`Drug treatment courts' (DTCs) are a new institution in North American criminal justice for dealing with drug offenders. There are currently two DTC pilot trials in implementation in Canada. Based on a `therapeutic jurisprudence' approach, DTCs claim to rehabilitate rather than punish drug-addicted offenders, and thus to reduce drug use, recidivism and social cost. Given the current enthusiasm about DTCs, this article provides a critique of DTCs' rationale, practices and implications from evaluative, social and legal perspectives. It focuses on the Canadian experience where possible. The analysis examines: the limitations of the evidence and methods behind the claims of DTCs' effectiveness; the ontological and practical challenges of the proposed `bridging' of punishment and treatment; the legal and penological implications of `therapeutic jurisprudence' practices; as well as potential explanations for DTCs' rise in popularity despite the limited evidence for their positive impact. The article concludes with reflections on the implications of DTCs for the government of drug use as deviance in contemporary social contexts, as well as for political efforts towards less punitive drug control. DTCs may reinforce the hegemony of punitive drug use control—partly by coopting treatment strategies—and thus fundamentally protect the legitimacy of prohibition politics.