EDITORIAL
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.