Drug courts are a reactionary intervention — we can do better

But absolutists positions will not convince or effect change

Drug courts, like most of the interventions for addiction are poorly designed and are basically plugs in a leaking dam. They are reactionary “solutions” to a set of continuing circumstances, not solutions for the actual problem.

It is not enough to listen to the debate last night, hear Joe Biden talk about drug courts, then scream against said courts in absolutisms.

We must have two conversations simultaneously.

The first conversation is to discuss whether we can better apply care for individuals with addiction who become justice involved. If I commit a robbery to sustain my addiction to heroin, a criminal act still occurred. We can — and must — adjudicate the crime and treat at the addiction at the same time.

The second conversation is to discuss whether we can better design our communities, economies, and other systems so that the progression to addiction is unlikely. This discussion would focus on the root causes and design solutions from there.

We must do all this work simultaneously. We have too many people actively suffering today. We must widen the availability and variety of care for addiction, depression, anxiety, trauma, etc.

And we must bring design thinking to whole communities to reimagine a future where generational trauma and poverty are not perpetuated by built-in discrimination, stigma, and inequity.

All of this can be done at the same time.

We need to find the will through the love of our community.

A process like this will be hard and messy. But we need to start. If we speak in absolutisms about one thing or another, that shuts down the process and we’ll never start.