Rate This
Similar Articles...
Latest Videos
Tags of Interest...
$1 of tax money put towards treatment saves $7 in societal costs. Why are we building ever larger prisons?
When governmentally funded organizations release cost benefit statistics that indicate a single dollar spent on drug treatment saves seven in societal costs, why do we not see a marked increase in public money funding access to drug and alcohol treatment facilities?
A study by the national institute of drug abuse has determined that every $1 dollar in policy money directed towards drug treatment programs has a direct societal savings of $7, and other conservative groups have estimated that the magnitude of savings can swing as far as 12 to 1.
How'd They Get That Figure?
This figure was determined by comparing the long term costs of abuse and the relative costs imposed upon society by those who receive drug treatment, when compared with those that don't. The figure was determined after evaluating the costs of crime, police enforcement and incarceration, as well as reduced work productivity, and increased health care needs.
- When an investment into access to drug treatment yields a 700% societal return, why are policy makers and governments not rushing to the aid of those suffering addictions, and building ever more treatment facilities as opposed to ever larger prison facilities?
- And when statistics show that the initial motivation towards entering a treatment program has little overall impact over the eventual success rate and sobriety achieved, why are we not sentencing drug offenders to long rehabs rather than to long incarcerations?
The answer I think is largely political, and those that wish to become governing officials realize that it's a lot easier to sell tough prison sentences on drug offenses, than try to persuade the public to lend their tax dollars to the badly perceived "addict".
It costs almost $20 000 a year to keep a drug offender in prison, and with the average sentence for a drug offense in a federal prison topping 70 months - Why not use a fraction of that money ordering a court mandated long term period in rehab, that greatly reduces the likelihood of further addiction, and as such greatly reduces the likelihood of a further need for re incarceration?
Attitudes surrounding addiction as a public health issue have been growing in acceptance over the past years, but obviously a lot of work still needs to be done to change the attitudes of voters too easily swayed towards a knee jerk reaction of imprisonment over treatment. The voting public needs to realize that addiction does not mean weakness or immorality, that the face of addiction is the face of America and that all of us are equally at risk to the seductions of substance abuse.
It's in our nature to use and abuse mind altering substances, and rather than fight human nature with inefficient prison terms, we should be educating and healing those of us that fall prey to the devastations of addiction. No one feels sorry for the junky sent to jail for their crimes, but no one would want to see their mom, sister or uncle serve time for what is clearly a mental health issue.
We all need to treat each other as we would want our immediate family to be treated, and there is no great difference between a heroin addict on the corner, and a soccer mom battling an addiction to pain pills. Both have lost control, and both suffer from the physical and mental costs of their respective addictions.
Let's stop rewarding politicians and elected law enforcement who strive for victory with yet more promises of ever harsher enforcement.
- On one level, it just makes good economic sense. Spending a dollar to save 7 seems like a pretty solid bet, and when the recommendations towards more spending are coming from governmentally funded drug policy organizations, it makes you wonder why the obvious economic benefits are being ignored.
- On another and more compassionate level, we need to start treating addiction as the mental health problem that it is. How can we classify addiction medically as an uncontrollable compulsion, as on the other hand also imprison people for what is accepted as uncontrollable?
We need to care for the sick in our society, and since addiction can touch anyone, you never know when someone you love will face a battle with addiction, and hopefully they'll get the help they need, rather than the incarceration they don't.
Comments
prisons and law enforcement
A family member just recently was sentenced for drug charges. This was a wonderful young man who made a bad choice at a weak moment became addicted and then sold for those drugs. No prior criminal history, no weapons, no violence--but got 15 years. I have always believed in our legal system, but was shocked to see how it really works. Although most of our law enforcement people are great people who devote their lives to their jobs; there are also those that love the publicity of a big drug bust. For them this is just a way to further their careers with no thought of the person whose life is being ruined. Addiction can be treated and cured. It is not always successful, but for first offense why don't we try that instead of prison in which a non-violent person has a very great chance of becoming a violent criminal. Prison is not solving this problem. Most of us have no use for those that use drugs, until it becomes someone we know. The fact is good people do sometimes get hooked on drugs at a weak moment.
Also, I always thought your lawyer heard your side if he was suppose to be defending you--found out no that is not always the way it works either. They can put a person in jail where he cannot discuss the case with family members. All mail, telephone calls, and visits are monitored. His side is never heard by anyone. They will threatened to use the school zone if you go to trial which for those that don't know, this is not always a school--it can even be a church in some instances. I understand this covers most of the city and can be used most of the time if the DA desides to use it. This will double your time--so you will take the plea. If you have the money a good lawyer can do a lot--but the guy that can't afford this has just had it. I have done a complete reversal in my opinion of drugs and the law this last year.
Post new comment