SET DOWNEY FREE TO SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS

Award-winning actor Robert Downey Jr. is in trouble again, having been
arrested Tuesday in Culver City on drug offenses. This arrest comes less
than a week before Downey's scheduled court hearing from his arrest last
November in Palm Springs on charges of possessing small amounts of cocaine
and diazepam and for being under their influence.

"Rehab Not Jail" is the motto of a nationwide movement that has adopted
Downey as its de facto poster-boy. It favors court-ordered rehabilitation
instead of prison for nonviolent drug users.

California's Proposition 36, which implements this viewpoint and which may
allow Downey himself to avoid prison, is counted among the movement's
successes. It is, however, no solution.

Morally, it fails to respect the rights of nonviolent drug users.
Practically, it is a disaster because of the false premise underlying most
state-certified rehab programs.

The pro-rehab movement correctly argues that it is wrong to imprison
nonviolent drug users like Downey: They have violated no one's rights. Only
people who commit real crimes--burglary, manslaughter, rape, etc.--deserve
criminal punishment of any kind, let alone multiyear incarceration.

But the movement contradicts itself. According to the principle of
individual rights, government may not interfere with one's pursuit of his
own happiness, whether his choice is right or wrong, so long as he does not
infringe on the rights of others. For the same reason that it is unjust to
imprison Downey, it is unjust to force him--or any nonviolent drug user--to
attend a state-approved rehab program.

Mandatory rehab is not only immoral, it is also impractical. Rehab programs
don't work. Studies show that, on average, drug users fare no better with
rehab than without it; either way, nearly half of those who try to quit
relapse. Most certified rehab providers advocate the disease model of
addiction. They believe that drug users are, for physiological reasons,
incapable of controlling their drug use.

Despite any genetic predispositions or drug-induced physical cravings, the
fact remains that human beings have free will. Addiction, therefore, is a
choice. A drug user can resist the pull of his old habit, even if this
takes a great struggle. The best evidence that people can choose to quit
using drugs is that they do so, time and again, both with and without
treatment.

Some formerly heavy drug users even can choose to become social drug users,
and use drugs in only moderate quantities. Disease-model advocates say that
such users were not truly addicted. But without a physiological test that
can distinguish true addicts from drug users who quit, this assertion
merely begs the question.

Ironically, even rehab programs based on the disease model focus on
changing the user's way of thinking. Religious, 12-step-style programs tell
users that they have no control and therefore must learn to rely on a
higher power; secular programs tell users they must rely on other people,
usually other users. And yet, if drugs were physiologically irresistible,
such an approach would be pointless.

Rehabilitation, like any psychological treatment, must be undertaken
voluntarily if it is to work. Court-ordered rehabilitation, therefore, is a
contradiction in terms. Moreover, even if a convicted user wants rehab, the
court will probably send him to a state-certified, disease-model program.
This can only hinder his recovery.

Downey, for example, whose father gave him drugs when he was 6, is trying
to give up something that has been part of his life for 30 years. How can
he summon the willpower necessary to do this while being told that drug use
is something over which he has no control. Said one ex-user: "The 12-steps
wanted me to believe in a higher power and admit that I was powerless over
alcohol and drugs. But I knew that I wasn't. I wanted to learn how to fight
my addiction, not give in and pray to a god I didn't believe in to relieve
my suffering."

With respect to Downey, the only moral outcome would be dismissal of his
case. The sense of efficacy and happiness that Downey must get from his
superlative acting work will not guarantee that he will resolve his
problems; that is up to him. But to deprive him of efficacy and happiness
he gets from acting when he faces such a difficult struggle would be criminal.