SHOULD WE INCARCERATE DRUG ADDICTS, OR NOT?

Re: "Jail time for addicts" (Editorial, June 14):

It's really sad that, despite the exhaustive research on addiction and
treatment, there still are so many people who believe that incarceration is
the answer.

Certainly, jail time for drug use must be of some deterrent while the
offender is in a court-ordered program; most addicts aren't stupid. But we
are kidding no one but ourselves if we think that coercive treatment is a
successful long-term solution. Abstinence does not equal recovery. Locking
up addicts is a head-in-the-sand, feel-good solution, a sort of legislative
fix that has proven to be woefully ineffective.

So is there a solution? Decriminalize our existing drug laws, and pour all
the money spent on chasing and locking up addicts into preventive programs
and voluntary treatment centers. Superior Court Judge James Milliken and
other drug-court judges deserve kudos for trying to bring about a positive
change within a flawed framework. But flawed it is.

Are we humble enough to admit that the country's war-on-drugs approach has
been a dismal failure? And are we wise enough to commit our resources to
the more humane (and less costly) paradigm of drug decriminalization that
has proven to work so well in other nations around the world?

By the way, I can't help but be puzzled at the attitude of the corrections
officers' union on this issue. It contends that the upcoming ballot
initiative would remove judges' discretion in sentencing. But isn't this
the same group that supported the three-strikes law, which further erodes
judiciary power?

Kimberlee Healey, Cardiff-by-the-Sea