Throughout the past 10 years, we have often asked ourselves how a society so influenced by science and technology can continue to support a massively repressive drug policy based upon myth and intolerance.

To deal with this question we have attempted to open up our minds and to seek the widest array of reform opinions and ideas. For all those who wrestle with imponderables — worthy imponderables, to be sure — in the arena of drug control we seek to be the friendly big tent. This is reflected in our work for a decade and also in the fine people who speak at our conferences. They range across the spectrum of the reform universe of every conceivable political marking and ideology.

Unfortunately, that diversity of opinion is hard won. Again, in 1996, we are reminded of the propensity of politicians to confront the failures of drug prohibition with calls of "More drug war!" The reflexive urge to crush without understanding that which is unrepressable remains alive and well among the Democratic and Republican parties.

Just as we saw 10 years ago, neither of these parties understands that rational drug control policy is not built on "zero tolerance," because prohibition is inherently about not controlling the drug trade. Neither of the major parties honors its founding fathers — Jefferson and Lincoln — for their wisdom in rejecting prohibition's sophistry.

Nevertheless, reformers can take heart that their numbers and representation are continually growing. United by a desire to check and redress the excesses of prohibition, reformers have been able to debate and discuss their differences in more and more forums — some at the speed of light — all around the globe. And differences of opinion continue to bump into each other and evolve.

This diversity is reflected in this collection of papers prepared for the 10th International Conference on Drug Policy Reform, November 6-9, 1996. The collection contains some papers with which we the editors strongly agree as well as a few with which we don't. At the same time, we felt that it was important that the papers appear in these pages. There is room in the big tent for all of them.

We edited the papers primarily to make the meaning of the authors clearer. However, in all cases, the original words of the authors appear almost exactly as the authors wrote them.

The small staff of the Drug Policy Foundation put in an enormous effort to bring this important conference to fruition, yet again, for the tenth time. However, all of us agree that one person in particular made this event and all of its appurtenances, such as this volume, the center of her being for many months. Whitney A. Taylor is a tower of strength for the Foundation and for the cause of rational drug policy reform in this country and others. The fact that she is a former student of mine at American University causes me great pride — especially in light of the fact that now she often is my teacher. We owe her a great debt — and a long vacation.

And we owe ourselves and the peoples of our countries the duty to pursue the ideas contained herein until the time, perhaps early in the next millennium, when the sacred cows of the drug war are no longer roaming free in our streets, causing so much unnecessary anguish.

A word about the organization of this book: It is divided into three sections. Each section covers a range of topics, from history to policy-making. The first section, General Policy, is made up of papers prepared for our 10th conference. The articles are arranged alphabetically by the author's name.

The second section, DPF Awardees, is a collection of writings from both past and present DPF award winners. The section ends with a list of all awardees from 1988 to 1996.

Finally, the third section has but four articles, but they are very special: They are the winners of the 1996 Graduate Student Paper Competition. We were pleased with all the submissions and plan to expand the competition for next year's meeting.

Peace,

October 1996 • Washington, D.C.I