Punishment Won’t Dent the Drug Crime Rate : Drug War: Treatment for addicted offenders would be less expensive and more successful than warehousing them in jail.

Pronouncements from Washington beg the question of when our government will get serious about the drug epidemic. Under President Bush’s “war on drugs,” critical analysis and pragmatism are subordinated to the conventional political wisdom that the public demands a rigid law-and-order approach. Every President since Richard Nixon has had a similarly guided “war on drugs,” and each of them failed miserably.

The traditional blueprint consists of accelerated expenditure on the forcible suppression of drugs, accompanied by a token dole to alternative treatment strategies. Thus, in the last decade expenditures on law enforcement have tripled and prison and jail populations have doubled. President Bush would continue this trend by committing 70% of his “drug war” budget to law enforcement.

What kind of return have we received on our past “drug war” investments? Only a worsening of the problem. In the last three years the price for a kilogram of cocaine has plummeted from $40,000 to less than $14,000, indicating a whopping increase in supply. Los Angeles County emergency-room admissions for cocaine crises have more than doubled in the past two years. In California, the number of adults arrested annually for felony drug offenses has doubled in the last five years. While it may be true that the middle class is turning away from drugs, the level of addiction among the poor is increasing dramatically.

The recent surge of predatory crime is closely linked to drug abuse. Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block says that 75% of the prisoners in his jails are incarcerated for drug-related offenses. The Los Angeles Police Department reports that 61% of all homicides, 80% of all robberies and 50% of all burglaries (a highly questionable low figure) are directly related to drugs. Studies also show that an astonishing 80% of urban arrestees test positive for illicit drugs, and that drug abusers commit 10 times as many thefts, 15 times as many robberies and 20 times as many burglaries as do offenders who are not drug abusers.

What should be done? In the realm of wishful thinking: Recommit ourselves to social and economic justice. The meteoric rise of drugs has coincided with the growth of economic disparity and the retreat on social justice engendered by “the Reagan revolution.” Until we rectify the conditions and deprivations that cause people to seek escape in addictive drugs, we cannot hope to solve the drug-abuse problem.

On the more immediate, practical side: Give judges the means to effectively manage addicted offenders. First, expend much greater sums for intensive treatment in residential programs, which have an impressive track record of stemming addiction. One-third of the persons who complete such programs remain drug-free and another one-third substantially reduce their use of drugs. In contrast, incarceration, even for long periods, has no discernible effect on the craving for drugs.

A bonus: drug treatment is actually less expensive than incarceration. Intensive treatment costs around $10,000 per addict, whereas confinement in a state prison costs about $20,000 per year. Ironically, persons who enroll in drug treatment under judicial coercion have a higher success rate than voluntary patients, who are free to leave.

Despite this evidence, drug treatment is frequently eliminated as an option for judges faced with the responsibility of sentencing drug abusers. In Los Angeles County during this decade, the number of subsidized treatment slots has dropped from about 1,000 to 700, and waiting time has increased from a few days to six months. Under such circumstances, judges obviously do not say to predatory drug addicts: “Come back in six months for treatment, and meanwhile stay out of trouble.” Instead, addicts end up being subjected to revolving-door incarceration.

We also should implement a program of intensive probation for managing addicted criminals. Ordinary probation has become an absurdity. Probation officers have caseloads in the hundreds, and supervision consists of the probationer reporting by postcard once a month and submitting to “random” drug tests twice a month. In distinct contrast, intensive probation limits caseloads to 25 per officer and requires probationers to communicate with their officers face-to-face twice a week and by telephone at least once a day, and to submit frequent urine samples--all at an annual cost of a mere $4,000 per probationer. Studies show that drug abusers handled in this manner have a far lower rate of recidivism than do ordinary probationers or addicts sentenced to prison.

Finally, take some load off the courts by classifying possession of small quantities of heroin and cocaine as “wobblers”--that is, crimes that may be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies at the discretion of prosecutors and judges. Simple possession of PCP or amphetamines already falls in this category, and persons possessing significant quantities of drugs are always charged with the more serious felony of possession for the purpose of sale. Little would be lost by granting this discretion to prosecutors and judges, but a lot would be gained. Felony prosecutions are much more time-consuming and expensive, drawing away scarce resources that could be better spent on more serious matters.

None of what is described above is new to criminal-justice professionals. Still, our policy-makers resolutely resist change and continue to throw money at a criminal justice system that staggers under an ever-increasing burden. We must demand that our leaders adopt a more balanced and utilitarian approach that emphasizes individual demand for drugs. Let’s not squander this window of opportunity created by the public’s focused attention.