Recognizing that substance abuse is more rightly viewed as a health issue rather than as a criminal justice issue is an important step in the right direction for public policy. But not all substance use is substance abuse. If it were, persons having a glass of wine with dinner would be regarded in the same light as a person who drinks a six-pack before noon or a person who has lost family and career as a result of alcohol abuse. Drug policy reformers have long argued that private, consensual behavior - whether drinking alcohol or taking drugs - should not, in and of itself, be considered a crime.  

Several thorny issues arise around the question of drug courts. 

There is the argument that if a person commits a crime, they should do the time, no matter what their excuse. Should a person breaking and entering your home to steal your property be processed through drug court because he had been under the influence of alcohol or methamphetamine? Should we be willing to allow an appropriately structured judicial and clinical process to make that determination? 

There is the argument that a free society must remain wary of any compulsory treatment. Accepted practice for alcohol addiction is to
allow a person to choose to get help. Treatment options for alcohol abuse are readily available and hold relatively little stigma. Programs offer  education and ongoing support.

Contrast this to compulsory drug treatment programs, where a person is forced into treatment under threat of imprisonment when their only crime is the use of particular substance. We must be careful to define the appropriate circumstances (if any) which would trigger legal intervention in private behavior. Laws which criminalize drug use, especially a mild, non-addictive drug such as marijuana, should not serve as a tool by which taxpayer-funded state programs funnel vast numbers of people into compulsory behavior modification which may include the use of mind-altering and/or addictive prescription drugs. 

Government must allow people to make their own choices unless there is compelling evidence that their choices directly and adversely impact other people. Even in cases where such evidence is present, as is the case for tobacco addicts in sidestream smoke causing cancer, and for alcohol addicts in affects on family members, society has chosen to allow those persons to make their choices about seeking treatment. We can encourage people to make better choices by empowering at risk youth with better nutrition, improved educational opportunities and job training, and other tools by which they might obtain the "good life."  

We cannot turn away from the promise offered by drug court. Statistics show that people whose lives have become out of control respond well to treatment. For some, treatment seems impossible without the nudge of a court order. With prisons overflowing, Arkansas needs viable alternatives to incarceration. Drug court is an important alternative.  

But finally, we as a society must accept the fact that some among us will struggle with lives of less than ideal circumstances. When we have assured ourselves that public policy offers every possible aid and intervention available through families, neighborhoods, and institutions, we must then be willing to allow others the freedom to live dissolute lives - providing of course that they do not violate the rights of others. A man should be free to be a drunk. He should not be free to be drunk while driving.

When such violations occur in spite of our best  efforts, drug court included, then in good conscience we can lock up those who harm us and throw away the key.