Progress Against Meth, but Problem Still Critical
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 6:22 pm
- 10 Comments
Rep. Walz: “If we don’t take care of these things now, we’ll pay for them later.”
It was an impressive speaker list: State Sen. Julie Rosen, DFL-Fairmont; Ramsey County Attorney and presumptive gubernatorial candidate Susan Gaertner; State Gang and Drug Force Coordinator Bob Bushman; Statewide Meth Coordinator Chuck Noerenberg. All had gathered at the Midwest Wireless Civic Center in Mankato Tuesday morning at the behest of Rep. Tim Walz, DFL-Minn., to discuss the progress and challenges of dealing with the methamphetamine problem in rural Minnesota.
The news they delivered was both good and bad. The bad news: Meth still remains one of the major problems for law enforcement and social services in Minnesota, one that costs the state in terms of violent crime, financial and property crime, child abuse and neglect and taxpayer dollars. According to the Revealing Meth in Minnesota website put up by the Minnesota County Attorneys Association:
- 90 percent of financial crimes investigated by the Minnesota Financial Crimes Task Force are connected to either meth or crack abuse
- 69 percent of Minnesota counties report that child protection cases have increased due to meth abuse
- the societal cost of meth to Minnesota taxpayers has topped $130 million annually
“When we realized that one in eight prisoners in our penal system were there because of meth, we knew we had a problem,” said Susan Gaertner, former president of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.
more insideAll the presenters stressed that the meth problem was not just about crime but about the devastation it has on families and communities. Several panelists noted that unlike other types of substance abuse, meth is, as far as the sexes are concerned, an equal-opportunity destroyer. There are nearly as many female users as there are male, which makes the addiction even more devastating since women are the principal family caretakers.
It also creates havoc in other ways. State Gang and Drug Force Coordinator Bob Bushman said some people like to claim that drugs are a victimless crime, “but if you’ve ever seen a baby born addicted to meth, you know that’s not true.”
Yet there is good news about the problem as well. Jeff Hunsberger of the Minnesota Department of Human Services noted that meth use declined in 2006 after steadily rising from 2000 through 2005.
Dealing with the problem requires a multi-pronged approach of treatment, prevention and education as well as law enforcement. “We’re not going to arrest our way out of the drug problem,” Bushman said.
Hunsberger noted that even the most conservative studies say that $1.33 is returned to the taxpayer for every dollar spent on drug treatment programs; some studies say that return is actually much higher. “We need to look at the total picture, including mental health,” said Sen. Rosen.
She pointed out that Minnesota has been a national leader in applying a broad-based approach to the problem. When the state began to craft legislation to deal with meth several years ago, “we were pretty much all by ourselves,” she said. Other states were also coping with the crisis, but there was no legislative model. Minnesota passed its first methamphetamine law in 2005, and since then the rest of the country has been looking to Minnesota as a leader.
Rep. Tim Walz, who moderated the panel, let the panelists do the talking. But the fact that his office set up the event points out that the problem requires a multi-level governmental approach. While counties deal with the meth problem most directly through law enforcement and social services, the state provides information, coordination and funding, and the federal government provides the majority of funding.
Rosen and Walz spoke of the need to pass legislation at both state and federal levels to provide enough money to tackle the problem on all fronts. Bushman pointed out that the meth problem transcends party lines.
10 Comments
Comment posted April 11, 2007 @ 8:39 am
the meth problem transcends party lines. Great Post.
I’ve had several lengthy conversations with the originator of Minnsesota’s meth legislation. His description of the difficulties of getting it passed centered on the issue of treatment. Meth addiction doesn’t respond to the normal 30-day rehab sentences, but there are year long programs that have good success. The problem is that many of these proven programs are faith-based, and many judges will not sentence people to faith-based rehab no matter how successful it is.
/snark on
’cause it’s better to have a meth addict than to have one more Christian
/snark off
Hopefully we can get past this issue, and find people treatment that works.
Comment posted April 11, 2007 @ 10:29 am
so the question is “The problem is that many of these proven programs are faith-based, and many judges will not sentence people to faith-based rehab no matter how successful it is.”
Why are these program more successful? As of recently, it’s because they receive much more funding thanks to the push for faith based initiatives. I don’t have a horse riding in this contest, but I can say that if the gov’t is increasing the amount of money being given to faith based initiatives, and the judges aren’t sending people to the programs because they are faith based, then there is a definite disconnect that needs to be addressed.
And soon, since there are many lives at stake, both the addicts and their families.
Comment posted April 11, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Funding increases? Robin,
My conversations with Representative Johnson were quite awhile ago, so I’m not familiar with current funding levels for treatment. The Faith based programs were successful primarily because they were year long programs, not 30-day rehabs. Do you have any info on current funding and the types of programs that people are being sentenced to?
It’s my hope that judges would choose programs that are effective, and that funding for those programs be made available.
Comment posted April 11, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
I agree that Judges should get to chose the programs that are most effective, but for someone who is not a person of faith, forcing them into a faith based program against his or her will would not only be counter-productive, but would be tantamount to establishing religion.
Comment posted April 11, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Against their will Yes, you’d hate to force somebody convicted of crime to do anything against their will.
The examples that were given to me were cases where the prosecutor and the defense council (and defendent) both agreed to a faith-based treatment program, but the judge wouldn’t go for it. I hope that has changed.
Comment posted April 11, 2007 @ 3:39 am
the meth problem transcends party lines. Great Post.
I've had several lengthy conversations with the originator of Minnsesota's meth legislation. His description of the difficulties of getting it passed centered on the issue of treatment. Meth addiction doesn't respond to the normal 30-day rehab sentences, but there are year long programs that have good success. The problem is that many of these proven programs are faith-based, and many judges will not sentence people to faith-based rehab no matter how successful it is.
/snark on
'cause it's better to have a meth addict than to have one more Christian
/snark off
Hopefully we can get past this issue, and find people treatment that works.
Comment posted April 11, 2007 @ 5:29 am
so the question is “The problem is that many of these proven programs are faith-based, and many judges will not sentence people to faith-based rehab no matter how successful it is.”
Why are these program more successful? As of recently, it's because they receive much more funding thanks to the push for faith based initiatives. I don't have a horse riding in this contest, but I can say that if the gov't is increasing the amount of money being given to faith based initiatives, and the judges aren't sending people to the programs because they are faith based, then there is a definite disconnect that needs to be addressed.
And soon, since there are many lives at stake, both the addicts and their families.
Comment posted April 11, 2007 @ 8:06 am
Funding increases? Robin,
My conversations with Representative Johnson were quite awhile ago, so I'm not familiar with current funding levels for treatment. The Faith based programs were successful primarily because they were year long programs, not 30-day rehabs. Do you have any info on current funding and the types of programs that people are being sentenced to?
It's my hope that judges would choose programs that are effective, and that funding for those programs be made available.
Comment posted April 11, 2007 @ 8:58 am
I agree that Judges should get to chose the programs that are most effective, but for someone who is not a person of faith, forcing them into a faith based program against his or her will would not only be counter-productive, but would be tantamount to establishing religion.
Comment posted April 11, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Against their will Yes, you'd hate to force somebody convicted of crime to do anything against their will.
The examples that were given to me were cases where the prosecutor and the defense council (and defendent) both agreed to a faith-based treatment program, but the judge wouldn't go for it. I hope that has changed.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
