DRUG ADDICTION IS A DISEASE SO WHY DO WE TREAT IT LIKE A CRIME?

Drug addiction is a chronic, debilitating disease, but it can be beaten.
People can and do fight addiction, beat their demons and go on to lead
productive lives.

Many people don't want to hear that truth, though. They want addicts in
prison -- out of sight, out of mind.

Americans view drug addiction with a quick-fix mentality. Yet the solution
to addiction, like any chronic disease, requires a long-term approach to be
successful.

A blue-ribbon group that includes 37 of the nation's top doctors has
concluded that the nation's focus on punishment for drug abusers not only
goes against medical evidence, it's also a costly waste of taxpayers'
money. The doctors want government officials to rethink the drug-war strategy.

Now, before you label those docs as wild-eyed members of the Joycelyn
Elders Fan Club, hear them out.

It turns out that Elders, Clinton's much-maligned former surgeon general,
was on the mark when she stressed the need for treatment, rather than
prison, for drug addicts. Health experts who worked for Presidents Ronald
Reagan and George Bush also say that drug addiction, like alcohol
addiction, is a disease that's partly determined by genetics and can be
treated successfully. They are among the 37 doctors who joined in a
bipartisan effort to alert the Clinton administration and Republican
leaders in Congress to the medical evidence for treatment's success.

In its report issued last week, the Physician Leadership on National Drug
Policy group noted that treating addictions is no less effective than
treating other diseases, such as diabetes.

That's not to say that punishment should never play a role in fighting
drugs, particularly for big-time drug dealers. But punishment alone for
addicts is a waste of our money.

What's maddening about many people's apparent disdain for treatment is that
treatment does cut crime. In one study of addicted women who served prison
sentences, researchers found that once the women were released from prison,
62 percent were arrested again. Only one-fourth of women who received drug
treatment while they were in prison ended up back in the slammer after
their release.

Congress should use that information to rethink the nation's drug-war
strategy, which now sets aside only 20 percent of the drug-control budget
for treatment. But few politicians want to be leaders and do what's right
if that goes against the public's wishes, particularly in a congressional
election year.

The Catch-22 is that without leadership the public won't change its mind.

In 1990, about 65 percent of people surveyed supported more money for drug
treatment, but by 1996 -- after Congress and many state legislatures
stiffened drug penalties -- support for treatment was down to 53 percent of
people surveyed. The poll, published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, has a margin of error of 4 percentage points. That same poll
also showed that 84 percent of respondents in 1996 still wanted tougher
criminal penalties.

And that's what President Clinton and Congress have done. They've followed
the public's misinformed, quick-fix sentiments about drug abuse and pumped
up drug-interdiction programs. They've built more prisons. They've made
``three strikes and you're out'' -- life without parole -- the solution.

But when treatment costs only a fraction of a one-year prison stay, when
there's mounting medical evidence that treatment works, and when it's
documented that prison sentences without drug treatment result in a
revolving penal door, why still pursue a ``lock 'em up'' policy?

What's the point?

Re-election.