‘Every £1 spent on treatment saved at least £10 on crime’

Mar 11 2008 by Our Correspondent, Huddersfield Daily Examiner

THIS was a bold move on behalf of Government who held themselves open to the criticism of being soft on criminals. The philosophy was quite simple – people were committing crimes to feed their drug habit, cure them of this and you would reduce crime – it worked. The level of recidivism by those who received treatment decreased substantially and it was cost effective. Every £1 spent on treatment saved at least £10 on crime. I note that recent research alleges that more money has been allocated to the treatment of criminals than to non-criminal addicts who need it just as badly. One organisation even suggested that addicts should commit crime in order to receive treatment. If this is true, I cry shame on the Government as during my time as Drugs Tsar, the treatment budget for the general population was 20 times that of the criminal justice system. I also believe the Government has reduced substantially the budget allocated to educating our children against the dangers of substance abuse. I say this because when announcing their new strategy they proclaimed they would spend money on this venture. They can take no credit for this either. Back in 1998, sufficient money was allocated to train teachers; adopt new programmes; measure their effectiveness and set standards for the inspectorate to test schools against. They have reneged on the promise to the detriment of all. Having said this, I do applaud this Government’s commitment to support a long term drugs policy. Although their new one differs little from the one it replaces – its main aims being to reduce demand; reduce harm and stem supply – it is comprehensive and still one of the best in the world. However, I do wish they had the resolve to address alcohol misuse. I pressed for it to be included 10 years ago and failed. The sooner they stop dithering on this issue the better for us all. THIS was a bold move on behalf of Government who held themselves open to the criticism of being soft on criminals.

The philosophy was quite simple – people were committing crimes to feed their drug habit, cure them of this and you would reduce crime – it worked.

The level of recidivism by those who received treatment decreased substantially and it was cost effective. Every £1 spent on treatment saved at least £10 on crime.

I note that recent research alleges that more money has been allocated to the treatment of criminals than to non-criminal addicts who need it just as badly.

One organisation even suggested that addicts should commit crime in order to receive treatment. If this is true, I cry shame on the Government as during my time as Drugs Tsar, the treatment budget for the general population was 20 times that of the criminal justice system.

I also believe the Government has reduced substantially the budget allocated to educating our children against the dangers of substance abuse.

I say this because when announcing their new strategy they proclaimed they would spend money on this venture. They can take no credit for this either. Back in 1998, sufficient money was allocated to train teachers; adopt new programmes; measure their effectiveness and set standards for the inspectorate to test schools against. They have reneged on the promise to the detriment of all.

Having said this, I do applaud this Government’s commitment to support a long term drugs policy. Although their new one differs little from the one it replaces – its main aims being to reduce demand; reduce harm and stem supply – it is comprehensive and still one of the best in the world. However, I do wish they had the resolve to address alcohol misuse. I pressed for it to be included 10 years ago and failed. The sooner they stop dithering on this issue the better for us all.