JAILING ALL THE DRUG ABUSERS IN OUR VILLAGES ISN'T SAVING THEM

High Cost Of Imprisonment Is Money That Could Be Better Spent On Treatment

On the television screen the U.S. military spokesman pointed at a burning
village and spoke the immortal words: "We had to destroy this village in
order to save it." This image from the '60s flashed through my mind several
times recently.

I've been in discussions with elected officials and with community members,
talking about the war on drugs. In meetings, we agree on the horrible
impact of drug abuse. There is never disagreement on how much it has
damaged the health and livability of Pierce County.

But what to do about it brings furious disagreement. Traditionally we have
adopted the Prohibition model for dealing with drugs. If you'll remember,
Prohibition was the constitutional amendment that declared the making and
selling of alcohol to the public illegal. We criminalized those activities.

Did Prohibition work? No one is sure. And Congress repealed the
constitutional amendment so that, within certain limits, using alcohol
products is now legal.

We next tried prohibiting other drugs, to achieve safer, healthier
communities. To do this, we added police officers, jail beds and other
programs to penalize the abusers. Are we accomplishing what we set out to
do? I think not. If anyone says we are clearly winning the war on drugs,
I'd say bull! There are little or no data to show that we improve our
communities when we arrest more drug abusers. There are a lot of data,
however, that show treating drug abuse as a disease works. Yet each year we
spend more and more of our limited tax dollars on the war on drugs. Each
year we commit resources that could be used for better roads, more parks,
and ... drug treatment. What gives?

Here's the real question: Why do we keep wasting money? A successful
business tries something out and looks at results. It's about the bottom
line. When you aren't getting what you want, you make changes. You don't
keep doing the same old thing.

With our war on drugs we fill up our jails - at county, state and federal
levels. We hire more deputies, more jailers, more prosecutors, more public
defenders, more judges, more probation officers. Does all this money result
in fewer drugs on our streets, less crime related to drug use? Have you
noticed a change? I haven't.

On the other hand, we know that treatment works: Individuals regain their
health, stop using cocaine, heroin, alcohol and other drugs, get back to
work, obtain homes for themselves and their families, and stop committing
crimes to support their habits.

I recently saw statistics that showed that, for drug abuse, law enforcement
costs15 times as much as treatment to reach the same result. In 1992, the
U.S. government spent 93 percent of its drug- control budget on cops and
courts and only 7 percent on drug treatment.

Ten years later, in Pierce County, we will spend 80 percent of our local
county tax dollars on the jail and criminal justice programs and zero
percent on treatment. We're going the wrong way. It feels to me like we're
burning the village to save it.

There is a taxpayer revolt going on throughout our state and in many other
parts of the country. People are saying enough is enough, no more new
taxes. People are criticizing governmental decisions at every turn. Even I
mistrust people who solve problems by just spending more money, and I'm in
government.

They also say: "If drugs are still a problem, fix it with more money for
the same old programs." You won't hear that roll off my lips. Instead,
you'll hear this: I want to see a change. Treat the disease of drug abuse.
Prevent kids from using drugs. Don't assume jail will fix the problem.

Voters in other parts of the country have taken on this issue with a
vengeance. They say it's all about health. It's not a justice problem. It's
not a matter of putting more money into the same failed approaches but to
say, up front, that drug abuse is primarily a health problem.

Why is it the good people of Arizona get it and we don't? They have passed
statewide initiatives that said clearly that if you abuse drugs you need
treatment. Several hundred million dollars was made available to pay for
treatment on demand as an alternative to going to jail.

On television once again a speaker stood in a community and spoke not-
to-be-forgotten words: "The Drug Control Act of 1996 (which focused on
treatment) has resulted in safer communities and more substance abus(ers)
in recovery."

This time, the spokesperson was in Arizona, where more than 75 percent of
the people treated remained drug-free. This time, the war on drugs focused
on treatment, not sending people to jail.

Voters are sending clear messages to elected officials: "Look outside the
box. Try a different approach. Same old, same old doesn't cut it. Come up
with a better way."

The "destroying the village to save it" statement came to represent the
failed U.S. policies in Vietnam. We do not want our efforts around drug
abuse in Pierce County to be remembered the same way. We can address drug
abuse and we can build a healthier community, but it won't happen with
military models. Instead of needless and ineffective efforts, the future
spokesperson could be standing in front of a community celebration where we
could declare we have a safe and healthy community because we treat drug
abuse as a disease.

We should step away from a tradition that doesn't work into a future that
funds the right things for the right reasons.