UUDPR - Discussion Points

Drug use should be a health concern, not a crime. Accordingly, drug users should not be arrested or otherwise penalized simply for possessing or obtaining drugs.
Regardless of how one might feel about drug use, the UU Principles encourage "acceptance of one another." Unless a drug user is harming another person, UUs have the moral obligation to affirm that drug users should be treated with respect, tolerance, patience and kindness. Arresting drug users is simply inconsistent with the UU Principles.
- One UU minister recently put it this way: "I'm strongly against drug use, but I'm not convinced that the present policies are working. Nor am I convinced that my aversion to drugs allows me to condemn a drug user any more than my aversion to abortion allows me to condemn a woman who makes that choice. I am not privy to the situation either inhabits. I do not have the right to impose my precepts on others using the legal system."
- Another UU wrote: "I hate to be around a bunch of people who are drunk. But then, I also enjoy the occasional glass of wine and I'm glad that we're not living through alcohol prohibition. We shouldn't be encouraging drug experimentation, but on the other hand, we shouldn't be condemning people who use the presently illegal drugs in a responsible manner."
The UU Principles call for "encouragement of spiritual growth." We recognize that drug use can sometimes become destructive to a person's physical, mental and spiritual health and well-being. Accordingly, UUs should learn about and help educate the public about the effects of different drugs, the relative risks, the reasons people take drugs, a variety of safer alternatives to drugs, how to prevent drug use from turning into drug abuse, and how to recognize and get help for drug abuse and addiction. If necessary, we should help families and friends of drug abusers stage interventions ... or even leave unhealthy relationships. In sum, we can help with communication -- not handcuffs, courts and prisons.
People who abuse (currently illegal) drugs should be dealt with in exactly the same way that we now deal with the abusers of alcohol. That is, we offer to help, but we do not arrest or punish unless the person is directly putting someone else in danger (e.g., disturbing the peace or drunk driving).
Removing criminal penalties does not necessarily mean "legalizing" drugs. Many people are afraid that free-market "legalization" will lead to increased usage. That is debatable -- and even so, it would eliminate the violence caused by illicit drug dealing and many other problems. Nevertheless, there are other options to consider on the continuum between total legalization and total prohibition. For example:
- Under "decriminalization," sales remain illegal, but simple possession is not a criminal offense -- although there may or may not be fines.
- Under "medicalization," drug addicts are allowed to receive their drugs from a medical doctor until they're ready to freely choose treatment.
- See also http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1023/a08.html?16742 for a variety of specific drug policy reform ideas
Some UUs may be uncomfortable advocating the removal of criminal penalties without knowing for certain what the "best" alternatives are. Note that the UUA's Statement of Conscience will not actually change any laws. The UUA is not Congress or Parliament. However, a strong Statement of Conscience will push the envelope and broaden the continental debate so that eventually the public at large can figure out the best possible approach.
Note that the UUA's 1991 "Substance Abuse" resolution already declared that the war on drugs was counterproductive and recommended "the examination of the ethical and social ramifications of decriminalization and legalization." Since that time, North American drug policies have gotten even tougher ... yet drug use, abuse, and overdoses all increased! This underscores the need for the UUA to call unambiguously for removing criminal penalties and for treating drugs as a health issue. UUA's existing drug policy resolutions may be found at http://www.uudpr.org/dpresol.html.
Last year, the U.S. Catholic Bishops issued a position calling for reduced penalties and more treatment. It's time for the UUA to take the next step forward and call for no penalties.
Note that the UUA's 1973 "Drugs" resolution already supports allowing doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts (referred to as "heroin maintenance," which is a type of "medicalization"). It is important to re-affirm this position, and to advocate similar policies for other drugs. (Interestingly, the U.S. has never allowed heroin maintenance -- but the Swiss government has, with very successful results. In addition, the U.S. and Canadian governments have had success with Methadone maintenance, but it has proven less effective than heroin maintenance.)
Consider Robert Downey, Jr., as an example. He has already been through treatment and prison. Should he be sent to prison again? At some point, we need to accept that some people just insist on using drugs, and find a way for them to do so as non-destructively as possible -- and certainly don't keep arresting them. This philosophy is called "harm reduction," and is described in the book Harm Reduction: Pragmatic Strategies for Managing High-Risk Behaviors, edited by G. Alan Marlatt, Ph.D. (New York: Guilford Press, 1998). See also http://www.harmreduction.org
Watch the movie "Traffic," and note that the daughter, once she was already addicted and ran away from treatment, would not have had to prostitute herself under a system of medicalization. Also note that her friend almost died of an overdose because they were too afraid to call an ambulance or take him into the emergency room because of the fear of arrest.
Not all drug use is necessarily destructive. In fact, many people use currently illicit drugs and/or alcohol without causing significant harm to themselves or others. See the book From Chocolate to Morphine: Everything You Need to Know About Mind-Altering Drugs, by Andrew Weil, M.D. & Winifred Rosen (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998). Also see "Heavy Traffic: The war on drugs is worse than drug abuse," by Paul Campos (Corpus Christi Caller-Times, 2/8/01) - http://www.caller.com/2001/february/08/today/contribu/17084.html
Many of the problems associated with drug use, such as house break-ins and muggings, are the product of the laws against drugs rather than the drugs themselves. The artificially high drug prices which create the motive for recruitment, and for crimes committed by addicts, are the direct results of the war on drugs. The United States and Canada have a larger proportion of their citizens in jail than any other developed country, another direct result of the war on drugs. See "War No More, The Folly And Futility Of Drug Prohibition," by Timothy Lynch (National Review, February 5, 2001) -- http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n130/a09.html?22434
The UUA's 1970 "Marijuana Legalization" resolution supports the removal of criminal penalties for "growing, sale, trade and possession of marijuana." Note that the resolution wisely urges that "any effects of the consumption of marijuana that may be found injurious to the user be handled by the proper psychological and medical care and not by criminal law." That's important, because some people argue (erroneously) that medical science now "knows that marijuana is more harmful than people thought it was in 1970." Even if that were true, criminal penalties are not appropriate. Indeed, much of the "new research" about marijuana is easily refutable -- see the book Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, by Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D. and John Morgan, M.D. (New York: The Lindesmith Center, 1997).
In 1991, the UUA also recommended developing appropriate drug education material. Instead, D.A.R.E. has become the most popular program in the U.S., which studies consistently find does not work. See http://www.drcnet.org/DARE/. D.A.R.E., taught by police, reinforces the notion that drug use should be a criminal matter. UUs should take the lead in developing a harm reduction-based drug education curricula, analogous to the UU sex education program, Our Whole Lives. See "Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens, Drugs, and Drug Education," by Marsha Rosenbaum, Ph.D. (Lindesmith Center publication, 1999) at http://www.lindesmith.org/library/safetyfirst.html
See http://www.uudpr.org/scandal.html for a judge's criticism of the coerced treatment, "drug court" approach. While this approach might have some advantages over the drug war as it is currently fought, it is at best a temporary compromise or a slight step in the right direction. Ultimately, it is no more appropriate to arrest and force drug addicts into treatment than it is to coerce people with any other addictions (food, sex, gambling, etc.). Why single out a drugs (and not even alcohol or tobacco)? Instead, we should ensure that there is enough "treatment on request" available so that people with drug problems don't have to get arrested in order to qualify for help. Currently, drug abusers seeking treatment are put on long waiting lists while arrestees who might not even need treatment are being forced into it.

In his North Carolina Law Review article, Judge Morris Hoffman wrote: "The moral authority of our most cherished institutions comes from their voluntary nature: the value of advice from a priest, a teacher or a loved one depends in large part on the fact that we are free to ignore it. But judges' pieces of 'advice' are court orders, enforceable ultimately by the raw physical power of imprisonment. It is precisely because of the awesomely enforceable nature of our powers that we must be so circumspect in exercising them. It is one thing for a co-worker, family member, doctor, or clergyman to confront someone about a perceived drug problem; it is quite another thing for a judge to compel drug treatment. Drug courts not only fail to recognize this important institutional distinction, but their very purpose is to obliterate it."
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis

UUDPR Discussion Points

February 2001

Home | What You Can Do | Discussion | Contact