Pubdate: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2000 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Contact: PO Box 120191, San Diego, CA, 92112-0191 Fax: (619) 293-1440 Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/ Forum: http://www.uniontrib.com/cgi-bin/WebX Authors: Kimberlee Healey and James H. Kleckner (2 LTEs) Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n810/a08.html SHOULD WE INCARCERATE DRUG ADDICTS, OR NOT? Re: "Jail time for addicts" (Editorial, June 14): It's really sad that, despite the exhaustive research on addiction and treatment, there still are so many people who believe that incarceration is the answer. Certainly, jail time for drug use must be of some deterrent while the offender is in a court-ordered program; most addicts aren't stupid. But we are kidding no one but ourselves if we think that coercive treatment is a successful long-term solution. Abstinence does not equal recovery. Locking up addicts is a head-in-the-sand, feel-good solution, a sort of legislative fix that has proven to be woefully ineffective. So is there a solution? Decriminalize our existing drug laws, and pour all the money spent on chasing and locking up addicts into preventive programs and voluntary treatment centers. Superior Court Judge James Milliken and other drug-court judges deserve kudos for trying to bring about a positive change within a flawed framework. But flawed it is. Are we humble enough to admit that the country's war-on-drugs approach has been a dismal failure? And are we wise enough to commit our resources to the more humane (and less costly) paradigm of drug decriminalization that has proven to work so well in other nations around the world? By the way, I can't help but be puzzled at the attitude of the corrections officers' union on this issue. It contends that the upcoming ballot initiative would remove judges' discretion in sentencing. But isn't this the same group that supported the three-strikes law, which further erodes judiciary power? Kimberlee Healey, Cardiff-by-the-Sea - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D