TREATMENT MORE EFFECTIVE THAN JAIL

As a former drug rehabilitation counselor I read with a sense of
incredulousness Clarence Page's syndicated column in the Herald-Tribune)
titled "Drug war hits home for Bushes," not because of its content but its
poignancy. Using Jeb Bush's daughter, Noelle, as an example, Page calls for
more than one chance at treatment and a variety of treatment options, if
that's what it takes to rehabilitate simple drug offenders. He believes
that jail is not the answer for those arrested for illicit drug-use
offenses, but rather that appropriate types of treatment are a more
effective way to treat the problem.

The column was not only poignant but also timely; on the page directly
across from Page's piece was a letter to the editor from a parent
expressing grave concern over the location of a proposed Salvation Army
drug rehabilitation center (Tallevast Road and U.S. 301). This writer
agrees with Mr. Page's assertion that treatment is the answer, but where?
The intended corner seems innocuous enough, but not according to some.
Indeed, there is an elementary school less than a mile down the road. So, I
detect a non sequitur here: That being the assumption that people who are
undergoing treatment for drug addiction are harmful to children and adults
in nearby subdivisions. Huh?

Granted, a typical Salvation Army client may not be a doctor, teacher or
businessman, but I do know from experience that the person the drug addict
is most likely to harm is him/herself. In instances where a client decides
to leave the program and take up where she/he left off, I know of no
studies proving that the surrounding community is jeopardized. Recidivists
tend to return to their old stomping grounds.

I ask concerned citizens to look at the issue from an altruistic
standpoint, not an insular one.

Michael L. Witt, Sarasota