Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs there a more efficient and ethical way to reduce drug abuse in the US than by conducting a war on drugs?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 82% | 53 votes | Total: 65 votes | |
| No | 18% | 12 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesRestructuring the Criminal Justice System
Drug use and addiction is most often brought about when a person is suffering from mental illness. So, treating these people like criminals instead of like sick people doesn't make sense.
The criminal justice system, the only system we have, takes a kid who is addicted to heroin or crack or meth who was selling it because he needs access to it and gets busted with it, and they stick them in prison. Who is also in prison? Real criminals are there, those who have done property crimes, rapists and murderers; and what happens? Well I don't know for sure, but among the things we who have never been in prison can imagine happening the kid learns how to be a better criminal.
The people don't get counseling that is effective, they don't learn any coping skills or strategies to make a difference in their life outside the restricted atmosphere of the prison, and they have not received any real support from anyone to make up for what they consider weakness in their own persons. In short, they have not learned any thing about staying out of prison once they are given a second chance. In fact, they probably have only learned things and et people that will land them right back in prison, and maybe for something more destructive than the drugs.
I suppose that continuing calling it a crime is one way to get the most troubled individuals into the system to get help. However they get there, the system that they go into needs to be radically different than what is currently in place. It could be a sub-category, which might make sense due to the fact that prisons are referred to as corrections facilities. What would be more corrective than helping someone learn to cope with life, learn to recognize when they are having problems and what to do about the times that things are out of control? This would help them to correct their behavior and the way they process information which influences the decisions they make.
What I think the corrections people should do is determine to build new separate facilities, but they need to be completely cut-off from traditional prison facilities.
This facility should be fenced, and the individuals taken there should be made to remain inside for whatever length of time the system sees fit to sentence them to.
In this facility, the individuals would be housed in barracks or dormitory like facilities with two persons to a room, which will be monitored 24/7. This would be a first step in moving the person into a lifestyle and teaching them habits that will be less maladaptive than what they were doing before they came to prison. There will be only 32 beds per building, on three floors. There would be as many of these buildings as needed scattered around the grounds. Each building will have its own kitchen and dining facility that will be operated by the individuals living in the building, to promote a sense of ownership.
There would be separate buildings as well. There will be a gym and exercise facility; there will be two buildings with class rooms, and a vocational training building. There will also be a separate counseling facility where the individuals will receive one-on-one counseling as well as attending group meetings.
The grounds will be manicured and tended; the individuals incarcerated there would be doing the work around the facility, maintaining the grounds and helping with the maintenance of the buildings. The grounds will be full of wide paved paths and interesting landscape, all aimed at providing as normal a life as possible.
The individuals confined in the facilities will have their days filled and regimented so that there would be very little of the day that was not engineered to help the people learn new skills, new habits and make the shift toward and more adaptive way of life. They would get up in the morning, straighten up their room for inspection, go either to physical training, or to the kitchen to prepare breakfast. After showers and breakfast there would be classes either about vocations, general education, addictions, or there would be counseling. The individuals will rotate through these different classes, stopping for lunch, and then there would be dinner. After dinner is more physical training, with a few hours of recreation time, which will be closely monitored so that each individual feels safe.
Granted, this would be expensive, and staff intensive. But this is the way to help people change themselves, and change the way they look at life. It would help them change the way they go about conducting their lives. It would help them change the habits they developed growing up. It would give them a new life expectancy. It would help them correct the errors or correct for the errors that had led them to whatever decisions made it so they were incarcerated.
Beyond this the system needs to also ease these people back into society. They need to be assisted in gaining employment, regaining housing, getting in with doctors and counselors. They need to be helped applying the skills and strategies they learned of the 15 years or whatever time they spent on the inside.
People that have the issues that led them to drugs can learn to cope; they can change their ways and their habits, and the way they process information to make the right decisions. If the system we have in place was reformed to accommodate their needs we could produce many more up right citizens' than we do now.
Learn more about this author, David Frazee.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
"There are always alternatives to war." That is absolutely true. However, it is sad that some people think simply surrendering to the enemy is one of those acceptable alternatives.
Oh, but wait. Some say this is just a "pretend war" with no real enemy. Yet, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, almost 1.5 million people find themselves in some type of emergency room each year because of illicit drug abuse or misuse. That is just the number of people lucky enough to make it to the emergency room. It does not include those who die either alone or surrounded by other people not cognizant of the need for that person to go to an emergency because they also are under the influence of illicit drugs. There are hundreds of thousands drug-related suicide attempts each year due to the overwhelming incidents of depression associated with the use and abuse of these illicit drugs. If there is no enemy in this war on drugs, then will someone please tell the family and friends of these victims exactly what the cause of their suffering is? Certainly the blame should fall partially on the user, but if drug use was something that could be totally controlled by the user, it wouldn't be called an "addiction." Why would we want to legalize illicit drug use and make it even easier for people to fall victim to this beast?
Ah, yes. That's right. Drug trafficking is a profitable business. Finally, the real reason steps forwards. If there is money to be made, then surely we should dive in head first, sleeves rolled up (after all, that makes it just that much easier to see where to put the needle), and start making that all-mighty dollar. Just imagine the massive influx of money into the economy! But who will step forward to regulate this cash cow?
"Hi. We're from the government, and we're here to help." Massive government regulation is always the key to success. That is why Social Security is such an efficient program and why our country operates on an annual surplus. The previous two sentences are absolutely true, except for the fact that they aren't. Do we really want the government involved in drug trafficking? Pick up a history book sometime and read about how that turned out for other countries through the years. Instead of the sketchy guy on the corner being the heavy hand behind the flow and control of illicit drugs, by all means, put that power, control, and responsibility in the hands of the government.
As for the effects on the economy, what about the negative effects? There is a reason we always hear about someone falling into drugs and losing everything they have, including jobs and families, yet we never really hear about the crack addict who is holding down a full-time job. Unless, of course, we start counting being a crack dealer as a full-time job. Also, consider the "plus" championed by proponents of the legalization and regulation of illicit drugs that by doing so we offer "the ability to recover faster from addictions with proper treatment." We can't simply tell an addict, "Good luck getting over your addiction." It takes the implementation of programs and help groups. Not only are we looking at the costs of regulation, but now we must deal with the costs of the effects. Now, where did that massive influx of money go to?
If we were to simply stop fighting the "instinctive nature in man," then we would have no need for a criminal code at all. Legalize it all. Embrace the weaknesses. After all, hasn't doing so with tobacco and alcohol cut down on instances of lung cancer and alcohol-related abuse and deaths?
Learn more about this author, Vance Mcbrayer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Drug Laws & Prevention
- Is there an underlying culture of racism in the war on drugs?
- Should a Constitutional amendment have been required to prohibit today's illicit drugs?
- Should the US government control what substances individuals can put in their own bodies?
- Should those receiving unemployment benefits be given a weekly drug test?
- Should welfare recipients be tested for drugs?
