Mandatory Drug Therapies Prove Effective

In a city grappling with addiction, New York City mayor Eric Adams has proposed a new plan for compulsory drug treatment for the city's addicts. But is this approach effective, or is it merely a controversial move?

Anne Marie Foster, CEO of a city addiction treatment facility, voiced her concerns to NY1, stating that forcing people into hospitalization does not work. However, a closer look at the research suggests a different story.

Many studies conclude that involuntary treatment does at least as well as voluntary treatment. For instance, research finds no significant difference between veterans ordered by a court into alcohol treatment and those entering voluntarily. In another study, involuntary treatment reduced substance use among a cohort of adolescents.

Drug courts, which mandate users into treatment rather than incarceration, have shown promising results. These courts reduce recidivism by between 9 percent and 24 percent, and reduce drug use.

Even in a review from the Canadian Journal of Addiction, a lack of high-quality evidence to support or refute involuntary treatment for substance-use disorder was reported. Yet, studies using propensity score matching (PSM) have found retention benefits to compulsory treatment in pregnant women and older adults.

One analysis of California's 1960s-era civil commitment program found that those who were released relapsed and returned to crime at twice the rate of those who stayed. On the other hand, a study of alcoholics randomly assigned to compulsory inpatient treatment versus compulsory participation in Alcoholics Anonymous found that those who received full, in-patient treatment were significantly less likely to be drinking and using drugs at follow-up.

However, it's important to note that one widely cited review finds limited evidence of benefits for compulsory treatment, with some studies suggesting potential harms. For example, between Chinese heroin addicts in mandatory detoxification, voluntary detox, and involuntary drug detention, no significant differences were found.

Critics' arguments against compulsory treatment are often seen as a smokescreen, an effort to cloak their moral qualms in the language of scientific objectivity. As Charles Fain Lehman, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior editor of City Journal, points out, if critics want to have an argument, they should at least be honest about the evidence supporting compulsory treatment.

In conclusion, by most available accounts, compulsory treatment does work in helping people kick their drug habits. Involuntary treatment, when combined with subsequent voluntary therapy and social support, can reduce substance use and improve health outcomes. The reality is that a large body of research supports the insight that pushing people to get clean helps them more than leaving them to their own devices.