The current policy for countering endemic drug abuse in America emphasizes mandatory and lengthy imprisonment for drug dealers and users. The rationale for such a policy involves incapacitation and deterrence. Incapacitation means that those in prison cannot inflict their negative behavior on society or themselves. Incapacitation of drug users and offenders is expensive and does little to diminish drug trafficking and abuse. This is because of the large number of people involved and the continuing entry of new users and dealers into the market. There is little evidence that the threat of imprisonment has significantly deterred drug use and dealing. Some argue that legalization would be a more cost-effective drug policy. At one end of the legalization spectrum are those who favor the complete deregulation of the production, sale, and use of all drugs. This argument is based more on political philosophy than cost-effectiveness analysis. They argue that citizens should be free to ingest whatever substances they choose. This "free-market" legalization of drugs would increase the availability and lower the cost of drugs. The social and behavioral costs of drug use would surely increase. A more rational approach is that followed by some European countries. They outlaw drug trafficking and dealing but do not criminalize drug use. For drug users, public policy focuses on drug education and treatment. Such a policy would limit the availability of drugs while recognizing that drug use is essentially a public health problem rather than criminal behavior.