Attitudes Toward Compulsory Substance Abuse Treatment: a comparison of the public, conselors, probationers and judges' views

Abstract

Attitudes toward compulsory treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse were compared among a representative sample drawn from the general public (N = 994) and convenience samples of substance abuse counselors (N = 700), probationers (N = 35) and judges (N = 89). All respondents believed that compulsory substance abuse treatment is (a) less effective than voluntary treatment and (b) most justified only for individuals whose substance use was associated with serious crimes and impaired job performance. In addition, the general public reported significantly higher support for compulsory treatment and expected forced treatment to help significantly more individuals, compared to probationers and substance abuse counselors. Judges and the general public were significantly less likely to respect client choices about whether or not to engage in treatment compared to probationers and substance abuse counsellors. These results suggest that broad implementation of compulsory substance abuse treatment policies and programs would not be uniformly supported across key stakeholders. Implications of the findings for substance abuse policy, programming and theory are discussed.