and become employed, discontinue welfare, and pay taxes. In regards to the cost aspect of incarceration versus treatment, considering the above stated figures, treatment is heavily beneficial.California leads the nation in the number of drug offenders incarcerated. The statistic is a staggering 132 per 100,000 of the population versus a national average of 45 per 100,000 of the population. In 1999, 12,749 Californians were sent to prison for low level drug offenses, such as possession. This is an increase of over 20-fold compared to the 379 Californians sent to prison for the same crime in 1980(Justice Policy Institute). Though overall crime is down in California, data show that stricter drug enforcement in regards to low level offenses is not associated with the decline in crime rates or drug use. Continuing, increased arrests of low-level drug offenders are significantly correlated with slower declines in property crime, and an increase in violent crime (Justice Policy Institute). According to Pape, those who complete a drug treatment program are four times less likely to be arrested for criminal activity. As veteran district attorney of 30 years, Gil Garcetti states in support of treatment programs “...from my own experience, I realize the proper response to people’s drug addictions isn’t to send them to prison.” As further support, an independent five year study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse shows that 63% of low level offenders incarcerated and not in a treatment program were reincarcerated for a drug related crime within a year of their release (Mullen 118). The overwhelming figures on both sides of the spectrum are in favor of treatment versus of incarceration of low level drug offenders.In closing, here is a reiteration of the facts supporting the use of drug treatment programs versus incarceration for low level drug offenders. The overpowering figures in regards to cost exhib...
