By ANTHONY PAPA First published: Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Tatum O'Neal, the Oscar-winning actress, took a plea deal last week stemming from her June 1 arrest while supposedly trying to score some crack cocaine on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. She was initially charged with possession of a controlled substance and faced a year in prison if convicted. The court allowed her to plead out to a disorderly conduct charge and ordered her to attend two half-day drug treatment sessions. If she follows the court's orders, the cocaine possession charges will be dismissed.
O'Neal has been open about her history of heroin addiction as outlined in her memoir, "A Paper Life." When she was arrested by undercover officers, they searched her and found two bags of cocaine along with an unused crack pipe. She had initially told police she was doing research for an acting role. Then she changed her story and told them that the death of her 16-year-old dog nearly triggered her into relapse.
Some say O'Neal was treated with a slap on the wrist. Others say she did not deserve to do any jail time because of her addiction. This raises a critical question that we as a society need to address. Should we treat drug addiction as a criminal matter, or as a medical problem?
For most people, treatment is a much more effective approach than imprisonment for successfully breaking their addictions, yet our prisons are full of individuals whose only crime is their drug addiction.
According to Justice Department statistics, the United States has more prisoners than any country in the world, 2.5 million and rising. In 2006, the Justice Department recorded the largest increase since 2000 in the number of people in prisons and jails. Criminal justice experts attribute the exploding prison population to harsh sentencing laws and record numbers of drug law violators entering the system, many of whom have substance abuse problems.
Nonviolent drug offenders like Tatum O'Neal should be given an opportunity to receive treatment, not jail time, for their drug use. This would be a more effective (not to mention much more affordable) solution for both the individual and the community. Prosecutors in many states, most notably New York, have leeway to recommend a defendant to treatment instead of incarceration. More than likely, however, they will not do it. This is because it would not be considered a victory for them. The system does not reward prosecutors for doing the compassionate thing.
O'Neal can be an example for millions of young people. One can only hope that her experiences with addiction and the realities of the drug war will encourage her to join the movement to reform U.S. drug policy. If she decides to take up the cause of treatment, she could help change laws across the country. After all, if treatment instead of jail is good enough for her as she struggles with her addiction, surely it is good enough for the thousands of others just like her who struggle with their own substance abuse problems.
Like depression, addiction affects tens of millions of Americans. How best to treat it is a serious a question we need to explore. Rich or poor, young or old, addiction has no boundaries. But the drug war does. Our long war on drugs has stifled the open debate society should be having about the nature of addiction and how best to deal with it. It is time to treat addiction for what it is -- a medical problem, not a criminal one.
Anthony Papa is a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance, http://www.drugpolicy.org.
Yes smoking cigarettes is a crime if someone is caught smoking in a restricted area. Or buying cigarettes over the internet and having them shipped to your home in NYS. And that is just NYS. Other states have even stricter restrictions. So yes, cigarette smoking is a crime...and a choice...just like every other drug including caffeinated coffee in the morning.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Addiction is a neurologically based disease. For many years recovery specialists have compared alcoholism or addictions to a physical disease: like diabetes. In reality addictions are more closely related to a neurological disorder like Tourette's Syndrome* than they are to diabetes.
If the problems you suffer stem from severe alcoholism or addiction, you must accept that these problems are not primarily mental or free will issues. Addictions are not about will power.
The that an addict "could change if he wanted to" is a serious misunderstanding of the long term dynamic of addictive disorder. The fact is precisely that an addict cannot change in the long run even if he wants to! That is the definition of addiction: "the loss of control over the use of a substance." It is important to understand that this loss of control is manifested not in terms of days or weeks, but in longer term behaviors: terms of months and years.
I smoke. And it was "my choice" many years ago. And I am now addicted to cigarettes and that too was "my choice". I blame no one nor do I place "my addictive choice" on the tobacco industry or anyone else. I take full responsibility for the choices I have made in my life, both good and bad, and will live with the consequences, either good or bad.
I chose to smoke and I chose to give it up, although I choose to enjoy a cigarette now and then. Anyone who chooses to use substances of any type in this day and age knows what the consequences can and probably will be. The substance should not have been chosen in the first place. I don't mean to sound so merciless but I am weary of excuses people make for their own misjudgements. (Is that a word?)
Cigarettes are not a good example- up until 2001 they actually didnt even meet the legal or medical definition for addiction- sort of like saying your addicted to rocky road ice cream.
Rene I guess without trying to sound merciless you pretty much are- So i guess with just enough willpower you should be able to do anything. You know like mind over matter-
Addiction is a neurologically based disease. For many years recovery specialists have compared alcoholism or addictions to a physical disease: like diabetes. In reality addictions are more closely related to a neurological disorder like Tourette's Syndrome* than they are to diabetes.
I think what Rene is saying is, with all the information available out there, people don't have to test their pre-disposition to addiction by ingesting drugs and alcohol to see if they're addicts. You're saying that people are alcoholics or addicts right out of the womb, and don't have a choice but to become an addict in adulthood.
So, what you're suggesting is, I might have been born a crack addict, I just don't know because I haven't used crack in my life. And you're saying that I may still become a crack addict, if I were born pre-disposed to crack addiction, and I am unable to consciencely resist the urge for crack. Even having no knowledge of the feeling or high crack produces.
That's a tough sell for me. But in a world where people need excuses for their lack of self control and poor personal choices, this line of thinking fits perfectly.
Cigarettes are not a good example- up until 2001 they actually didnt even meet the legal or medical definition for addiction- sort of like saying your addicted to rocky road ice cream.
Soooooooooo, the medical definition of addiction prior to 2001, which excluded nicotine as an addictive substance is the correct definition? I thought medical science was progressive? Which means new studies and conclusions replace old outdated ones. I guess if the new information doesn't fit your argument, you stick with the old info.
Prior to 2000 part of the medical and legal definition for ADDICTION included a requirement that the dose needed to increase accordingly to reach the users high-
Dont you remember - how do you think the cigarette manufacturers could swear in front of congress tha cigarettes were not addicting- short memory everyone- they cant do that anymore
The lay public including myself often misuse the correct term- such as in a craving- devoted or whatever-
Im not an expert- and apparently no one here has anyone in their family that has any of these cravings or addictions and if they do they are probably not invited to Thanksgiving dinner- or whatever
Im not an expert- and apparently no one here has anyone in their family that has any of these cravings or addictions and if they do they are probably not invited to Thanksgiving dinner- or whatever
Sure there are people in my family with addictions or cravings. I just don't except excuses for their personal choices which got them to that point of not being able to control those cravings. Everybody is faced with choices in life, and there is tons of information made available showing the pitfalls of making certain unhealthy choices. And I'm not saying that I am immune of making these poor choices, I'm saying that I hold myself responsible for my poor choices and the consequences that come with them. I don't like being labeled a victim.
The government/medical society and every bleeding heart liberal would like nothing more than to make us all feel like victims of society. This allows them the luxury of dipping into our pockets in the name of taxes to fund programs for 'people who make bad choices'. There is clearly more information available through the internet, magazines, tv, media, library etc....on the positive and negative effects of just about everything out there. Ya don't need to be an expert...just literate!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Great discussion, and I am truly sorry to sound so merciless. It is not my nature and has taken a while to develop that attitude, but I am at the end of my rope with excuses being made for others bad choices and having to pay for their bad choices to boot. From the time we were children we were told "Just say no to drugs", "drugs are bad for you". "don't "drink and drive". It isn't anything we don't already know by the time we reach an age of decision. The effects of drugs and drinking and driving etc. is all over tv, in the news, in our schools. and hopefully re enforced every single day at home from parents.
Cicero's analysis of my statement is correct. Don't start the use of drugs to begin with.
Logged
