DGDevin wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...


Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than
once) than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.

Rehab is 30k/month.

Where, at some celebrity rehab resort?

http://www.drug-alcohol-rehabs.org/drug-rehab-cost.html

"From the National Substance Abuse Treatment Services Survey
(N-SATSS), the average cost for inpatient programs was about $7,000
per month. Since more than 30 days produces a higher recovery rate,
the cost of drug rehab can easily go between $7,500 and $75,000. A
typical cost is usually going to be about $36,000 for a 90-day
program."
And that's private treatment, I bet the VA or the armed services do it
cheaper than that.

In my state, incarceration is way cheaper. In 2003, we paid $2.5 billion to
lock up 148,000 inmates. That's a bit over $17,000 per inmate per year.
Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.


Besides, if the rehab works (and sometimes it doesn't) then you're
looking at a one-time expense. For the same money you get to lock up
someone for just a year of perhaps a multi-year sentence, and the
odds of them returning to prison are high. So which approach seems
like a better use of the taxpayer's dollar? Half of all federal
prison inmates are there for drug offenses, and prisons cost the
American taxpayer over $60 billion a year--I think exploring
alternatives is at least worth trying.

There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth, the other
in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national centers (drug-free
after being released for one year) is six percent. Compare this to the 30%
of released criminals who do not return to prison and you'll see that jail
has a better outcome than treatment for addiciton.

Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
taxpayer money in reduced crime.