TREATMENT VS. INCARCERATION

Drug Crimes

Sgt. Scott Ryon of the Washington County Sheriff's Office was as off
the mark about drug crime as most drug warriors are (Letters, April
20).

He claimed it was not a victimless crime, citing victims of car
theft, mail theft, forgery and identity theft.

Such crimes would disappear if drugs ceased to exist. It is equally
clear that they would cease if there were no laws prohibiting drug
use, since alcohol and tobacco addicts do not commit such crimes to
support their habits; nor do they need to engage in commerce with the
criminal world to get their drugs.

The real question is, what is more likely: making yearning for drugs,
and the drugs themselves, disappear; or making laws against them
disappear?

Our forebears got it right with the end of alcohol Prohibition. They
immediately experienced a huge drop in crime as a result. Why can't
we be as smart?

Paul Bonneau Beaverton

Incentives must be firm, fair As a professional drug treatment
counselor, I have some observations pertinent to the editorial,
"Treatment, not incarceration" (April 14).

Chemical addiction is a progressive and fatal disease. Left
untreated, the outcome is death.

There is no cure for addiction. The best we have is a system of
management of the disease involving transformation of the patient's
attitudes, beliefs, feelings, relationships, choices and behaviors.

For treatment to succeed, it is necessary for the addict to willingly
and actively participate in the treatment process. Forcing an
unwilling addict into treatment will not yield the desired results.

Addicts do not seek treatment voluntarily. They go because they have
bumped up against significant consequences of their drug-using
behavior. Without legal consequences, far fewer addicts would seek
help. Firm and fair legal consequences thus work on behalf of
successful addiction treatment.

While more treatment options would benefit addicts and society, it is
important to acknowledge that excellent treatment programs are
available in prisons. These programs, however, still require active
and willing participants to be successful.

Roger Burt Southeast Portland

Laws set society's limits In reference to Tara Taylor's letter, "War
on drugs downright dopey" (April 18), the decriminalization and
regulation of drugs is by no means a "rational solution" to the drug
war. The idea that the law needs to be changed simply because some do
not care to follow it is ludicrous and invites more violence in
society.

Drug use leads to more violent behaviors. This may not be the case in
every situation, but it certainly is the case often enough to make it
ridiculous to decide who should and should not be able to use.

If we are going to allow anyone to do what he wishes simply because
he does not see the resulting harm to society, then what is the point
of even having laws?

Karen M. Cote Northeast Portland

Dependency a Disease

We rejoiced to read your editorial, "Treatment, not incarceration" (April 14).

Until relapse is understood and accepted as part of the disease of
addiction, just as it is of heart disease, diabetes and cancer,
chemical dependency treatment will continue to be stigmatized,
underfunded and underused by those in need at every level of society.

Of even greater concern, far too many people whose primary crime is
being poor and drug-addicted will be incarcerated.

Thousands of men and women in this and every community have overcome
addiction and maintain sobriety, a day at a time. We should celebrate
their achievement. Those still working to achieve freedom from drug
and alcohol addiction deserve our support, not our condemnation.

Sheila North executive director
DePaul Treatment Centers
Southwest Portland

War on drugs corrosive "In war, the first casualty is truth." Nowhere
is this more apparent than in the war on drugs.

Washington County Sheriff's Sgt. Scott Ryon (Letters, April 20)
attempts to justify this war by citing the "victims" of drug abuse:
drug-damaged fetuses, developmentally impaired children, abused
spouses, and date-rape and car-crash victims.

He fails to note that these harms are seen with far more frequency
and intensity in relation to alcohol abuse. Does Ryon propose that we
return to the bad old days of alcohol Prohibition?

The other harm that Ryon attributes to drug abuse -- various forms of
theft -- is directly caused by drug prohibition, not drug use itself.

The money funneled into criminal hands by drug prohibition, not the
drugs themselves, corrodes our democratic institutions, just as it
did during alcohol Prohibition.

LAWRENCE L. TAYLOR Northwest Portland

Heart holds the cure Because I was a drug addict for 14-plus years
who was sent to several drug programs, I think I have some insight
into the problem. I have been clean for more than 22 years.

The point of your editorial, "Treatment, not incarceration" (April
14), is that addicts who have committed no crime but possession
should not be incarcerated but "treated."

First of all, there is a class of drug addicts who are not interested
in treatment. They want to use drugs, and no amount of treatment is
going to help them. The best treatment for them is to lock them up
(hopefully in a facility without drugs) and hope that some semblance
of sanity will return.

Second, the editorial assumes that we have some kind of effective
drug treatment in this country. We do not, for the most part.

Using drugs, drinking, gambling and so on are not diseases. If we
really want to help addicts, maybe some of the faith-based
organizations can lead the way, showing the addicts how to repent for
their sins, which is the cure. If that happens, they will no longer
need drugs to soothe the pain of their guilty consciences.

TED WEGENER Grants Pass