MAKES MORE SENSE TO TREAT AND TRAIN DRUG OFFENDERS

By CAROL WYATT

GEORGE Soros has done it again. Stepped up to the plate. Walked the talk.
Put his money where his mouth is.

Isn't it about time we insist our government does the same? Even as it
admits needle-exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV and do not cause
increased drug use, the Clinton administration refuses to release federal
dollars to support needle exchange programs.

Not Soros. He has committed $1 million to support the programs. Again. The
score? Soros: $2 million. The Clinton administration: $0.

Why won't the government support a program that is proven to reduce the
spread of HIV by 30 percent? Those who oppose needle exchange say providing
clean needles will only encourage drug use. But study after study shows no
increase in drug use. In fact, drug users who participate in needle-exchange
programs are more likely to seek treatment for their addictions. They say
they oppose needle exchange to protect our kids, yet more than half of all
new HIV infections in children are directly related to unclean needles. Some
protection. A clean syringe costs pennies. The lifetime cost of treating a
person with HIV/AIDS is more than $100,000. In dollars and cents, it doesn't
make sense.

Needle exchange isn't the only area of the nation's drug policy that is
inconsistent. The sad truth is that what the government does and does not
fund in its war on drugs brings more harm than good. It puts Americans at
greater risk each day and costs us each far more dollars in government
spending than policies that follow a harm-reduction model, policies endorsed
by the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association,
the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

It is estimated that there are 3 million hard-core addicts in the United
States. Treatment is available for less than half that number. To treat
every substance abuser would cost $21 billion.

That's not cheap. Yet imagine the cost of not treating them. In 1996 the
direct and indirect costs related to alcohol -- a legal drug -- were $86
billion. There are workplace costs in absenteeism, lost productivity and
disability days. There are health-care costs -- drugs and alcohol are
involved in approximately 65 percent of all emergency hospital visits. And
then there are the costs of arrest, prosecution and incarceration. In 1996,
we spent $38 billion to incarcerate all federal, state and local prisoners;
$30 billion was for 1.2 million individuals convicted of crimes involved
with drugs and alcohol. That's 80 percent of all prisoners. It doesn't make
sense.

We now spend up to $37,000 per year to keep an adult in prison. Without
changing our policies, at this rate it is estimated that by the year 2000,
only 20 months from now, we will spend $100 million per day to incarcerate
individuals with serious drug and alcohol problems -- $100 million each day.
It doesn't make sense.

Currently, the war on drugs costs $16 billion, with approximately two-thirds
spent on law enforcement and interdiction. The net effect? We stop 10
percent of all illegal drugs from entering the country. Under certain
economic assumptions, the cost to reduce the street supply of drugs by 50
percent approaches the gross national product, at approximately $5 trillion.
It doesn't make sense.

Not all drug users are in prison. Some 55 percent of illicit drug users are
employed full time and 13 percent are employed part time. Add to that the
employees who abuse legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco and the problem
increases.

There are solutions. They aren't simple. We have learned that there are many
causes of addiction and, logically, there are many different treatments. Not
all treatments work 100 percent of the time. But they do work, and they cost
less in the short run and a whole lot less in the long run.

What can we do? We as employees and employers can insist on coverage for
treatment of substance abuse equal to that of any chronic illness. That
means treatment and maintenance. The increase to insurance premiums for
treatment coverage would be less that $12 per year per insured.

We can identify our high-risk children and provide opportunities for
personal growth and reward each step of that growth no matter how small. We
can provide educational programs that help them improve their interpersonal
skills such as communicating with their peers, their teachers and their
parents. We can provide drug-free social activities and drug-free peers.

We can give the police and the courts options to divert nonviolent addicted
offenders into treatment programs. Compare the $37,000 annual cost to
incarcerate one prisoner with $14,600 for residential treatment or $2,300
for outpatient treatment.

We can speak out to end mandatory sentencing of nonviolent offenders with no
chance of parole, and we can provide treatment in prison to those who need
it. Prisoners who are substance abusers are more likely to commit new
offenses when released. An estimated 81 percent of inmates with at least
five prior convictions are drug abusers compared to 41 percent of first-time
offenders.

The cost to provide treatment, vocational and educational training, and
after-care for one prisoner would add only $6,500 to the annual cost of
incarceration. But the payback is big. That $6,500 investment will have an
estimated economic benefit of $68,000 measured in reduced crime-related
costs, health-care savings and potential earnings in the first year after
release.

One estimate places the cost for treatment and training of the 1.2 million
inmates at $7.8 billion. The economic benefit in the first year following
release if treatment is successful for just 10 percent of those is estimated
to be $8.6 billion and another $8 billion each year thereafter. That's a lot
fewer dollars and a whole lot more sense.

Wyatt works as a legal assistant and is a student at the University of
Houston Graduate School of Social Work.