Should illegal drug use be treated or punished?

Question

The government has limited funds when it comes to drug use. They put more money into treatment, though, than prevention. I believe this is the money factor. The reovery industry makes tons of money and creates tons of jobs. It does not, however, solve the drug problem. It waits for it to happen and then addresses it. Smoking was drastically curbed through education, so why isn't drug use?

Answer 1

Yes, the U.S. government does spend a lot of money on drug-realted litigation, imprisonment and general recovery. It is my understanding of the necessary and porper clause of the constitution, which was the intellectual basis for federal jurisdiction over the whole drug issue, that all this money is being spent to protect American citizens from a clear and present threat. This is where things get good. Follow the syllogism:
1) The Federal government has accepted the responsibility to protect citizens from the harmful effects of drugs.
2) If a citizen gets their hands on an illicit drug, this is a result of the Federal government failing to protect them
Conclusion: The citizen in question gets punished for a failure of the federal government to satisfy the onus that it has placed upon itself.

Answer 2

For the person being treated it is punishment. Until the world makes drugs legal and a controlled substance (taxing them at such a high rate that very few can afford them) they will remain a major problem.

Unfortunately if illegal drug production, distribution, and use were halted today there would be a major strain on public aid because there is a huge sector of society that makes it's living from this. Those using the drugs would die or be so ill-equipped to handle reality the prisons and mental health facilities would be full. Many countries would be bankrupt as this is their major export.

This is a many sided issue that cannot be looked at simply as it has world economic, political, human, and societal implications.

Answer 3

In a word, Yes! It should be treated AND punished. Punishment in the terms of fines and electronic tethering and having to pay for treatment. Prevention is all very fine, but for some reason, a lot of people pooh-poohed Reagan's "Just Say 'No'" program, despite its successes, just as they malign the stressing of abstinance in sex ed.

Because, we all know that education can only go so far. Regardless of what they are taught, there will be those who do it. There will be those who abuse it. And there will be those that choose to not go to treatment, or who choose to continue use. Those people might need jailtime to get their heads straight.

Answer 4

Other civilized countries (Europe) treat drug users rather than putting them in jail. Most of the people in jail in the US are there on drug-related charges. How expensive is that? There are prevention programs in schools, but they probably don't go far enough. I agree that recovery programs are money-makers. I had a DUI 7 years ago & it nearly broke me financially.

Answer 5

Actually, the vast, vast majority of funds in the US that are spent on drug issues do not go for prevention or treatment, they go to simply catching, charging, and locking up drug users. Which does no one any good.

Answer 6

I say treated because a lot of times punishments are just that... punishments but its not helping in the remedy or prevention of the illegal drug use.

Answer 7

Should drugs be illegal? Hell no. Regulate and tax the hell out of recreational drugs. Free up prisons, create revenue, take money out of the hands of organized crime, stay out of people's personal lives. What's not to like?

Answer 8

treating a drug addict is like treating aids: you don't cure the problem, you just stretch it out and make the recovery organizations rich. save the wasted money from recovery by using capitol punishment and prisons to treat the problem cold-turkey.

Answer 9

Both.

Answer 10

treated