Archive for the ‘alternative sentencing’ Category

Rocks near Big Island Recovery

Maintaining comprehensive bio-behavioral understanding of addiction also speaks to what needs to be provided in drug treatment programs.
At Hawaii Island Recovery we are careful not to pit biology against behavior.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse recently published Principles of Effective Drug Addiction Treatment provides a detailed discussion of how we must treat all aspects of the individual, not just the biological component or the behavioral component.
As with other brain diseases such as schizophrenia and depression, the data show that the best drug addiction treatment approaches attend to the entire individual, combining the use of medications, behavioral therapies, and attention to necessary social services and rehabilitation.
These include such services as family therapy to enable the patient to return to successful family life, mental health services, education and vocational training, and housing services.
That does not mean, of course, that all individuals need all components of treatment and all rehabilitation services. Another principle of effective addiction treatment is that the array of services included in an individual’s treatment plan must be matched to his or her particular set of needs. Read the rest of this entry »

Hawaii has one of the nation’s highest rates of alcohol addiction but ranks as the state with the least drug dependence, according to a federal government survey released yesterday.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration www.samhsa.gov

More than four out of 100 people over 12 years old in Hawaii are addicted to alcohol, says the study from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, an agency within the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.
That puts Hawaii ahead of only Montana and the District of Columbia, and worse than the national average of 3.4 per 100 people.

For more information about or help with Alcoholism and to break the addiction cycle phone Michael Larroque at 866-515-5032 or visit hawaiiislandrecovery.com.

What Is Alcohol Abuse

What are drinking problems? How serious is alcohol abuse among young people? What is the trend in drunk driving? What help is available for alcoholism?
To some college students, heavy drinking that leads to vomiting is not alcohol abuse but simply having a good time and being “one of the gang.”
To many whose religion requires abstinence, simply tasting an alcohol beverage is not only alcohol abuse but a sin.
To many activists, a married couple quietly enjoying a drink with their dinner is guilty of abusing alcohol if they happen to be twenty years of age.
To the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an accident is alcohol related (and implicitly caused by alcohol abuse) if a driver who has consumed a drink is sitting at a red light and rear-ended by an inattentive teetotaler.
In American Society
Our historical background and multi cultural population have created wide and strong disagreements in American society over what constitutes alcohol abuse.
Our Colonial tradition taught us that alcohol is the “good gift of God” to be used and enjoyed by all, including small children.
Our temperance and Prohibition experiences taught us that alcohol is “demon rum,” the cause of almost all poverty, crime, violence, and other problems. So convinced were they that alcohol was the cause of virtually all crime that, on the eve of Prohibition, some towns went so far as to sell their jails. Temperance systematically promoted both fear and hostility toward alcohol beverages, much of which continues to this day.
Repeal of Prohibition left us with a society in which the majority of people enjoy alcohol beverage in moderation, but a large minority (today about 1/3) of the population abstains. And a substantial proportion of American abstainers favor imposing prohibition again on the entire population . The prohibition impulse has never died and has re-emerged in a different form today.
Alcohol policy actually results not from science, logic, or evidence, but from a continuing struggle between those who wish to use alcohol beverages and those who don’t want them to. Repeatedly throughout our national life, movements have emerged to promote abstinence by persuasion, but failing to succeed, they have then resorted to coercion. The current neo-prohibition movement attempts to reduce consumption in general and to prevent it entirely among targeted groups, such as those under the age of 21.

And Young People
Prohibition for those under the age of 21 currently enjoys wide support in the United States and is imposed by force of law. Often it is enforced with a vengeance. “Carter Loar, a senior at Park View High School in Loudoun County, Virginia was suspended for ten days in February for violating the school’s alcohol policy.” Carter’s violation was using mouthwash at school. School officials confiscated the contraband and “He was charged with violating the school’s alcohol policy which prohibits the possession or use of alcohol on school property. As part of his ten day suspension, Carter was required to attend a three day Substance Abuse Program sponsored by Loudoun County.”
Mr. Loar was a victim of “zero tolerance,” which is now all the rage. But what does such a zealous level of intolerance accomplish and what messages does it send our young people? It probably achieves about as much as the scare tactics characteristic of the temperance movement and is almost certainly counter-productive.
One apparent message is that those who promote such intolerance have lost touch with youth, another is that they are unrealistic and impractical, and another is that their alcohol education messages are not credible.
Youthful Drinking
While a continuing barrage of newspaper articles, TV shows, and special interest group reports claim that drinking among young people is a growing epidemic, the fact is quite the contrary. Drinking among young people, like drinking among the larger population, is actually on the decline. For example, look at the statistics on drinking among high school students.
The proportion of high school seniors who have ever consumed alcohol is down.
The proportion of high school seniors who have consumed alcohol within previous year is down.
The proportion of high school seniors who have consumed alcohol within previous 30 days is down.
The proportion of high school seniors who have recently consumed alcohol daily is down.
The proportion of high school seniors who have consumed 5 or more drinks on an occasion within previous two weeks is down.
Drinking among young people continues to drop. For example, the proportion of young people aged 12 through 17 who have consumed any alcohol during the previous month has plummeted from 50% in 1979 to 16% in 2006, according to the federal government’s annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Thus, while one in two were drinkers in 1979, significantly fewer than one in five were in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are available. College student drinking attracts much attention in the press. But the proportion of college freshmen who drink continues to decrease. Freshmen entering college in 2006 reported the lowest rates of drinking in the 41-year history of the national college Freshman Survey. The proportion reporting occasional or frequent beer drinking dropped to an historic low, down 43% since 1982.
Drunk Driving Fatalities
While we must do even more to reduce drunk driving, we have already accomplished a great deal. Alcohol-related traffic fatalities have dropped steadily.
The U.S. has a low traffic fatality rate (drunk, as well as sober) and is a very safe nation in which to drive. And it’s been getting safer for decades. There are now fewer than one and a half deaths (including the deaths of bicyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, auto drivers, and auto passengers) per one hundred million vehicle miles traveled. Alcohol-related traffic fatalities have dropped from 60% of all traffic deaths in 1982 down to 39% in 2005 (the most recent year for which such statistics are available).
Alcohol-related traffic fatalities per vehicle miles driven has also dropped dramatically — from 1.64 deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 1982 down to 0.56 in 2005 (the latest year for which such statistics are available).
The proportion of alcohol-related crash fatalities has fallen 35% since 1982, but the proportion of traffic deaths NOT associated with alcohol have jumped 53% during the same time. We’re winning the battle against alcohol-related traffic fatalities, but losing the fight against traffic deaths that are not alcohol-related.
The declining proportion of accidents involving intoxication is good news. However, we can do even more to reduce drunk driving deaths. Through our individual actions we can do much right now to protect ourselves and others.
Health Problems
While the moderate consumption of alcohol is associated with better health and longer life than is abstinence, the heavy consumption of alcohol, especially over a period of many years, can lead to serious health problems and even death.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) is an irreversible condition associated with excessive consumption of alcohol by pregnant women and is, therefore, completely preventable. Each and every case of FAS is a needless tragedy. Victims suffer serious physical deformities and often mental deficiencies. And, they suffer these problems for their entire lives. While most cases occur among alcoholics who consume alcohol heavily throughout their pregnancies (usually in combination with smoking and often illegal drug use), no one knows for certain what level of alcohol consumption is safe for a pregnant woman.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recently conducted a study including 400,000 American women, all of whom had consumed alcohol during pregnancy. Not a single case of FAS occurred and no adverse effects on children were found when consumption was under 8.5 drinks per week. While it would appear that moderate consumption is safe, the safer choice would be to abstain.
Of course, tobacco and illegal drugs are clearly to be avoided, and a pregnant woman should maintain good nutrition and see her physician on a regular basis throughout her pregnancy.
Cirrhosis
Cirrhosis is probably the most widely recognized medical complication of chronic alcoholism. It is a grave and irreversible condition characterized by a progressive replacement of healthy liver tissue with scars, which can lead to liver failure and death. Fortunately, the abuse of alcohol is down and so is cirrhosis.
Death rate for cirrhosis fell dramatically between 1970 and 1992, the most recent year for which information is available. During that period, death from cirrhosis:
dropped 29.8% among black men
dropped 15.3% among white men
dropped 47.9% among black women
dropped 33.3% among white women
Help is Available
Numerous other health problems are associated with heavy alcohol consumption, which should be avoided. Many people find organized programs very useful in helping them reduce their consumption to moderate levels. For those who either choose or need to quit drinking entirely call Today Hawaii Island Recovery at 866-515-5032 or visit our website at www.hawaiiislandrecovery.com

The state of California’s 8-year-old program that mandates treatment instead of prison sentences for drug offenders is dramatically decreasing California’s jail population and saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a study released Wednesday.
The study, prepared by the left-leaning Justice Policy Institute in Washington, echoes another report released by UCLA earlier this month that also touted huge taxpayer savings through doing away with prison sentences in favor of treatment. That report said the program, which was passed by voters in 2000 as Proposition 36, saved California $173 million in its first year and $2.50 for every dollar invested since then.
The report by the Justice Policy Institute, which seeks alternatives to incarceration, said the rate of imprisonment for drug possession offenses has decreased by more than 34%. It also said that dire predictions of a rise in violent crime with the passage of Proposition 36 were unfounded.
“It really helps to put a context to the debate,” said Jason Ziedenberg, the executive director of the Justice Policy Institute. “I think people need to understand how many people were in prison in 2000 as opposed to how many there are today and that there has been progress.”
The release of the two reports comes at a critical juncture for supporters who contend that the $120 million earmarked for Proposition 36 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger when funding runs out this summer is not adequate.
They contend that, because of inflation and an increase in costs for services, the money does not stretch far enough.
“It really needs to be at $209 million just to be bare-bones adequate,” said Margaret Dooley, statewide coordinator with the Drug Policy Alliance, which is seeking an increase in funding for the program. She said she and others would descend on the capital later this month to drum up support for the additional funding, which she believed would be forthcoming because lawmakers would be unable to point to a downside.
She also said she was confident of support from the more than 60,000 people arrested but kept out of prisons and jails because of Proposition 36.
Scott Ehlers, a coauthor of the Justice Policy Institute report, said he and others believe that the next goal should be to expand the reach of Proposition 36 to include those arrested for nonviolent crimes related to drug abuse, such as theft to purchase drugs.
He also said he did not anticipate any calls for major trims in the program.
“I don’t see anyone calling for a rollback by any means because I think the treatment is more cost-effective than sending people to prison,” he said.
Among other findings of the report are that spending on drug treatment in the state since 2000 has doubled, and that there has been a larger increase in drug treatment clients here than in the rest of the country. Also, the California prison population of drug offenders has been reduced from 27% to 21%, close to the national average.
Ziedenberg said the reason the Justice Policy Institute focused on California, as it does in many of its studies, is that”12% of the prison population is locked up there.”
He also said lawmakers will have to face the question whether they want to pay now for expanded drug treatment or later for additional prison facilities to handle the overrun.
“The main thing is for more money to be put in,” he said. “The thing we hear from people in California is that this is a good start.” TO GET HELP NOW WITH ADDICTIONS CALL HAWAIIISLANDRECOVERY AT 866-515-5032

Scientific research since the mid-1970s shows that drug abuse treatment can help many drug abusing offenders change their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors towards drug abuse, avoid relapse, and successfully remove themselves from a life of substance abuse and crime. It is true that legal pressure might be needed to get a person into treatment and help them stay there. Once in a treatment program, however, even those who are not motivated to change at first can eventually become engaged in a continuing treatment process.Untreated substance abuse adds significant costs to communities, including violent and property crimes, prison expenses, court and criminal costs, emergency room visits, child abuse and neglect, lost child support, foster care and welfare costs, reduced productivity, unemployment, and victimization. The cost to society of drug abuse in 2002 was estimated at $181 billion, $107 billion of which was associated with drug-related crime. Successful drug abuse treatment in the criminal justice system can help reduce crime as well as the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases. It is estimated that for every dollar spent on addiction treatment programs, there is a $4 to $7 reduction in the cost of drug-related crimes. With some outpatient programs, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12:1.1
Extent of the Problem
The connection between drug abuse and crime is well known. Drug abuse is implicated in at least three types of drug related offenses: (1) offenses defined by drug possession or sales, (2) offenses directly related to drug abuse (e.g., stealing to get money for drugs), and (3) offenses related to a lifestyle that predisposes the drug abuser to engage in illegal activity (e.g., through association with other offenders or with illicit markets).In 2003, nearly 6.9 million adults were involved with the criminal justice system, including 4.8 million who were under probation or parole supervision (Glaze & Palla, 2004, www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus03.pdf). In its 1997 survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that about 70 percent of State and 57 percent of Federal prisoners used drugs regularly prior to incarceration (Mumola, 1999, www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/satsfp97.pdf). A 2002 survey of jails found that 52 percent of incarcerated women and 44 percent of men met the criteria for alcohol or drug dependence (Karberg & James, 2005,www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/sdatji02.pdf). Juvenile justice systems also report high levels of drug abuse. A survey of juvenile detainees in 2000 found that about 56 percent of the boys and 40 percent of the girls tested positive for drug use at the time of their arrest (National Institute of Justice, 2003, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/adam/welcome.html).The substance abusing offender may be encouraged or legally pressured to participate in drug abuse treatment. Even so, few drug abusing offenders actually receive treatment. The 1997 BJS survey showed that fewer than one-fifth of incarcerated offenders with drug problems had received treatment in prison (not including participation in self-help or drug education).Untreated substance abusing offenders are more likely to relapse to drug abuse and return to criminal behavior. This can bring about re-arrest and reincarceration, jeopardizing public health and public safety and taxing criminal justice system resources. Treatment offers the best alternative for interrupting the drug abuse/criminal justice cycle for offenders with drug abuse problems.
Effective Treatment for Criminal Offenders
Studies show that treatment can cut drug abuse in half, reduce criminal activity up to 80 percent, and reduce arrests up to 64 percent.2 Based on a review of this and other scientific literature on drug abuse treatment and criminal behavior, in 2006 NIDA released Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations. This publication discusses 13 principles proven through research to help criminal justice organizations tailor treatment programs to better serve their populations. In brief, these principles are:
Drug addiction is a brain disease that affects behavior.
Recovery from drug addiction requires effective treatment, followed by management of the problem over time.
Treatment must last long enough to produce stable behavioral change.
Assessment is the first step in treatment.
Tailoring services to fit the needs of the individual is an important part of effective drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations.
Drug use during treatment should be carefully monitored.
Treatment should target factors that are associated with criminal behavior.
Criminal justice supervision should incorporate treatment planning for drug abusing offenders, and treatment providers should be aware of correctional supervision requirements.
Continuity of care is essential for drug abusers re-entering the community.
A balance of rewards and sanctions encourages prosocial behavior and treatment participation.
Offenders with co-occurring drug abuse and mental health problems often require an integrated treatment approach.
Medications are an important part of treatment for many drug abusing offenders.
Treatment planning for drug abusing offenders who are living in or re-entering the community should include strategies to prevent and treat serious, chronic medical conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and C, and tuberculosis.
Drug abuse treatment can be incorporated into criminal justice settings in a variety of ways. These include treatment as a condition of probation, drug courts that blend judicial monitoring and sanctions with treatment, treatment in prison followed by community-based treatment after discharge, and treatment under parole or probation supervision. Outcomes for substance abusing individuals can be improved by cross-agency coordination and collaboration of criminal justice professionals, substance abuse treatment providers, and other social service agencies. By working together, the criminal justice and treatment systems can optimize resources to benefit the health, safety, and well-being of individuals and the communities they serve.For more information, see Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations: A Research-Based Guide at www.drugabuse.gov/DrugPages/cj.html.