Drug treatment grads more likely to reoffend (another great Liberal idea goes bad)

San francisco Chronicle ^ | nov 26, 2004 | Cicero A. Estrella

[television is just wrong]

Put all illicit drugs on prescription. Then wean these guys slowly.

[yankeedame]

No government program in the world can reform people against their will. Liberals ought to know that better than any one. Its a fact of human nature.

Ah, yes, but liberals & their ilk consider human nature inherently flawed, and therefore requiring correction of said nature. Hence the 20th century's bloody drenched road to the socialist paradise.

Under Lenin and his first Five Year program this notion first came to light. The people/workers of Russia were not responding to the changes as theoretically they should.

Puzzled by this it was thereupon decided that the fault lay not in the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, but in the people. Human nature was obviously flawed. Ergo, it was the people who must be changed for accommodate the theories, not the other way around.

[joesnuffy]

What are you gonna base secular drug programs on...where is the power to stay sober to change lives..?

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Do you really think that putting non-violent drug offenders in prison is going to help them?

No...it won't. But they are not, and should not be my problem. If they broke the law, they should do the time. And BTW non-violent is a relative, wishy washy term. A non-violent heroin user or pot smoker can cause violent consequences to themselves and others if behind a wheel of a car or in possesion of a firearm for example. A car or a firearm should not be operated under the influence of such drugs.

I smoke pot, should I go to prison? Am I that much of a threat to society when I smoke pot in my home? No more than you drinking a beer, or sipping your coffee.

Should you go to prison...yes...not due to any other fact that you're willingly breaking the law. Are you causing harm to yourself or others?...probably not...but the law is the law. What you do at home is none of my business...IMO. BUT you get into an accident on the road because you're high, or come to work high and cause harm to someone else because of it...than I got issues with that.

BTW...Equating alcohol/pot with coffee is intellectually dishonest. And I don't want to get into a tirade about legalizing drugs with you...the whole notion is useless from this small l libertarian unless you eliminate health care entitlements, government regulations on health care, have a society where people actually bare the full responsibility for their choices...all things which IMHO...are not going to happen anytime soon.

[pnome]

When I speed in my car I am also breaking the law, should I go to prison then?

Simply breaking a law does not mean I should go to prison. Smoking pot is only a misdemeanor where I live anyway, so thankfully I won't be going to prison anytime soon.

I agree my choice of drugs should not be your responsibility. I don't think anyone is arguing that here. What is central to this argument is which is better: prison or treatment for non-violent drug offenders.

Of course no one wants people under the influence of drugs of ANY kind driving cars or operating heavy machines. I guess coffee is assumed to be ok. I'm sure we don't have any numbers on auto accidents where caffeine was involved.

I would further argue that a treatment program would cost less than prison too. Are there any studies as to the efficacy of prison in treating drug abuse? I'd like to see what the reoffend numbers are like there.

[robertpaulsen]

"Should drug use be criminalized?"

Drug use is not illegal. Drug possession is.

"Or should we go for putting 20% of the population in prison?"

Those 20% are in prison because of drug dealing, not using.

[robertpaulsen]

"About 36 percent of drug offenders referred to treatment instead of prison under California's Proposition 36 aren't in treatment programs, according to preliminary figures released Tuesday by supporters of the 2000 initiative."
-- Associated Press, April 9, 2002

The program was screwed up from the beginning, and went downhill from there.

[TKDietz]

"The addict must want to be motivated to get clean and sober and stay clean and sober. No government program in the world can reform people against their will. Liberals ought to know that better than any one. Its a fact of human nature."

Don't be so quick to give up on the idea of rehabilitating these people. It always amuses me when I talk to people who will stand behind the old way of locking everyone up without trying to rehabilitate them despite the fact that we know that doesn't work yet they are the same people who want to give up the instant we hit speed bumps going the rehab route. I don't know anything about Prop 36, but I know treatment programs can work. They can be cheaper than the prison solution and more effective at reducing recidivism.

I agree that people have to want to quit. The trick is getting them to want to quit bad enough to actually do it. We've had a drug court program in our county for several years and it has been pretty successful. Nationwide about 70% of those sent to prison are rearrested on new felony charges within three years of their release. Our rearrest rates from participants in our drug court program have been much lower than that. Not all of these people are getting off of drugs but substantial numbers are.

One important thing you have to know about these people is that many if not most have been getting high so long they don't know how to live without drugs. On top of that, their brains get wired all screwy from their addictions and constant use of these drugs for so long, especially drugs like methamphetamine. They're going to screw up at first, and it's going to take a long time to get them thinking and living like normal people.

In our program, hardly any of the people go for inpatient treatment. This isn't by design, it's because of lack of budget. We save the few precious treatment slots we have for the worst case addicts. The rest get outpatient group therapy treatment where they work a treatment program workbook, and they also have to go to NA or AA meetings. But along with that, they are drug tested constantly, twice a week at first and a little lest as time goes on. Anyone who fails drug tests or fails to show for one goes to jail, starting with a two weekend stint and the jail sentences increase with each screw up. Missing meetings, showing up late, not doing homework and that sort of thing can result in jail but usually the probation officer or drug counselor think up other punishments like extra NA meetings, or they hold them back in the program so it takes longer for them to finish. Those who fail out of the program go to prison.

These people are forced to get and keep jobs. They have to pay a small monthly fee to help defer some of the costs of the program. They have to get reliable transportation and a place to stay where they will not be around drugs. They are encouraged to make new friends because their old "friends" are just going to get them in trouble. They are drug tested so frequently that it would be nearly impossible for someone to cheat their way through the program. Most of them screw up and spend some time in jail. Almost twenty percent fail out of the program. The rest spend at least 15 months in the program before they graduate. By the end of that time most will have started living like normal people. They'll have a foundation they can build on, and they'll have done without drugs long enough to where it won't be too hard for most of them to stay away from the drugs. For their hard work, their criminal records will be expunged.

This program saves us money. It's not just the prison costs that we save. We also save a lot on litigating these cases, which is quite expensive when you start adding up all of the hours prosecutors, state's witnesses (mostly law enforcement), public defenders, judges, court personnel, and jurors spend preparing for and trying these cases. And then of course there are the appeals. It's usually a heck of a lot easier getting a defendant to agree to drug court then to a prison term, which is where a lot of these people were heading.

Don't be so quick to give up on these types of programs. Some are going to work fairly well, others are going to fail miserably. As time goes on, we'll be better able to assess what works and what doesn't, and success rates should go up from there.

[iconoclast]

Welcome to FR "Mr. Conservative".

May at least one of your children become addicted.

Then swagger back on tell us what you think of treatment programs, if you can find one.

A-hole!

[Ken H]

And I don't want to get into a tirade about legalizing drugs with you...the whole notion is useless from this small l libertarian unless you eliminate health care entitlements, government regulations on health care, have a society where people actually bare the full responsibility for their choices...all things which IMHO...are not going to happen anytime soon.

The current WOD began in 1989 with the creation of a cabinet level drug czar. Since then overall drug use has been flat to slightly up according to government surveys. This was after falling steadily from midway through Carter's term in 1979 through 1989.

On the supply side, drugs are cheaper, purer, and readily available to anyone who wants them.

Is it fair to say the WOD has failed to curb both supply and demand?

[eno_]

Those 20% are in prison because of drug dealing, not using.

"Dealing" is defined by quantity, not actual evidence of dealing.

The Drug War makes "the meaning of 'is'" look simple.

[robertpaulsen]

"Am I that much of a threat to society when I smoke pot in my home?

Approximately 750,000 people are arrested each year on marijuana charges. Maybe you smoke pot at home -- they don't.

[robertpaulsen]

"Dealing" is defined by quantity, not actual evidence of dealing."

Allow me to rephrase that as, "'Dealing' is defined by quantity, not only actual evidence of dealing.

Yes, that's true. And how many "users" just happen to be arrested bringing home their one-pound "personal" stash?

Yeah, I know. All of them. "Yer honor, I know six pounds seems like a lot fer personal use, but I roll 'em real big!".

[robertpaulsen]

Assuming you were arrested and assigned to a drug treatment program -- would it do you, personally, any good? Are you addicted to marijuana? Do you need treatment?

Or are you saying that drug treatment is "good" because it keeps people out of jail? (ie., given a choice, who wouldn't take the treatment program?)

[philetus]

We're still saving some however, and that's no small thing.

"WE" are not saving anybody.

When they CHOOSE to quit using, they save themselves.

[robertpaulsen]

"Nationwide about 70% of those sent to prison are rearrested on new felony charges within three years of their release. Our rearrest rates from participants in our drug court program have been much lower than that."

Apples to oranges. You're comparing felonies with misdemeanors. You're not sending simple users to prison -- dealers, yeah.

[philetus]

"We can't predict who will re-offend."

Sure we can.

Most who go to treatment against their will, for any reason other than they want to quit using, will use again.

[hinckley buzzard]

"Half of those given a second chance turn their lives around."

Half of drug addicts quit on their own, without treatment, or jail. Both institutions have their champions, and their purposes, but statistically, neither one adds much to the WoD's per se.

[Raycpa]

False conclusion. Its more likely repeat offenders are sent for drug treatment than general population.

[robertpaulsen]

"The current WOD began in 1989 ..."

I disagree.

The War on Drugs started with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Furthermore, Nixon is credited with declaring a War on Drugs:

" At a press conference (June 17, 1971) Nixon names drug abuse as "public enemy number one in the United States." He announces the creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), to be headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe, a leading methadone treatment specialist."

The DEA was started up under Nixon in 1973.

Carter considered decriminalizing at the national level -- drug use rose. Reagan started the "Just Say No" campaign. Drug use fell.