To Honor Hoffman, Focus on Prevention, not the Drug War Harm Reduction
Leo Beletsky                                                                     
Assistant Professor of Law and Health Sciences, Northeastern University
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-beletsky/philip-seymour-hoffman-overdose_b_4715378.html

   911 Good Samaritan Laws, Drug Overdose, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Politics News As devastating details about Philip Seymour Hoffman's apparent heroin overdose are beginning to emerge, we are already hearing speculation about police efforts to identify the drug source. If and when the suppliers are found, authorities will likely use the full extent of the law to prosecute them on drug, and even homicide charges. Instead, the focus should be on preventing others from following Hoffman's fate.

To be sure, efforts to identify dealers (or friends or acquaintances) who supply deadly drugs to overdose victims are important. Just last week, officials in New York State and elsewhere in the Northeast linked the current spate of heroin overdose deaths to a deadly batch cut with fentanyl -- the powerful synthetic opioid. Concerted detective work to locate and destroy such lethal batches may ultimately save lives. But, despite enormous efforts by federal, state, and local law enforcement, spikes in overdoses involving fentanyl-laced heroin have popped up all over the U.S. since the 1990s. In the long run, it has proven impossible to control the supply and purity of heroin and other illicit drugs.

In the meantime, public health officials have used several straight-forward messages to avert overdose fatalities. These include: not using drugs alone, testing new batches for potency, buying drugs from a trusted source, and knowing exactly what to do in the event that overdose does occur. Although such "harm reduction" tips have stirred up controversy in some corners, public health researchers have successfully argued that this common-sense approach is the best tool we have to address risk among drug users. Especially when working on high-visibility cases, law enforcement officials can do a lot to increase awareness about these life-saving measures.

Conversely, high-profile prosecutions of people tied to drug overdoses can be counter-productive. Such strategies have been a mainstay of drug law enforcement for decades and appear to be gaining momentum, especially in regions hard-hit by overdose like Oregon and Wisconsin (where their number doubled between 2012 and 2013). Taken directly from a "war on drugs" playbook, these efforts have certainly put numerous drug dealers behind bars. In many jurisdictions, however, it is enough to have simply shared a small amount of your drugs with the deceased to be prosecuted for homicide, and there are certainly instances of such charges. 

Research suggests that fear of criminal prosecution is the single most important reason why people who witness overdoses do not seek timely emergency medical help. This is particularly true of events that involve heroin: out of all witnessed overdoses, bystanders report calling 9-1-1 less than half the time. Such delays are especially tragic because appropriate emergency response can quickly and effectively reverse most overdoses with the administration of oxygen and -- in the case of overdoses involving heroin or other opioids -- the antidote naloxone. In other words, the fear of legal repercussions likely costs thousands of Americans' their lives each year. What fuels these deadly fears? High-profile prosecutions tied to overdose events, especially like the one currently dominating the news cycle.

In order to encourage overdose witnesses to seek emergency assistance, 17 states including New York have now passed "911 Good Samaritan laws," shielding overdose witnesses and victims from drug-related charges when help is summoned. These laws hold promise, but their impact is limited by several factors. First, they only apply to a limited set of drug possession violations, typically involving small-scale drug possession (state laws also have no bearing on criminal liability under federal law). Secondly, the vast majority of drug users, the general public, and even many police officers may not be aware of such laws. Finally, aggressive and mounting application of criminal prosecutions following overdose events totally thwart any positive public health impact of Good Samaritan legislation and other efforts to encourage overdose witnesses to come forward.

Widespread adoption and aggressive enforcement of punitive drug laws in this country has done little to reduce drug abuse. Acknowledging this, last Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Smart Sentencing Act -- a bill to reduce or remove a number of mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenses. In its current version, however, this bill does not address provisions used to impose 20-year mandatory minimums for supplying controlled substances that result in death or injury. Even if this specific provision is eliminated on the federal level, this will not affect state laws, nor will this necessarily impact prosecutorial decisions to target people who supply drugs to overdose victims -- sometimes bona fide drug dealers, sometimes friends or partners of the deceased. We need to abandon this approach, focusing instead on raising awareness about risk-reduction, widening the scope of Good Samaritan Legislation and finding other ways to save lives rather than fill our prisons.
Harm Reduction 911 Good Samaritan Laws Drug Overdose Philip Seymour Hoffman Politics News

What is Harm Reduction?

North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition
 
This section is copied from Human Rights Watch’s article: ”We Know What to Do, Harm Reduction and Human Rights in North Carolina,” with permission by Human Rights Watch. Harm reduction is a way of preventing disease and promoting health that “meets people where they are” rather than making judgments about where they should be in terms of their personal health and lifestyle. Accepting that not everyone is ready or able to stop risky or illegal behavior, harm reduction focuses on promoting scientifically proven ways of mitigating health risks associated with drug use and other high risk behaviors, including condom distribution, access to sterile syringes, medications for opioid dependence such as methadone and buprenorphine, and overdose prevention.

Emphasizing public health and human rights, harm reduction programs provide essential health information and services while respecting individual dignity and autonomy. For drug users, harm reduction recognizes that many drug users are either unable or unwilling to stop, do not need treatment, or are not ready for treatment at a given time. Harm reduction programs focus on limiting the risks and harms associated with unsafe drug use, which is linked to serious adverse health consequences, including HIV transmission, viral hepatitis, and death from overdose.

Harm reduction programs have been shown to lower HIV risk and hepatitis transmission, prevent overdose, and provide a gateway to drug treat- ment programs for drug users by offering information and assistance in a non-judgmental manner. Harm reduction also protects law enforcement officers from needlestick injuries—accidental pricks to the skin from handling hypodermic needles. By providing safe disposal of injection equipment, harm reduction programs reduce the number of contaminated syringes circulating in a community.
 

Important principles of harm reduction programs include:

• A non-judgmental approach that treats every person with dignity, compassion, and respect, regardless of circumstance or condition.
• Utilizing evidence-based, feasible, and cost-effective practices to prevent and reduce harm;
  Accepting behavior change as an incremental process in which individuals engage in self-discovery and transition through “stages of change;”
• Active and meaningful participation of drug users, former drug users, and community stakeholders in shaping sensible policies and practices around drug use;
• Focusing on enhancing quality of life for individuals and communities, rather than promoting cessation of all drug use;
• Recognizing complex social factors that influence vulnerability to drug use and drug-related harm, including poverty, social inequality, discrimination, and trauma;
• Empowering drug users to be the primary agents in reducing the harms of their drug use;
• Commitment to defending universal human rights.

Harm reduction encompasses a broad range of activities and interventions designed to improve the health and quality of life of individuals and communities. These include:

• Outreach and peer education to reduce risks associated with drug use;
• Needle and syringe exchange programs (SEPs);
• Opioid substitution therapies (OST) for drug dependence, including methadone and buprenorphine;
• Confidential counseling and testing for HIV, hepatitis, and other sexually transmitted or bloodborne infections;
• Wound care;
• Overdose prevention activities, including Naloxone (a prescription drug to prevent overdose) and first aid training;
• Provision of primary care and treatment for HIV and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne infections;
• Referrals to drug treatment programs.

Harm Reduction

 Harm reduction is a public health philosophy and intervention that seeks to reduce the harms associated with drug use and ineffective drug policies.  A basic tenet of harm reduction is that there has never been, and will never be, a drug-free society. The Drug Policy Alliance advocates reducing the harms of drug use through a lens of public health, using accurate, fact-based drug education, drug-related illness and injury prevention, and effective drug treatment for problematic use.  We believe that every solution with the potential to promote public health and to mitigate harm should be considered.  We continue to seek innovative health approaches to drug use, drug treatment, and drug policy that are based on science and research.

Drug Treatment

Discrimination Against Drug Users

Drug Overdose
911 Good Samaritan

Supervised Injection Facilities

Syringe Access

Drug Replacement and Maintenance Therapy

International Drug Policy Reform Conference Kicks Off in LA

By Ellen Komp, Cannabis Culture - Friday, November 4 2011
.
 - An estimated 2200 people, a record number, are attending this year's Drug Policy Alliance conference at the Westin Bonaventure in Los Angeles.

The event opened this morning at a rousing session lead by DPA Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann, who introduced California's Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom to an appreciative crowd.
Newsom welcomed the group to the "wacky, wonderful" state of 37 million "dreamers, doers and entrepreneurs." He recognized that California lead the way to reform in 1996 with the passage of Prop. 215, legalizing medical marijuana, and with the 2000 passage of Prop. 36, to offer drug treatment instead of incarceration to low-level offenders. Newsom said Prop. 36 has saved California $2.5 billion.
In 1980, Newsom pointed out, the U.S. incarcerated half a million prisoners; that number has swollen to 2.3 million today as the US cages 25% of the world's prisoners. In California, the prison budget has soared from 3% of the budget in 1980 to 11.2% today, even as the CSU and UC college systems, once the "tent pole" of the state's economy, receive only 6.6% of the budget. He noted that 2/3 of those imprisoned are probation or parole violators, and wondered aloud how many of those violations were for drugs.

"At what point is this not code red?" Newsom asked. "What the hell are we doing?"

Newsom, who took a huge hit from the right when he came out for same-sex marriage after taking office as mayor of San Francisco, joked that his progressive staff wondered what the hell he was doing at the DPA conference, adding that drug policy made gay marriage seem easy.
"We're risk-averse in politics," Newsom said, allowing that he fell prey to that syndrome. "We have courage after we leave office."

Newsom said he felt like he was reliving earlier federal medical marijuana raids as he mentioned the latest US actions in Fresno, Sacramento, and elsewhere in California. He called for the state to step up against federal encroachment, saying we need to move beyond the "framework of fear" with "leadership, stewardship, constancy and faith."
"If you could take record private conversations [on this issue], it would break your heart," he said. "We know better, we're just not doing better." He spoke more, but his words were drowned out by thunderous applause.

Pete White from the LA Community Action Network spoke next, opening his speech by quoting Frederick Douglas: "I spent 20 years praying for freedom, but it wasn't until I I started praying with my legs that freedom came." White added, "As we occupy our country, we are using our legs." He called the WOD "a full-scale moratorium on our civil rights." He noted that in nearby Skid Row, the "most intense and sustained war on poverty and addiction" is taking place with "tools more sinister than usual." Drug convictions in LA lead to bans on housing and other benefits, sometimes for life, because of the actions of the LA city attorney's office. Quoting Douglas again when he said slaves were expected to sing, he ended with Malcom X's quote, "Stop singing and start swinging."
Alice Huffman, chair of the California chapter of the NAACP, came out next to announce, "NAACP is in the house." Huffman, who just joined the board of directors of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), said, "I am sick and tired of my people being the pawns in a stupid war." She called for the group to "elevate your movement to embrace us and fight injustice."

Former New Mexico governor and Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson next took the stage, and brought up the recent Gallup poll that showed 50% of Americans are for marijuana legalization. "Yet, 0% of politicians are for legalization," he noted. "Is there any other area where there is this disconnect?" Johnson predicted a 75% drop in border violence in Mexico with legalization, yet the government's solution is to add even more guns at the border.

You don't see Johnson in the Republican debates because candidates are invited to those based on their poll results. However, the polls that CNN and other networks use haven't included Johnson's name. Instead buffoons like Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry, and relics like Rick Santorum have their silly say, and progressives must hold their noses at Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance to find a Republican candidate who supports marijuana legalization.
Nadelmann wrapped up the opening panel by sounding a theme of inclusiveness. "We are old, young and in between; black, white and in between; gay, straight and in between; drug users and non users, and in between."

"We are people who want the right to get high or have been enlightened by psychedelics; people who have seen the worst that drugs can do, and see that that prohibition only makes things worse; and also people who don't really care, they just want our fundamental freedoms back. We love, hate, or don't give a damn about drugs, but we all believe the War on Drugs is wrong."

He singled out prosecutors as the worst drug warriors of all, saying, "DAs and prosecutors are out of control in American society and have to be called out." He noted that mandatory minimum sentences take control away from judges and give it to prosecutors, who do what they will regardless of "public opinion, health, safety or decency."

Saying he dreams of someday seeing a drug war truth & reconciliation commission like South Africa had after apartheid, Nadelmann used the automobile as an example of a substance that society has learned to live with and make safer due to intelligent, harm reduction policies.
The conference continues through Saturday, with panels, breakout sessions, community meetings and field trips. An "End the Drug War" rally in MacArthur Park is taking place tonight. See more at http://www.reformconference.org/
Ellen Komp is Deputy Director of California NORML and a regular contributor to Cannabis Culture. She manages the website VeryImportantPotheads.com and blogs at Tokin Woman.

LOS ANGELES — July 20, 2011 — Faced with a court mandate to reduce overcrowding in California prisons, a majority of the state’s voters favor shorter sentences for some offenders rather than raising taxes or cutting services such as education or health care to pay for new prison construction or prisoner relocation, according to a new USC Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times Poll. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California must release more than 33,000 inmates to ease prison overcrowding. By a 50-point margin, California voters oppose increasing taxes to pay for new prison construction or to send inmates to other states. About 73 percent of voters oppose increasing taxes to build new prisons or relocate prisoners — including a majority of self-identified Democratic, Independent and Republican voters — compared to 23 percent of voters in favor. “In these tough economic times, voters expect their politicians to make spending priorities just like their families do, and right now, spending more money on prisons is not a high priority for Californians.

When it comes to prisons, voters are looking for solutions that don’t raise taxes or take money from other priorities like education,” said Linda DiVall, president of American Viewpoint, a Republican polling firm that conducted the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll with Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner

Prisons: Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, and Evan Halper, Sacramento Bureau Chief from the Los Angeles Times, discuss how the public feels about what to do about the current prison system. For more video analysis from USC and the Los Angeles Times, visit the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll Web site http://dornsife.usc.edu/poll

When presented with a series of measures to ease overcrowding in California prisons, a majority of the state’s voters said they favor reducing life sentences for third-strike offenders convicted of property crimes, such as burglary, auto theft or shoplifting. Sixty-two percent favor reducing life sentences for property crime offenders convicted under California’s “three strikes” law, and 31 percent favor it “strongly.” Overall, 34 percent of voters opposed reducing life sentences for third-strike offenders. “Californians prefer reducing sentences for certain non-violent offenders as the best alternative to spending cuts and tax increases,” said Stan Greenberg, CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

“That a smaller percentage ‘strongly’ favor early release suggests these are tough choices made in the context of the state economy and the court mandate to reduce California prison populations within the next two years.” By a double-digit margin, White voters were more likely than Latino voters to support reducing life sentences for property crime offenders. Sixty-four percent of White voters support reducing sentences for property crime offenders convicted under the “three-strikes” law, and 33 percent opposed. Latino voters were more evenly split: 50 percent supported reducing life sentences and 45 percent opposed.

Latino voters were also less likely than White voters to support releasing low-level nonviolent offenders from prison early, though a majority of both groups and voters overall said they were in favor of the measure to help reduce the prison population. Overall, 69 percent of California voters support early release of non-violent offenders, with 33 percent favoring it “strongly.” This includes 71 percent of White voters, 78 percent of Black voters, 69 percent of Asian American voters, and 59 percent of Latino voters. Twenty-eight percent of voters oppose early release of low-level non-violent offenders.

Californians across party lines oppose cutting government services to help pay for measures that would ease prison overcrowding. Overall, 84 percent of voters oppose cutting government services to pay for prisons, including 87 percent of self-identified Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Independent voters. A video of poll experts discussing these results is available on the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll Web site, http://dornsife.usc.edu/poll

California spending billions to build new prisons

Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle

An inmate passes through a corridor of the medical center at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, where a $33.6 million, 64-bed medical center addition to the existing hospital will open next month.

At a dusty construction site in Vacaville adjacent to a prison yard, workers are putting the finishing touches on a 45,000-square-foot structure that will soon house dozens of California's most severely mentally ill offenders.

When the $33.6 million project at the California Medical Facility is completed this fall, prison psychologists and psychiatrists will have private offices to treat their patients, and inmates requiring inpatient care will have individual cells near a nurse's station, as required by law.

The building, which will include 64 cells, is one of 13 prison construction projects being funded by a $7.4 billion bond approved by the Legislature in 2007. It is all part of an effort by the state to comply with a court order to reduce overcrowding and improve health care in its prisons.

Even as the construction continues, however - and as the state continues to face pressure to reduce its prison population - there is debate over whether Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown should move forward with the projects.

Thirteen other states have seen their inmate populations drop and are working to close prisons - including Texas, which began shutting down a century-old lockup last week.

Some people think California should follow suit.

"It's such a failed opportunity if we just build more beds instead of getting smart about policies," said Emily Harris of Californians United for a Responsible Budget, a coalition working to reduce the state's prison population and spending. "We know in California that if we build them, we will fill them."

The state, she said, should "use this as an opportunity to make smart reforms that advocates have been pushing for decades, and that we know from recent polls voters support."

Changing needs
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office bolstered that argument last week when it released a report recommending that the state reconsider its construction program.

The report's author, Paul Golaszewski, said approximately 1,500 low-security beds proposed at two of the 13 construction sites may not be needed once the state starts sending more inmates to local jails this fall under the governor's realignment plan, and that all future projects should be carefully evaluated.

"We don't know for sure whether they will need these projects," he said. "We don't think they should be delivering more dorm beds. Especially with realignment, it doesn't make sense."

After its completion next month, the Vacaville center will house maximum-security mentally ill inmates who need an inpatient setting. It will have an office area for mental health workers, a dining hall and an exercise yard. Rooms for group therapy will be furnished with heavy, rubber chairs that are impossible to pick up or use as a weapon. There will also be areas for occupational therapy and a handful of rooms with restraints or padded walls. All 64 cells will be within 90 feet of a nurse's station, as required by law.

Court order
Prison officials say this and the other 12 projects are medical and mental health sites that are crucial to getting the state out from under the court order, which arose when advocates sued, claiming that shoddy medical and mental health treatment was violating inmates' rights to decent care and leading to the preventable deaths of up to 50 inmates a year.

A federal court agreed, placed medical care under the control of a federal receiver and ordered the state to reduce its prison population by nearly 34,000 inmates over the next two years.

The conundrum for prison officials is that the population reduction order is directly linked to the court's finding of inadequate medical care and mental health treatment. Prison officials argue that the construction projects under way will help the state comply with the courts.

Improving services
The Vacaville center, for example, won't do much to ease crowding in the main prison, which is about 25 percent over capacity. But the new center will free up treatment space and help state officials better deliver mental health services, according to Stirling Price, who runs the Department of Mental Health's psychiatric program at the prison.

Currently, Vacaville inmates attend group therapy in makeshift rooms, including old cafeterias, and mental health workers must share tiny, crowded offices for individual therapy sessions. The new housing unit will give psychologists and psychiatrists their own office space away from inmates.

Another three-story, $24 million treatment space is also being built at the same prison for mentally ill patients who can be treated in an outpatient setting.

In all, mentally ill patients make up about one-third of the Vacaville institution's population.

"The construction will allow us to provide services based on a specific need. Right now it tends to be based on where the inmate lives," said David Silbaugh, chief psychologist at the prison. "The idea is to have (inmates) at the top of their game when they go back into the community."

State officials said the projects under AB900, the prison construction and rehabilitation law, have been constantly readjusted to match new policies, including Brown's plan to begin sending low-level offenders to county jails starting Oct. 1. Several projects for lower-security inmate housing were dropped after it became apparent they were not needed.

"We carefully thought through the things we needed, knowing the fiscal challenges of the state," said Deborah Hysen, deputy director of planning, construction and management at the prison agency. "We wanted to know that what we needed, we would need for a very long time, so if there is any concern about us going slow, it might have to do with the fact that we want to be careful."

Steep price tag
The price tag of these medical and mental health sites has nevertheless drawn scrutiny. On average, taxpayers will shell out $315,000 per bed for the projects that are under way.

Nancy Kincaid, a spokeswoman for the federal receiver in charge of health care in prisons, said the investment is worth it. The projects, she said, will allow California to treat far more inmates behind prison walls at a much cheaper cost than transporting them to outside centers.

"The people going back to the counties ... are not the people that use the medical facilities generally," she said. "Eighty to 90 percent are used by inmates with long-term sentences."

Kincaid said outside medical care contracts are the state's largest single expense, costing about $480 million a year.

The debate is likely to continue as the state considers moving forward with a handful of other projects authorized under AB900. Those include expansions of local jails, high-security additions to existing prisons and the creation of re-entry centers in cities and counties around California.

State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who earlier this year called on Brown to rethink the AB900 projects, said he agrees with the Legislative Analyst's Office report calling for reassessments of individual projects, but feels the prison department has done a good job so far focusing on things that are necessary.

"We need to match the beds we have to the needs we have, which is not currently the case," he said. "But we cannot and will not build our way out of our prison problem."

Prison construction
AB900 was signed into law in May 2007, authorizing $7.4 billion in lease revenue bonds for the construction or expansion of prisons, jails and re-entry centers. Nearly half of that money, $3.5 billion, will be used to add new beds and treatment and programming space at existing prisons. Among the ongoing projects are:

-- California Medical Facility

Location: Vacaville

Details: 64-bed mental health center at existing hospital

Cost: $33.6 million, or $526,000 a bed

Estimated date of completion: September

-- California Institution for Women

Location: Chino

Details: 45-bed acute- and intermediate-care mental health center for female inmates

Cost: $33.7 million or $750,000 a bed

Estimated date of completion: December

-- California Health Care Facility

Location: Stockton

Details: 1.2 million-square-foot medical center with 1,722 beds for patient-inmates

Cost: $906 million, or $52,000 a bed

Estimated date of completion: July 2013

-- California Men's Colony

Location: San Luis Obispo

Details: 50-bed mental health crisis unit

Cost: $35.7 million or $715,000 per bed

Estimated date of completion: September 2012

-- California Medical Facility

Location: Vacaville

Details: Additional treatment and office space for mental health patients

Cost: $24.2 million; no beds

Estimated date of completion: February 2013

-- DeWitt-Nelson YCF Conversion

Location: Stockton

Details: Renovation of former youth lockup into 1,133-bed adult mental health treatment center

Cost: $188 million, or $16,500 a bed

Estimated date of completion: August 2013

-- Estrella

Location: Paso Robles

Details: Conversion of former youth lockup to 1,000-bed adult center aimed at inmates with medical needs.

Cost: $110 million or $11,000 a bed

Estimated date of completion: unknown

-- California State Prison, Sacramento, Enhanced Outpatient program

Location: Sacramento

Details: Treatment and office space for 192 inmates

Cost: $12.7 million, no beds

Estimated date of completion: November

-- Lancaster State Prison

Location: Lancaster

Details: Treatment and office space for mental health services for 150 inmates

Cost: $11.49 million, no beds

Estimated date of completion: July 2012

-- Central California Women's Facility

Location: Chowchilla

Details: Treatment and office space for inmates with mental health treatment needs

Cost: $17.7 million, no beds

Estimated date of completion: October 2013

-- Corcoran State Prison

Location: Corcoran (Kings County)

Details: 14,932-square-foot building for mental health treatment space for existing inmates

Cost: $16.5 million, no beds

Estimated date of completion: February 2013

-- Salinas Valley State Prison

Location: Soledad

Details: Treatment and office space for mental health treatment for existing inmates

Cost: $25.3 million, no beds

Estimated date of completion: July 2013

-- Northern California Re-entry Facility

Location: Stockton

Details: 500-bed re-entry center for inmates at the end of their sentence

Cost: $116.8 million or $23,000 a bed

Estimated date of completion: 2013

-- Additional projects funded by AB900

$700 million to improve health sites at six existing prisons

$2.6 billion for up to 10,000 beds at secure re-entry centers in cities and counties around the state. The centers are located in local communities where inmates can serve the last part of their sentences and receive job training, mental heath and substance-abuse counseling, housing placement and other help.

At least two high-security additions to existing prisons at an unknown cost.

$1.2 billion for expansion of local jails. Counties may apply for the money if they agree to host a re-entry center. Five counties have already signed on.

E-mail Marisa Lagos at mlagos@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/13/MNHN1KJ12V.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1V0yQe8tR

An Addiction Counselor’s War on Drugs

August 10, 2011

Some mental health professionals are realizing that profound changes have to occur health care before we can effectively deal with the mushrooming problem of drug addiction in America.  Barry Lessin is one therapist, stepping out on this issue.  He makes a point in his recent article that  America spends  fifty billion dollars per year to wage a war on drugs that has done nothing to slow the problem.  He goes on to say that failed policies focus primarily on the reduction of the supply of drugs by carrying out paramilitary operations in other countries as well as on drug users here in the United States, combined with amplified law enforcement approaches involving tens of millions arrested, and many millions incarcerated for nonviolent acts since the drug war began in the 70′s.   Barry Lessin brings up a few key points that legislators need to acknowledge if Americans want their tax dollars to count for something positive, that can deal with drug addiction and lessen demand without killing or ruining lives.  Please view his article by clicking on this link:   An Addiction Counselor’s War on Drugs | Barry Lessin.