Rehab and the ‘war on drugs’
In retrospect, the nation’s “War on Drugs” from decades past turned out in some ways to be like the earlier conflict in Vietnam: A lot of resources spent and lives lost with very little gained but a perpetual stalemate. That campaign proved to be ineffective in battling the problem, though wildly successful at filling prisons nationwide.
The specter of that effort was dug up last week when Attorney General Jeff Sessions moved to seek maximum charges from prosecutors for federal drug offenses, overturning an Obama Administration initiative to avoid “mandatory minimum” penalties in cases that involve nonviolent offenders.
Sessions’ move touched off reaction from supporters and detractors, some applauding a “get tough” throwback to the 1980s, others fearing a return to lengthier prison stints for more offenders.
… To assume the feds are looking to lock up everyone caught with a few ounces of marijuana or crack cocaine misses a key point. Federal drug cases usually involve more heinous crimes and harsher sentences than those handled by state and local courts. U.S. law enforcement agencies tend to target high-volume traffickers, the kind of offenders not likely to be rehabilitated by diversion programs.
That said, the idea of steering many toward rehab instead of prison remains a valid option for those who need help, not a locked cell. Filling prisons with nonviolent offenders takes away any hope of a productive life, turns many into career lawbreakers and disproportionately affects African-Americans and other minorities. It leaves kids without fathers and mothers, often starting their lives on the wrong path. And maintaining prisons and their staff, plus the care and feeding of those housed there, doesn’t come cheaply for taxpayers.
Nationwide and closer to home, many leaders of both parties agree and have created models worth emulating.
Some 15 years ago, Superior Court Judge John Girardeau began Hall County’s first Drug Court. The program took firsttime offenders, many of them teens, and directed them to treatment instead of prison. Over a two-year period, participants are tested to keep them clean while they perform community service and undergo counseling. As of last year, more than 600 had graduated into productive lives while supporting themselves in a program that costs a fraction of imprisonment. …
“For people who were addicts, that’s an illness, and addicts needed treatment beds, and professional drug dealers needed prison beds,” said former U.S. Attorney Kerry Harvey, a federal prosecutor in Kentucky.
Sessions and federal officials should recognize that distinction. Both prosecutors and judges should have discretion to take each case on its merits and determine whether rehabilitation or prison are the best alternatives. The more rigid their parameters, the more likely prisons will overflow with those who don’t need to be there. That space should be reserved for major dealers and violent offenders who should face the full brunt of the law.
It’s also time to acknowledge the failure of the “war on drugs” as an expensive mistake that incarcerated thousands needlessly as a panacea for a human problem much more complicated to solve than slamming a cell door.
And it’s another case where politicians at the national level can learn from leaders at the state and local levels who have ideas that have been proven to work.