• Slimming Products • Ketogen Tropfen• Stoffwechsel Formel• Vitalrin• Refigura• Slimymed• Fettbinder• Abnehmtropfen• Fatburner• Abnehmtabletten• Kohlenhydratblocker• Stoffwechsel Tabletten• Appetitzügler• Sättigungskapseln• Fettverbrenner• Fettblocker• Abnehmpillen• Almased• Formoline L112• Abnehmshakes• Total Thyroid• Lean Start Keto• Reviews • CBD Öl• Huusk Messer• Nuubu• Nutra Digest• Autis Plus• SWISS FX CBD• CBD Vital• Hanfosan• Nordic Oil• Vitamin B Komplex• Vitamin D3 Tabletten• Glucomannan• Cranberry Kapseln• Testosteron Tabletten• Mariendistel• Vitamin C• Leinöl Kapseln• MSM• OPC• Weizengraspulver• Kollagenhydrolysat• Vitalstoffkonzentrat• Schwarzkümmelöl• PPQ Kapseln• Inulin Pulver• Gerstengras Pulver• Nattokinase• Q Grips• CBD Fruchtgummis• Hanfsamenöl• Vitamin K• Entgiftungspflaster• CBD Öl für Hunde• Cholin• Braunalgen• Vibrationsplatte• Propolis Salbe• Lactose Tabletten• Hagebuttenpulver• Magnesiumcitrat• Magnesium Tabletten• Granatapfel Kapseln• Granatapfel Extrakt• Probiotikum• Ohren Öl• Ohrenreiniger• Hämorrhoiden Salbe• Bauchweggürtel• CBD Kapseln• CBD Blüten• Gymondo• Regener 8• Chlorophyll• CBD Schokolade• Hanfprotein• CBD Liquid• CBD Öl für Tiere• CBG Öl• Hanfsamen• Schlafkapseln• Melatonin• Hanfsalbe• Hanftee• CBD Hautpflege• Hanf Lebensmittel• Akupressurmatte• CBD Öl für Pferde• Hanf Schokolade• Terra Elements• Achterhof• VAAY• Melatonin Spray• Schlafmittel• Shiitake• Ginkgo Biloba• Grüntee Extrakt• Melatonin Tabletten• DMSO• Flohsamenschalen• Multivitamin• Naturecan• GloryFeel• Hempamed• Prostaphytol• Naturtreu• Glycin• CBDNOL• CBD Blume• ColonBroom• PHC• Reishi• Weizengras• ColonBroom• Chaga• Trim Life Keto• Sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because Only CBD Gummies• F1 Keto• Effektive Mikroorganismen• Kurkuma Pulver• Coenzym Q10• Katzenkralle• Exipure• GlucoTrust• Alant• Gaba• MaasaLong• Matcha Tee• Optimal Max Keto• Selen• PhenQ• Silizium• Hair Loss • Rezilin• Mittel gegen Haarausfall• Haarwuchsmittel• Haarserum• Beauty • Biovolen Moossalbe• Akne Tabletten• Pickel Mittel• Gesichtscreme• Biovolen Jasminsalbe• Hyaluronsäure Kapseln• Cellulite Creme• Biovolen Kressesalbe• Venencreme• Dermaroller• Antifaltencreme• Wimpernserum• CBD Creme• Biovolen Harzsalbe• Biovolen Honigsalbe• Asambeauty• CBD Gesichtspflege• CBD Kosmetik• Foot Care • Mittel gegen Nagelpilz• Fusspilz Spray• Nagelöl• Geleinlagen• Fussmaske• Hornhaut Socken• Warzenmittel• Fußcreme• Painkiller • Potency Funds • Phallosan Forte• Penis vergrößern• Penispumpe• Potenzmittel• Viagra Alternative Last Updated on November 20, 2021 by Ben Lesser Jail time is often a penalty for drug abusers when they are caught.
According to the law, arresting and convicting drug offenders is the best solution. From a medical perspective, drug abusers are ill and need appropriate treatment. How rational, then, is it to assign prison time to drug abusers? In most cases, Drug Abuse involves the use or handling of legal or illegal drugs and substances in ways that go against medical advice and jail time.
In other words, drug abuse taking unprescribed medication or more pills than prescribed. Criminal activity is closely linked to drug use in virtually every country leading to a jail time.
Illegal possession of drugs is a crime that has gained popularity in the United States in recent years. Based on a study conducted by the MACI, about 80% of defendants abuse alcohol or drugs while incarcerated.
A study indicates at least half of us who suffer from a substance use disorder are also clinically abstinent to one or more drugs jail time. One way to curb major crimes like drug and alcohol abuse is to provide people with the chance to recover from dependency.
Because of this, they might appear that they don’t contribute to community decay, and as a result, may not cause a nuisance in their neighborhood. They cannot rejoin society because they have been given a jail time for a long time. Therefore, theoretically, the community must not be affected by their absence since so many people will be interested in reuniting the way it was.
Research has shown that jail time is not always the best place for drug abusers to be housed, even though some people think jails are the best place for them. While the sentence may seem harsh, it still brings about some discomfort for the individual involved. 7 Sources History of Imprisonment for Drug Offenders According to those involved in the debate, the only way to decrease the use of marijuana is to bring about such severe punishments as possible to get people to realize the danger they put themselves in sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because they smoke under the influence, including jail time.
On the surface, that may seem plausible, and it may even have some appeal for some people. Taking this a step further, we have seen the birth of mandatory minimum jail term, an outgrowth of this process. As a result, people arrested for specific drug offences have been punished with jail time in addition to being found guilty.
No matter what their background was or what their circumstances were, it didn’t matter one bit. There is no way a lawyer or judge can evade the litigation and judging process rules. While this has been happening, the number of people with jail time for delinquent crimes involving drug use has risen alarmingly during the intervening period.
Even though less than five per cent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to one-fourth of the world’s prison population jail time. More than 300,000 individuals tend to be imprisoned on drug-related charges, including drug possession, drug dealing, or the intentional use of illegal drugs, in either state prison or federal prison in the United States. The number of inmates prohibited from release because of drug-related crimes varied slightly between 1980 and earlier.
A federal prison analysis indicates that drug offences account for nearly half of the accusations against federal inmates that result in jail time. Several homicides are reported each year, but according to the latest national statistics, only one conviction occurs for homicide.
We Cannot Afford to Invest in People Long-Term. Hence, Those Funds Could Be Spent on Projects Like • Infrastructure • Rehabilitation Programs • Education • Correctional Facilities • Clean water • Disaster preparedness • Antiterrorism • Employment Schemes Drug-related crimes are rampant, and people serve jail time for them with little if any mercy. The arrest rate amongst arrests for equally serious sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because is quite low compared to the overall arrest rate.
It appears that the number of people who require professional assistance is continuing to increase. Drug abuse is not a crime deterred by punishments like mandatory minimum sentencing or mandatory minimum fines and jail time.
This would lead to a significant decrease in the number of new patients that come into hospitals each year. In the literature, it is not evident in the data that this view of jail time is accurate. The Possibility of Significant Change Many people in this country know that prisons are a waste of money and inefficiently used accounts for substantial federal spending.
Sixty-three per cent of respondents to a Pew survey said legalized marijuana would lower the mandatory jail time for drug offences. They felt restrictive regulations would reduce efficiency and costs, so they favored lowering the jail time. In my opinion, this type of content will likely gain more acceptance from the majority of people if the research is repeated further and widely.
Half of the voters who supported this candidate in 2001 were incarcerated at jail time. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals show most people recognize it is unfair to offer people jail time for artificially induced crimes, such as drug usage. At the Department of Justice, there has been an effort to reform the Criminal Sentencing Guidelines to reduce jail time.
Attorney General Eric Holder, who enjoys a high level of respect in the United States, believes the same way. According to a report from The New York Times, the Department of Justice intends to turn its attention back to the strategic priorities after this is resolved. Those who traffic drugs violently should have the most severe jail time.
Consequently, it will enhance deterrence, rehabilitation, and public safety. At one time, legislators believed they appeared sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because on crime” if they reduced penalties for breaking the law, so they refused to support legislation to do just that.
Congress may need to think seriously about how they can change jail time’s approach to dealing with drug addiction, and lawmakers may think hard about what could be done long-term. The lessons they learned might be valuable to us as we undergo our own jail time. Pacesetting Reforms In the United States, a trend has been reported toward harsher drug laws that will lead to more jail time. States such as Texas and Kentucky are starting to introduce stricter laws to control drug use, with state representatives increasingly concerned about the issue.
Since Texas passed criminal justice reform in 2014, the rate of crime has experienced a considerable drop as a result of a dramatic drop in young people’s involvement with drugs and a decrease in jail time.
It Has Been Over Ten Years Since the Reforms Were Initiated, with The Introduction of A Great Number of Innovations, Including: • Monitoring earlier released parolees • Individualized treatment is given to nonviolent drug offenders • Reasonable risk assessments for releases • Programmes to give people a second chance These Republican lawmakers have succeeded in changing several significant treatment decisions due to their contributions.
It is common for most members of Congress to take a tough stand on crime, but they do not take a preventative stance against the early relapse of jail times. According to them, drug addicts should be treated just and those who do not receive treatment, thereby allowing for less expenditure during jail times. Supporting these laws can help legislators cut back on their costs and help keep them low. There have been several reforms in Kentucky, and they have demonstrated the effectiveness of jail time for cost savings.
State officials suggest that the reforms focused on treating rather than imprisoning individuals could save the state more than $ 40 million over the next three years.
It’s not just a substantial saving, and it is a significant saving in a community where other vital needs need help. Research indicates that inmates with jail times sent to treatment programs are more likely to stay away from crime in the future and do not pose a risk to themselves or others.
In conclusion, the findings of a survey conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health (1999) support the perspective outlined in this article. It is believed that treatment can be the key to breaking the cycle of addiction, leading to the creation of a community that can handle addiction’s consequences, and may also lead to the reduction of jail time.
Other states may be slow in rolling the ball towards reforming legislation for drug abusers. However, the current exemplary states demonstrate that the idea is not redundant with jail time and is justifiable. Process of Some Reformed Regulations The drug addiction epidemic can be especially harsh and enticing. Addiction patients sometimes feel like they can score a fix even during their limited window of freedom while serving jail time.
Judges on the bench cannot simply force people to enroll in treatment and expect them to stay engaged. The law needs something significant to hold against offenders and coax them into accepting treatment and rehabilitation which is often by allowing them serve a jail time. Individuals who face drug abuse charges are required to regularly attend public hearings to prove they are receiving treatment and have been drug tested and not given jail time.
The right drug court system can help attain the balance between the treatment process and the patients’ jail time supervision.
This Program Requires the Participant to Demonstrate: • Getting better education • Looking for employment or staying busy with a cause. • Living in an environment that is safe and drug-free • Serving the public in a meaningful way When participants receive close supervision, they are more likely to complete treatment within a short timeframe, even if their problems are not so severe that they cannot stay in treatment as long as needed.
Participants usually receive a post-treatment program following successful rehabilitation, usually only after an intensive jail time period. Many people need support groups: they may still need to support group meetings or interact with a counsellor even after having lived in sober communities for a month or more. The individual may need to remain in sober communities, participate in support groups, and attend counselling sessions in addition to their jail time.
If people think of their behavior from a long-term perspective, they are more inclined to be in a position to break a chronic habit. There is no doubt that it is better than being confined to jail time and dealing with withdrawal symptoms and potential mental health issues. Prison Health Care for Serious Offenders A person who avoids addiction would avoid jail most of the time, but criminal behavior can sometimes warrant jail time.
Many people don’t get motivated in these reform programs to serve a jail time. A recent effort to improve prison treatment for drug abuse led to a reduction in the time individuals spent behind bars. This was an effort geared towards reducing jail time. The in-prison treatment program users are tightly supervised since clients are not permitted to leave the facility. Is it possible that these criminals would cooperate with the authorities’ request if they knew that their cooperating with the police would lead to their imprisonment in the free world?
Persons in the program have experienced a reduced risk of arrest or drug usage six months after their release from prison. Studying prison-based programs, the deduction was derived from a study devoted to researching it. Many studies have concluded that drug education programs offered in prison affect the probability of people shunning drugs when they finish their jail time, at least marginally more so than drug education programs that do not exist in prison.
If the offender has access to a recovery center outside prison walls and adequate medical attention, oral therapy might help those in prison stay off drugs. Additionally, Programs Same as This May Provide Equal Types of Interventions Offered in For Profit Addiction Treatment Programs, Including: • Education classes on drug abuse • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) • Skills acquisition and development • Meetings with support groups The waiting list is usually long for these programs for those wishing to participate in jail time.
On the waiting list of these programs in 2011, there were over 51,000 federal prisoner’s waiting. There must be an increase in the government-funded programs supporting them to ensure that they can be fully utilized.
Other options include more out-of-prison initiatives that help drug abusers avoid jail time. Hope Still Abounds We applaud the move toward use of drug offenders as addiction treatment professionals. This would always be held high in place of mere sentencing for those who are addicted. Over the past few decade, drug abuse problems have continued to grow. More of the cases that end in jail time has accounted for this increase, and unaccounted numbers remain in the public. A number of officials in the government alongside citizens want to find effective ways to fight the menace.
Questions continue to increase: Is jail time is the wise rationale for drug abusers? Does easing sanctions affect the rate of drug crime? If stiffer prison terms are in place will it curb drug abuse? As mediators, we believe that close relatives or families can as well should have a conversation about addiction before arrest. Be on the look out for signs that you loved one may be addicted to drugs or abusing them. Get to them before the law does and subsequently serving a jail time.
Our professional drug addiction treatment can help. If you have a growing drug problem or one that may have escalated, coordinators are available to lead you in the right direction. We can help find the interventionist, to help you. Contact us now 615-490-9376 to speak with one of our agents on how to take forego jail time for rehab Sources ” Drugs and Crime.” (n.d.). National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence.
Accessed April 29, 2014. Ibid. Gaita, P. (March 14, 2014). “Justice Department to Reduce Federal Drug Sentences.” The Fix.
Accessed April 29, 2014. Vogel, C. (n.d.). “ Prison Brake.” University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration. Accessed April 29, 2014.Frumin, A. (April 28, 2014). “ The Long, Slow Push to Prison Sentencing Reform.” MSNBC. Accessed April 29, 2014.” Smart on Crime: Reforming the Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century.” (Aug. 2013). U.S. Department of Justice. Accessed April 29, 2014. Ward, M. (Aug. 11, 2012).
“Texas Prison Population Shrinks as Rehabilitation Reforms Take Root.” Statesman.com. Accessed April 29, 2014. Lyons, D. (March 2010). “ Crime and Treatment.” National Conference of State Legislatures.
Accessed April 29, 2014.” Inmate Drug Abuse Treatment Slows Prison’s Revolving Door.” (n.d.). American Psychological Association. Accessed April 29, 2014. ” Drug Courts Work.” (n.d.). National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
Accessed April 29, 2014. Pelissier, B. et al. (n.d.). “ Federal Prison Residential Drug Treatment Reduces Substance Use and Arrests After Release.” University of North Carolina Wilmington. Accessed April 29, 2014. Johnson, K. (Dec. 4, 2012). “ Prisoners Face Long Wait for Drug-Rehab Services.” USA Today. Accessed April 29, 2014. Ben Lesser is one of the most sought-after experts in health, fitness and medicine.
His articles impress with unique research work as well as field-tested skills. He is a freelance medical writer specializing in creating content to improve public awareness of health topics. We are honored to have Ben writing exclusively for Dualdiagnosis.org. Misti Barrickman has scoliosis. Since she was a teenager, it's been debilitating. It hurt to lie down. It hurt to stand up. She started taking Oxycontin to help with the pain and became addicted.
She came to Seattle to find large quantities of the drug. Unable to find it and feeling increasingly desperate, Misti tried what was readily available: heroin.
For the next seven years, she struggled with addiction. She lived between a tent and a jail cell, racking up charges for possession and prostitution. Her story is all too common.
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
Almost 30,000 people were arrested for drugs in New York in 2012. Over 117,000 people were arrested for drugs in California in the same year. Nearly 10,700 people were arrested for drugs in Washington that year. Some of these people, like Misti, have been arrested multiple times – their addictions haven't been helped by stint after stint behind bars. Too often, the cycle just keeps repeating itself. Seattle is trying something different. Since 2012, the city's Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program (LEAD) cuts out the criminal justice middleman.
Instead of jailing people struggling with addiction, officers connect people directly with the treatment and services that can actually help them get sober. Instead of wasting time and money with a court hearing and saddling people with a criminal record before they can access treatment and services, LEAD doesn't waste time.
And unlike drug courts, LEAD participants who relapse are not threatened with jail time and expulsion from the program. For the people we interviewed, the program is working. Misti's been sober now for two years. She no longer lives in a tent, and her pain is under control. She is in school. The latest video in our " OverCriminalized" series – produced in partnership with Brave New Films and The Nation – tells Misti's story and the story of others whose lives have improved after police took them to services, not to jail.
For decades, this country has been waging a failed war on drugs. Drug use hasn't gone down. Drugs are just as available as they used to be. Instead of solving our drug problem, we've become a society that seemingly disregards millions of lives – particularly the lives of black and brown people.
Although the majority of people who use and deliver drugs in Seattle are white, the black drug arrest rate was 13 times higher than the white drug arrest rate in 2006. Aggressive over-policing has ravaged communities.
Large swaths of the population have been locked up. And billions of dollars have been wasted that could have been much better spent on interventions that could have actually changed the course of people's lives. Drug addiction has become one of the many social problems that we've relegated to the criminal justice system. But as with homelessness and mental illness, handcuffs and jail cells haven't made things better and have cost much more than the treatment and services that can.
It doesn't have to be this way. America can safely reduce our reliance on incarceration. Several states have reduced their prison populations while crime rates have dropped. Addiction should not be a crime. " OverCriminalized," a new series produced Brave New Films in partnership with the ACLU and The Nation, profiles three promising and less expensive interventions that may actually change the course of people's lives.
It's time to roll back mass criminalization and focus on what works. Learn more about prison conditions and other civil liberties issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
What the Supreme Court Could Do About Mass Incarceration in the Current Term October 8, 2021 How America Disguised 35,000 Prison Beds July 14, 2021 Meet the Activists Fighting to Free People from LA Jails March 10, 2021 What It’s Like to Face a Deadly Pandemic Behind Bars February 5, 2021 Filmmaker Garrett Bradley on Time in the Criminal Justice System February 5, 2021
Read the following text to answer the question!
The Government Should Provide Rehabilitation Program for Drug Users Drug users are actually ill people who need help. Rehabilitation is one of the main things they should get. Instead of punishing drug users in prisons, the government should provide rehabilitation for them. Most users are actually victims of persuasive peddlers and they suffer from consuming the drugs.
Therefore, by rehabilitating them, we are actually helping them out from traps, which they might accidentally step on. If we only arrest drug users and send them to jail, this doesn't solve the problem as drug users will still be addicted unless proper rehabilitation is imposed to them. Providing rehabilitation programs for drug users and forcing them to participate in the programs is better than only arresting them and doing nothing to their illness.
Only drug dealers, traffickers, and wholesalers should be imprisoned. Soal ini menanyakan alasan mengapa memenjarakan pengguna obat-obatan terlarang bukanlah solusi yang tepat.
Pada paragraf 3 kalimat pertama tertulis: " If we only arrest drug users and send them to jail, this doesn't solve the problem as drug users will still be addicted ." Dari informasi tersebut dapat disimpulkan bahwa memenjarakan pengguna obat-obatan terlarang bukan solusi yang tepat karena mereka masih mungkin kecanduan dan berusaha untuk mencari obat-obatan terlarang lainnya.
Oleh karena itu, jawaban yang paling tepat adalah C. none
Author • Dio Ashar Wicaksana Executive Director of Indonesia Judicial Monitoring Society (MaPPI), Faculty of Law University of Indonesia, Universitas Indonesia Disclosure statement Dio Ashar Wicaksana receives funding from USAID and the Australian Government (DFAT) as a researcher for MaPPI-FHUI.
Partners Universitas Indonesia provides support as an endorsing partner of The Conversation ID. View all partners Languages • Bahasa Indonesia • English Indonesia is locking up more inmates than it can handle. Prison overcrowding has become one of the government’s top priorities under its legal reform policy. It has led to various problems, including riots and bribery.
As of June 2018, the government had detained almost 250,000 inmates in sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because across the country. The prisons’ total capacity can accommodate only half sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because that figure.
The overcrowding problem is mostly due to Indonesia’s justice system, which can easily send criminals to prison even for minor cases. Under the system, drug users are sent to prisons instead of rehab centres. They are even categorised as serious criminal offenders together with graft convicts and convicted terrorists.
Recent data show that drug users account for a third of those jailed for serious crimes. Given the huge numbers in prison, the government needs to stop sending drug users to prison and revisit its punitive approach to them.
Indonesia’s drugs policy As a starting point, we must understand that drug convicts are not necessarily drug dealers. When someone is a drug convict, he or she can be a drug user, or a drug dealer, or both in some cases.
However, Indonesian law does not acknowledge this differentiation and tends to treat all drug convicts as serious criminal offenders.
Under the law, drug abuse is considered a serious crime and the offenders will get a severe punishment. This potentially includes the death penalty. Article 127 of the Law on Drugs states that a judge can offer rehabilitation programs for drug users after trials.
However, the regulation is not effectively implemented yet. Most legal officers believe that sending drug users to prisons is the common practice. Recent undisclosed research from the Indonesia Judicial Monitoring Society shows that of 21 cases involving drug users in Jakarta District Court in 2015, only six were sent to a rehab centre.
Inconsistencies in Indonesian law present another challenge. Even though there is an article that offers rehab, another article encourages jail time. Article 112 states that a person who owns, keeps, controls and serves narcotics should receive a jail sentence. This defines drug users as serious criminals, as logically the person who uses drugs also owns and keeps the drugs.
Recent research from the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) shows that legal officers tend to rely more on article 112 than article 127 in handling drug cases, as the former is easier to prove than the latter. President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s harsh approach in dealing with drug cases has only worsened the problem.
In another effort, Indonesia introduced a forced rehabilitation program for drug users in 2015. It has promoted a more lenient approach to addressing drug use. However, in practice, the state often forcibly detains suspected drug users. Jail time is not effective for drug users Sending drug users to jail only make things worse for them due to rampant corrupt practices inside prisons. Inmates can get everything they want for a price, including drugs.
Yale University researcher Gabriel J. Culbert revealed the rampant use of drugs in Jakarta’s prison. Based on his research in 2014, he found that 56% of inmates used drugs in prison. The respondents also claimed they still can get illegal drugs in prison.
This means jail sentences are not effective in reducing drug use. Inside jail, drug users are also exposed to wider drug communities. According to the National Anti-Narcotics Agency, 50% of drug trafficking is controlled from inside prisons. The bad impact Sending drug users to prisons is not only ineffective but also creates many problems. If the government decides to send every drug user to prison, this will only hurt the state’s budget as more inmates mean more funding is required.
The state’s budget for prison was set at Rp 1.2 trillion (US$83 million) in 2017, almost double the allocation in 2012.
If the government continues to lock up drug users in jail while the budget is limited, it will lead to two bad consequences. The first is the poor quality of the prison service.
The second is rampant corruption involving both guards and prisoners. Underpaid guards will take bribes from prisoners whose needs are not being met.
Another problem arising from putting drug users in jail is overcrowding. Having more inmates than each prison can handle leaves them prone to riots and corruption. Corruption is rampant in overcrowded prisons as the government’s limited budget means it fails to provide services that meet the basic needs of inmates.
Lessons from other countries Instead of sending drug users to prison, Indonesia should learn from how other countries handle drug cases. The Netherlands has introduced a policy that doesn’t criminalise the use of marijuana.
This policy allows the distribution of small amounts of cannabis in Dutch “coffee shops”.
These coffee shops successfully avoid exposure to hard drug markets. Research shows that even though a quarter of Dutch people have consumed marijuana, the Netherlands has the lowest number of narcotics addicts in Europe. Portugal also provides an interesting lesson. In 2000, Portugal introduced a policy that does not criminalise drug use, which broke a global paradigm in handling drugs problems.
Instead of a repressive approach, Portugal has chosen a new humane approach that focuses more on minimising harm from drug use. In doing so, Portugal has stopped criminalising, marginalising and stigmatising drug users. Following the recommendation of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, Portugal has offered health and medical treatments to drug users who need them.
Five years after decriminalising drug use, Portugal had decreased its overdose cases from 400 to 290 a year. Knowing that Indonesia’s punitive approach to drug users is doing more harm than good, it is probably a good time for the government to evaluate its legal policy on drug issues. It is important to keep in mind that the government should emphasise drug policy to fight against drug addiction and illegal distribution and not drug users.
Thinkstock Overview Nearly 300,000 people are held in state and federal prisons in the United States for drug-law violations, up from less than 25,000 in 1980.
1 These offenders served more time than in the past: Those who left state prisons in 2009 had been behind bars an average of 2.2 years, a 36 percent increase over 1990, 2 while prison terms for federal drug offenders jumped 153 percent between 1988 and 2012, from about two to roughly five years.
3 As the U.S. confronts a growing epidemic of opioid misuse, policymakers and public health officials need a clear understanding of whether, how, and to what degree imprisonment for drug offenses affects the nature and extent of the nation’s drug problems. To explore this question, The Pew Charitable Trusts examined publicly available 2014 data from federal and state law enforcement, corrections, and health agencies.
4 The analysis found no statistically significant relationship between state drug imprisonment rates and three indicators of state drug problems: self-reported drug use, drug overdose deaths, and drug arrests. The findings—which Pew sent to the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis in a letter dated June 19, 2017—reinforce a large body of prior research that cast doubt on the theory that stiffer prison terms deter drug misuse, distribution, and other drug-law violations.
The evidence strongly suggests that policymakers should pursue alternative strategies that research shows work better and cost less. Sharp rise in federal drug imprisonment yields high cost, low returns More than three decades ago, Congress responded to the rise of crack cocaine by requiring that more drug offenders go to prison and stay there longer.
5 Largely as a result of those actions, between 1980 and 2015, the number of federal prisoners serving time for drug offenses soared from about 5,000 to 92,000, though changes in drug crime patterns and law enforcement practices also contributed to the growth.
6 Although the share of federal inmates who are drug offenders has declined from its peak of 61 percent in 1994, 7 it was still nearly 50 percent in 2015. 8 And as the federal prison population soared, spending ballooned 595 percent between 1980 and 2013 without delivering sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because convincing public safety return. 9 In fact, self-reported use of illegal drugs increased between 1990 and 2014 (see Figure 1), as has the availability of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine as indicated by falling prices and a rise in purity.
10 The surge in federal prison spending has also failed to reduce recidivism. The rate of federal drug offenders who leave prison and are placed on community supervision but commit new crimes or violate the conditions of their release has been roughly a third for more than three decades. 11 Penalties do not match roles Although federal sentencing laws have succeeded in putting some kingpins and other serious drug offenders behind bars, they have also led to lengthy imprisonment for lower-level offenders.
12 The U.S. Sentencing Commission found that in 2009 the most serious traffickers—those defined as “high-level suppliers” or “importers” who rank at the top of the commission’s culpability scale—represented 11 percent of federal drug offenders.
13 In contrast, nearly half of those sentenced for federal drug crimes in 2009 were lower-level actors, such as street dealers, couriers, and mules. 14 Research indicates that the public safety impact of incapacitating these offenders is essentially nullified because they are rapidly replaced.
15 Rise in opioid misuse Lawmakers across the country are trying to address the rise in opioid misuse, which includes prescription drugs and illicitly manufactured heroin and fentanyl. In 2015, more than 33,000 Americans died from an opioid overdose, and heroin-related deaths climbed 20 percent from the previous year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
16 In addition to lost lives and destabilized families and communities, these mortality rates take an extreme economic toll. The costs of opioid misuse totaled $504 billion in 2015, according to a recent report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers. 17 Prescription opioids are more widely misused than heroin, and nearly 80 percent of today’s heroin users said they previously misused prescription opioids.
18 Changes in the prescription opioid market may have spurred some users to shift to heroin. 19 For example, one study found that in a population of OxyContin users, heroin use nearly doubled within 18 months after the medication was reformulated in 2010 to deter misuse by making it harder to crush the tablets. 20 Heroin also costs less and is easier to acquire than prescription opioids in some communities.
21 Drug imprisonment varies widely by state Although federal courts garner more public attention, most of the nation’s criminal justice system is administered by the states, and state laws determine criminal penalties for most drug offenses. But the 50 states have made different policy choices regarding drug penalties, which has led to considerable variation in drug imprisonment rates.
(See Figure 2.) In 2014, Louisiana had the highest drug-offender imprisonment rate in the nation at 226.4 per 100,000 residents, more than twice the rate of 37 other states. In contrast, Massachusetts’ drug imprisonment rate was the lowest at 30.2 per 100,000 residents, less than one-seventh Louisiana’s. In raw numbers, Louisiana had more drug offenders in prison on the last day of 2014 than every state except California, Florida, Illinois, and Texas, which sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because much larger populations.
The country’s second-highest drug imprisonment rate, 213.7 per 100,000 residents, was in Oklahoma and was more than double the rates in two neighboring states, Kansas and Arkansas. (See Table Sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because for more information.) Lawmakers across the country are trying to address the rise in opioid misuse, which includes prescription drugs and illicitly manufactured heroin and fentanyl.
In 2015, more than 33,000 Americans died from an opioid overdose, and heroin-related deaths climbed 20 percent from the previous year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No relationship between drug imprisonment rates and states’ drug problems One primary reason for sentencing an offender to prison is deterrence—conveying the message that losing one’s freedom is not worth whatever one gains from committing a crime.
If imprisonment were an effective deterrent to drug use and crime, then, all other things being equal, the extent to which a state sends drug offenders to prison should be correlated with certain drug-related problems in that state. The theory of deterrence would suggest, for instance, that states with higher rates of drug imprisonment would experience lower rates of drug use among their residents. To test this, Pew compared state drug imprisonment rates with three important measures of drug problems— self-reported drug use (excluding marijuana), drug arrest, and overdose death—and found no statistically significant relationship between drug imprisonment and these indicators.
In other words, higher rates of drug imprisonment did not translate into lower rates of drug use, arrests, or overdose deaths. State pairings offer illustrative examples. For instance, Tennessee imprisons drug offenders at more than three times the rate of New Jersey, but the states’ rates of self-reported drug use are virtually the same.
(See Figure 3.) Conversely, Indiana and Iowa have nearly identical rates of drug imprisonment, but Indiana ranks 27th among states in self-reported drug use and 18th in overdose deaths compared with 44th and 47th, respectively, for Iowa. If imprisonment were an effective deterrent to drug use and crime, then, all other things being equal, the extent to which a state sends drug offenders to prison should be correlated with certain drug-related problems in that state. The results hold even when controlling for standard demographic variables, including the percentage of the population with bachelor’s degrees, the unemployment rate, the percentage of the population that is nonwhite, and median household income.
(See the “Data and methodology” section for more information.) Some associations (though not causal relationships) did emerge among the demographic variables. The larger the share of a state’s population that: • Has a bachelor’s degree, the lower the drug imprisonment rate. • Is not white, the higher the drug imprisonment rate. • Is unemployed, the lower the drug imprisonment rate. Effective policies for curtailing drug misuse The absence of any relationship between states’ rates of drug imprisonment and drug problems suggests that expanding imprisonment is not likely to be an effective national drug control and prevention strategy.
The statelevel analysis reaffirms the findings of previous research demonstrating that imprisonment rates have scant association with the nature and extent of the harm arising from illicit drug use. For example, a 2014 National Research Council report found that mandatory minimum sentences for drug and other offenders sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because few, if any, deterrent effects.” 22 The finding was based, in part, on decades of observation that when street-level drug dealers are apprehended and incarcerated they are quickly and easily replaced.
On the other hand, reduced prison terms for certain federal drug offenders have not led to higher recidivism rates. In 2007, the Sentencing Commission retroactively cut the sentences of thousands of crack cocaine offenders, and a seven-year follow-up study found no increase in recidivism among offenders whose sentences were shortened compared with those whose were not.
23 In 2010, Congress followed the commission’s actions with a broader statutory decrease in penalties for crack cocaine offenders. 24 These and other research findings suggest that the most effective response to drug misuse is a combination of law enforcement to curtail trafficking and prevent the emergence of new markets; alternative sentencing to divert nonviolent drug offenders from costly imprisonment; treatment to reduce dependency and recidivism; and prevention efforts that can identify individuals at high risk for substance use disorders.
Law enforcement strategies. A 2014 report by the Police Executive Research Forum found that law enforcement agencies in several states are collaborating with other stakeholders to develop alternative approaches to drug offenders, such as diverting those with substance use disorders into treatment. 25 Another model involves harmreduction strategies, such as training law enforcement officers in overdose prevention and community policing in neighborhoods with emerging heroin markets. 26 These interventions include collaborating with community organizations to dismantle open-air street markets by, among other things, telling drug dealers face to face that they will probably face punishment if they continue to sell drugs.
27 When offered options and assistance, many dealers accept; drug offenses in targeted jurisdictions have dropped by as much as 55 percent. 28 Alternative sentencing strategies. Over the past 10 years, many states have revised their drug penalties and reduced their prison populations without seeing an increase in crime rates. In 2010, as part of a larger reform effort, South Carolina expanded probation and parole opportunities for people convicted of drug offenses.
29 The state’s reform bill passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 97 to 4 in the House of Representatives. 30 Since the legislation was enacted, South Carolina’s prison population has decreased by 14 percent, and people convicted of violent offenses now make up a larger proportion of the state’s inmates.
31 In addition, the violent crime rate dropped by 16 percent between 2010 and 2015. 32 Michigan, New York, and Rhode Island also significantly decreased drug sentences, with Michigan and Rhode Island rolling back mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses. 33 Each of these states reduced their prison populations and their crime rates. 34 More recently, Mississippi, Alaska, and Maryland have changed their drug sentencing and related policies, including revising mandatory minimums, reducing sentencing ranges, and establishing presumptive probation for certain offenses.
35 And in the 2016 election, 58 percent of Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure that converted drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor. 36 Although lengthy prison sentences for drug offenders have shown a poor return on taxpayer investment, alternatives such as drug courts and stronger community supervision have proved more effective.
A systematic review of drug courts in 30 states concluded that a combination of comprehensive services and individualized care is an effective way to treat offenders with serious addictions. 37 Meanwhile, supervision strategies that provide swift, certain, and graduated sanctions for violations and rewards for compliance have been shown to reduce recidivism and costs.
38 Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina have saved hundreds of millions of dollars by taking alternative approaches. 39 The absence of any relationship between states’ rates of drug imprisonment and drug problems suggests that expanding drug imprisonment is not likely to be an effective national drug control and prevention strategy.
Treatment strategies. An estimated 22 million Americans needed substance use treatment in 2015, but only about 1 in 10 received it. 40 Medication-assisted treatment (MAT)—a combination of psychosocial therapy and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication—is the most effective intervention to treat opioid use disorder.
41 Yet only 23 percent of publicly funded treatment programs report offering any FDAapproved medications, and fewer than half of private sector facilities report doing so. 42 Many states and localities are expanding drug treatment programs to address opioid misuse. In March 2015, Kentucky enacted a law eliminating barriers to treatment in county jails and providing funds for evidence-based behavioral health or medication-assisted treatment for inmates with an opioid use disorder. 43 It also allows local health departments to establish needle exchange sites, increases access to naloxone (a prescription drug shown to counter the effects of an opioid overdose), and supports individuals recovering from an overdose by connecting them to treatment services and prohibiting their possible prosecution for drug possession.
44 Prevention strategies. Several evidence-based approaches are available to help patients and medical providers ensure appropriate use of prescribed opioids. One, a patient review and restriction (PRR) program, identifies individuals at risk for prescription misuse and ensures that they receive controlled substance prescriptions only from designated pharmacies and prescribers. 45 Another approach is prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), state-based electronic databases of controlled substance prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies and prescribers.
PDMPs allow prescribers, pharmacists, and other authorized stakeholders to monitor patients’ controlled substance prescriptions and enable states to track prescribing practices and population-level drug use trends. 46 Public supports alternatives for drug offenses Across demographic groups and political parties, U.S. voters strongly support a range of major changes in how the states and federal government punish people who commit drug offenses. A nationwide telephone survey of 1,200 registered voters, conducted for Pew in 2016 by the Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies, found that nearly 80 percent favor ending mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses.
47 By wide margins, voters also backed other reforms that would reduce the federal prison population. More than 8 in 10 favored permitting federal prisoners to cut their time behind bars by up to 30 percent by participating in drug treatment and job training programs that are shown to decrease recidivism.
Sixty-one percent believed prisons hold too many drug offenders and that more prison space should be dedicated to “people who have committed acts of violence or terrorism.” A minority of voters backed tough prison terms for drug offenses. Twenty percent said drug couriers or mules should receive a 10-year minimum sentence, and 25 percent said drug dealers who sold illegal substances on the street deserved a minimum 10-year term.
In addition, 34 percent believed that drug offenders “belong behind bars,” and 22 percent thought sentences for people convicted of federal drug offenses were “too lenient.” 48 Across demographic groups and political parties, U.S. voters strongly support a range of major changes in how the states and the federal government punish people who commit drug offenses. In addition, public opinion polls in four states, also conducted for Pew by the Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies between February 2015 and March 2017, reveal significant and broad political support for reducing prison sentences for nonviolent offenders and reinvesting the savings in alternatives, including drug treatment.
• Maryland. 49 • 75 percent agreed that imposing longer prison terms “is the wrong way to break the cycle of crime and addiction” and that a “more effective strategy is to put drug-addicted offenders into treatment programs and community supervision and to hold them accountable with community service or short stays in jail if they continue to use drugs or fail to go to treatment.” • More than 8 in 10 (83 percent) favored giving judges more discretion in deciding sentences for drug offenses.
• 86 percent supported “allowing nonviolent offenders to earn additional time off of their prison term for completing substance abuse and mental health treatment programs while in prison.” • Utah.
50 • 73 percent of state voters—including 74 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of independents, and 71 percent of Democrats—favored a bipartisan commission’s recommendation to reclassify simple drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor.
• 70 percent believed that “prison is not the best place for people who are addicted to drugs. Requiring offenders to get treatment and increasing community supervision rather than sending them to prison will more effectively stop the cycle of addiction and make our communities safer.” • 85 percent expressed support for “shorter prison sentences for inmates who complete rehabilitative substance abuse and mental health treatment programs while in prison.” • Oklahoma.
51 • 84 percent of respondents believed prison sentences for nonviolent offenders should be shortened and that the resulting savings should be reinvested in probation, parole, and substance abuse and mental health treatment. • 86 percent favored allowing people on probation or parole the chance to reduce their supervision periods by engaging in good behavior or participating in substance abuse or mental health treatment programs.
• Support for both of these reforms spanned political parties and demographic groups. • Louisiana. 52 • Nearly two-thirds of Louisiana voters (63 percent)—including 54 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents, and 69 percent of Democrats—approved of a proposal to reduce penalties for lower-level drug offenses while keeping long sentences for higher-level drug dealers.
• 83 percent favored a proposal to cut prison sentences for nonviolent crimes and use the resulting savings for “stronger probation and parole and more substance abuse and mental health treatment for offenders.” (See Figure 4.) Consensus was broadly bipartisan for this question as well, with backing from 80 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of independents, and 87 percent of Democrats.
(See Figure 5.) Conclusion Although no amount of policy analysis can resolve disagreements about how much punishment drug offenses deserve, research does make clear that some strategies for reducing drug use and crime are more effective than others and that imprisonment ranks near the bottom of that list. And surveys have found strong public support for changing how states and the federal government respond to drug crimes.
Putting more drug-law violators behind bars for longer periods of time has generated enormous costs for taxpayers, but it has not yielded a convincing public safety return on those investments. Instead, more imprisonment for drug offenders has meant limited funds are siphoned away from programs, practices, and policies that have been proved to reduce drug use and crime.
Data and methodology This analysis used imprisonment data collected from state corrections departments, the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Corrections Reporting Program (for California and Maine only), and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Imprisonment data included offenders in state and federal facilities; federal drug offenders were assigned to state counts based on the location of the federal district court in which they were sentenced.
Inmates were considered “drug offenders” if their “most serious” or “controlling” offense was for a drug crime, including all drugs and all levels of drug offenses (ranging from possession to trafficking). Correctional facilities in the District of Columbia were not included in the analysis.
Federal offenders in community corrections, military, and foreign facilities and local jail inmates (up to 70 percent of whom are being held pending trial 53) also were not included. Drug use rates were reported by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an annual survey of randomly selected individuals 12 and older, sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, an agency in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
This analysis utilized 2013-14 NSDUH data for adults 18 or older, comprising approximately 96,000 individuals. For this brief, illicit drug use rates excluded marijuana, which has been legalized for medicinal and recreational use in several states.
Overdose death rates came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) reported drug arrest rates. The state-level drug arrest rates include marijuana since UCR data is not broken out by drug type. Unless otherwise noted, all data are from 2014, the most recent year for which complete data are available for each of the four measures.
Data on drug treatment admissions and unmet drug treatment need by state sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because excluded because the availability of drug treatment depends on a range of factors (including state funding levels) that make such data a relatively poor indicator of the extent of a state’s drug problems.
To measure whether a relationship exists between drug imprisonment rates and state drug problems, Pew performed a simple regression test. The statistical model isolated the correlation between states’ drug problems and drug offender imprisonment rates and controlled for standard demographic variables, including the percentage of the population with bachelor’s degrees, the unemployment rate, the percentage of the population that is nonwhite, and median household income in each respective state.
Demographic data were drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau, and unemployment and income data were derived from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The analysis did not draw conclusions about causality between state drug imprisonment rates and the aforementioned indicators of state drug problems. The 2016 nationwide poll cited in this report captures findings from a telephone survey of 1,200 registered voters conducted for Pew by The Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies between Jan.
13 and 19, 2016, that included cellphones and landlines randomly selected from official voter lists. The margin of error for the survey was plus or minus 2.8 percent at the 95 percent confidence level and higher for subgroups. The four state polls also capture findings of telephone surveys—also conducted by the Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies—of 600 likely voters per state, which similarly included cellphones and landlines selected from official voter lists.
Each survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.0 percent at the 95 percent confidence level and higher for subgroups. The field dates for the state surveys were Feb. 16-19, 2015, for Utah; Feb. 17-21, 2016, for Maryland; March 6-10, 2017, for Oklahoma; and March 27-30, 2017, for Louisiana. Appendix External reviewers The document was reviewed by Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon University, Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland, College Park, and Sally Satel of the American Enterprise Institute.
Although the reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, neither they nor their organizations necessarily endorse the conclusions or recommendations. Acknowledgments This brief was prepared by Pew staff members Adam Gelb, Phillip Stevenson, Adam Fifield, Monica Fuhrmann, Laura Bennett, Jake Horowitz, and Erinn Broadus.
The team thanks Pew colleagues Alex Duncan, Casey Ehrlich, Justine Calcagno, Peter Wu, Timothy Cordova, and Abby Walsh for research support; and Ken Willis, Krista MacPherson, Cindy Murphy-Tofig, Jennifer V. Doctors, Jennifer Peltak, Maria Borden, and Lisa Plotkin for their assistance with production and distribution.
Endnotes • E. Ann Carson and Elizabeth Anderson, “Prisoners in 2015,” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2016), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf; Tracy L. Snell, “Correctional Populations in the United States, 1993,” Bureau of Justice Statistics (1995), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpop93bk.pdf; University at Albany, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2003, Table 6.57, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t657.pdf.
• The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms” (2012), 19, http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2012/06/06/ time_served_report.pdf. • The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Federal Drug Sentencing Laws Bring High Cost, Low Return” (2015), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2015/08/federal-drug-sentencing-laws-bring-high-cost-low-return.
• Pew’s analysis was based on 2014 data from 48 states; the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics National Corrections Reporting Program (for California and Maine only); the Federal Bureau of Prisons; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Drug Overdose Death Data,” 2014 data, https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html; the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, “Crime in the United States 2014” (2014), https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014; and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health, “Population Data / NSDUH,” 2014 data, https://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh/reports?tab=33.
• Nathan James, “The Federal Prison Population Buildup: Overview, Policy Changes, Issues, and Options” (2014), https://ia601308.us.archive.org/7/items/ R42937TheFederalPrisonPopulationBuildupOverviewPolicyChangesIssuesandOptions-crs/R42937 The Federal Prison Population Buildup_ Overview, Policy Changes, Issues, and Options.pdf; U.S.
Sentencing Commission, “1995 Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy” (1995) Chapter 6, http://www.ussc.gov/research/congressional-reports/1995-report-congress-cocaine-and-federal-sentencing-policy. • Carson and Anderson, “Prisoners in 2015”; University at Albany, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. • University at Albany, Sourcebook sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because Criminal Justice Statistics. • Carson and Anderson, “Prisoners in 2015.” • The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Federal Prison System Shows Dramatic Long-Term Growth” (2015), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2015/02/federal-prison-system-shows-dramatic-long-term-growth.
• Office of National Drug Control Policy, “National Drug Control Strategy: Data Supplement 2016,” Tables 1, 2, 73, 74, and 75, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/2016_ndcs_data_supplement_20170110.pdf. Pew used the 1990-2012 period to capture all available yearly data. • Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Federal Justice Statistics,” Statistical Tables Series 2005-12, http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=65; Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics,” Series 1984-2004, https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=4.
• The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Federal Drug Sentencing Laws.” • U.S. Sentencing Commission, “2011 Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System” (October 2011), Chapter 8, https://www.ussc.gov/research/congressional-reports/2011-report-congress-mandatory-minimum-penalties-federal-criminal-justice-system.
• Ibid., Appendix D, Figure D-2. • Mark A.R. Kleiman, “Toward (More Nearly) Optimal Sentencing for Drug Offenders,” Criminology & Public Policy 3, no. 3 (2004): 435–440, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6taQDF0rdAwYnJNTDU2bDVBNFU/edit. • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Opioid Overdose,” accessed on May 15, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Heroin Overdose Data,” accessed May 19, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/heroin.html.
• White House Council of Economic Advisers, “The Underestimated Cost of the Opioid Crisis” (2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/The Underestimated Cost of the Opioid Crisis.pdf. • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, “Results From the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables” (2016), https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015.pdf; Pradip K.
Muhuri, Joseph C. Gfroerer, and M. Christine Davies, “CBHSQ Data Review: Associations of Nonmedical Pain Reliever Use and Initiation of Heroin Use in the United States,” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2013), abstract, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DR006/DR006/nonmedical-pain-reliever-use-2013.htm.
• The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Public Safety Aspects of the Heroin Abuse Epidemic” (2015), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2015/07/public-safety-aspects-of-the-heroin-abuse-epidemic. • Theodore J. Cicero, Matthew S. Ellis, and Hilary L. Surratt, “Effect of Abuse-Deterrent Formulation of OxyContin,” New England Journal of Medicine 367, no.
2 (2012): 187–189, http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc1204141. • Nora D. Volkow (director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse), statement before the U.S. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, 113th Cong. (2014), https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2016/americas-addiction-to-opioids-heroin-prescription-drug-abuse.
• National Research Council, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2014), 347. • U.S. Sentencing Commission, “U.S. Sentencing Commission Votes Unanimously to Apply Amendment Retroactively for Crack Cocaine Offenses,” news release, Dec. 11, 2007, http://www.ussc.gov/about/news/press-releases/december-11-2007; Kim Steven Hunt and Andrew Peterson, “Recidivism Among Offenders Receiving Retroactive Sentence Reductions: The 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment” (2014), U.S.
Sentencing Commission, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/miscellaneous/20140527_Recidivism_2007_Crack_Cocaine_Amendment.pdf. • U.S. Sentencing Commission, “U.S. Sentencing Commission Reports on Impact of Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,” news release, Aug. 3, 2015, http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/press-releases-and-news-advisories/press-releases/20150803_Press_Release.pdf.
• Police Executive Research Forum, “New Challenges for Police: A Heroin Epidemic and Changing Attitudes Toward Marijuana” (2014), http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series_2/a heroin epidemic and changing attitudes toward marijuana.pdf.
• Jonathan P. Caulkins and Sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because Reuter, “Towards a Harm-Reduction Approach to Enforcement,” Safer Communities 8, no. 1 (2009): 12-15, http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Article - Safer Communities Special Issue_ Law enforcement to reduce drug harms.pdf. The authors assess tactics used by law enforcement in the United Kingdom.
• Nicholas Corsaro et al., “The Impact of Drug Market Pulling Levers Policing on Neighborhood Violence: An Evaluation of the High Point Drug Market Intervention,” Criminology & Public Policy 11, no. 2 (2012), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00798.x/pdf.
• National Network for Safe Communities, “Drug Market Intervention,” https://nnscommunities.org/our-work/strategy/drug-market-intervention. • The Pew Charitable Trusts, “South Carolina’s Public Safety Reform” (2010), http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2010/06/10/ pspp_south_carolina_brief.pdf.
• Ibid. • Bryan P. Stirling, “South Carolina’s Prison System: Report to the Sentencing Reform Oversight Committee,” South Carolina Department of Corrections (Nov.
28, 2016). • Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports. See also FBI, “Crime in the United States, 2010,” Table 5, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl05.xls; Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States, 2015,” Table 5, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-5.
• Families Against Mandatory Minimums, “Recent State-Level Reforms to Mandatory Minimums Laws” (2017), http://famm.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/Recent-State-Reforms-May-2017.pdf. • The Pew Charitable Trusts, “National Imprisonment and Crime Rates Continue to Fall” (2016), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2016/12/national-imprisonment-and-crime-rates-continue-to-fall.
For a discussion of the complex relationship between imprisonment and crime, see The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Q & A: Weighing Imprisonment and Crime” (2015), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/q-and-a/2014/09/weighing-imprisonment-and-crime.
• The Pew Charitable Trusts, “33 States Reform Criminal Justice Policies Through Justice Reinvestment” (2016), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2016/11/33-states-reform-criminal-justice-policies-through-justice-reinvestment. • Sean Murphy, “Voters Provide Momentum to More Criminal Justice Changes,” Associated Press, Nov. 12, 2016, https://www.apnews.com/34dff70081024d8fb452c0a463378580. • Ojmarrh Mitchell et al., “Drug Courts’ Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults” (2012), https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library/drug-courts-effects-on-criminal-offending.html.
• Angela Hawken and Mark Kleiman, “Managing Drug Involved Probationers With Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE” (2009), National Institute of Justice, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf. • Marc Levin, “Adult Corrections Reform: Lower Crime, Lower Costs” (2011), Texas Public Policy Foundation, http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2011-09-PB44-TexasModel-AdultCorrections-CEJ-MarcLevin.pdf; Samantha Harvell et al., “Reforming Sentencing and Corrections Policy: The Experience of Justice Reinvestment Initiative States,” Urban Institute (2016), http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/86691/ reforming_sentencing_and_corrections_policy_1.pdf.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results From the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health” (2016), https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-FFR1-2015/NSDUH-FFR1-2015/NSDUH-FFR1-2015.pdf. • The Pew Charitable Trusts, “The Case for Medication-Assisted Treatment” (2017), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2017/02/the-case-for-medication-assisted-treatment.
• Hannah K. Knudsen, Paul M. Roman, and Carrie B. Oser, “Facilitating Factors and Barriers to the Use of Medications in Publicly Funded Addiction Treatment Organizations,” Journal of Addiction Medicine 4, no. 2 (2010): 99–107, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20835350; Hannah K. Knudsen, Amanda J. Abraham, and Paul M. Roman, “Adoption and Implementation of Medications in Addiction Treatment Programs,” Journal of Addiction Medicine 5, no.
1 (2011): 21–7, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21359109. • Kentucky State Legislature, S.B. 192 (2015), http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/15RS/SB192.htm. • Ibid. • The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Using Patient Review and Restriction Programs to Protect Patients at Risk of Opioid Misuse and Abuse” (2015), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2015/07/using-patient-review-and-restriction-programs-to-protect-patients-at-risk-of-opioid-misuse-and-abuse. • The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs” (2016), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2016/12/prescription-drug-monitoring-programs.
• The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Voters Want Big Changes in Federal Sentencing, Prison System” (2016), http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2016/02/12/voters-want-changes-in-federal-sentencing-prison-system.
For top line results, see http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2018/02/ national_sentencing_survey_2016.pdf. • Ibid. • The Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies, “Maryland Statewide Survey” (2016). For top line results, see http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2018/02/ maryland_statewide_survey_2016.pdf.
• The Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies, “Utah Statewide Survey” (2015). For top line results, see http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2018/02/ utah_statewide_survey_2015.pdf. • The Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies, “Oklahoma Statewide Survey” (2017). For top line results, see http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2018/02/ oklahoma_statewide_survey_2017.pdf. • The Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies, “Louisiana Statewide Survey” (2017). For top line results, see http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2018/02/ louisiana_statewide_survey_2017.pdf.
• According to one estimate, about 150,000 people were held in local jails on drug charges in 2015; about 70 percent of them were not convicted but were being held pending trial.
See Prison Policy Initiative, “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017” (2017), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html.Read the following text to answer questions number 4 to 6. Everybody should change their way of life to reduce global warming. There are several things that we can do.
One of them is by buying and consuming fresh local groceries as much as possible. It of course includes local vegetables, fruits, bread, etc. Local groceries don’t need much transportation to get it into the market. It of course means, the amount of carbon dioxide produced is less than the groceries from other region.
Therefore, by buying local groceries we are helping reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced. Consuming fresh groceries instead of frozen ones are healthier for us. Furthermore, fresh food or groceries means no requirements for it to be freeze up. It means that no electricity is needed and saving energy means reducing carbon dioxide and money.
So, from now on we should consume fresh local groceries to reduce global warming. 4. The text gives us information about …. Top of Form A. Buy import product B. Buy expensive clothes C. Consume frozen foods D. Consume fresh foods E. Not use electricity efficiently Bottom of Form 6.
We are helping reduce the amount of global warming” (Paragraph 2) The underlined word can be replaced by …. Top of Form A. Increase B. Decrease C. Improve D. Add E. Maximize Bottom of Form Read the following text to answer questions number 7 to 10. The use of formalin and other dangerous preservatives in food has been serious problem for three reasons.
Firstly, formalin is not for human beings, but it is for biological specimens and experiments. Formalin in Biology is a 10% solution of formaldehyde in water which is usually used as a disinfectant or to preserve biological specimens.
Thus, it is not for food preservatives. Of course when it is used for food preservative, it will be very dangerous to human’s body. The second reason is that there is no tight control from the government.
This condition makes the people’s health is really in a threat. When the control is weak and the use formalin was spread wide all over the Indonesian regions, and these days it has really happened, the citizen's bodies will be badly contaminated with the poisons. Fish or food traders still sell their products which contain formalin and dangerous preservatives.
The preeminent addiction treatment program for young men and women Turnbridge operates leading mental health and substance abuse treatment sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because throughout Connecticut.
This blog is a resource for people seeking addiction and mental health recovery information and inspiration, and the latest Turnbridge news and events.
Should Drug Addicts Go to Jail? This Study Says No The United States makes up less than five percent of the world’s population, and yet, we house about 25 percent of the world’s prisoner population.
Nearly 300,000 of the people currently incarcerated (in both U.S. state and federal prisons) are being held for drug-law violations: drug dealing, drug possession, illicit drug use. In 1980, just thirty-seven years ago, there were less than 25,000 prisoners in for drug-related crimes.
The nation’s drug problem has consistently grown over the last few decades – both in jails and on the streets. The question remains, how can we combat it? Many government officials and American citizens alike are asking: Should drug addicts go to jail? Will tougher penalties mean less drug crime? Will stiffer prison terms deter drug use, specifically amidst a growing opiate epidemic? According to Pew Charitable Trusts, along with thousands of other Americans and addiction experts, the answer is no.
And Pew has brought the data to back it. Just last month, in late June 2017, their analysts released a study on the effectiveness of imprisonment for drug offenders. They looked at state-by-state data of drug offender incarceration rates alongside illicit drug use, drug overdose deaths, and arrests only to find that no statistically significant relationship existed between them. Sending drug addicts to jail does not defeat the nation’s war against drugs – integrated addiction treatment does.
Pew’s study was driven by the notion that, if putting drug addicts and offenders in jail was actually effective, then states would experience lower rates of drug abuse. What they found, however, was that higher rates of imprisonment did not correlate with lower rates of drug abuse, drug arrests, nor drug overdose fatalities.
These findings add to the mounting data and dialogue buoying the fact that jail time is not a solution for drug abuse. A 2014 National Research Council study also supports this data, stating that drug sentencing “ha[s] few, if any, deterrent effects.” Pew included their research in a letter to Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey and head of President Trump’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, who also has an intimate connection to drug addiction.
The goal of the letter was to encourage reform in the way our country tackles the addiction (specifically opioid) crisis. Their research, at the same time and somewhat indirectly, goes against a common misconception in the United States: that drug addiction is a moral failing; that addiction deserves harsh punishment over treatment. Fact of the matter is, addiction is a disease much like diabetes or hypertension.
While the initial choice to use drugs is voluntary, addiction itself grows over time and is very difficult to control. It is complex. Those who are addicted cannot always quit drugs on their own. And they are not always sending the drug users to prison is not a good solution because to recognize when enough is enough, when a problem exists, when help is needed. Like other chronic diseases, addiction requires long-term, repeated care.
So, if jail time isn’t it, what is the solution to drug addiction? According to Pew Charitable Trusts, “The most effective response to the growth in opioid misuse, research suggests, is a combination of law enforcement to curtail trafficking and halt the emergence of new markets; alternative sentencing to divert nonviolent drug offenders from costly imprisonment; treatment to reduce dependency and recidivism; and prevention efforts that can identify individuals at high risk for developing substance use disorders.” They also specifically suggest that different approaches be developed, such as harm-reduction strategies and training (e.g.
overdose prevention with naloxone) as well as diverting offenders with substance use disorders into treatment. The state of Kentucky is already taking a step in the right direction. In 2015, they enacted a law that eliminates barriers to drug treatment in county jails and provides funding for evidence-based behavioral health or medication-assisted treatment for inmates with an opioid use disorder.
The law also permits local health departments to establish needle exchange sites, increases access to naloxone (a prescription drug shown to counter the effects of an opioid overdose), and connects those who recover from an overdose to addiction treatment services.
There is no doubt that combined, integrated drug treatment programs are the best alternative for combatting drug addiction. Not only do these programs help a person overcome compulsive drug cravings, they also teach users how to live a satisfying, productive, and drug-free life long-term. Drug treatment also targets and treats every aspect of a person’s addiction: not only his or her physical drug abuse, but also the mental health issues and emotional traumas that lay behind it.
Other addiction experts agree. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “most people who get into and remain in treatment stop using drugs, decrease their criminal activity, and improve their occupational, social, and psychological functioning.” The question, “Should drug addicts go to jail?” is a multi-sided one that is followed by an ongoing debate. Yet Pew’s research has shown that the effectiveness of jail time cannot be proven with statistical evidence.
Consider the 80 percent of Americans who are in favor of ending mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, and the 80 percent who support drug treatment and job training programs as positive alternatives to jail time, and your answer may become a bit more clear.
To learn about the integrated addiction treatment options at Turnbridge young adult rehab center, please call 877-581-1793. Post navigation