The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, or UUA, regularly articulates and adopts positions on various social justice issues.  This provides a means of taking our religion and its values out into the larger world – of making explicit links between our religion and so-called “real life.”

     Before addressing the particular issue of the day, I’d like to describe the process by which the UUA arrives at its public positions.  It is very much a bottom-up approach.  Individual congregations or districts initiate Study/Action issues that then may culminate in a Statement of Conscience.

     The process may actually start with one person, or a small group, who feel strongly about a particular issue.  They draft a one-page proposal, which introduces the issue and provides reasons for suggesting the study, questions to help define the scope of the issue, and possible steps for action.

     A congregation or district approves the proposal and sends it on to the Commission on Social Witness (CSW), which facilitates the entire process.  The CSW considers the proposals, edits them, combines them when appropriate, and selects up to ten to appear on the Tentative Agenda for General Assembly.

     Each congregation receives that list and has the opportunity to vote YES or NO on each proposal.  The five receiving the greatest number of YES votes make it to the Final General Assembly Agenda.  Delegates then select one issue for study and action over a two-year period.  During the second year of study, the CSW drafts a Statement of Conscience, which may then be amended and adopted by a two-thirds vote of General Assembly delegates.

     For those interested in learning more about this process, there are handouts available upon request.

     A year-and-a-half ago, the General Assembly selected as its Study/Action Issue, “An Alternative to the War on Drugs.”  Copies of the Draft Statement of Conscience on this issue, to be voted on at this summer’s General Assembly, are also available upon request.

     The basic question that this issue addresses is: “How can Unitarian Universalists contribute to a reformulation of drug policies which would reduce drug use (and particularly abuse) without infringing on civil liberties, scapegoating minority communities, interfering with the internal affairs of other countries, or dehumanizing drug users?”

     There is no denying that drug abuse and addiction is a problem in our society, even here in Happy Valley.  If you read the newspaper or listen to the news, you’re aware of the free flow of the dangerous drug Ecstasy here as almost everywhere.  You know of the presence of heroin, which apparently claimed the life of a local youth within the past two weeks.

     Yes, there is a problem.  But is the so-called “War on Drugs” the solution?  According to a resource guide prepared by the UUA Department of Faith in Action, "In 1998 over 500 world leaders declared that the war on drugs was doing more harm than the drugs themselves.”  Former United States Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey has said, “We must have law enforcement authorities address the issue because if we do not, prevention, education, and treatment messages will not work very well.  But having said that, I also believe that we have created an American gulag.”

     The drug war has been particularly hard on the poor and people of color.  African Americans use about 13% of the drugs and do 74% of the prison time for simple possession.  Drug war interventions in Central and South America have undermined democratic institutions and damaged rainforests.  Civil liberties have been trampled by things like civil-forfeiture laws that permit law enforcement agents to seize and keep a person’s property, even without a conviction.

     Most of the $18 billion dollars budgeted annually to fight the war on drugs goes to police action, resulting in no significant slowing of the use of drugs.  Just a couple of weeks ago, the Bush administration announced a shift of emphasis toward treatment rather than enforcement.  That sounds encouraging, but looking at the budget proposals, the shift looks less than convincing.  For instance, the increase for interdiction is greater than that for treatment, and the vast majority of funds are still earmarked for enforcement.

     Of course the solutions proposed to deal with a problem depend upon the understanding of the nature of the problem.  If our primary focus is the fact that the sale, possession and use of drugs are illegal, then we’re dealing with a law enforcement problem.  And the obvious solutions are centered around law enforcement.  That’s essentially what we have with the current war on drugs.
 But if you spend much time thinking and reading about “the drug problem,” it soon becomes clear that it’s not that simple.  The problem is multi-dimensional.  It has many faces.

     One member of our congregation who has given a lot of thought and study to this issue is Ted Vallance.  Ted wrote an article in 1995 called “A Most Complex Problem,” which I found very useful.  He breaks the problem down into several of its component parts.

     First, the drug problem is a crime problem.  For starters, the 20 million or more users of illegal drugs are, by definition, criminals.  Beyond that, there are the many crimes committed to obtain money to buy drugs, especially by addicts struggling to sustain their habits.  Then there is the criminal violence accompanying the battles for market share by dealers.  So, yes, drugs are a crime problem.  But we need to be able to raise the question: to what extent is that a result of our arbitrary classification of certain drugs as illegal?

     Next, the drug problem is an economic problem.  There are numerous costs associated with the widespread use of drugs.  There are direct costs such as the treatment of people who are sick, or trying to kick a habit; research on the problem; and training of treatment givers.  There are also indirect costs resulting from people being sick and unable to work or from people dying ahead of schedule.  One estimate claims an annual loss of $100 billion due to on-the-job substance abuse.  That comes in the form of lost productivity through absenteeism, accidents and interrupted work.  And then there are the billions spent on enforcement efforts, prosecutions, and incarceration.

     The drug problem is a moral problem.  Some would argue that the use of illicit drugs is inherently immoral, which is why it needs to be illegal in the first place.  Whether you buy that or not, there are other moral issues.  The exploitation by dealers of people’s weakness for profit.  The corruption of some law enforcement officials tempted by the prospect of easy money.  The apparent hypocrisy of classifying some drugs – alcohol, nicotine, caffeine – as okay, while others are bad, as are the people who use them.

     The drug problem is also a problem of individual freedom and civil liberties.  In his article, Ted notes that “One scholar claims that all of the first ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights have been violated in the effort to solve the drug problem.”  Perhaps most remarkable are assaults on the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.  I already mentioned the civil forfeiture laws that allow seizure of property suspected of being involved in criminal acts, which stand the presumption of innocence on its head.

     The drug problem is also, of course, a health problem. Drugs do affect people’s health adversely, and even kill them, sometimes slowly, sometimes swiftly.  Thousands die annually from overdoses, accidental poisonings, and contaminated needles, one of the major sources of HIV infections. Most critics of the War on Drugs advocate a shift of focus from the criminal to the health aspect of the problem.  That is, you don’t put sick people in jail, you treat them.

     And there are other sides to drugs as a health problem besides their adverse physical effects.  Emotional and spiritual health come into play as well.  In fact I believe that emotional fragility often plays a major part in leading people to drug abuse.  We live in a culture where there is a pill to treat just about any problem we might encounter.  And that’s not all bad.  Many people have benefited tremendously from professionally prescribed and supervised pharmaceuticals.  The problem comes when people self-medicate with whatever is available on the illicit market, perhaps not even consciously aware that’s what they’re doing.

     A moment ago I mentioned spiritual health.  I think that may be even a larger factor.  There are many reasons why people use drugs: because it feels good, out of a sense of adventure or danger, to fit in with some crowd.  But in my experience, drug abuse is more often a way of deadening the pain of living, or of trying to fill an emptiness, a void within.  And that is essentially a spiritual problem.

     In my understanding there are two complementary characteristics of spiritual health.  One is a sense of wholeness or completeness as a person.  The other is a sense of connection: connection with others, connection with the interdependent web of all existence, connection with the cosmos.  With the strength of our own wholeness, and the support of our spiritual connections, we are equipped to face life undrugged.  Without them, we may be tempted to look for a little help from our chemical friends. But they can’t do the job.
 If I’m right, then there are implications for how most effectively to combat the drug problem.  If I’m right, then the drug abuse is merely the presenting problem, which masks the deeper underlying personal or spiritual problems.  Now, it may be possible to remove the drugs – although even that is debatable – but will that, or a prison cell fix those deeper problems?  I think not.  Of course the real challenge is that the underlying problems are much more difficult to address.

     When I consider the drug problem through the lens of my religious values and principles, I’m driven to seek a way rooted in love and compassion, not in arbitrary morality and self-righteousness.  My primary aim is not to enforce a rigid, arbitrary set of rules, but rather to reduce harm.

     That brings me to the question of what we, as a faith community can do to address both the problem of drugs and the compounding of problems by the War on Drugs.

     One thing we can do is educate ourselves about drugs and drug policies and a variety of reform options.  We can explore and discuss options such as decriminalization and legalization on their merits, refusing to be deterred by moralistic oversimplifications.  We can encourage open, honest discussion about past and present drug use (pros as well as cons).  Only through such dialogue can we more fully understand the role of drugs in people’s lives, rather than the scare stories we regularly hear in the media.  We can talk openly and honestly with our children.  We can learn to distinguish between use, abuse, and addiction.  We can help national and local drug policy reform organizations advocate for non-punitive reform options.  And perhaps the best thing we can do is to provide an environment within which people can find spiritual nourishment without chemical assistance, and a supportive place to work on dependence issues.

     Those are just a few ways to get involved in this issue.  If you are interested in pursuing the issue further, see me and I can point you toward numerous resources and opportunities for action.