IN CHEMICAL AVERSION THERAPY, EMETIC, TRANQUILIZING, AND PARALYTIC DRUGS ARE ADMINISTERED TO A SUBJECT TO INDUCE AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOR PATTERNS AND THE PHYSICAL DISCOMFORT CAUSED BY THE DRUG. THESE TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY ON ALCOHOLICS AND SEXUAL DEVIANTS, BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE WITH OFFENDERS HAVING MORE COMPLEX BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS. EXPERTS FEEL THAT AVERSION TREATMENT SHOULD BE USED AS A LAST RESORT ONLY AND THEN WITH THE INFORMED CONSENT OF THE SUBJECT. AVERSION THERAPY, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN USED EXTENSIVELY ON PRISONERS IN ATTEMPTS TO SUPPRESS HAZARDOUS BEHAVIOR. THE USE OF ANECTINE, A DRUG PRODUCING THE SENSATION OF DROWNING, IN A CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION WAS SEVERELY CRITICIZED AS BORDERING ON TORTURE. ALTHOUGH CONSENT MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE DRUG TREATMENT CAN BE ADMINISTERED, COERCIVE AND MANIPULATIVE MEASURES CAN BE APPLIED BY PRISON OFFICIALS TO MAKE THE SUBJECT CONSENT AGAINST HIS WILL. AVERSION THERAPY HAS BEEN ATTACKED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO MENTATION (THE RIGHT TO GENERATE THOUGHTS) AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND AS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BY THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. USING STANDARDS SET BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT--INHERENT CRUELTY AND UNUSUALNESS OF PUNISHMENT, ITS PROPORTION TO CRIME, AND EXCESSIVENESS IN TERMS OF PUNISHMENT, COURTS PRIMARILY MUST DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT AVERSION THERAPY IS USED AS A TREATMENT OR DISCIPLINE. A DISCIPLINARY USE WILL BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE PRECEDENTS PROHIBIT SUCH DRUG USE AS CRUEL, EXCESSIVE, AND DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE CRIME COMMITTED. FURTHERMORE, AVERSION THERAPY, BY ITS VERY NATURE, IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE STATE'S ROLE AS PARENS PATRIAE, AND IT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FOR ALL INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ON THE MORAL AND ETHICAL GROUNDS OF PRESERVING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. AN EXTENSIVE LIST OF REFERENCES IS PROVIDED. (MJM)