Writer Biography

Nathan Lamb is from Syracuse, Utah. In his spare time, he enjoys listening to music, reading, and going on hikes. He is a junior (as of 2016) at Utah State, majoring in Statistics.

This essay was first published in the 2016 edition of Voices and uses MLA documentation.

Over 1.5 million prison inmates, which is just over 65% of all prison inmates, suffer from an addictive personality disorder (Califano), and one of the main reasons incarceration has failed to be effective in deterring drug use is because of how the addictions of these inmates persist during their sentences. Of those 1.5 million who suffer from addiction while in custody, only 11.2% receive any real specialized drug treatment, and drug use for some addicts often continues even while in custody (Rodenberg). This environment leads to the inability of addicts to break their cycle of addiction because all of the risk factors that existed for them outside of prison still exist for them inside of prison as well.

Prison systems have failed drug addicts because the way prison systems are run is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of addiction and how it should be treated. The hope is that incarcerating an addict will scare him/her out of doing drugs in the future, but this simply is not how addiction works. Addiction is a complex mental disorder that manifests itself over a period of time and is often very difficult to treat effectively. It changes the way the brain works, and prisons are not able to effectively address this in a manner that is helpful to addicts. I have known several people who have struggled with drug addiction, some who have struggled with it their whole life, and not a single one would ever say that incarceration is helpful in solving their problems. Addiction needs to be treated with care, but prisons function based on neglect. Throwing an addict in prison for possession or distribution of drugs is the moral equivalent of throwing someone with depression in prison for trying to commit suicide. It is inhumane and severely dehumanizes the person with the disorder. The fact that drugs are still present in some prisons is reason alone to suspect the effectiveness of incarcerating drug users. In one study, they even found that 1 in 6 prison inmates developed an addiction to an illicit substance while serving their sentence (Whitehead). This is especially disturbing because it shows that prisons can, in some cases, actually cause the number of drug users to grow. When one of the main functions of prison systems is supposed to be rehabilitation, how can we rationalize sending those convicted of drug crimes there when the risk for addiction is still profound?

Perhaps the largest reason for the ineffectiveness of incarceration when it comes to drug use is the high recidivism rates that exist with drug criminals. Recidivism rates measure the proportion of convicts who are released from prison and then re-arrested for another crime over a period of time. In other words, prisons are constantly having drug offenders coming in and out. This is not helpful for anyone- it’s simply a waste of money and resources, but sadly, it happens all too often. A government report from 2014 showed that of those who were released from incarceration for drug offenses in 2005, within 5 years of their release, 76.9% of them were re-arrested for another crime (oftentimes committed while under the influence of drugs), and 38.8% of them were re-arrested for drug-crimes (Cooper). This study points out something that is essential for understanding why incarceration is ineffective in deterring drug use: it shows that there is a significant proportion of drug users who are simply unaffected by the period they spent incarcerated and that they continue to be apathetic towards their own drug use even when in the situation of potentially being incarcerated again.

Because of how little drug offenders are affected by prison systems when it comes to deterring their criminal behavior, many mental health experts have begun to theorize exactly what it is about prisons that is so ineffective. One psychopharmacologist in particular, Murray Jarvik, argued that “curtailing the supply of demanded drugs has been compared to squeezing a balloon: constrict it in one place and it expands somewhere else,” and that “A greater proportion of federal resources should be devoted to the reduction of [drug] demand” (Jarvik 389, 391). This observation reveals one of the most important reasons why incarceration is not effective in deterring drug use: Incarceration cannot be effective, because it only addresses the supply side of the supply-demand dynamic between drugs and drug users. If a demand exists for something, then there will be a way for that demand to be met, no matter how hard someone tries to curtail the supply. If we want to truly be able to effectively address our nation’s substance abuse problems, then we must take Jarvik’s advice and move on to utilizing methods that help to curb the demand for drugs in society rather than the supply. Jarvik also argues that the most effective methods for fighting the demand for drugs are the implementation of drug education programs as preventative measures, and also the expansion of drug-treatment availability (Jarvik 390). Jarvik is correct in his assumption that these two methods will help to effectively fight the demand, and overall usage, of drugs.

Jarvik’s assumptions have been validated by several encouraging studies that show the effectiveness of drug treatment as a deterrent for drug use, including a study that split 396 drug-dependent prisoners into two groups: one that received drug treatment and one that didn’t. The study showed that the members of the group that received drug treatment were ten percent less likely to be re-arrested during the 13-23 month follow-up period compared to those who did not receive any drug treatment (Hiller). This shows that drug treatment actively works to reduce recidivism rates among drug offenders. Stand-alone drug treatment outside of prisons has also shown to be much more cost-effective than methods of drug deterrence that involve incarceration. A study found that for every dollar put towards therapeutic community drug treatment that occurs outside of prison, there is $8.87 worth of benefits compared to the $1.91 to $2.69 of benefits that are generated by similar programs inside prisons (Aos 30).

Although it is good that drug treatment is being currently implemented in some U.S. prisons, and that it is effectively helping to stop drug use, it is still being utilized along with incarceration, which we’ve shown puts drug users and addicts at greater risk for recidivism, as well as future-drug use. Also, it was established earlier that barely 1 in 10 addicts in prison receive treatment for their addiction during their sentence, so the programs that are currently in place are helping nowhere even near a majority of addicts in prisons. Incarceration of drug addicts also carries heavy social implications that make it very difficult for former felons to ever fully rehabilitate and reintegrate back into society. For example, several former drug felons will struggle to find high-end employment opportunities for the rest of their life, and several of them will also never be allowed to vote, or will even have their families taken away from them. These more social, oftentimes forgotten and overlooked, punishments are unwarranted for drug addicts because the difficulties that they face with addiction are the results of a mental disorder, not from chronic bad behavior. We don’t legally punish those who have depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, or even those who struggle with addiction to legal drugs like alcohol, so why would we do the same to those who struggle with other kinds of drug addiction? How can the United States be able to provide drug treatment for its addicts while avoiding these critical downfalls that are associated with incarceration?

Oftentimes looking to other countries or cultures can help to reveal how to solve different problems by watching the way that other societies have handled them, such is true when it comes to drug policy and the country of Portugal. Portugal decriminalized the use of drugs in 2001 amidst an HIV/AIDS epidemic as a sort of political experiment to see how it would affect drug use, and along with it, they started a comprehensive drug-treatment program that helps to serve addicts overcome their addictions rather than throw them in prison. The way the system works is if someone is found guilty of having a small amount of drugs on their person, they are then sent to be evaluated for treatment (which can be refused) by a group of individuals including doctors and social workers. All of this is paid for by the government.

The results that these policies have had on Portugal’s drug usage have been nothing short of astounding. Since decriminalization policies have been set in place, Portugal has seen over a 100% rise in the number of people who actively seek drug treatment. Portugal also now has a smaller proportion of people using marijuana (an objectively harmless drug) than the proportion of people in the United States that use cocaine (an objectively harmful drug), and drug deaths related to hard opiates like heroin have decreased by almost 50%. Not only did Portugal’s decriminalization of drugs result in decreasing rates of drug use across the board, but it also saved the country billions of dollars and allowed for drug-treatment programs to be even further expanded (Szalavitz). Essentially, Portugal found out that the correct way to handle and prevent addiction is by treating addiction like a disease rather than like a crime. This sets an incredible precedence for the future of drug policy in America and other countries around the world, and it is also solid evidence that replacing criminal sentences with widely available drug treatment is an effective method for reducing drug use and treating addiction. Portugal can be seen as the prime example of why decriminalization should be a choice worth considering when tackling the United States’ problems with substance abuse.

The best place that the United States could start when it comes to implementing drug decriminalization would be to repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which is the piece of legislation that essentially created the current system of drug illegalization in America today. The repealing of this act would completely get rid of the drug scheduling system, as well as assist in the breaking down of mandatory minimum sentence laws, which are another massive contributor to the incarceration of drug users and addicts. Along with this, it would also be pertinent to release all current prison inmates who are incarcerated for drug offenses (unless they are serving time for other violent offenses of course), and immediately assist them in getting the drug treatment they need.

Opponents of drug decriminalization may argue that we do not have the funding for this kind of widely available drug treatment, but this is not true. The money the state and federal governments save from not incarcerating drug users could be immediately put towards establishing drug treatment centers and hiring social workers. Also, it has already been established earlier that the monetary benefits of treating drug users far outweigh those of incarcerating them, so there really is no significant fiscal risk when it comes to implementing this kind of system.

There is no reason for the United States to continue to waste billions of dollars on the long-tried method of incarceration when we know that there are alternatives that are more beneficial not only for drug users but also for society as a whole. The United States should strive to implement a system similar to that of Portugal because it has been shown to be effective in solving substance abuse problems, and because it puts the best qualities of human empathy on display by treating addicts like actual humans with a mental disorder rather than treating them like subhuman criminals.

Works Cited

Aos, Steve, Polly Phipps, Robert Barnoski, and Roxanne Lieb. “The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs To Reduce Crime.” Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2001): 25-32. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.

Califano, Joseph A. “Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population.” PsycEXTRA Dataset (2010). The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.

Cooper, Alexia D., Ph.D, Matthew R. Durose, and Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010”. United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics.  22 Apr. 2014. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

Feliz, Josie. “Survey: Ten Percent of American Adults Report Being in Recovery from Substance Abuse or Addiction.” Partnership for DrugFree Kids. Partnership for DrugFree Kids, 06 Mar. 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.

Hiller, Matthew L., Kevin Knight, and D. Dwayne Simpson. “Prison-based Substance Abuse Treatment, Residential Aftercare and Recidivism.” Addiction 94.6 (1999): 833-42. Wiley Online Library. Web. 26 Mar. 2016.

Jarvik, Murray. “The Drug Dilemma: Manipulating the Demand.” Science 250.4979 (1990): 387-92. Web. 2 Apr. 2016.

Rodenberg, Cassie. “The No-Help Cycle: Jail Fails Addicts.” Scientific American Blog Network. 30 Apr. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.

Szalavitz, Maia. “Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?” Time. Time Inc., 26 Apr. 2009. Web. 26 Mar. 2016.

Whitehead, Tom. “One in Six Inmates Become Drug Addicts in Prison.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 24 Mar. 2009. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.