Generally speaking, our society views drug use to be a criminal offence. In the 1970s, our government declared a war on drugs, and every year our prison systems house more and more drug offenders. But some in the criminal justice system are starting to realize that this approach to fighting drugs fails to recognize that those who use drugs often do so because they are addicted, and drug addiction is a disease which can be treated. In Nashville, Judge Seth Norman opened a residential addiction program in an effort to move nonviolent drug offenders away from the prison system and to treat their addiction. According to Claudia Kalb’s Newsweek article, states across America are beginning to look “for new ways to steer drug offenders away from prison cells and into treatment.”
While I’m thrilled that we are beginning to offer alternatives to prison for nonviolent drug offenders, part of me questions the motives behind it. In “Is Addiction Inevitable? Patriarchy, Hierarchy, and Capitalism” Charlotte Kasl examines the way drug addiction is being used as a political issue. While the public perception is that our government is trying “to help those below them”, they are “actually perpetuating their oppression—which, of course, maintains the status quo” (72). Kasl questions the sudden concern from those at the top of her illustration of hierarchy and patriarchy has with drug addiction. Is their concern truly for those “dying from drugs and related violence” or for themselves; “has the drug problem started to threaten their personal safety or the odds for re-election” (72)?
While reading the Newsweek article I found myself asking these very same questions. And in fact, there appears to be motivation beyond helping drug addicts get the help they need. According to Kalb, by putting drug addicts in treatment programs, rather than in prison, millions of taxpayer dollars will be saved. But Kalb also notes that, quite often, the treatment our system offers to drug offenders isn’t very good due in large part to lack of funding. And while our government accepts that treating the addiction, not incarceration, is the better option for nonviolent drug offenders, the budget has yet to support the shift. The federal government continues to place a higher monetary value on “stopping drug flow and enforcing drug laws than it does for treatment and prevention”. This year’s budget allocates almost twice as much for the enforcement of drug laws ($8.3 billion) then it does to treatment and prevention programs ($4.6 billion). If we know that good treatment and prevention programs work, why are we not funding them? Why are we not shifting some of the “millions of taxpayer dollars” saved by keeping addicts out of prison to the programs that allow us to “save” that money in the first place, in-turn making the programs better and even more effective? After all, these programs are a way for our leaders to, as Kasl says, “help those below them” (72). Or are they?
I believe that, in our society, there is a correlation between the level of importance and monetary value. By giving more money to the enforcement of drug laws, our government is telling us that this is more important than prevention and treatment of the drug addiction. And through drug law enforcement, those at the top of the hierarchy are able to maintain control over those who are addicted to drugs, and “fear of losing their control over others” is the motivating force behind the white men at the top of the hierarchy. As long as “women, African Americans, or Native Americans are sick, poor, and hooked on drugs and alcohol, they can’t threaten the status quo or stage a very effective revolution” (73).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment