Earleywine Chapters
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Substance Abuse

Last Updated July 3, 2001

Status

The United States has tried to attack the problem of drug abuse head on in recent years. The 1997 Drug-Free Communities Act which helps build and strengthen 14,000 anti-drug coalitions, unites civic groups to form a Civic Alliance, and mobilizes communities has had a positive impact. Aggressive law enforcement has also contributed to ridding streets and neighborhoods of drugs. Finally, enhanced international cooperation has somewhat diverted the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States.

Results of the War on Drugs have been mixed. Although casual drug use is lower than in recent decades, the number of hard-core drug users has remained relatively constant. According to the 2001 Annual Report of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, an estimated 14.8 million Americans, or 6.7 percent of the population twelve and older, were current illicit drug This number represents 6.7 percent of the population twelve and older. This figure declined significantly between 1979 and 1992, from 23 million to twelve million. Since 1992 the number of current users has gradually increased. An estimated 3.6 million people met diagnostic criteria for dependence on illegal drugs in 1999, including 800,000 youths between the ages of twelve and seventeen. Alcohol and tobacco use is also prevalent among youth, despite being unlawful. Fifty percent of high school seniors use alcohol, and thirty percent use tobacco. Teenagers who use alcohol or tobacco are more likely to use other drugs.

Drug and alcohol abuse is destructive to families, economically costly, and sometimes fatal. According to the Center for Disease Control, 40% of the almost 42,000 traffic fatalities in 1997 were alcohol related; In 1994, alcohol-related crashes cost the U.S. $45 billion in direct cost, loss of earnings and household productivity. The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that half of all male arestees test positive for at least one drug. In 1997 there were almost 16,000 drug-induced deaths; drug users were more likely to contract infectious diseases or to become or remain homeless. 35.8 percent of new HIV cases are directly or indirectly linked to injecting drug users. For more information on HIV/AIDS, visit the RAC's HIV/AIDS issue page.

In addition to the human cost exacted by drug abuse, the problem translated into financial losses for communities, sapping hard-earned tax dollars. In San Francisco alone, untreated substance abuse cost $1.7 billion in 1996. Illegal drugs cost our society $67 billion each year. For moral, humanitarian, and fiscal reasons, reducing substance abuse must be a priority for our society.

Legislative Summary

Drug Sentencing: Incarceration vs. Treatment

As the war on drugs continues and prison populations rise as a direct result of it, a reassessment of our nation's priorities in fighting drug abuse may be in order. Many people now believe that the rising numbers of people incarcerated in the U.S. for drug offenses constitute a failure on the part of our criminal justice system, especially when so many of them are nonviolent, low-level offenders. Stiff minimum sentencing laws have set mandated lengthy sentences for drug offenders at both the state and the federal level. Many of these drug offenders are parents, and many are serving more time than people convicted of violent crimes. Even people who do not manufacture or sell drugs are subject to incarceration for the simple offense of drug possession.

Fifty-nine percent of police chiefs now believe that drug offenders should be treated rather than incarcerated. According to the Lindesmith Center Drug Policy Foundation, every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs. In many cases, prison alienates prisoners from civil society. For low-level, non-violent drug offenders, long prison sentences are punitive rather than rehabilitative, stigmatize those who receive them, and leave them ill equipped to cope after release.

Drug sentencing also has a disproportionate impact on the African-American community. According to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, "Fifty-four percent of blacks convicted of drug offenses receive prison sentences versus thirty-four percent of whites convicted of the same crimes." As the Coalition for Jubilee Clemency letter to Faith points out, an estimated 600,000 children in the U.S. have a parent incarcerated for a drug offense. If the goal of the war on drugs is to rid America of the evils of drug addiction, we as a nation must seek to lessen the detrimental effects of drugs on troubled communities, rather than compounding them with excessive incarceration.

Drug Convictions and Financial Aid

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), along with 23 original cosponsors, has introduced a bill to repeal the ban on federal financial aid to students with drug convictions. The bill, H.R. 786, is also backed by more than 70 university student government associations and national educational, student, drug-reform and civil rights groups. H.R. 786 would repeal a current law, which took effect last July, stating that students convicted of drug possession would be denied aid eligibility for one year for the first offense, two years for the second offense, and permanently for the third offense. As Rep. Frank points out, this type of ban on financial aid eligibility exists for no other category of crime: "Someone who commits murder or armed robbery is not automatically barred from financial aid eligibility."

The current law punishes low to moderate income people who are trying to further their education - there is no ban on enrollment for those with drug convictions who can afford tuition, only on financial aid for those who cannot. In addition, the ban on financial aid disproportionately penalizes minority students. According to a 1999 ACLU special report on racial profiling, African-Americans constitute 13 percent of the country's drug users; 37 percent of those arrested on drug charges; 55 percent of those convicted; and 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to prison. African-American students will be overrepresented in the barred group, despite the fact that their drug use rates are no higher than those of white students.

Anti-Drug Programs

Funding for drug abuse treatment and prevention is essential for the success of any "war" on drugs. The appropriations process is vital to these efforts, especially in the following areas:

* Drug-Free Communities Act Program: The House Treasury/Postal Appropriations Sub-committee provided $30 million for FY 2000 for the Drug-Free Communities Act Program, a $10 million increase above FY 1999 funding level and $8 million above the President's budget request for FY 2000. The program supports anti-drug efforts at the local level and coordinates initiatives around the nation, maximizing their impact.

* National Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign: In order to reach young people and stem the tide of early drug use, the United States has committed to spend nearly $1 billion over the next five years on direct advertising aimed at affecting youths' attitudes and behaviors.

Mandatory Minimums

During the 1970s and 1980s, Congress and many state legislatures passed mandatory minimum sentencing laws that force judges to hand out fixed sentences, without parole, to people convicted of certain crimes, especially drug-related offenses. In these cases, mandatory sentences must be imposed regardless of a person's role in the crime or other mitigating factors. Prosecutors, not judges, have the discretion to decide what charges to bring, whether to accept or deny a plea bargain, to reward or deny a defendant's "substantial assistance" or cooperation, and ultimately, to determine what the final sentence will be.

Today there are approximately 100 separate federal mandatory minimums located in 60 different criminal statutes. In practice, only four statutes are used with any regularity, all covering drug and weapon offenses. These four statutes, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data, are responsible for 94 percent of all federal mandatory minimum cases. Mandatory sentences require offenders to serve their entire sentence without parole.

This session, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has introduced the Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 2001 (HR 697), which would remove the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. Currently, getting caught with 5 grams of crack triggers a mandatory sentence of 5 years, while 500 grams of powder cocaine is required to trigger the same sentence. This bill, with only one other co-sponsor, has been referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.

The Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution Act of 2001 (HR 1978), introduced by Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-CA) would raise the minimum possession amounts required to trigger federal prosecution to 500 grams for both crack and powder cocaine, and would eliminate minimum prison terms for drug possession offenses. These changes would serve to re-focus law enforcement and court attention on major drug traffickers, rather than on prosecuting small time users and those who deal to support their own habits. This bill has substantial support, especially from the Congressional Black Caucus, and has been referred to the same House Subcommittees as HR 1978.

State Initiatives
Movements in several states have proposed changing how those states address the problem of illegal drug use and possession. The voters of Arizona approved Proposition 200, formally known as the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996, in the November, 1996 election. The Act expanded drug treatment and education services for drug offenders and utilized probation for non-violent drug offenders. It also established the Drug Treatment and Education Fund, funded by a percentage of the revenue from luxury taxes on liquors. Half the fund is used to pay for placing probationers in drug education and treatment programs. The other half goes to the Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention to run "programs that increase and enhance parental involvement and increase education about the serious risks and public health problems caused by the abuse of alcohol or controlled substances." In its first year, the program diverted 551 adults from prisons, saving $2.5 million, and provided service to over 2,600 more substance abusing probationers than the previous year. Three out of four probationers placed in drug treatment remained drug free.

A similar proposition on the ballot in California passed by a comfortable margin in the 2000 election. Also called the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, California Proposition 36 calls for several changes in the way California addresses its problem of illegal drug use. It mandates probation and court-supervised treatment services for people convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense. Offenders placed in the treatment program are required to obey certain rules of behavior, or their probation and parole is revoked. Once defendants successfully complete treatment, they may petition the court to dismiss their drug-related conviction. The initiative will allocate $120,000,000 annually to a new Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund for the first five years. The plan includes research, annual reports, and a separate long-term impact study.

The California initiative faced considerable opposition from a number of well-known and well-respected individuals and groups. The actor Martin Sheen is honorary chair of a coalition which opposed Proposition 36, on the grounds that it is a step toward the legalization of drugs, and will put dangerous criminals on the streets. Members of the coalition also believe that a strong step such as incarceration is sometimes needed to shake people out of their addictions. The proponents of Proposition 36 refute their arguments by saying that there are safeguards against the outcomes they fear, and that the measure will aid those in need of treatment. The Reform Movement did not take a position on Proposition 36 because we have supported judicial discretion in sentencing, albeit in relation to mandatory minimum sentences which we oppose.

The proposition was so successful because Californians realized that their state correctional system faces a huge drug problem. Huge numbers of people are being held in California prisons for simple drug possession convictions: 19,743, or 12.2% of the entire prison population, as of June 1999. These people have not been accused of any other crimes, and were not charged with drug trafficking. They have not demonstrated that they are a danger to anyone but themselves, and their incarceration is very costly. From 1990 to 1995, three Hispanic males were added to the prison population for every one added to California's four-year public universities. All these effects are amplified when we consider the family members hurt by incarceration of simple drug possession offenders. An estimated 600,000 children in the U.S. have a parent incarcerated for a drug offense.

Halting the incarceration of drug users without criminal records could help California address the problem of illegal drug by helping to strengthen families and communities. Through vocational training, family counseling, drug education and prevention, literacy training, and outpatient and residential treatment programs, states can help drug addicted people return to their families and communities, breaking the cycle of addiction and incarceration. Funded treatment will not discriminate on the basis of race or economic status. Anyone will be able to enter treatment if they meet the program requirements, and treatment costs will be covered for people who need assistance.

Acts such as California's could help stop state parole systems from feeding back into the state prison system. They would fill parolees' need for drug treatment, putting an end to the cycle of prison and parole for non-violent drug offenders. Parole officers' resources will be diverted to reintegrating parolees into society. Drug treatment has been proven to reduce criminal activity, thereby improving public safety. Treatment reduces criminal activity by 72 percent. California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act also provides for vocational training, which would give ex-offenders marketable skills for employment, making them much less likely to commit crimes to support themselves. An estimated 37,000 offenders will be diverted from the California prison system into community-based treatment programs if the Act is passed, saving California approximately $1.5 billion in over the next five years, according to the California Legislative Analysts Office. Money will be saved in court costs, prison operations, prison construction, and parole costs.

Substance Abuse and Jewish Values
Our tradition teaches us that abusing substances is wrong. The introduction to Maimonides' Mishneh Torah states: "Seeing that keeping the body healthy and whole is the way of God, for it is impossible to understand or know anything about the Creator if one is sick, therefore a person must distance himself from things that destroy the body, and accustom himself to things which heal the body." Drug abuse is therefore forbidden, but we are advised to learn to heal the body, not to punish it for things that already destroy it. Drug treatment is in keeping with Maimonides' injunction, while incarceration for personal use of harmful substances could be considered additional bodily punishment.

Position of the Reform Jewish Movement
The URJ has long seen drug abuse as a serious problem facing the nation. Both the Union for Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American Rabbis have formally stated their disapproval of illegal drug use and their commitment to eliminating the abuse of controlled substances. In 1989, the Union resolved to "declare its unequivocal opposition to all forms of substance abuse, including alcohol" and to "work with other religious and secular bodies in addressing the problems of substance abuse." Several URJ resolutions have emphasized supervised treatment instead of incarceration for people convicted of simple drug possession. The URJ's 1993 resolution, "Dealing with Substance Abuse," advocates urging the U.S. government to "Reassess their priorities in combating drug abuse in the United States and Canada and in allocating resources to emphasize prevention, education, and treatment rather than enforcement." This stance reflects an awareness that treatment is much more effective than prison time in solving people's drug problems.

Commission on Social Action Resolutions

* Needle Exchange Programs (1997).
The CSA resolved to "encourage federal, state, provincial, and/or local legislative bodies to pass laws allowing certified health workers to exchange contaminated needles and syringes for clean ones, in conjunction with drug education, and to provide funds for such programs."

* Crime (1994).
The CSA urged "removal of mandatory minimum sentencing"; "modification of drug laws to remove racial bias in sentencing"; and "rejection of 'three strikes, you're out' or other mandated life sentences."

URJ Resolutions
* Race and the U.S Criminal Justice System (1999)
* Dealing With Substance Abuse (1993)
* Substance Abuse (1989)
* Drugs (1971)
* Crime (1968)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
See http://rac.org/advocacy/issues/issuesa/