DRUG WAR IS FAILING -- IT'S TIME TO GIVE TREATMENT A CHANCE

EVERY dollar invested in drug treatment saves taxpayers $5. Drug treatment
cuts criminal activity by as much as two-thirds. The Federal Bureau of
Prisons found that inmates who got drug treatment were 73 percent less
likely to be re-arrested than those who did not. Other studies have found
that addicts who get treatment are less likely to be homeless, less likely
to need hospital care and more likely to give birth to drug-free babies.

Yet no matter how many times these statistics are recounted, they just don't
seem to sink in. State and federal governments continue to focus on locking
up addicts instead of helping them kick the habit. Two-thirds of the $16
billion federal drug budget goes to enforcement and interdiction. Just
one-third goes to treatment and prevention.

Despite study after study showing the societal savings of drug treatment,
Congress would rather spend money on new high-speed patrol boats and
high-tech surveillance equipment than on new treatment facilities and drug
courts.

Bob Garner, Santa Clara County's director of alcohol and drug services,
keeps trying to get the message out. He recently drove to Sacramento for a
press conference to announce new studies from the Urban Coalition of County
Drug and Alcohol Administrators that show the effectiveness of treatment.
Not one reporter showed up.

Garner tried not to take it personally. After all, there is nothing
startling in these studies. It's hardly news that a substance abuser who is
not in treatment costs taxpayers and society between $50 and $81 a day, or
that 78 percent of parents whose children are in foster care have substance
abuse problems. It's not a breaking story that California, which ranks ninth
in the percentage of the population we lock up, ranks just 37th in per
capita state spending on drug and alcohol treatment. Most newspapers have
done several stories over the years about people waiting for treatment who
can't get it.

If it's common knowledge that treatment saves money, why does California
spend more than $4 billion to catch, prosecute and incarcerate substance
abusers and just $400 million to treat them? Because lawmakers are afraid of
looking soft on crime if they divert money from prisons to treatment beds.
Especially when treatment doesn't always work.

Garner and his counterparts throughout California hope to generate some
support for substance abuse treatment by showing that substance abuse isn't
just a law-enforcement problem. It's a health problem, a family problem and
a major financial problem for the state.

Californians spend $6.4 billion a year on health care costs associated with
drug and alcohol. That's for injuries from drunken driving accidents and
alcohol-induced violence, liver conditions and drug overdoses, fetal alcohol
poisoning and newborns addicted to drugs, and psychiatric treatment.

Californians spend about $3 billion a year to catch and prosecute people who
commit drug- and alcohol-related crimes. We spend another $1.12 billion a
year to incarcerate them. Nearly 40 percent of the arrests in the state are
alcohol-or drug-related. In one survey of prison inmates, half of those who
admitted using alcohol or drugs before their crime said they would not have
committed the crime sober.

Californians spend about $744 million a year on foster care for children
whose parents abuse alcohol or drugs.

It totals more than $11 billion, without the hidden costs, such as lost
productivity.

It would take a bold move from the governor and the Legislature to divert
money from prisons and law enforcement to drug and alcohol treatment.
Garner's group got some help this week from the FBI, which announced that
the crime rate is continuing to drop. Perhaps if the fear of crime relaxes
its stranglehold on the public, we will be able to move toward a more
rational approach to the drug war.

Checked-by: Don Beck