Rehabilitation programs for drug dealers

No matter the level of the dealer, it is obvious the money is good—but at what cost? Some who become aware of the havoc they cause in addicted lives want to change. The realization of the destroyed lives they have caused finally comes to haunt them. An ex-drug dealer was interviewed and talks about how it is all about the money. He went from selling drugs and being addicted to living a sober life.

I got into the drug biz because the money was good. Drug Free. For Good. The Narconon program is unique:. New Life Detoxification. Life Skills. Drug-free Withdrawal The program begins with a drug-free, nonmedical withdrawal process designed to assist the individual to come off drugs as rapidly and comfortably as possible.

New Life Detoxification An amazingly effective regimen of nutrition, exercise and sauna—designed specifically to help drug users eliminate the harmful drug residues that drive cravings. Narconon International Science Advisory Board. Many Faces. One Solution. These people survived the nightmare of drug addiction—as addicts—and as family members.

Hear their stories. Find out how Narconon helped them regain their lives. A new focus and view on life because of Narconon. Grandmother of Narconon Graduate Sandy W. World-class Facilities on Every Continent Drug and alcohol addiction is a global problem requiring a global solution, and Narconon centers worldwide are rising to meet the challenge—the international central facility in the United States, new model continental centers, a center especially for artists and leaders, and dozens of regional and local centers.

Locate a Narconon Center. Sign up free to receive our email newsletter: Email. Ironically, a few years after publishing his "What Works? As Cullen and Gendreau state, "the doctrine of nothing works is best seen not as an established scientific truth, but as a socially constructed reality" Just the same, the generalized belief that nothing works has been, as we suggested earlier, a major factor in the reluctance of many policymakers to support prison-based drug treatment.

Accordingly, we later present a detailed review of the evaluation research on drug treatment programs for offenders, focusing on what has been found to work. This research, all of it conducted since the studies reported by Lipton and coworkers, demonstrates that there are promising approaches to the treatment of drug-abusing offenders.

In fact, a major outcome evaluation study conducted during the s by Lipton and the present authors Wexler et al. Indeed, there is sufficient scientific evidence for us to conclude that there are now, to quote the earlier statement of Lipton and associates, "satisfactory ways to reduce recidivism by significant amounts. The belief that nothing works is, as the evaluation literature demonstrates, a misconception. Just the same, it is often used to justify a policy of imprisonment for convicted felons.

For many, this policy is based on a retributive ideology, which stems fundamentally from a desire to see offenders receive their just deserts. Policymakers who support imprisonment usually believe that the public wants offenders punished and that supporting treatment would be a show of leniency. This belief is supported by the argument that incarceration is the most, perhaps the only, effective means of controlling crime.

Imprisonment, it is thought, will keep criminals off the streets the incapacitation argument and prevent them from recidivating afterwards individual deterrence ; in addition, others will refrain from crime, fearing the consequences general deterrence.

Because longer and more certain sentences lead to increases in prison populations and because court orders limit overcrowding, more prisons must be built. Thus, resources should be allocated for prison construction, not treatment programs. Our basic response to these beliefs is that support for drug treatment programs is consistent with the goals of a policy of incarceration.

In other words, offenders can be punished and society protected by placing them in drug treatment programs while they are in prison and on parole. Indeed, to alter the criminal proclivities of some offenders, it may be necessary for them to both serve a term in prison and receive treatment for their substance abuse.

Furthermore, the fact that recidivism rates continue to be high gives one reason to question the belief that incarceration is an effective deterrent. Thus, the issue is whether drug treatment programs for prisoners and parolees can reduce recidivism better than the current practice, which limits treatment. Because of the high correlation between drug abuse and recidivism, we believe it is in the public interest to place offenders in the kinds of prison-based and community treatment programs that have been found to be effective.

During the past decade, the number of inmates in the nation's prisons doubled, approaching nearly three-quarters of a million. The vast majority more than 80 percent are recidivists; about three-quarters previously used drugs Innes, Many of these prisoners have severe substance abuse problems. Indeed, about one-third of the inmates previously used a major drug heroin, methadone, cocaine, LSD [lysergic acid diethylamide], PCP [phencyclidine] on a regular basis; more than half reported using drugs during the month prior to committing the crime for which they were incarcerated Innes, Slightly more than half were under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, at the time of the offense for which they were incarcerated.

Some of these inmates are predatory criminals with severe substance abuse problems; they are responsible for an extraordinary amount of crime and are involved in a variety of violent crimes, property offenses and drug deals. Indeed, the extensive research on the relationship between drug abuse and crime summarized in the next part of this paper provides convincing evidence that a relatively few severe substance abusers are responsible for an extraordinary proportion of crime Gropper, , based on the work of Johnson et al.

Because of the seriousness of their crimes and their criminal records, many of these drug-abusing offenders are incarcerated; therefore, a logical, cost-effective, and convenient point of intervention is while they are in prison and on parole.

Without treatment in prison, a high percentage will relapse to drug use after release and will return to crime. These behaviors are part of a lifestyle that is both highly destructive and resistant to change.

In fact, about one-quarter of the drug users in prison were previously in treatment Bureau of Justice Statistics, There is, however, enough evidence described later to demonstrate that even the most severe offenders, that is, career criminals with chronic polydrug abuse problems, can be effectively treated.

Yet despite this evidence, corrections has, for the most part, made limited attempts to institute programs aimed at treating substance abusers in prison and on parole. Some legislators oppose drug treatment in prisons because they believe that correctional officials do not want these programs in their institutions. Although there are some wardens who do not believe in treating inmates with drug abuse problems, the issue is really more a matter of priorities.

Currently, the overriding concern of correctional authorities is to ensure that they have adequate space to house inmates. Their budgetary needs reflect a priority for additional prison space over rehabilitation programs.

In some cases, correctional officials may also be in conflict among themselves as to where to treat offenders; that is, they may disagree over whether resources should be allocated to community-based or prison-based programs. Furthermore, prison administrators may sometimes feel that prison-based treatment programs make it more difficult for them to manage inmate housing. This problem occurs when they dedicate a separate housing unit to the program in an attempt to separate general population inmates from program residents.

Although correctional officials do have legitimate concerns about the priority of prison-based drug treatment programs, we believe they are more than offset by the programs' advantages. In addition to their effect on recidivism, the major benefit of prison-based drug treatment programs is that they enhance security in institutions. Drug use and drug dealing which are rampant in many prisons decline with the introduction of drug treatment programs and random urinalysis testing Vigdal and Stadler, Infractions of prison rules as well as violence and threats of violence also decline, and the danger of prison riots is reduced.

In fact, there have been instances in which inmate leaders in drug treatment programs quelled disturbances that could have led to rioting. Correctional authorities evidently recognize the value of treating prisoners for their drug abuse and have given it increasing priority during the past decade. Between and , the percentage of inmates in some form of treatment tripled. Many policymakers, especially legislators, oppose funding for prison-based drug treatment programs because they believe that the public wants offenders punished and that treatment programs coddle criminals.

Although it is true that Americans want criminals punished and that there has been a substantial decline in public support for rehabilitation since the late s, Cullen and Gendreau provide evidence that "support for rehabilitation remains surprisingly strong. This is not an isolated finding; Cullen and Gendreau note several other national and state surveys that show that the public still believes in prison rehabilitation.

According to a study commissioned by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, citizens want "assurances of safety much more than they want assurances of punishment," and they "want prisons to promote rehabilitation as a long-term means of controlling crime" Public Agenda Foundation, ; cited in Cullen and Gendreau, As we conclude from the evidence on the relationship between drug use and crime and the existence of effective treatment programs described in the next two parts of this paper prison-based drug treatment is essential as a means of protecting society.

Furthermore, good drug treatment programs do not coddle criminals; residents usually find these programs quite demanding because of the profound changes in attitudes and behaviors they require.

Although a small percentage of the nation's prisoners receive drug treatment, there is still a considerable need for effective treatment programs. Estimates by social science researchers and correctional authorities indicate that as much as 70 to 80 percent of the nation's prisoners used drugs prior to incarceration; however, only about 10 percent are in prison-based treatment programs Chaiken, ; Innes, Drug-dependent offenders are responsible for a substantial, indeed disproportionate amount of crime in comparison with offenders who do not use drugs.

Studies of serious substance abusers, in particular, offenders who use heroin and cocaine, show that they have extremely high crime rates. As the extent of abuse increases, the frequency and severity of their crimes escalate. Furthermore, many of these drug users are also involved in drug dealing, an enterprise that also has an attendant effect on other forms of crime, especially crimes of violence.

A review of the empirical studies of the association between drug use and crime provides an appreciation of the enormous impact of drug abuse on crime. Numerous studies consistently report exceedingly high crime rates among substance abusers, especially heroin and cocaine abusers.

Although cocaine and crack use have increased dramatically in the past few years and many prisoners are dependent on these drugs, only a few research studies of the relationship between crack and crime have been completed. Thus, the following discussion focuses primarily on the connection between heroin use and crime, highlighting the effects of cocaine and crack use where research evidence is available. Inciardi has reported that active heroin users commit an average of crimes per arrest.

Johnson and colleagues report that the average heroin abuser in New York City commits more than 1, crimes including crimes for money, drug dealing, and minor offenses such as shoplifting per year During periods of daily heroin use, the average offender commits to crimes a year, including robbery and a variety of property crimes Johnson et al.

Such users commit thousands of crimes during their drug abuse careers, according to studies in New York, Miami, Baltimore, California, Michigan, and Texas Chaiken, ; Johnson et al. Not only do drug-dependent offenders commit a substantial amount of crime, but as the frequency of abuse increases, so does the frequency of crime Ball, ; Ball et al. During times when offenders use heroin or cocaine daily, they commit two to six times as much crime as when they use these drugs less frequently Ball et al.

Ball and coworkers found that daily heroin users commit more than six times as much crime as offenders who use heroin less than daily. In this study, daily heroin abusers reported an average of "crime-days" hour periods in which an individual commits one or more crimes per year at risk, whereas nondaily users reported only Similarly, Johnson and associates reported that daily heroin users six or seven days per week claimed an average of about 1, crimes including crimes for money, drug dealing, and minor offenses such as shoplifting per year; however, regular heroin users three to five days per week committed about 1, crimes, and irregular users one or two days per week committed only about crimes.

Research on the relationship between crime and cocaine use demonstrates that, as the frequency of cocaine use increases, criminal activity also increases Collins et al. As the frequency of drug use increases, the severity of the crimes committed also increases.

The most serious crimes robbery, burglary, aggravated assault are common during daily cocaine or heroin use but rare during periods of nondaily use Ball et al. Crack abusers appear to commit an equal if not greater number of crimes than heroin abusers.

Whereas heroin abusers tend to commit more property crimes e. In addition to property crimes and crimes of violence, drug-dependent offenders are also heavily involved in drug dealing. Estimates range from to more over 1, drug distribution crimes per year, depending on the location and type of heroin abuser studied. Chaiken and Chaiken found that their sample of incarcerated felons claimed 90 to drug sales per year. Johnson and colleagues report that daily heroin users commit about 1, drug distribution crimes each year.

In addition to direct sales of drugs, illegal drug distribution activities include directing customers to dealers "steering" , recruiting customers for dealers "touting" , and buying drugs for customers "copping". Involvement in drug dealing perpetuates criminal activity of all sorts.

Drug dealing and drug use often involve violence, as reported in the ethnographic work of Goldstein , According to Goldstein, violence and threats are utilized to enforce and maintain smooth operations of the drug distribution system.

Lower level dealers are controlled by threats of violence, and upper level distributors are often targets for violent "rip-offs" by drug users and dealers. Estimates in are that more than 50 percent of New York City's homicides are drug related Goldstein et al.

The prevalence of drugs and alcohol in criminal populations has recently been studied. Wish and associates pioneered the use of urinalysis in a series of studies of male arrestees in New York City to reveal the presence of illegal drugs at the time of arrest Wish et al. It is assumed that most of the arrests occurred shortly after the crime.

They found that 80 percent of arrestees charged primarily with serious nondrug crimes tested positive for one or more drugs primarily cocaine and heroin. Between April and June , 50 percent or more of male arrestees in 10 of the cities tested positive for one or more drugs excluding marijuana.

In New York City, 83 percent tested positive for cocaine, and 27 percent tested positive for heroin. Several other studies have provided information on the actual utility of drugs in criminal activity among samples of hard drug users Goldstein et al. Large amounts of alcohol, cocaine, and heroin are often ingested by criminals before and after a crime to reduce their anxiety and enhance their courage.

The proceeds from the crime are then used to obtain additional drugs and alcohol. Although the relationship between drug use and crime illustrates the need for prison-based treatment, the precise nature of causality is more of theoretical interest than of practical value as far as treatment is concerned. In other words, one does not have to debate whether crimes are committed because of the pharmacological properties of drugs or whether they are economically motivated to finance drug habits or to enhance power in the drug distribution system.

The important point is that, for many prisoners, both crime and substance abuse including alcohol as well as illicit drugs are inextricably tied into a lifestyle characterized by hedonistic, self-destructive, and antisocial behaviors. The most significant manifestation of this lifestyle is polydrug use but it also includes problems related to poor interpersonal skills, a lack of job skills, dependency on others, and frequent conflict with criminal justice authorities.

The use of expensive drugs heroin and cocaine, in particular is highly related to crime; discerning whether the use of other substances such as PCP, marijuana, and alcohol causes crime is less important than understanding that for many offenders the use of these substances is also part of an antisocial lifestyle, which often involves polydrug use Collins et al.

Although a large proportion of the nation's prisoners lead a lifestyle associated with problems of drug abuse, only a small percentage receive treatment while in prison. Few of these programs, however, are intensive enough to have a significant effect on relapse and recidivism most programs offer only drug education, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, occasional counseling, or other limited services.

Without effective treatment for their drug use and related lifestyle problems, the likelihood that they will recidivate is quite high. Can treating them in prison reduce their criminality after they return to the community? As the next section demonstrates, there is enough evidence that drug treatment is an effective means of controlling recidivism and that intensive programs such as therapeutic communities are well suited to serious drug abusers in prisons.

Although there are a variety of treatment modalities e. Because serious offenders generally require intensive drug treatment and methadone maintenance is neither relevant to the treatment of cocaine addiction nor available in prisons see Magura et al. A fairly exhaustive search of the published literature on prison-based drug treatment reveals only a limited number of evaluation studies. Accordingly, the research conducted in a few of the more notable prison-based programs is described in detail, following which the research on community-based programs is reviewed.

Although only a small percentage of the clients in residential programs have entered treatment after prison—most admissions are made either on a voluntary basis or as a condition of probation—evaluations of these programs give insight into the types of treatment that are likely to be effective in prison and aftercare programs.

Because the focus here is on postadjudicatory treatment, studies of diversion programs, such as Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime, or TASC, and other alternatives to incarceration, such as intensive probation supervision, are not reviewed. Because drug treatment programs for offenders may be based on different models e. Despite many obstacles to prison rehabilitation, some efforts have been made to treat substance abusers while they are in prison. Although there is a paucity of information about the extent of prison drug treatment programs in the United States, some indications about the extent and quality of these programs are available.

The survey identified prison treatment programs serving about 10, inmates 4 percent of the prison population. In , 49 programs 32 percent of all programs were based on the therapeutic community model. They served about 4, participants or 42 percent of all participants. Chaiken estimated that, in , Although this figure represents a sizable increase from 10, inmates in to 51, inmates in , the vast majority of inmates with substance abuse problems still do not receive treatment while in prison.

Although a number of therapeutic communities TCs within prison settings have been established in state and federal prisons, relatively few outcome research studies have been conducted NIDA, Accordingly, this section presents the existing literature on evaluations of prison-based drug treatment programs, focusing primarily on recidivism outcomes. Then, evaluations of several other prison-based programs the Cornerstone, Simon Fraser University, Wharton Tract Narcotics Treatment, and Terminal Island treatment programs are summarized.

It has two sites: a program for male offenders established in at the New York State Arthur Kill Correctional Facility on Staten Island, and a treatment program for females, opened in at the Bayview Correctional Facility in Manhattan. Currently, there are three treatment units at the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility with about 35 beds per unit a total capacity of beds and one treatment unit at the Bayview Correctional Facility, with 40 beds.

The evaluation was designed to test the proposition that effective treatment of substance abusers is possible within prison Wexler et al. A large-scale, quantitative analysis was conducted relating several measures of treatment outcome e. The study included males and females as well as treatment and no-treatment comparison groups. Statistical analyses were performed to test several hypotheses about the effectiveness of Stay'n Out treatment.

The two main ones were that the Stay'n Out therapeutic community is more effective than no treatment or than alternative prison-based drug treatment modalities in reducing recidivism, and that increases in time in the program are related to reductions in recidivism.

These two hypotheses were by and large confirmed, with the main finding being that, as time in therapeutic community treatment increases, recidivism declines significantly. Since the program began, nearly 1, males and more than females have been admitted to treatment. The aim of the program is to treat felony offenders for their drug abuse and related problems so that they are less likely to recidivate after leaving prison. Inmates selected for the programs are recruited at state correctional facilities; they must show an official history of drug abuse or indication of involvement in the drug culture ; be at least 18 years of age; have evidence of positive institutional participation; show no history of extensive violence, arson, sex crimes, or mental illness; and be no more than 12 months nor less than 6 months away from their first parole hearing.

The expected minimum treatment period is from 6 to 9 months. On average, male clients in the Stay'n Out program have previously been convicted four times and have been incarcerated for four years prior to admission into Stay'n Out. Most of the offenders are in prison for robbery 43 percent , drug sales 18 percent , or burglary 18 percent. Their previous attempts at changing their lifestyle have failed.

On average, they have previously been in two treatment programs for 18 months combined. The programs at Arthur Kill and Bayview are therapeutic communities modified to fit into a correctional institution see Wexler and Williams, for a full description of the program. During the early phase of treatment, the major clinical thrust involves observation and assessment of client needs and problem areas. Orientation to prison therapeutic community procedures is provided through individual counseling, encounter sessions, and seminars.

At the outset, clients are given low-level jobs and granted little status. During the latter phases of the recovery process, residents are given opportunities to earn higher level positions and increased status through sincere involvement in the program and hard work. Encounter groups and counseling sessions explore issues in greater depth and focus on the areas of self-discipline, self-worth, self-awareness, respect for authority, and acceptance of guidance for problem areas.

Seminars take on a more intellectual quality. Debate is encouraged to enhance self-expression and to increase self-confidence. Stay'n Out clients are housed in units segregated from the general prison population.

They eat in a common dining room, however, and attend morning activities with the other prisoners. Most program staff are former addicts who are graduates of community-based therapeutic communities as well as ex-offenders. They act as role models demonstrating successful rehabilitation. All but one of the units are staffed by a unit director and three counselors; one unit at Arthur Kill has only two counselors.

Support is provided by the administrative staff of New York Therapeutic Communities. Upon release, participants are encouraged to seek further substance abuse treatment at cooperating community-based TCs. About half of program graduates actually continue in residential programs. Extensive involvement with a network of such community TCs is thus central to the program's operation. Staff and upper level residents of community TCs visit Stay'n Out on a regular basis to recruit resident inmates for their programs.

As ex-addicts and ex-felons who are leading productive lives, these visitors act as role models and provide inspiration to those in earlier stages of recovery. They met all the criteria for admission except the parole time eligibility criterion and therefore completed their prison term without treatment. In general, the background characteristics of the samples were comparable, except that the male milieu group had a significantly higher mean age and criminal history score a weighted average of prior criminal arrests, convictions, and sentences and had spent more time in prison than the other male groups.

Multivariate statistical analyses were performed to control for the possible confounding effects of these differences on treatment outcomes. The groups were compared according to several recidivism measures: the percentage arrested, the mean number of months until arrest, the percentage positively discharged from parole, and the percentage not reincarcerated. The sampling time frame was based on inmates released from prison between and ; therefore, the follow-up period which ended in ranged from two to nine years, depending on the year prisoners were released.

Statistical analyses were performed to compare the effectiveness of TC treatment with alternative interventions and no treatment and to assess the relationship between treatment outcomes and time in treatment. The across-group comparisons yielded mixed results i. The failure to find significant differences between the TC group and comparison groups for some of the outcome variables stems from the fact that average treatment effects mask the differential impact of time in treatment within the groups.

Indeed, the Stay'n Out evaluation research, like other TC evaluation research, consistently found statistically significant and salient effects between time in the program and treatment outcomes. As Figures 1a and 1b show, male and female Stay'n Out clients do better on parole if they remain in the program for 9 to 12 months rather than terminating earlier or later. Furthermore, while there is generally a positive relationship between time in Stay'n Out treatment and positive parole discharge which tapers off after 12 months , time in the comparison modalities does not produce a positive effect.

This pattern as depicted in the figures was found to be consistent for the other outcome variables as well, leading to the conclusion that Stay'n Out is more effective that no treatment and alternative treatments, provided clients remain in treatment for an optimal period, which appears to be 9 to 12 months.

Although it is conceivable that clients who remain in treatment longer are more motivated than those who drop out, and that therefore the time-in-program effect might be related more to self-selection than to treatment effectiveness, one must keep in mind that motivation is a dynamic aspect of treatment. Indeed, the therapeutic process—with all its ups and downs-is intended to motivate clients to change, while enabling clients who are not adequately motivated to drop out.

To assume that motivation to change is sufficient to bring about behavioral change would mean that anyone who wanted to improve could do so on his or her own. Positive parole discharge by time in program: a males and b females. Motivation is necessary but not sufficient for most offenders, and change requires participation in a therapeutic process.

Insofar as testing the hypothesis that treatment outcomes improve as time in the program increases, several statistical analyses were performed on subgroups of TC clients who spent varying amounts of time in treatment. For example, when clients who completed the program in 9 to 12 months were compared with clients who left within 3 months, differences between the percentages of those positively discharged from parole for the two treatment periods were significant.

Among the males who terminated in less than 3 months, the percentage of those positively discharged was only Similar findings were obtained for the females, although the percentages positively discharged from parole were higher than for their male counterparts 79 percent for females in treatment less than 3 months, 92 percent for the 9-to month group. For those who recidivated i. When the mean time until arrest was compared for the two termination periods, it was found that clients who received less treatment were arrested much sooner than those who stayed in the program for 9 to 12 months.

Furthermore, the percentage of Stay'n Out male clients who were not reincarcerated after 9 to 12 months of treatment was considerably higher 72 percent within three years after release from prison than for males who resigned or were dismissed earlier 60 percent within three years.

Indeed, a logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of not being reincarcerated were nearly three times greater for clients who remained in treatment for 9 to 12 months than for clients who spent less than 9 months in treatment. In addition to comparing the two subgroups, statistical analyses evaluated the functional relationship between time in the program and treatment outcomes. Perhaps the most important finding in this regard was that, as time in treatment increased, there was a linear improvement in treatment outcomes that tapered off after one year.

One of several statistical analyses compared parole discharges among subjects who spent less than one year in treatment. Male clients who were positively discharged from parole spent more time in treatment 5.

A related analysis compared clients who completed the program favorably 53 percent with those who resigned and were dismissed 32 percent. Neutral terminations, such as transfers for institutional reasons, or death, accounted for 15 percent of the terminations. A significantly higher percentage of clients who completed the program favorably were not reincarcerated 72 percent within three years as compared with clients who terminated negatively 61 percent within three years. The positive influence of time in the program on outcomes was independent of the effects of background variables.

Regression analyses showed that time in the program was positively related to time until arrest and reincarceration when other significant background variables age and criminal history were held constant.

Furthermore, time spent in the Stay'n Out TC reduced reincarceration, whereas time spent in the comparison modalities did not. Clients who received 9 to 12 months of treatment were not only less likely to recidivate than clients who spent less time in treatment, but they also did better than clients who remained in treatment more than one year. This finding was consistent for most of the outcome measures tested time until arrest, positive parole discharge, reincarceration.

Indeed, a multiple regression analysis confirmed a statistically significant decline in time until arrest for clients who remained in treatment for more than 12 months. It should be noted, however, that the clients in this group are still significantly less likely to recidivate than those who terminate from the treatment in less than 9 months.

Thus, the central conclusions of the research are that hard-core drug abusers who remain in the prison-based therapeutic community longer are more likely to succeed than those who leave earlier and that 9 to 12 months appears to be the optimal duration for the treatment. Although differences among the groups were not statistically significant for all outcome measures as shown in Table 1 , the results indicate that the prison-based TC was generally more effective than the no-treatment group and the comparison treatment modalities.

Among the most important findings were that the percentage of TC males arrested 27 percent was significantly lower than the percentage arrested from the control 41 percent and comparison treatment groups 35 percent for the milieu group, 40 percent for the counseling group.

Drug busts in some countries, can mean the most severe of penalties, even death. For those moving drugs into the U. Like all other human frailties, drugs is no different. A dealer may live in your home, be your neighbor, your doctor, your priest or your best friend. Most people like to look at the world with a set of rose-colored glasses since this makes them feel safer.

Statistically speaking, though, there are people in your own neighborhood, not a stone's throw from you with severe human problems.