MORE TREATMENT THE BETTER APPROACH TO WAR ON DRUGS

For years, Massachusetts, like the rest of the nation, has been looking at
the drug problem the wrong way, and as a result, we have been unable to
solve it.

The Commonwealth is in the midst of a serious and alarming public health
crisis: spiraling drug use worse than anything we have ever seen. The US
Department of Health and Human Services reported last month that this state
has the worst record in the nation for all age groups of abusing all major
and minor drugs. Most troubling, the study shows that Massachusetts ranks
first in the nation for drug use by young people between the ages of 12 and 25.

The implications for these young people and for all of us who care about
them are staggering.

Clearly, our current drug policy is not working. Even the federal drug
czar, retired general Barry McCaffrey, acknowledges that our state and
federal criminal justice system should focus more on treatment and less on
incarceration for nonviolent, drug-addicted offenders.

Question 8, the Fair Treatment Initiative, expands drug treatment programs
in the Commonwealth and uses drug money to pay for that drug treatment. It
is based on a simple reality: Treatment works, and present policy does not.
Question 8 is aimed at low-level, nonviolent first- and second-time drug
offenders who would benefit from court- ordered and court-supervised treatment.

Addiction and substance abuse are medical problems that require a medical
response. As with any medical condition, prevention is better than
treatment. If treatment is necessary, then the earlier it is provided, the
greater the chances of success.

Opponents have made much of the fact the Question 8 permits judges to order
a small class of people who sell drugs into treatment instead of prison. In
reality, this is an essential step to a drug policy that works. The harsh
reality - one that treatment professionals see every day - is that as an
addict's drug habit gets worse, he or she will sell drugs to support the
habit. When that happens, addicts begin moving from being social victims to
social threats. It is absolutely essential, therefore, that they be reached
at this early point in their addictive behavior.

This is where Question 8 draws the line for treatment, because this can be
the last chance for many addicts to get clean. It may also be society's
last chance to prevent the emergence of another hardened drug criminal.

Let me be clear on this point: Question 8 is aimed at drug users, not drug
dealers. A doctor cannot treat a patient for a condition that he or she
does not have. Similarly, no one can be treated for drug abuse if he or she
is not a user.

The beauty of Question 8 is that it gets to the core of the drug problem
without decriminalizing anything. Every drug crime that is currently
punishable by imprisonment remains on the books. Question 8 simply provides
court-ordered, court-supervised treatment as an alternative to
incarceration for users who possess no more than one ounce of cocaine,
heroin, ecstasy, or other narcotics.

In my professional experience, addicts can use that much in a day. Our
opponents, the district attorneys who claim that this measure isn't about
users, simply do not understand the medical dimensions of the addiction
problem.

Treatment is rated nationally as 14 times more effective than incarceration
in reducing the social costs of drug abuse. Locally, the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health reported in its annual report on drug treatment
in the Commonwealth:

Nine out of 10 substance abusers who underwent treatment in the state last
year remained arrest-free for at least a year. Employment rates after
treatment rose by an astonishing 400 percent. Emergency detox and hospital
admissions were reduced, and 9 out of 10 people in treatment had no
overnight hospital stays for a year.

Reducing problem pregnancies to mothers with substance abuse problems saved
the state millions of dollars in neonatal treatment.

This is consistent with research by the Rand Corp., an internationally
respected think tank showing that every dollar spent on substance abuse
treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in criminal justice and health care costs.

In contrast, look at the results of drug-fighting efforts that emphasize
punishment: hundreds of nonviolent users in jail and more of our young
people abusing drugs than in any other state in the country.

I have high regard for the police officers and prosecutors of Boston and of
the Commonwealth, and I fully endorse effective law enforcement.

Dangerous, incorrigible drug criminals - the true drug kingpins - should be
sent to prison. But the criminal justice system cannot reasonably be
expected to solve the drug problem by itself. Its efforts must be balanced
by greater emphasis on drug treatment, a proven public health success.

A yes vote on Question 8 will bring us a step closer to making real headway
in the failing war on drugs.

Dr. Robert Meenan is dean of the School of Public Health at Boston University