SUBSTANCE-ABUSE ACT DANGEROUS, MISLEADING

Re: "Is imprisoning addicts the best policy?" (Opinion, June 15):

Despite the contrary assertions of Gretchen Burns-Bergman and David
Beck-Brown, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 is a
dangerous and misleading initiative. Dangerous, because it undermines truly
effective drug-abuse treatment efforts under way; and misleading, because
it has absolutely nothing to do with crime prevention.

Treatment providers and substance-abuse researchers uniformly agree that
successful treatment requires three very important elements: The abuser
must start treatment, must complete treatment, and must be monitored by way
of drug testing as insurance against relapse. Our existing drug courts,
through therapeutic, coerced treatment, provide nonviolent substance
abusers the opportunity to enter effective programs and the incentive to
successfully complete treatment.

The ability of the courts to impose drug testing serves to insure full
compliance, greatly enhancing the likelihood of success.

The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act completely ignores the true
realities of treatment and will sabotage successful drug court programs. It
will spend $120 million of taxpayer money, but specifically prohibits funds
from being used for drug testing. Without testing, there is no assurance
treatment is working, and no accountability for abuser or treatment provider.

At a time when drug courts are having a real impact, this initiative
purports to do essentially the same job, but without the oversight of
judges and the ability to monitor compliance. It is backed primarily by
out-of-state money from those seeking to legalize drugs.

Burns-Bergman and Beck-Brown are correct in asserting that "mandatory
(forced) treatment has been proven to work." That assertion is the
foundation for drug courts. But they are incorrect in their belief that the
Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act is the answer.

Bill Kolender San Diego County Sheriff