IN 1975, THE POLICE RAIDED A MUNICIPAL DRUG COUNSELING CENTER IN THE WEST GERMAN CITY OF AACHEN AND CONFISCATED NUMEROUS CLIENT RECORDS. IN THE RESULTING COURT CASE, THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULED ON MAY 24, 1977, THAT THE CONFISCATION OF RECORDS IN AN OFFICIAL DRUG CENTER ON THE MERE SUSPICION OF ILLEGAL DRUG ACTIVITIES IS IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE COURT EMPHASIZED THE OBLIGATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION TO CONTROL ILLEGAL DRUG ACTIVITIES AND BY IMPLICATION, EXPOSED PRIVATELY OPERATED DRUG COUNSELING CENTERS TO ARBITRARY CONFISCATIONS. DESPITE ITS SUPPORT OF THE AACHEN DRUG CENTER, THE COURT CONTINUES TO GIVE PRIORITY TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS AND POLICE ACTION IN COMBATTING DRUG ABUSE AND FAILS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PREVENTION AND CURE OF DRUG ADDICTION IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN DEALING WITH GERMANY'S RAPIDLY GROWING DRUG PROBLEM. FOR INSTANCE, POLICE EFFORTS TO INTERRUPT THE FLOW OF HASHISH INTO GERMANY INDUCED MANY USERS TO SWITCH TO HARD DRUGS (WHICH WERE EASILY AVAILABLE) AND LED TO AN INCREASE IN DRUG-RELATED CRIMES LIKE ROBBERIES AND DRUGSTORE BURGLARIES. EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT CRIMINAL SANCTIONS DO NOT DETER DRUG ADDICTS, THAT A PRISON TERM DOES NOT MAKE DRUGS INACCESSIBLE, AND THAT A PRISON SENTENCE DOES NOT CURE DRUG ADDICTION. FURTHERMORE, THE RESULTING STIGMATIZATION MAKES THE ADDICT'S CURE AND SOCIAL REINTEGRATION DIFFICULT. IT IS ARGUED THAT, WITH REGARD TO PRIVATE USE OF DRUGS, THE PREVENTIVE AND REHABILITATIVE EFFORTS OF DRUG COUNSELING CENTERS SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR PRIORITY BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. --IN GERMAN.