Promoting Peaceful Alternatives to the War on Drugs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Charles Thomas, executive Director of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative
Fellowship Magazine, May/June 2004 Issue


In the fall of 2000, Eric Sterling rounded up a posse to free Dorothy Gaines from federal prison. The posse - the Coalition for Jubilee Clemency - consisted of more than 600 ministers, priests, nuns, bishops, rabbis, seminary faculty, and other religious leaders from most major denominations. They sent a petition to President Clinton, urging him to grant clemency to Gaines and all other low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who had already served at least five years of a lengthy mandatory prison sentence.

Sterling was in a unique position to lead this coalition: as legal counsel to the US House Judiciary Committee in the 1980s, his job duties had included writing the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. He had seen first-hand the ill-informed and reactionary manner in which Congress created this legislation. As a long-time Quaker peace activist, his conscience called him to leave his job in 1989 and devote his time toward reforming the destructive drug laws that he had helped to create. Recognizing the potential to organize religious leaders to advocate for clemency in the Jubilee year, Sterling decided to attempt a rescue mission.

By 2000, Dorothy Gaines had already served 5 years of a 20-year prison term for "conspiracy" to possess and distribute crack cocaine. A search of her home turned up no drugs, no money, and no paraphernalia. State prosecutors declined to prosecute her. However, federal prosecutors obtained a conviction by using the testimony of drug dealers, who testified against Gaines in order to reduce their own prison sentences. Regardless of her innocence or guilt, a 20-year sentence is unconscionably long. Gaines, a widow with three children, was sentenced to more time than the average served by a rapist or murderer!

The Coalition was partially successful: By the end of his presidency, Clinton had granted clemency to Gaines and twenty-two other federal drug offenders. Unfortunately, this is a small fraction of the more than 20,000 federal prisoners serving time for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses.

The United States is the world's leading incarcerator, with more than two million people in federal, state and local facilities. For people concerned about this problem, it is important to consider the extent to which the drug laws are at fault: More than twenty percent of state prisoners and sixty percent of federal prisoners are serving time for drug law violations. And more than a third of all drug prisoners were sentenced for possession, not sale or manufacture.

A Better Way

Drug abuse and addiction can be devastating. Therefore the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative promotes policies to reduce the harm that drugs may cause to individuals and society. As people of faith, we believe that it is essential that these policies be just and compassionate. From a restorative justice perspective, many positive steps can be taken.

First, we return to the example of Dorothy Gaines. Assuming that she did, in fact, play a role in a criminal conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, what is the appropriate role of the criminal justice system? To the extent that someone involved in the sale or manufacture of drugs is thereby harming individuals or even contributing to the blight of entire communities, a variety of restorative justice practices could be applied.

A variety of practices - e.g., mediation, group conferencing, community service and other restitution - are elaborated upon elsewhere in this publication and in other restorative justice literature. Many of these practices could be applied creatively to drug distributors. Moreover, many people sell drugs primarily to support their own addictions. For them, treatment is a more humane alternative to incarceration.

Unfortunately, the biggest impediment to all of these options is the federal and state mandatory minimum sentencing laws, under which judges are forced to ignore all of the offender's life circumstances, actual role in the offense, and possibility of rehabilitation. Instead, the only relevant variable is the quantity of the substance involved. If it is above a certain amount - for some substances, barely more than personal-use quantities - the judge must send the person to prison for a period of time that has been predetermined by the legislature.

Many religious groups have already passed resolutions and/or signed coalition statements calling for the repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Examples include the National Council of Churches, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church, United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalist Association, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Religious Society of Friends (Philadelphia Yearly Meeting), and the United Methodist Church.

In the 107th Congress, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) introduced a bill to repeal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, thereby restoring sentencing discretion to federal judges. Despite forty-four co-sponsors and strong support from the Congressional Black Caucus, the bill died in committee without a hearing.

In anticipation of a similar bill being introduced again this year, religious groups have begun mobilizing to throw their weight behind it. This is one of the most important steps toward more humane drug policies that can be taken in Congress this year.

The second step is to consider the role of the criminal justice system in the lives of individual drug users. According to the FBI, seventy-five percent of the 1.5 million annual drug arrests in the United States are for possession, not sale or manufacture. Even if an offender is not sentenced to prison, the arrest itself can be devastating. Of course, some drug users hurt or endanger others while under the influence. But the vast majority do not. From a restorative justice perspective, to whom do they owe restitution? Should simple possession be a crime at all?

The "Equal Justice" resolution of the United Methodist Church (2000) calls for "the repeal of some criminal laws against certain personal conditions or individual misconduct," and lists "drug use" as an example. The Presbyterian Church also called for "decriminalization of possession" in 1993, and in 2002 the Unitarian Universalist Association recommended, "Remove criminal penalties for possession and use of currently illegal drugs, with drug abusers subject to arrest and imprisonment only if they commit actual crimes (e.g., assault, burglary, impaired driving, vandalism)."

People of faith may play an essential role in building public support for treating drugs as a health issue instead of a crime. Regardless of whether or not it immoral to use drugs, it certainly is wrong to punish people solely for using drugs. Personal morality issues should be addressed by the faith community and family, not by cops, courts and prisons. As with alcohol, tobacco, junk food, and countless other potentially addictive and/or unhealthy behaviors, we should respond with realistic education and compassionate treatment that is neither punitive nor coercive.

Many experts are stepping even further "outside the box" by arguing that a tightly regulated distribution system would be better than the chaos under the current system of prohibition. As theology professor Walter Wink wrote in the Friends Journal (1996), "The drug war is over, and we lost. We merely repeated the mistake of Prohibition. The harder we tried to stamp out this evil, the more lucrative we made it, and the more it spread. ... An evil cannot be eradicated by making it more profitable."

Drug prohibition has not eliminated drug use: Illegal drugs are purer, more affordable, and more available to young people than ever. Instead, Wink writes, "Drug laws have fostered drug-related murders and an estimated 40 percent of all property crime. ... There are the ones killed in fights over turf; innocents caught in crossfire; citizens terrified of city streets; escalating robberies; [etc.]."

There are many possible alternatives to the criminal market. The 2002 statement by the Unitarian denomination recommends a "legal, regulated, and taxed market for marijuana," and "medically administered drug maintenance" for other drugs. "Make all drugs legally available with a prescription by a licensed physician," the statement urges. A medicalized system of regulated access has been tried in Switzerland and England, with resulting decreases in crime, disease, violence and overdose deaths. This is the most effective way to put dealers out of business without needing to arrest or punish anyone. Thus far, no other major religious denominations in the United States have explicitly endorsed this proposal, but perhaps its time has come.

Take Action

There are so many ways to restore justice to our nation's drug policies, from repealing mandatory minimum sentences to removing criminal penalties altogether. I don't expect everyone to agree with every option that I've described, but I encourage everyone to visit our web page to learn more about this complex issue - from the variety of policy options to the different types of innovative treatment options (e.g., "harm reduction"). Even if you only agree with our top priority of repealing mandatory minimums, please contact us to get involved.

While there are countless other important issues to work on, drug policy reform is a cutting-edge social justice issue on which a little effort can make a big difference. And it is of tremendous importance: I asked Ira Glasser, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1978 -2001, for his perspective. He replied, "Aside from the civil liberties violations committed in the name of the war on terrorism, the single greatest and most enduring source of civil liberties violations today is the war on drugs. It is more deeply entrenched, more broadly intrusive, affects more people, and is likely to have a longer total duration."

May we have the compassion and courage to do what we can to make a difference.