ARGUMENTS AGAINST JAILING DRUG USERS HAVE BECOME TOTALLY
WAISTED

Hal Don House, in his Dec. 12 guest column, "Prison not part of
solution to drug, alcohol addiction," asserts that:

- - Incarceration is an inappropriate response to drug
violations;

- - The war on drugs has been lost;

- - Drug abusers are forced to violate the law by genetic
predisposition; and

- - Legislators intentionally enact ineffective drug laws to gain
re-election.

The positions taken by House are ill-conceived, poorly reasoned and
invalid.

His first polemic posits that because drug law violators are addicts,
prison is an ineffective response, arguing that treatment is the only
appropriate solution.

House fails to understand the purpose of incarceration. Punishment in
the criminal justice system serves three primary societal demands:
deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution. Even if House is correct,
and prison will not cure an addiction, there remains deterrence and
retribution. Since space is limited, we will limit our review to deterrence.

Society, parents in particular, oppose the ready availability of
dangerous drugs on our streets. Every incarcerated drug abuser
reduces the number of drug users and dealers on our streets. And
House is deluding himself if he believes that most users are not also
sellers.

House's second position is that the war on drugs has been lost. Is
House suggesting, with this hackneyed argument, that because some
individuals still choose to violate our drug laws we should forsake
incarceration as a tool? We imprison murderers, burglars, thieves,
sex offenders and other law violators. Should we abandon our response
to these criminal acts because, despite the incarceration of many,
others still commit similar crimes?

The war on drugs has been won or lost to the same degree the war on
other criminal activity has been won or lost.

The third invalid argument offered by House asserts that drug abusers
are forced to violate the law by genetics. Let us assume that genetic
predisposition plays a role in the choices made by drug offenders.
Should we attempt to address that possibility by offering treatment?

Absolutely!

House assumes that either prison or treatment are the only options.
The reality is that treatment and prison are not mutually exclusive
alternatives. Treatment is available in and out of prison. Whether an
individual chooses to take advantage of it is up to him or her.

In addition, a genetic predisposition to behave in a certain way is
not a "get out of jail free" card. Serial murderers, rapists,
pedophiles and other occupants of our penal environs suffer from
genetic predispositions. Should we waive prison as a response to
these crimes as well?

A large number of people with genetic predispositions choose to
resist those urges and live productive lives. Many alcoholics, drug
addicts and others with genetic challenges have proved it can be
done. They choose to not surrender to their instincts but to exercise
their intelligence and will in making decisions. Those who do
surrender should be held accountable, in addition to being offered
treatment.

Finally, House attacks the integrity of our legislators. He proffers
the theory that lawmakers are aware that our current approach is a
sham but choose to pretend otherwise for the sake of
re-election.

Our legislators are well aware of all the arguments offered by House
and his ilk. They also are cognizant of the logical poverty of such
arguments. Drug and alcohol abuse, like all criminal activity,
require many responses. One response that is absolutely critical is
incarceration in appropriate cases.

House has taken a morally indefensible position. He admits that he
worked in the system long enough to draw retirement. Therefore, he
willingly accepted money for participating in what he describes as a
bankrupt and disingenuous process. For House to malign the character
of our legislators reminds one of a pot making accusations against a
kettle.

James A. Farren has served as criminal district attorney for Randall
County since 1995.