i.e., "drug." Society in general, in usingthe word "narcotic," most usually means any substance that maybe addictive or which is used for purposes or in amounts of whichsociety does not approve.Within our second dictionary definition we also find difficultieswith the word "addictive." What do we mean by "addict" and"addiction?" One knowledgable writer has referred to the originalmeaning of addiction as "given over to a master, enslaved.' 3 Healso points out that "physical dependence and addiction are thesubject of considerable semantic confusion."' 4It is possible to describe all known patterns of drug use andabuse without employing the terms addict or addiction. Inmany respects this would be advantageous, for the termaddiction has been used in so many ways that it can nolonger be employed without further qualification or elabo-ration. However, since it is not likely that the term will bedropped from the language, it is appropriate to make aneffort to delimit its meaning. The definition used here issomewhat arbitrary, and it is not necessarily identical withother definitions of addiction or drug dependence ...[Here], the term addiction will be used to mean a behav-ioral pattern of compulsive drug use, characterized by over-whelming involvement with the use of a drug, the securingof its supply, and a high tendency to relapse afterwithdrawal. Addiction is thus viewed as an extreme on a10. See Waddell, International Narcotics Control, 64 AM. J. INT'L L. 310 (1970).11. 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-966 (1970).12. STEDMAN'S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 827 (3d ed. 1972).13. See ALI-ABA Course of Study on Defense of Drug Cases, at 69 (1971).14. Id.19741Jones: I. Introductino to "Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar"Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1974588 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEWcontinuum of involvement with drug use and refers in aquantitative rather than a qualitative sense to the degreeto which drug use pervades the total life activity of the user.In most instances it will not be possible to state with preci-sion at what point compulsive use should be consideredaddiction. Addiction in this frame of reference cannot beused interchangeably with physical dependence. It is possi-ble to be physically dependent on drugs without being ad-dicted and to be addicted without being physicallydependent. .... 15The term "abuse" should also be defined. Are the crucial fac-tors the amount and frequency of use that interfere with the func-tioning of the individual in society, or is "abuse" to be defined as aviolation of society's controls on drugs? Under this second view,even possession of the slightest identifiable quantity of marihuanais defined as drug abuse.Any society has a right to define abuse that way, but it'sgoing to get into bad trouble if it defines it in that way andthen applies all of the characteristics of the other definitionof abuse. We just can't be in the ridiculous position of re-quiring that anyone who has experimented with marihuanais sick and needs three years of treatment. This is one of thethings that has promoted our lack of credibility with youngpeople."It becomes increasingly apparent that the problem is one ofsemantics. The words do not mean the same things to differentpeople, nor do they mean the same thing to the same people in allcontexts. In addition, myths, emotions, assumptions, beliefs andattitudes have invaded the realm of drug abuse. Futile argumentreplaces meaningful discussion because the participants are neitherspeaking the same language nor proceeding from the same assump-tions. There will be no easy solutions.From the standpoint of the legal practitioner, the above discus-sion may not be pragmatically relevant. Certainly he is interestedin solutions to this grave social problem, perhaps even more so than15. Jaffe, Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse, in THE PHARMOCOLOGICAL BASIS OFTHERAPEUTICS 276 (Goodman & Gilman eds. 1970) (emphasis added).16. Supra note 13, at 13.[Vol. 8Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 [1974], Art. 2https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol8/iss3/2INTRODUCTION: DRUG ABUSEthe average citizen; in that regard, he may attempt to convince thelegislators to reform the drug laws. But whether he is prosecutor ordefense counsel, he must base his professional activity upon thereality of the law as it exists-not upon what he thinks it should be.For this reason, with the exception of Dr. Lindesmith's article, thisseminar is directed at supplying useful information, and perhapsideas, to the legal practitioner who must deal with the problem ofdrug abuse.Each of the contributors to this seminar is well qualified in hisfield. Alfred R. Lindesmith, a student of the narcotics problem since1935, is University Professor of Sociology at Indiana University,Bloomington. He is the author of several books'7 and has also writ-ten the introduction to Drug Addiction: Crime or Disease? TheInterim and Final Reports of the Joint Committee of the AmericanBar Association and the American Medical Association on NarcoticDrugs, published in 1961. In this seminar, Dr. Lindesmith exploresthe development of our official posture toward the drug problem andgives his views as to why they are harmfully counter-productive.Philip R. Melangton, Jr., is a practicing attorney who has an exten-sive background in criminal practice. He has served as First Assist-ant United States Attorney, Deputy Marion County Prosecutor andMarion County Public Defender. Presently engaged in private prac-tice, he has successfully handled the defense of many persons ac-cused of drug law violations. Mr. Melangton reviews the relevantstate and federal statutes and discusses the approach to many areasessential to a successful defense in a narcotics case. Carl R. Phillipsearned a Ph.D. from Indiana University and is a forensic chemistwith the Indianapolis Police Department. His article explains drugtesting procedures and points out how attorneys, both prosecutionand defense, can ask more relevant questions in establishing orattacking the reliability of the identification of an allegedly illegalsubstance. William F. Griglak, Assistant Director of the Drug AbuseDivision of the Indiana Department of Mental Health, examines theprovisions for evaluation and treatment under Indiana's Public Law222 as amended by the 1973 General Assembly." It is Mr. Griglak'shope that publication of this information will result in more at-17. E.g., OPIATE ADDICTION (1968); THE ADDICT AND THE LAW (1965).18. Pub. L. No. 157, 98th Gen. Ass., 1st Sess. at 817 (1973), amending IND. CODE § 16-13-7.5 (1971).19741Jones: I. Introductino to "Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar"Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1974590 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 8tempts by prosecutors, defense counsel and judges to handle crimi-nal cases related to drug abuse through treatment alternatives out-lined by this statute.Many people think the solution to the drug abuse problem cannever be found within the framework of the criminal justice system.Others, while wishing to retain criminal sanctions, although per-haps with reduced penalties, lean in the direction of expanded useof alternatives to incarceration. And, of course, there are those indi-viduals, whom Alfred Lindesmith would label the "narcotic lobby,"who believe that only severe criminal penalties for both user andseller can keep the problem from escalating. But regardless of theindividual theory followed, it is "a medical problem, a legal prob-lem, a social problem, a community problem, your problem, myproblem."'"19. Griglak, Drug Abuse: Indiana's Response, 8 VAL. L. Rv. , (1974).Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 [1974], Art. 2https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol8/iss3/2

I. Introductino to  Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar

ValpoScholar

Valparaiso University Law Review 
Volume 8 
Number 3 Spring 1974 pp.585-590 
Spring 1974 
I. Introductino to "Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar" 
William R. Jones 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr 
 Part of the Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
William R. Jones, I. Introductino to "Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar", 8 Val. U. L. Rev. 585 (1974). 
Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol8/iss3/2 
This Symposium is brought to you for free and open 
access by the Valparaiso University Law School at 
ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in 
Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized 
administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, 
please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at 
scholar@valpo.edu. 
I. INTRODUCTION TO "DRUG ABUSE AND
THE LAW: A SEMINAR"
WILLIAM R. JONES*
Drug abuse is a very serious problem in our society today. One
need only turn to the pages of the daily newspaper in most any
community on most any day to find proof of this fact. But recogniz-
ing that there is a problem tells us little about the nature, extent
and causes of the problem. Certainly it does not lead us to any easy
solutions. Indeed, the whole spectrum of drug abuse is. so complex,
involving as it does physical, psychological, social and legal aspects,
that it is almost impossible to even identify a cause-effect relation-
ship with any degree of certainty. Do drugs cause the psychological
and social problems or do the psychological problems precede drug
use and actually cause the abuse? Perhaps society's response to drug
abuse, in itself, has caused much of the real problem as it exists
today. Dr. Alfred R. Lindesmith, in his article which is a part of this
seminar,' suggests this when he proposes "that twentieth century
American attempts to control or suppress bad personal habits by
punishing those who have them, have been wrong in principle and
counter-productive in practice," '2 and by his further statement that
"[tihe indirect social harm sometimes produced by illicit drugs is
often the consequence of their very illegality."' Regardless of the
view one may embrace, one must attempt to separate myth from
reality, to use reason instead of emotion and attempt to identify the
proper cause and effect relationships in order to rationally seek
solutions.
Since communication is essential, and communication is diffi-
cult if not impossible when people are not talking the same lan-
guage, any discussion of drug abuse should begin by attempting to
define the term itself. What is a drug? Scientists have stated that,
basically, a drug is any substance that by its chemical nature affects
the structure or function of the living organism.4 One writer has
* Member of the Bar of Indiana, Florida and Kentucky; Assistant Professor of Law at
Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis.
1. See Lindesmith, The Narcotic Lobby and the Drug Problem, 8 VAL. L. REv. -
(1974).
2. Id. at__.
3. Id. at__.
4. Modell, Mass Drug Catastrophes and the Roles of Science and Technology, SCIENCE
Jones: I. Introductino to "Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar"
Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1974
586 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW
observed that "a moment's thought will suggest that such a defini-
tion covers a tremendous spectrum of substances: prescription
drugs, over-the-counter drugs, illegal drugs, substances normally
called beverages, cigarettes, food additives, industrial and agricul-
tural chemicals, pollutants, even foods."5 But, as the writer points
out, this definition "does not provide answers to the questions that
are typically asked when drug use and abuse are being considered,
• . . [indeed] it seems to raise more questions than it answers."'
Consulting a modern American language dictionary one will
find "drug" defined as: "1. A substance used as medicine in the
treatment of disease. 2. A narcotic, especially one that is addic-
tive."7 Definition 1. is at the same time too broad and too narrow.
Coupled with "abuse" one should classify any misuse of medicine,
including the use of a medicine to attempt to cure an illness for
which it is not indicated, as drug abuse. In this sense the definition
is too broad. On the other hand, the definition, as given, fails to
include many substances normally included as drugs when we speak
of drug abuse. For example, one criteria required to place a sub-
stance in Schedule I of the United States Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is that "[t!he drug or
other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment
in the United States."9 Heroin, LSD and marihuana are all listed
in Schedule I of this Act. It is in this respect, the fact that obvious
problem drugs are not included, that the definition is too narrow.
Taking the second dictionary definition, we are perhaps getting
closer to what most people mean when they use the term "drug
abuse." But now additional problems of definition are experienced.
When one uses the word "narcotic," is he referring to a legal classifi-
cation, a medical definition or the vernacular?
There is no internationally recognized definition of the term
''narcotic;" international legislators have never attempted any such
definition. Instead, they have chosen the method of enumerating
the substances to which the various conventions apply and have
1967, at 346 (1967).
5. H. NOWLIS, I CONTEMPORARY DRUG PROBLEMS, at 4-5 (1972).
6. Id. at 6.
7. AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 400 (Ist ed. 1969).
8. 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-966 (1970).
9. 21 U.S.C. § 812 (1970).
[Vol. 8
Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 [1974], Art. 2
https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol8/iss3/2
INTRODUCTION: DRUG ABUSE
provided a method for including, under the scope of the conven-
tions, other substances with the same or similar effect as those
originally covered. "' Nor does the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Pre-
vention and Control Act of 1970" attempt a definition; rather, like
the international conventions, schedules of substances are utilized.
Medically, "narcotic" has been defined as "[a] drug which, used
in moderate doses, produces stupor, insensibility, or sound sleep."12
This adds little to the attempt to define drug abuse and has the
disadvantage of taking us back to one of the words in the term we
are attempting to define, i.e., "drug." Society in general, in using
the word "narcotic," most usually means any substance that may
be addictive or which is used for purposes or in amounts of which
society does not approve.
Within our second dictionary definition we also find difficulties
with the word "addictive." What do we mean by "addict" and
"addiction?" One knowledgable writer has referred to the original
meaning of addiction as "given over to a master, enslaved.' 3 He
also points out that "physical dependence and addiction are the
subject of considerable semantic confusion."' 4
It is possible to describe all known patterns of drug use and
abuse without employing the terms addict or addiction. In
many respects this would be advantageous, for the term
addiction has been used in so many ways that it can no
longer be employed without further qualification or elabo-
ration. However, since it is not likely that the term will be
dropped from the language, it is appropriate to make an
effort to delimit its meaning. The definition used here is
somewhat arbitrary, and it is not necessarily identical with
other definitions of addiction or drug dependence ...
[Here], the term addiction will be used to mean a behav-
ioral pattern of compulsive drug use, characterized by over-
whelming involvement with the use of a drug, the securing
of its supply, and a high tendency to relapse after
withdrawal. Addiction is thus viewed as an extreme on a
10. See Waddell, International Narcotics Control, 64 AM. J. INT'L L. 310 (1970).
11. 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-966 (1970).
12. STEDMAN'S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 827 (3d ed. 1972).
13. See ALI-ABA Course of Study on Defense of Drug Cases, at 69 (1971).
14. Id.
19741
Jones: I. Introductino to "Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar"
Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1974
588 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW
continuum of involvement with drug use and refers in a
quantitative rather than a qualitative sense to the degree
to which drug use pervades the total life activity of the user.
In most instances it will not be possible to state with preci-
sion at what point compulsive use should be considered
addiction. Addiction in this frame of reference cannot be
used interchangeably with physical dependence. It is possi-
ble to be physically dependent on drugs without being ad-
dicted and to be addicted without being physically
dependent. .... 15
The term "abuse" should also be defined. Are the crucial fac-
tors the amount and frequency of use that interfere with the func-
tioning of the individual in society, or is "abuse" to be defined as a
violation of society's controls on drugs? Under this second view,
even possession of the slightest identifiable quantity of marihuana
is defined as drug abuse.
Any society has a right to define abuse that way, but it's
going to get into bad trouble if it defines it in that way and
then applies all of the characteristics of the other definition
of abuse. We just can't be in the ridiculous position of re-
quiring that anyone who has experimented with marihuana
is sick and needs three years of treatment. This is one of the
things that has promoted our lack of credibility with young
people."
It becomes increasingly apparent that the problem is one of
semantics. The words do not mean the same things to different
people, nor do they mean the same thing to the same people in all
contexts. In addition, myths, emotions, assumptions, beliefs and
attitudes have invaded the realm of drug abuse. Futile argument
replaces meaningful discussion because the participants are neither
speaking the same language nor proceeding from the same assump-
tions. There will be no easy solutions.
From the standpoint of the legal practitioner, the above discus-
sion may not be pragmatically relevant. Certainly he is interested
in solutions to this grave social problem, perhaps even more so than
15. Jaffe, Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse, in THE PHARMOCOLOGICAL BASIS OF
THERAPEUTICS 276 (Goodman & Gilman eds. 1970) (emphasis added).
16. Supra note 13, at 13.
[Vol. 8
Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 [1974], Art. 2
https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol8/iss3/2
INTRODUCTION: DRUG ABUSE
the average citizen; in that regard, he may attempt to convince the
legislators to reform the drug laws. But whether he is prosecutor or
defense counsel, he must base his professional activity upon the
reality of the law as it exists-not upon what he thinks it should be.
For this reason, with the exception of Dr. Lindesmith's article, this
seminar is directed at supplying useful information, and perhaps
ideas, to the legal practitioner who must deal with the problem of
drug abuse.
Each of the contributors to this seminar is well qualified in his
field. Alfred R. Lindesmith, a student of the narcotics problem since
1935, is University Professor of Sociology at Indiana University,
Bloomington. He is the author of several books'7 and has also writ-
ten the introduction to Drug Addiction: Crime or Disease? The
Interim and Final Reports of the Joint Committee of the American
Bar Association and the American Medical Association on Narcotic
Drugs, published in 1961. In this seminar, Dr. Lindesmith explores
the development of our official posture toward the drug problem and
gives his views as to why they are harmfully counter-productive.
Philip R. Melangton, Jr., is a practicing attorney who has an exten-
sive background in criminal practice. He has served as First Assist-
ant United States Attorney, Deputy Marion County Prosecutor and
Marion County Public Defender. Presently engaged in private prac-
tice, he has successfully handled the defense of many persons ac-
cused of drug law violations. Mr. Melangton reviews the relevant
state and federal statutes and discusses the approach to many areas
essential to a successful defense in a narcotics case. Carl R. Phillips
earned a Ph.D. from Indiana University and is a forensic chemist
with the Indianapolis Police Department. His article explains drug
testing procedures and points out how attorneys, both prosecution
and defense, can ask more relevant questions in establishing or
attacking the reliability of the identification of an allegedly illegal
substance. William F. Griglak, Assistant Director of the Drug Abuse
Division of the Indiana Department of Mental Health, examines the
provisions for evaluation and treatment under Indiana's Public Law
222 as amended by the 1973 General Assembly." It is Mr. Griglak's
hope that publication of this information will result in more at-
17. E.g., OPIATE ADDICTION (1968); THE ADDICT AND THE LAW (1965).
18. Pub. L. No. 157, 98th Gen. Ass., 1st Sess. at 817 (1973), amending IND. CODE § 16-
13-7.5 (1971).
19741
Jones: I. Introductino to "Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar"
Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1974
590 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 8
tempts by prosecutors, defense counsel and judges to handle crimi-
nal cases related to drug abuse through treatment alternatives out-
lined by this statute.
Many people think the solution to the drug abuse problem can
never be found within the framework of the criminal justice system.
Others, while wishing to retain criminal sanctions, although per-
haps with reduced penalties, lean in the direction of expanded use
of alternatives to incarceration. And, of course, there are those indi-
viduals, whom Alfred Lindesmith would label the "narcotic lobby,"
who believe that only severe criminal penalties for both user and
seller can keep the problem from escalating. But regardless of the
individual theory followed, it is "a medical problem, a legal prob-
lem, a social problem, a community problem, your problem, my
problem."'"
19. Griglak, Drug Abuse: Indiana's Response, 8 VAL. L. Rv. , (1974).
Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 [1974], Art. 2
https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol8/iss3/2


https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1740&amp;context=vulr

I. Introductino to Drug Abuse and the Law: A Seminar

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Valparaiso University

ValpoScholar