MORE DRUG TREATMENT, BUT IT'S NO SILVER BULLET

More and more, drug treatment is figuring prominently -- and properly -- as the
favored solution to our state's galloping drug problem.

At a hearing this week, for instance, state lawmakers were told that the number
of adults admitted to publicly financed treatment programs for crystal
methamphetamine use nearly doubled since 1998.

It must double again, soon, and then double again.

They also heard, yet again, that treatment is far cheaper than the long-run
costs of untreated drug addiction, as it leads to broken families, crime,
incarceration and broken health.

Even as lawmakers complained that it appears there is no money for increased
treatment, they were awakening to the fact that they must find the money, or
face far greater costs down the road. It is clear that without successful
substance-abuse treatment, the social, economic and human costs become
incalculable.

We wholeheartedly agree with Elaine Wilson, chief of the Department of Health's
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division, who wants the Legislature to require health
insurance companies to offer the same coverage for substance-abuse treatment as
they do for other health problems.

"Most people who have substance-abuse disorders are in your workplace," she
said. "So if you had parity, you could get people treatment sooner and you
could get them more treatment."

And, we'd add, you could reduce those costs, horrendous now and quickly rising,
that untreated addiction leads to.

All of these things argue for much more drug treatment, much more readily
available to many more who need it.

That said, it's important that we understand some of the limitations of drug
treatment.

Drug treatment is no silver bullet. There is major disagreement among experts
as to its "success" rate -- or even how to define success.

It is clear, however, that recovery isn't going far without motivation on the
part of the addict, as well as a capacity to be honest with himself or herself
and others.

Some addicts require multiple treatment periods before they "get it." Some can
be ordered to treatment and experience recovery, almost against their will.
Some may indeed be hopeless, doomed to a future of jails, institutions and
death.

The uncertainty of success in individual cases of treatment is a harrowing and
tragic hardship for loved ones, and a difficult calculation for those charged
with expending public funds on it.

>From the public policy perspective, however, the success of treatment must be
viewed in aggregate figures and not individual histories. If, say, one-third of
those in treatment resume clean, productive lives, the long-term savings in tax
dollars is easily justified.

The state must proceed to pay for much more treatment, quickly. But taxpayers
must be realistic about their expectations. And along the way, some of those
old solutions -- education and drug interdiction, for instance -- must not be
abandoned.