THE CRITIQUED ARTICLE REVIEWS LITERATURE ON ADDICTS AND CRIME, ADDICT TREATMENT, ADDICT CONTROL, AND POLICE AND POLICY INTERVENTION. ALSO INCLUDED ARE NINE PROPOSALS DESIGNED TO CONTROL CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF HEROIN ADDICTS. THE ARTICLE'S BASIC PROPOSITION SEEMS TO BE A PHILOSOPHICAL DISAGREEMENT WITH CRIMINAL STATUTES DEFINING CRIMINAL DRUG USE AS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO NONDRUG CRIME. AGREEMENT IS EXPRESSED WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE BUSINESS OF CRIMINAL LAW IS CRIME. THE LATTER PART OF THE ASSUMPTION, THAT THE ONLY DRUG-RELATED ACTIONS MERITING CRIMINAL SANCTION ARE THOSE DEMONSTRABLY LINKED TO NONDRUG CRIME, IS NOT SUPPORTED. THE CRITIQUE INDICATES THAT THE ARTICLE'S DISCUSSION OF HEROIN ADDICTS AMD CRIME IS INCONSISTENT AND CONFUSING; THERE IS NO PROOF THAT HEROIN CAUSES CRIME, AND NO CRITERIA ARE SPECIFIED FOR DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF CAUSALITY. THE ARTICLE NOTES THAT THE BEST TREATMENT FOR HEROIN ADDICTS IN METHADONE, ALTHOUGH SELF-TREATMENT MAY BE AN IMPORTANT MODALITY. A MAJOR ELEMENT IN CONTROLLING ADDICT INVOLVEMENT IN NONDRUG CRIME MAY ALSO LIE IN THE PROHIBITION OF DAILY USE THROUGH SPECIALIZED CASELOADS FOR PAROLE AND PROBATION OFFICERS, DAILY OR WEEKLY CONTACTS WITH ADDICTS, FREQUENT URINE TESTING, AND PAROLE REVOCATION AND REINCARCERATION IF DAILY USE PERSISTS. AGREEMENT IS EXPRESSED WITH THE STATEMENT IN THE ARTICLE THAT NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT IS DIFFICULT. SOME PROPOSALS TO CONTROL CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF HEROIN ADDICTS ARE SUPPORTED, BUT THE TOTAL ABOLITION OF NARCOTICS INVESTIGATING UNITS AT STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS IS QUESTIONED. REFERENCES ARE CITED. (DEP)