Because drug treatment programs are, in the main, feel-good endeavors.
There are two federal drug treatment prisons. The BEST results they've ever obtained - graduates being drug-free after one year - is a piddly six percent.
Conversely, a significant percentage of Viet Nam veterans returned from Asia addicted to Heroin. Virtually all kicked the habit on their own.
Druggies are druggies.
Turkey has some pretty good drug laws...
Well, yeah, not sending as many crooks to prison might lower the cost per inmate, but don't forget the economies of scale!
If we got down to, say, only ONE inmate in prison, the cost per inmate would be astronomical. For example, you'd need, say, five full-time guards (at, oh, $60,000 each per year), a building, utilities, food, etc. The cost per inmate could easily reach a half-million per year.
On the other hand, if you have 200,000 prisoners already, adding one more can be had for pennies.
In other words, to lower the cost per inmate, we need to INCREASE the number of prisoners, not reduce it.
No, they are life-saving for those who want to change. As a nurse, I worked in a detox/treatment center, back in the day when small towns' worst drug was marijuana. Had one patient that I recall used coke, and was a dealer. Had a local judge who gave folks with DUI's the choice between jail and rehab...there wasn't a heck of a lot of difference, other than the jail cell being locked. I'm sure there were loads of people who relapsed, but there were those who woke up and took the chance to change before they lost everything.
Most of the staff were recovering people, so it was pretty hard to BS them. One old Marine explained why so many people are on skid row, his theory being that they had nothing (more) to lose and knew what to expect each day.
The amazing discovery made by a lot of folks in recovery was that their troubles were not much different than those of other people drinking to cover up whatever. I guesstimate that 90% had history of pretty serious abuse as children and the other 10% probably couldn't bring themselves to speak of it yet. Pretty horrific experiences for many, and some started drinking/using at about age 8, although 12-14 was most common.
Lots of folks become institutionalized...can't/won't function where they must take some responsibility for themselves. Unfortunately, they usually reproduce.
Virtually all? You have got to be kidding...changed drugs, maybe.
All federal prisons have voluntary AA & NA Programs. Outside volunteers manage the meetings. There is also random urine testing. Years ago the "Furlough" policy was changed. The inmate signed to "rules". One rule was not to eat poppy seeds. Seems they gave a false positive. Even staff are subject to drug testing...
On extended parole supervision (for years) they are subject to urine testing.
-snip-
I went out googling to show Heybub how wrong he was-- and damned if he aint right again.
I was a Marine in VN in 1969 & 70 and never saw heroin or opium. Saw lots of kick-ass pot and an amphetamine called 'Obesital'.
But I guess I wasn't far enough in the rear- or far enough south- or was the wrong color green;
I don't think many programs can boast an 88% success rate long term.
Jim
2.6 million served there, so, using your numbers, about 1,118,000 used heroin or opium. If 20% of those were addicted, the number is 223,000 or thereabouts. I don't for a minute believe that only 20% of heroin/opiate users became addicted OR that only 12% were "readdicted" (whatever that is) in the year after their return. Half probably lied to whomever did the study, and most addicts don't even admit addiction to themselves. Then one considers the addicts who merely change chemicals when supplies aren't available. Amazing numbers of bad backs are cured when addicts are in recovery; a few discover when they are sober that they have a bad back, not noticed prior because they self-medicated :o)
Wonder how drug use affects PTSD rates...either more mellow or dead? Iraq is not Viet Nam, but a heck of a lot of vets are coming back with loads of trouble.
-snip-
Note that these were all Army- and in 1971. a skewed sample during the height of drug use- and when troop levels were 1/2 of what they were a couple years before.
The' readdicted' thing is because they wouldn't let you leave if you tested positive for opiates. So presumably when you left, you were clean.
I don't doubt that--but I'd be interested in seeing another study. Idle speculation has its place, but I like a fact or two thrown in now and then.
-snip-
Depends on the drug of choice. Sometimes it is just working 100 hours a week- so a heart attack gets you early.
I think that we'll see 10 times the amount of PTSD in Iraq vets over the next decade. We served a year, sometimes 2, and rarely 3 in Vietnam. [3rd tours were only on approval of a shrink when I was there] We were younger and less likely to be wanting to make the military a career. Some of these *moms* and *dads* have served 4 tours- with just enough time between to get them 1/2way back to peacetime mode.
When they've been back in country for a couple years is when they'll relax enough to get bit in the ass by PTSD. I recommend that every vet and spouse of a vet, and anyone who cares about them read Patience Mason's 'Recovering From the War'. The Vietnam references might be dated- but the principles of the disorder & its treatment don't change.
Jim
Sometimes I get the idea they hire Mexicans so they don't waste time talking to you.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.