Punishment in the Management of Addiction

Punishment is a major factor in the treatment of addiction. Addiction is defined by continued use, in the face of punishment (loss of freedom, health, family, money). Therefore a greater dose of punishment is needed to help addicts.

1) People with something to lose have a higher chance of recovery, doctors, admirals, CEO's vs janitors, convicted felons, prostitutes;

2) the punishment of alcohol use and the forbearance of opiate use in Vietnam resulted in the 15% addiction rate to opiate among soldiers, and less alcohol use. Upon return to the US, with no punishment of alcohol use, and punishment of opiate use, the rate of opiate addiction in the returning vets dropped to the expected 1%. The remaining US addicts had features similar to the addict population of the US, and were more deviant than the addicts who stopped;

3) Prohibition of alcohol dropped alcohol use only 50%, its having no popular support. Yet, the benefits were great if under reported, drops in crime (except, of course, for bootlegging), drops in crashes, economic boom times, drops in the rates of death from cirrhosis, which is a reliable indicator of the rates of alcoholism (only 10% of alcoholics die of it, but it is a statistical indicator);

4) severe punishments end all addiction, in Saudi Arabia, Singapore, the old Communist China. Zero addiction. These have extreme cost benefit ratios. Yes, shoot an addict, but save the lives of a hundred who do not become addicted;

5) the threat of punishment after death also is effective, from religion. Drink, go to hell, if Muslim, Mormon, Methodist. Low rates of alcoholism, and the prevention of all its consequences.

So harsh sentencing is effective, contrary to the false propaganda of the lawyer. I am going to translate here, "evidence based." That means rent seeking, make work jobs for registered members of the Democratic Party. "Evidence based" is a form of quackery.

A review elsewhere.