Alexander Grelier
4/9/19
Drug Treatment vs. Punishment
 |
| National Institute on Drug Abuse |
 |
| Transforming the System: Americans Support Prevention, Rehabilitation and Reintegration |
 |
| The Hamilton Project |
Since the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914, the United States drug policy has mostly come down on punishment for drug related crimes rather than treatment. In recent years, the debate on drug treatment versus punishment has been very prevalent in the US, because of the growing number of arrests related to drugs and alcohol. For example, In Somerset County, Pennsylvania, 76% of cases have been drug related. These types of scenarios have caused great stress financially for the country and for law enforcement that have had to be educated on how each and every substance affects inmates. In many cases, white people seem to be treated for drug possession and use, while African-Americans and Hispanics are punished. With this being said, I do think the EJI is doing great with spreading awareness for this kind of racism, but just looking at the surface of that would be completely overlooking the idea of classism, the discrimination of lower classes, no matter the race. The only reason why someone should be going to prison in this day and age for drug use is if they are causing corruption or danger for others. Although treatment might cost more up front, if we want to slow down substance use, all races and classes should be treated because it would lead to productivity gain and financial gain over the decades.
The first problem that comes with the US drug policy punishing users rather than treating them is the financial stress that the country is put through. In 2007, the cost to society of drug abuse was $193 Billion, with $113B associated with crime and criminal justice, and $4.6B with treatment and hospitalizations. According to drugabuse.org, treatment is cost efficient in reducing drug use and reducing costs of lost productivity in many diverse populations. A study shows that providing methadone to opioid-addicted inmates before they are released reduces drug use and avoids having repeat offenders, which takes away imprisonment cost. In 2008, the cost of treatment for substance users was $4,700, while the cost of incarceration came in at about $24,000. On top of these costs, prosecution of drug addicts doesn’t give them the tools necessary for sobriety, which leads to a long cycle of repeat offending that only treatment can break. Many people agree with Professor Alfred Lindesmith, who says that punishing drug users is “useless and expensive,” cruel to addicts, and should be in the hands of medical professionals, not law enforcement.
Throughout cases of drug possession, there is a clear trend that lower class citizens are punished rather than treated. While this is often a race issue, pointed out by organizations such as EJI, it is more an issue of classism, where lower classes are punished rather than treated no matter their race. According to prisonpolicy.org, convicted drunk drivers are predominantly middle class white males, and typically get misdemeanors involving community service and fines. But people convicted of drug possession are often people of low income and are generally charged with felonies and are frequently incarcerated. This is due to the fact that drug treatment is available for middle class users, but there isn’t availability for low-income users. Rebecca Tiger, a sociologist at Middlebury College, a former health and drug policy analyst, and author of Judging Addicts: Drug Courts and Coercion in the Justice System, points out the same trend. In her article on contexts.org, she critiques major magazines and newspapers such as New York Times for being hypocritical themselves, displaying middle class white drug users as victims, but lower class white users as perpetrators. She says that one New York Times article shows a well-dressed family looking at a picture of an attractive and smiling white teenager that died to heroin to show the potential of the child extinguished by an overdose. Yet, she says, the same media will show a white woman from a “blue-collar” town in Vermont, that has just lost her son to heroin conviction, with dark circles under her eyes, smoking a cigarette in front of a run-down house. She says that this story shows that it's not just African-Americans and Hispanics being punished for drug possession, but poor white drug users are punished also. She goes on to say they are “caught at the intersection of criminal justice, drug treatment, and child protection systems.”
I personally think that all drug users if not posing a threat to others safety, should be treated rather than punished. The Obama Administration put focus on “treating addiction as a public health issue” and the Trump Administration is looking to reverse that. It seems to be clear that treatment is more cost effective than punishment, so why is the Trump Administration leaning towards punishment? According to an article posted by ireta.org, a main reason that punishment is favored over treatment in US drug policy is that it's hard for officials to know what “good” treatment is. Effective treatment is not understood, because there is no simple way to do it, and if there was, treatment would probably be favored. People are often afraid to try something if they don’t know exactly what the result will be, and we know what the result of punishment is, so there is not a great chance we will be seeing a major change in the US drug policy in the near future.
Comments
Post a Comment