Legislators on Social Scientists and a Social Issue: A Report and Commentary on Some Discussions with Lawmakers about Drug Abuse

Abstract

Fifty California legislators holding committee posts important for drug legislation were interviewed. Goals were to elicit legislator conceptions of the effects and aims of drug legislation on behavior, to assess their views of public opinion on drug problems and their own reactions to controversial proposals for new laws, and to determine opinions of behavioral science and scientists as information sources for new legislation. Expressed views were related to party affiliation, liberalism-conservatism, and philosophical position. Half of the legislators said the behavioral sciences had too little information to give; one fifth rejected such research as useless or undesirable. The majority were critical of behavioral scientists, including psychiatrists, and gave little credence to their opinions. Interview rating of positions on drug issues correlated .91 with voting records on other issues rated as liberal or conservative. All liberals were Democrats; most conservatives were Republicans. Philosophical positions, rated as moral absolutism versus pragmatism, were related to political stance; but philosophy was a better predictor of acceptance or rejection of behavioral science than was political stance.