Does it make more sense to put CHEMICALLY ADDICTED people in PRISON for POSSESSION or in REHAB?

Addiction is an illness. Narcotics abuse is an illness. Logically, the purchasing, possession and abuse of a drug by an addict is as much of a health concern as it is a legal one.

Narcotics abuse is undoubtedly a more emotionally complicated crime than other nonviolent offenses such as theft and vandalism, but early attempts to curb abuse lacked the necessary breadth to get addicts clean. Incarceration is not an effective method of freeing drug users from the substances on which they depend.

You cannot always beat a beast into submission, and the national "war on drugs," as it is currently framed, attempts to do just that. It aims to prevent drug abuse and crimes through the enforcement of strict, blanketed penalties for citizens who violate.

Although national policies on drug prohibition state the goal is to promote public health, more funding, both on a national and local level, is allocated toward criminal investigations and prosecution of drug users than toward education and rehabilitation.

The fruitless brute-force methods established at a federal level are also standard at the local level. The Los Angeles Police Department made 26,131 arrests for violent and property-related crimes in 2003, according to a statistical report released by the chief of police.

The same year, the LAPD made 27,486 narcotics arrests. In short, police officers arrested 1,300 more citizens for narcotics violations than for murders, rapes, thefts, aggravated assaults and larcenies combined.

Despite the widespread arrests for narcotics-defined crimes in 2003, the effects the arrests had on usage was negligible. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the number of adult users and abusers remained at a flat line.

Crime statistics show that harsh sentencing for nonviolent drug possession convictions is ineffective in deterring repeat offenses, but further analysis reveals that incarceration for those first offenses could increase the probably of a second offense. Relapse rates are more than 70 percent from all forms of criminal justice interventions and corrections-oriented approaches alone, according to the U.N. Office on Drug and Crime.

California took a step in the right direction in November of 2000 when it passed Proposition 36 - the initiative that allows people with first- and second-time drug possession convictions to receive drug treatment instead of incarceration - but implementation and funding issues have prevented the proposition from being wholly successful.

Officials at the district attorney's office told the L.A. Weekly that they had expected the primary patients enrolling in the rehabilitation programs to be recreational users - not full-blown addicts. The money allocated to fund rehabilitation programs and medical treatment is insufficient for the more typical, heavily addicted individuals who frequently require longer, more expensive treatments in residential facilities instead of 12-step outpatient program.

Recent state and county cutbacks have been devastating to already strained programs made possible by Prop. 36. To further complicate matters, the sheer size of the county coupled with the lack of money makes proper regulation of the program near impossible to assess.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, effective drug treatment programs combine the necessary medical aid and social services required to get the addicted individual back on track. Prop. 36 has made headway in providing Californians in need with a chance at restored chemical freedom, but without additional well-funded social welfare programs such as job placement services, access to medical and mental health treatment facilities, and counseling services, the success of the legislation is extremely limited.

A more compassionate solution to the drug problem is not only more humane, it's more cost effective. Every dollar spent on drug and alcohol abuse treatment saves the public $7, according study findings released by the state in 1994.

To successfully combat drug abuse and drug-related crime in California, the state needs to ensure that allocating funding for rehabilitation programs is a priority.

In addition to the court-mandated programs created by Prop. 36, the city needs to make comprehensive voluntary rehabilitation programs accessible to drug addicts who want to change before they're picked up by the police. The earlier people are given a hand to make the change, the sooner they will.

It's easy to demonize drug addicts and dismiss jail sentences that still too frequently follow possession convictions, but blame doesn't create change.

An addict with hopeless prospects has a hard time finding motivation to get clean, but if the society around that addict is willing to offer guidance, support and the promise of brighter future for the willing, the incentive to get sober suddenly becomes tangible .

Compassion must become a fundamental element in the rehabilitation system, and compassion starts with understanding. Prop. 36 was a great start, but there's still a long road ahead.

This isn't a question, it's a diatribe. Rehab only works if the person wants to go.

There's a big difference between using drugs and pushing drugs. Prison should be for the latter.

Prison. If you're addicted, you would've took it already.

prison is suppossed to be rehabilitatin...somehow i dont think that applies anymore!

Some addicts won't do what it takes to get through rehab. They need to go to jail.

Addiction isn't a one size fits all problem.

Start a blog. This site is for people who want answers, not for Know it alls who have no real life experience.

Prison should be reserved for bigger crimes. Not using but trafficing or sales. People who use will eventually get tired of messing up things for themselvs and quit on their own or end up going to an early grave.

Your mind already sounds made up on this matter. My point would be that it is against the law. It is a persons choice if they will use illegal drugs or not. Being an addict affects more than just the user and is one of the most destructive things I can think of. My own mind is made up on this matter. I am not trying to insult you in any way but I would suggest you shorten your question, few will read the entire thing, fewer will answer it. I hope this helps.

Hahahahah ahaha ha haah ahah ah.
You wrote a novel trying to answer your own question.


You think anyone read that?

Who's gonna pay for all this "rehab?"
Law abiding, drug free citizens? Not this one.

If they aren't smart enough to get off drugs after being imprisoned. They ain't gonna do it through rehab.

Do you have a clue that treatment through compassion removes the deterrent of punishment from the equation? If all you're gonna get is treatment for drug crimes, there will be exponentially more people on drugs, therefore offsetting your logic of savings.

Look at it through the reality goggles, not the rose colored ones.

If addicts aren't committing any crimes to support their addiction, or otherwise hurting anyone (other than themselves), then why not just leave them alone? I'm not entirely convinced of why drug possesion without intent to distrubute should be considered a crime. Don't get me wrong; I've never done any drugs myself, nor have I ever even been interested in that sort of thing. But I understand that some people have a problem with addiction and they just can't stop. I don't believe that these people should be punished for something that is legitimately out of their control if they aren't hurting anyone else.

BTW, your question is way too long.

in prison they can find drugs if the absolutely NEED them (like up someone's @$$), and they just end up meeting a lot of people that sell/do drugs so they are immersed in the drug culture and always talk about it and think about it in a positive way.
but in rehab people relapse i would say like around 40% of the time or something.
I really don't know what's better. I think the best way would be to send them to a tribe in the middle of nowhere in africa for a couple years, and then bring them back to america and stick them in the suburbs and give them a good job so that they've lost all ties to ghetto-ness and drug dealers in sh*tty towns, and they actually have a future with the good job and all. But obviously that isn't realistic.........

have you been listening to Queensryche empire they quote the same statistics
LEAGLIZE MARAJUANA
throw the rest in prison

I am less concerned with rehabilitating addicts that have proved to be dangerous than I am with separating them from the general population.

However, I also believe that the War on Drugs is a huge waste of money.

Uh...how about the freedom of choice of these people when they first tried the drug...everyone knows drugs are addicting, but according to your plan we never should hold people accountable for making bad decisions.

Only if they refuse to go to rehab or if they repeatedly fail to stay clean. But rehab is expensive and has a high relapse rate.

I'd rather people stay out of prison and jail, working and paying taxes and getting treatment. Perhaps house arrest with mandatory rehab and fines.

There can be many different views on this. Yes you need to have the mindframe that you want off of the drugs and are willing to try to make rehab work. The problem with rehab can be how much money it costs. I used to go to a methadone clinic and that was 80.00 a week plus 20.00 in gas. I know they can get that money for drugs everyweek, but it usually isn't 80.00 in one day. Then certain rehabs request a paycheck stub so they know you're getting the money legally. For those that don't want help and refuse it, then prison maybe at first. But for those who want help and couldn't get it, then I think rehab.

All in all, I think rehab over prison.

prison for possesion but rehab if addicted