Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

DrugReporter

To Jail or Not Jail for Drug Relapse?

By Tony Newman, AlterNet. Posted October 21, 2008.


There is a raging battle in the treatment community over how much carrot vs. stick we should use to help people who need treatment.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It may or may not surprise you that a majority of Americans support treatment instead of incarceration for people struggling with drug addiction. That's the good news. What you may not know is that there is a raging battle within the treatment community and society at large about how much carrot vs. stick we should use to help people who need treatment.

There are two major flashpoints that divide treatment advocates and the public: 1) the need to hold sanctions or the threat of jail over someone's head in getting them to comply with treatment and 2) the need for total abstinence for people in treatment and recovery.

One camp, usually made up of law enforcement, prison guards and the "tough love" crowd, think we need to threaten people with jail in order to get them to comply with treatment. If someone relapses or drops out of treatment, they want to throw the person in jail for their failure to take treatment seriously. It is not uncommon to hear stories, whether from judges, to family members to people in recovery, all explaining that they needed the threat of jail in order to clean up. This group also believes that total abstinence is the only answer for people with addiction problems. They want to drug test people to make sure there is no drug use and any use or relapse should result in punishment, whether that is expulsion from treatment or being sent back to jail. They basically believe that drug addicted individuals are not motivated on their own, but need threats and coercion in order to comply with their treatment programs.

The other camp believes that substance abuse should be handled as a public health issue, not as a criminal one. They don't believe jail is the answer when someone relapses or continues to struggle with drug addiction. They believe that relapse is common for people seeking recovery and that incarcerating someone who slips up is unnecessary and harmful. They also want to help reduce the harm from people's drug use, even if they are still using. If someone is injecting drugs, they want them to use clean syringes so they don't contract HIV. If you have given up heroin, but still smoke marijuana they say congratulations for giving up heroin, a positive step, rather than you failed treatment and need to be punished and sent back to jail.

Last week, I visited the pioneering drug program, ARRIVE, which will celebrateits 20-yearanniversary on Thursday of serving theNew York Citycommunity in its fight against drug addiction and HIV/AIDS. ARRIVE started in a church basement in 1988 in an attempt to help drug users who were contracting HIV through dirty syringes. In 1990, Exponents was founded as a non-profit organization to keep the ARRIVE pilot project alive. The organization has 40 staff members, the majority of whom have histories of addiction and incarceration and are graduates of ARRIVE. With more than8,700 graduates, the cutting-edge program differs from many of the status quo treatment programs by challenging the notion that people have to be coerced into treatment by the threat of jail. The program has always been voluntary and has better results in getting people through their program than programs thatfavor the punitive, coercive treatment models.The ARRIVE program also doesn't demand abstinence from drugs in order to access their help.

"ARRIVEchanged the paradigm of how we treat and help drug users and the response has been nothing short of phenomenal. Over the years, thousands of inner-city drug users voluntarily showed up for the program and over 75 percent of them graduated," says Howard Josepher, founder of Exponents and an ex-offender who overcame his heroin addiction 40 years ago. "We now have more than 8,700 graduates and not a single one of them was coerced or mandated to attend. Our experience has been, contrary to popular belief, that addicts will seek out treatment if it is presented in a non-punitive and non-judgmental manner."

The ARRIVE program shows us what is possible. We need open doors that encourage people to get help for their problems, whether it is for illegal or legal drugs, and not insist on inflexible and rigid standards that produce more failure and low self-esteem while driving people away from life-saving programs. While some may desire a more perfect world where people are able to quit all drugs at the same time and never relapse, the reality for some may be a gray area where they quit different drugs at different stages and incremental change should be recognized as steps in the right direction.

Let's help people where they're at and not let perfection be the enemy of good. Let's make sure that we offer compassion and empowerment, not judgment and a jail cell.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: drug treatment

Tony Newman is communications director for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from DrugReporter! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Jail vs. Treatment
Posted by: Crys_SpadesAlone on Oct 23, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was given an Operating While Imparied, the equivilant to a DUI, for having a bag of marijuana in my car. A year later when I turned 21, I recieved another OWI for drinking and driving. The first time I was placed on a system called "JAMS" in Michigan, a jail alternative. The problem with this, is there is always a loop hole around the system. If people are going to use, they are GOING to use, we will find a way around it.
I was sentenced to jail time for the second OWI, but I was never put into treatment. One more OWI in the rest of my life, and Michigan Law says I'm to be sent to prison. Nothing about treatment.
The thing is: treatment is only useful for those who want it. Drug testing is useful only for those who see what happened and they will now change their lives for the better. I now attend AA because I WANT to, because I did have a problem with alcohol. Marijuana was never my problem, and I never got into any hard drugs. Jail time only seems like a logical answer when the person has failed so many drug tests and refuses to take treatment.

And the issue of jail for relapses? Right now I have to hide the fact that I relapsed when I was released from jail from my probation officer, because she WOULD send me BACK to jail, and that's not what I want. I'm human. I make mistakes and I learn from them. If the relapses continue, then yes, I should seek a higher form of treatment besides AA, but jail time obviously did me NO good (hence the relpase) and will NEVER do me anygood.
People who are addicted to substances are insane, we repeat the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, and the only way to change is to hit rock bottom and actually see it.

If I was sent back to jail for taking one hit off a joint after six months without anything, I would be more than upset. No one is perfect, especially those of us with "addictions." Mistakes need to be made.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Addiction is Not About The Addict
Posted by: glorybe on Oct 23, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Addicts may feel that jail or prison are not solutions for their addictions. They may be right. But for those around them sending addicts to jail is the right thing to do.
What I am addressing is the vampire effect. Addicts create more addicts. For those that are being tempted or influenced by addicts and addiction it is important that they see a future of long jail sentences and failure of addicts around them.
One mistake we are seeing is that our jails are not putting inmates in the face of the public. For example if a high school student is caught with drugs it would be a great help for his friends to see him doing chain gang labor all around the school and neighborhood. Seeing the embarrassment, humiliation and loss of hope of a normal life can and will discourage others from trying dope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stone age thinking
Posted by: sicntired on Oct 24, 2008 1:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I first went to jail,they used to segregate the addict population just because of this kind of thinking.All they did was concentrate the addicts together so they could plot and share whenever plots came to fruition.They finally learned it was counter productive and caused far more problems than it may have solved.Failure is part of the treatment process.It works for such a small number of people to begin with.If a person is willing to try,they should be given every opportunity.Most long time addicts would rather die that quit.In prison,most addicts spend every moment just waiting for the next fix.People that suggest forced treatment just don't get it.It's far less harmful and far less expensive to maintain long time addicts on their drug of choice.The only thing in the way is foolish morality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stone age thinking Posted by: liz_imp
Addiction and Drugs Policy
Posted by: Dr T on Oct 25, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an addiction psychiatrist, I have a few points.

1. Showing up for treatment increases treatment success to the extent that coercion gets people to show up, it has some usefulness. However, the success of ARRIVE shows that coercion is not necessary.

2. The majority of those arrested for substance possession are not habituated (addicted) and treatment is often a waste of time and money.

3. Addiction is a choice while incarceration is not. If addiction were not a choice, no one would ever recover.

4. To incarcerate one new drug offender is very expensive. It costs about $200,000 to build a new cell, $150,000 to arrest and convict, and $150,000-200,000 for a five-year sentence. That's over a half a million dollars per new user. How many people do we have to lock up to make the war on drugs work? Whatever the number, multiply it by $500,000 and you'll see we can't afford our present policy.

5. As shown in Vallient's 50-year longitudinal study (Alcoholism Revisited), relapses are necessary for recovery. That is how people fine-tune their recovery. To incarcerate them denigrates the potential learning experience.

6. We have screwed up priorities where the criminal justice system trumps the public health system. For example, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the agency that grants controlled substances certifications to physicians, is composed mainly of law enforcement personnel. In this country we have cops telling docs what is and what is not proper medicine. For those that think this is sane, the next time you're sick, call a cop.

7. We need to overhaul our drugs policies. The only thing prohibition does is to guarantee zero tolerance for effective regulation. We could start by legalizing all substances, then regulate them individually based on their harmfulness to the public (not individual) health. For example, cocaine should remain legal and tightly regulated to the medical profession for certain procedures, as no society has ever figured out how to lightly regulate concentrated stimulants. Other psychoactive substances ranging from caffeine (required to be on the label if present in a product) through marijuana (legal to grow a small amount in the privacy of a home, similar to Alaska) to MDMA/ecstasy (available to mental health personnel for treatment of trauma disorders) could have much more flexible regulation.

8. The quickest way to do this would be to abolish the DEA schedule one category and move all those substances into schedule two or lower. This would allow both the medical community and individual States to come up with testable policies and would be far less expensive than our current system.

9. Our drugs policy does not work and is very expensive and our war on drugs is actually a war on people, particularly poor people of color. We need a public health approach.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Addiction and Drugs Policy Posted by: Malkavian
Why BELIEF and FAITH have to go
Posted by: Malkavian on Oct 28, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's amazing really. Here we are having flown to the Moon, sent probes to Mars and mastered a working knowledge of Quantum Physics. We have insanely effective medicines and know how to operate the strangest diseases or even irradiate the unwanted parts.

Indeed science has won the day and saved innumerable lives for you, me and anyone we know.

Yet, truly this controvercy can be summed up to be a simple "stick vs. carrot" issue. This is how far our working knowledge of influence, persuasion and compliance has progressed, and I get a mental picture of Neanderthals sitting with sticks and carrots trying to solve all their problem (and looking not too smart doing so).

We're seriously behaving like cavemen, and I mean that in the most offensive and bad way imaginable.

Here is the thing: there is a science of persuasion, commitment and influence out there. Yes, it's an actual, breathing, living science that has uncovered things that are highly counter-intuitive. And if science shows us anything it is that counter-intuitive things make us commit errors.

Too many, however, think that this science can be mastered intuitively, but that's just like saying that you would be able to "intuitively master driving a car". If we held such BELIEFS about driving cars and simply let the untrained person-who-means-well drive, people would die and be maimed in large numbers.

In fact large numbers of very real people are harmed, maimed, killed and live lives in excruciating pain because too many ignorant people have faith in their mastery of the science of influence. *screeeech* *thump* *crackingbones* *crash*

It's such a shame when it is so easy to get started on the path towards a scientific understanding of these issues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini

Robert B. Cialdini is the author of one of the greatest achievements in this science: "Influence: Science and Practice" (5th edition). This is not pop psychology, but experimental science at its best, as hard as the discipline is likely to get short of wandering into neurology.

Now ... let me never again hear of carrots and sticks unless such utterrances come from the aforementioned Neanderthals (in which case they are excused).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement