DRUGS ARE BAD, OK?

I have to respond to the article "Treatment Instead of Prison" by Doug
Hissom [June 27]. I am not that profound, like many other readers, and I am
a bleeding heart like the next fellow bleeder, but I disagree that no
prison time for "non-violent" crimes should be supported. I have a better
idea: Why use drugs in the first place?

With as much information out on how drugs ruin your life, why start? Drug
addiction can lead to "violent crimes." I myself was raped by three men
(two of whom had drugs in their systems). As Mr. Hubbard states, he was
under the influence when he sold drugs to a policeman.

We were given an example of how this new plan could have helped Mr.
Hubbard-he would be able to use his two degrees, have a job, etc. However,
if he would not have done the drugs, as intelligent as he seems to be, he
wouldn't have to worry about working out of a church basement.

I have had some personal experiences with people fighting drug addiction.
In most of the cases that I have seen, a relapse is inevitable. They have
the same old friends. The "reformed addicts" know where to go; sellers know
where to find them. Mr. Hubbard himself, in selling drugs, thought "he was
helping a fellow junkie out."

People facing addictions once had a free-will choice. Why should they get
treated any differently than someone not facing addiction for a non-violent
crime? A non-violent crime usually has a victim. Purse snatching, car theft
and selling drugs are non-violent crimes, but the have tremendous
effects-physically, mentally, emotionally and financially on the victims.
Then again, who looks at the victims in our justice system?

I would like to know the statistics of people who have asked for treatment
prior to an arrest. Most addicts know that treatment doesn't work unless
they truly want to stop, not for anyone else-or if administered by force.
The state should help those who want help and haven't committed a crime.

C. Cole