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

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

[TKDietz]

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

I wasn't talking about misdemeanors, only felonies. Only people with felony charges get into our drug court. Most of them had meth charges. A couple were just in for second offense possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. Some were charged with things like possession of paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine or possession with intent to deliver. Others were charged with non-drug felonies like breaking or entering, theft, forgery, and that sort of thing that arose out of their drug habits.

And yes, simple users are sometimes sent to prison. Normally they aren't if it they have clean records, but sometimes that does happen. (Not for simple possession of marijuana though unless it was there second or subsequent offense)

As for the statistic I quoted, that was not specific to drugs. Nationwide, around 70% of all persons sent to prison are rearrested on new felony charges within three years of their release. These people may or may not have gone to prison on felony drug charges and they may or may not be arrested later on felony drug charges. From what I can see locally though, an awful lot of them are doing drugs though, especially methamphetamine.

[TKDietz]

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

Actually most who go to treatment for any reason will use again. It takes a long time for hardcore drug addicts to get off of drugs. Just as it is for alcoholics, most try several times before they are successful and some never succeed.

Sending people to a thirty day rehab and then just letting them go without closely monitoring them will never work. Make them do after care and drug test them constantly with punishments for every time they relapse and the success rate will be a lot better.

[TKDietz]

So as to avoid confusion you should know that possession of any illicit drug except marijuana and a couple of the milder prescription drugs is a felony in my state, as is possession of drug paraphernalia used for the felony drugs. I know that in some states possession of even a drug like crack cocaine can be a misdemeanor. That's not the way it is in my state. Even simple possession of marijuana is a felony if the person has ever been convicted of simple possession of any drug in the past.

[philetus]

It takes a long time for hardcore drug addicts to get off of drugs.

No, it doesn't.
All it takes is a conscience decission to NOT use.

I went through many drug and alcohol programs, over many years, for many reaons, but not because I wanted to stop using.
ANY addict can quit, any time he/she wants.
After all, when they have a drink or drug in front of them, don't they make a conscience decission to pick it up?
Or do you believe that the drug twists their arms?

[hosepipe]

[ 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. ]

People that ask questions and answer them themselves are afraid of the answer that they know is true.. instead of the answer they gave.. What answer is the accurate one ?... you know it already..

[Know your rights]

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

People that ask questions and answer them themselves are afraid of the answer that they know is true.. instead of the answer they gave..

Not only is pnome's answer true, but the stoner is less of a threat to society than the drinker, since alcohol and not pot induces violent behavior.

[Know your rights]

Drug offenders steered into treatment programs instead of jail under provisions set by Proposition 36 in 2000 were more likely to be rearrested for drug-related crimes than defendants who went through non-Prop. 36 treatments

Duh. Treatment has no effect on non-addicts, and many "drug offenders" are not addicted. I have an effective program: if they haven't violated anyone's rights, leave them alone.

[Know your rights]

If they broke the law, they should do the time.

I agree; but is the law they broke a good law or a bad law? I say the latter.

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.

Ditto for alcohol users ... but I don't think that's a good argument for banning alcohol. Do you?

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

Health care costs go up because of drinking and unhealthy eating, but I don't think that's a good argument for banning alcohol or giving government control of adults' food choices. Do you?

[Ken H]

" At a press conference (June 17, 1971) Nixon names drug abuse as "public enemy number one in the United States."

Here we are over a generation later and we hear this from Hazelden:

The Hazelden Foundation invites you to join a growing number of people who are dedicating their time, energy and passion to improve public understanding of America's number one health problem: addiction to alcohol and other drugs.

The DEA was started up under Nixon in 1973.

Followed by steadily rising rates of drug use, correct?

Carter considered decriminalizing at the national level -- drug use rose.

Drug use peaked midway through Carter's term in 1979, after steadily rising through most of the 70's. It fell for the last two years of his term.

It continued declining steadily until 1989, when the WOD was elevated to a cabinet level position. It stopped its decline at the time Dr. William J. Bennett took over as drug czar.

Reagan started the "Just Say No" campaign. Drug use fell.

It had already begun its decline 2 or 3 years prior, yes?

[robertpaulsen]

"It had already begun its decline 2 or 3 years prior, yes?"

Yes, it began to decline around 1979, right after the program for drug asset forfeiture started.

[robertpaulsen]

"but I don't think that's a good argument for banning alcohol or giving government control of adults' food choices. Do you?"

No. But I think it is an excellent reason for getting rid of health care entitlements, which was his point. Which you missed.

[robertpaulsen]

"Not only is pnome's answer true,"

It's not true. If people are smoking pot in their home, how is it that we're arresting 750,000 of them each year? Huh?

[robertpaulsen]

I have a better program. If they break the law, throw their doper a$$ in jail.

If they don't like the law, take steps to change it.

[Ken H]

Yes, it began to decline around 1979, right after the program for drug asset forfeiture started.

Are you saying that asset forfeiture caused the decline in demand? Wouldn't asset seizure have more to do with supply side?

The supply side of the WOD has been an abject failure, wouldn't you say?

[robertpaulsen]

"Are you saying that asset forfeiture caused the decline in demand?"

Are you saying that the DEA or Nixon caused steadily rising rates of drug use?

Are you saying that Carter had something to do with drug use falling for the last two years of his term?

Are you saying that drug use stopped its decline because Dr. William J. Bennett took over as drug czar?

[hosepipe]

[ Not only is pnome's answer true, but the stoner is less of a threat to society than the drinker, since alcohol and not pot induces violent behavior. ]

I have nothing against pot smoking..
Know many that do, and have even done it myself on occasion..
I didn't address whether what he said was true or not..

BUT you thinking I did.. don't speak well of your own rationality on the subject.. That seems to be "A" problem with many that are chronic stoner's.. No flame toward you personally.. or him/her.. I would like to see pot legalized.. But saying theres NO problems with it is silly in the extreme..

[Ken H]

Are you saying that the DEA or Nixon caused steadily rising rates of drug use? Are you saying that Carter had something to do with drug use falling for the last two years of his term? Are you saying that drug use stopped its decline because Dr. William J. Bennett took over as drug czar?

Silly questions. I'm not the one trying to show a causal relationship. I believe you are, though--

Carter considered decriminalizing at the national level -- drug use rose. Reagan started the "Just Say No" campaign. Drug use fell. - And this-- Yes, it [drug use] began to decline around 1979, right after the program for drug asset forfeiture started.

I'm saying there is no correlation between the WOD and drug use since 1989, when it was deemed to be such a big problem that it was given its own cabinet position.

I'm also saying there is a positive correlation between the WOD and increase in the supply. I'm not saying the WOD caused the increase in the drug supply, just that there is a strong correlation.

Do you disagree?

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm saying there is no correlation between the WOD and drug use since 1989"

What do you mean? Correlate what with what?

Marijuana use, for example, has been relatively flat, with a slight increase in the last two years. Now if supply has increased, prices have dropped, more states are decriminalizing, more states are passing medical marijuana, more states are making marijuana their "lowest arrest priority", yet marijuana use remains relatively flat, what do you mean there's no correlation?

Given all the above, I think marijuana use "staying flat" is a major victory!

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm also saying there is a positive correlation between the WOD and increase in the supply."

I thought supply was down, and I thought I had a chart (dollars spent per drug) that showed that. You got a link?

[Ken H]

I thought supply was down, and I thought I had a chart (dollars spent per drug) that showed that.

Do you agree that prices have dropped, purity has increased, and demand has been pretty much unchanged? If so, then that means an increase in supply, yes?

You got a link?

Not handy, but I thought that the increase in the drug supply was well known and accepted on all sides of the debate. I'll see what I can come up with.