Few Missourians question the unmistakable correlation between drug use and crime and the close connection between illegal substance abuse and a shocking death rate that is higher than that for all diseases except cancer and heart problems.

What many Missourians have perhaps never known is that the number of citizens in their state currently being treated for illegal drug use is one-third greater than the state's total prison population.

And, finally, most citizens are unaware that for every fatality on Missouri's highways, there are 91 deaths in the state from drug addiction and overdose and alcoholism.

It would require an atypically inquisitive and interested member of the Missouri General Assembly to come up with the statistic that for every $1 being spent in the state for the treatment of 35,240 persons suffering from drug and alcohol addiction, taxpayers are spending $7.75 for the confinement of 23,650 men and women in state prisons.

One more fact, and then your brain can relax. In Gov. Mel Carnahan's fiscal year 1999 budget which will go into effect in July, Missouri will allocate less money from its general revenue fund for drug and alcohol prevention and treatment than Missouri will spend to finance the statewide Public Defender Service, and will come within a couple of million in equaling the total amount taxpayers will spend for the salaries, expenses and support staff of the General Assembly.

Indeed, the largest funding source for the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, a section within the Department of Mental Health, is not state tax revenue but the federal government, which contributes $1.35 for every $1 from the state general revenue account. If devolution ever becomes a fiscal reality, the state would have a drug treatment program no larger than those carried out in large urban areas.

More and more legislators are beginning to question the efficacy of spending huge amounts of taxpayer revenue for the construction of an escalating number of prisons. The state now has, or is proceeding to construct, 30 penal facilities, and in the governor's budget submitted last month, he requested additional funds to raze the maximum security prison in Jefferson City, installing one more modern and less expensive to maintain. There are other suggestions for the site of the oldest state prison west of the Mississippi, but none is expected to relieve the taxpayer of prison-expansion expenditures that have set new all-time-high records. Missouri seems determined to lengthen prison terms to fit the public's realistic fear of criminal activity without enhancing support for programs that can realistically reduce the threat of crime.

This enhancement can, if properly planned and supported, reverse

the current trend of spending more to house convicted felons than send deserving young men and women to a state college or university. Just as the state was embarking on historically record-high expenditures for new prison cells, the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse decided to close its largest drug treatment center in downtown St. Louis, the unchallenged source of the state's highest addiction rates.

The downtown Malcolm Bliss center, once the scene of hectic weekend emergency treatment, was shuttered despite millions of dollars having been spent earlier to restore the one-time municipal mental health hospital. Those millions of tax dollars went down the drain as the state closed the Bliss facility, but of even greater importance was the message it sent to its patients and those who relied on the unit for temporary recovery. The message sent to those suffering, and dying, from substance abuse was clear: We will make your road to recovery more difficult, and for some of you, impossible.

The highly respected RAND Corporation has noted the high benefits to states that provide early intervention programs for youthful offenders, almost all of whom are engaged in some aspect of the illegal drug market. Although Missouri and 47 other states have made substantive changes in their laws targeting juveniles who commit violent or serious crimes, few have taken parallel steps to bolster their illegal drug prevention and treatment programs. Missouri certainly has not taken such steps and only a few enlightened states have.

The RAND study found four effective anti-crime, anti-addiction programs: early-childhood interventions for children at risk of later antisocial behavior; interventions for families with children who are "acting out;" school-based interventions including incentives to graduate; and interventions for troublesome youths early in delinquency.

States utilizing one or a combination of these programs found they were more effective than the incarceration alternative, and in addition, they found what penal experts have contended: the best way to make a seasoned criminal is to send a young criminal to jail. This does not suggest that vicious crimes committed by juveniles should go unpunished; letting the punishment fit the crimes is sound advice.

What it does suggest is that government is failing to utilize all of the remedies available in reducing crime rates and making good citizens from behavioral risks. In too many cases, government has paid only lip service to prevention, early treatment and service availability, while willingly adopting only a moderately successful plan to keep delinquents behind bars even as they learn the tricks of criminal trade and become hardened criminals before they are released.

Proposals from both Washington and Jefferson City too often call for expanded prisons, longer sentences and more law enforcement while giving short shrift to prevention and treatment programs that are both more effective and humane. The RAND report provides the facts that prove this thesis. It's regrettable these facts are so often overlooked or ignored.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.