RESPONDING TO THE METH EPIDEMIC: MORE TREATMENT, LESS HYPE

Before methamphetamine was a policy issue for me, it was a drug. It
was part of the landscape for all of us who grew up in North San
Diego County in the 1980s and '90s. Methamphetamine is a substance
that people close to me have used and abused, and that many people I
know and love have reclaimed their lives from. I am particularly
disturbed, then, by the end-of-the-world hype surrounding it - and
the silence about the fact that methamphetamine addiction is
treatable, and that long-term recovery is common.

The truth about methamphetamine in San Diego is that use has reached
epidemic levels, and the appropriate response is treatment. As the
Little Hoover Commission recognized in its 2003 report on addiction,
"Most of the substances abused in California ---- alcohol, cocaine,
marijuana, methamphetamine - are at the epidemic stage, where the
benefit of enforcement is limited and treatment is essential to
reducing the negative consequences."

The truth about methamphetamine addiction is that it is absolutely
treatable. It will not be the end of us (just as crack cocaine wasn't
in the 1980s). A growing body of research reveals that
methamphetamine-addicted individuals actually respond better on
average to treatment than do people addicted to other substances.
Treatment providers, including Casa Raphael in Vista and Serenity
House in Escondido, are increasingly experienced and successful at
treating methamphetamine addiction.

The hype about methamphetamine is a lamentable distraction from the
real problem, addiction - and the solution, treatment. Even if
methamphetamine were to disappear tomorrow, people would still suffer
from addiction because its underlying causes would remain: a variety
of genetic and environmental factors, as well as sexual abuse,
domestic violence and other trauma. Addiction will be a part of the
human condition for at least as long as other chronic ailments, such
as diabetes and hypertension.

The hype has also led us to identify not just the drug, but people
who are addicted to it, as the enemy. Methamphetamine has been
described as the "devil drug" of our generation, and people who use
it "tweakers" and "speed freaks." Such demonizing paved the way for
increasingly punitive policies in the 1990s. The total number of
people in prison for drug possession in California quadrupled between
1988 and 2000, peaking at 20,116.

This alarming trend toward mass incarceration of drug offenders - our
family members and friends - had no measurable impact on
methamphetamine (or other drug) use rates in San Diego or elsewhere.
So, as our loved ones' drug problems persisted, they were compounded
by the trauma and health risks of incarceration. In the ultimate
irony, although drug treatment programs are hard to come by behind
bars, drugs are not.

San Diegans rejected this destructive policy in 2000, when they
helped pass Proposition 36, the state's
treatment-instead-of-incarceration law, which provides treatment to
more than 35,000 Californians convicted of nonviolent low-level drug
offenses (usually simple drug possession) each year. When the law was
implemented in 2001, treatment admission rates for methamphetamine
jumped dramatically in San Diego - a sign that more people who need
help are getting it.

Over half of Prop. 36 participants statewide - about 20,000 people -
enter treatment for methamphetamine abuse each year, making Prop. 36
the world's largest methamphetamine treatment program. In just six
years, more than 120,000 Californians who suffer addiction to
methamphetamine have received treatment under Prop. 36, and about
42,000 have completed their mandated course of treatment.

No, a single dose of treatment may not be enough to help put a person
in remission. But methamphetamine users as a group have actually
exceeded Prop. 36's statewide average treatment completion rate each
year. Methamphetamine-addicted individuals complete at a higher rate
than people receiving treatment for addiction to cocaine or heroin.

However, the provision of addiction treatment services is still too
limited. In 2002-05, San Diego saw a significant dropoff in treatment
admission rates. Although that drop appears to have leveled off in
2006, there are now far fewer people accessing treatment in the
county than there were in 2002. The number of people accessing
treatment in San Diego for methamphetamine, alone, dropped by nearly
one-third in just three years.

Perhaps this gives us some insight into the increase, in the same
period, in San Diego arrestees who test positive for methamphetamine.
We need to make sure that people have reliable access to treatment as
soon as possible, whether they get there through the health care
system or the criminal justice system. It is both cheaper and better
for public safety to provide treatment to those who need it sooner
rather than later.