PREDECRIMINALIZATION AND POSTDECRIMINALIZATION DRUNKENNESS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT ARREST RATES WERE EXAMINED AND THE USE OF PROTECTIVE CUSTODY WAS REVIEWED. ADDITIONALLY, POLICE OFFICERS FROM 12 TOWNS WERE INTERVIEWED. A COMPARISON OF ARREST AND CUSTODY RATES INDICATED THAT IN 10 OF THE 12 TOWNS PROTECTIVE CUSTODY WAS USED AT A GREATER RATE THAN WERE DRUNKENNESS ARRESTS BEFORE THE CHANGE IN THE LAW; EXCEPTIONS WERE TOWNS THAT WERE PRIMARILY URBAN IN CHARACTER. EXCLUDING DATA FROM THESE TWO TOWNS, PROTECTIVE CUSTODY USE INCREASED 18.9 PERCENT OVER PREDECRIMINALIZATION DRUNKENNESS ARRESTS; OVERALL USE OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT CHARGES INCREASED 35.4 PERCENT. THUS, THERE WAS AN OVERALL INCREASE IN JAIL DETENTIONS FOR DRINKING-RELATED BEHAVIORS AFTER DECRIMINALIZATION. DESPITE THE INCREASED USE OF PROTECTIVE CUSTODY, POLICE REFERRALS TO DETOXIFICATION CENTERS ACCOUNTED FOR ONLY 18 PERCENT OF THE CENTERS' REFERRALS; RELATIONS BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THE CENTERS WERE OFTEN STRAINED, LARGELY BECAUSE CENTER STAFF MEMBERS FELT THE POLICE WERE REFERRING ONLY THE MORE BELLIGERENT, CHRONIC ALCOHOLICS FOR TREATMENT. GENERALLY, HARDCORE ALCOHOL ABUSERS WERE AMONG THOSE CLIENTS THE CENTERS WERE LEAST ABLE OR WILLING TO TREAT. THIS PATTERN OF ARRESTS AND REFERRALS IS UNDERSTANDABLE WHEN THE POLICE POINT OF VIEW IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. PRIOR TO DECRIMINALIZATION, THE PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS CHARGE HAD BEEN USED BECAUSE IT REPRESENTED THE LEAST SERIOUS CHARGE THAT COULD BE BROUGHT; IT WAS ALSO THE EASIEST ADMINISTRATIVELY. PROTECTIVE CUSTODY DETENTION WAS WIDELY USED FOR MUCH THE SAME REASONS -- IT INVOLVED NO CRIMINAL RECORD, COURT APPEARANCE, OR EXCESSIVE PAPERWORK. CONSEQUENTLY, IT WAS BEING USED IN CASES WHICH FORMERLY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED SOME TYPE OF INFORMAL DISPOSITION. AN INCREASE IN DISORDERLY CONDUCT ARRESTS WAS ATTRIBUTED TO A NEED TO DETER A VARIETY OF DRINKING-RELATED OFFENSES INCLUDING PUBLIC DISTURBANCES, DOMESTIC QUARRELS, AND DISTURBANCES CAUSED BY DRINKING TEENAGERS. FOR THESE TYPES OF OFFENSES IT WAS FELT THAT PROTECTIVE CUSTODY WOULD HAVE NO DETERRENT EFFECT; A DETOXIFICATION REFERRAL WAS DEEMED AN INAPPROPRIATE DISPOSITION. WHILE CHRONIC ALCOHOLICS CREATING A PUBLIC NUISANCE WERE MOST LIKELY TO BE REFERRED FOR DETOXIFICATION, THEIR ACCEPTANCE BY THE TREATMENT CENTERS WAS UNLIKELY. THROUGH DECRIMINALIZATION HAS SERVED USEFUL PURPOSES, THE OUTCOME WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENTION OF THE REFORM, THAT IS, THE PROVISION OF ACUTE TREATMENT SERVICES FOR ALCOHOLICS. THIS FAILURE SUGGESTS THAT DECRIMINALIZATION AND DETOXIFICATION ARE NOT COMPLEMENTARY AIMS. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (JAP)