Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
And this time it involves a reader of this blog, Barry Hazle. Hazle was arrested on drug possession charges and after spending a year in jail, he was required as a condition of probation to attend a 90 day residential drug rehab program. He was assigned to Empire Recovery Center, which uses a 12 step program that includes religion. Hazle is an atheist.
He objected to being placed in a religious rehab program and asked the state officials and his parole officer to assign him to a secular rehab center instead. He was denied. They told him that all of the rehab programs in Northern California are such 12 step programs. He filed an official appeal citing court rulings on the unconstitutionality of his rehab, but his parole officer placed him under arrest for violating his parole by refusing the residential treatment program.
Here's the worst part:
Hazle was incarcerated at the Shasta County Jail, then transported to the High Desert State Prison, and ultimately sent to the CRC state prison in Norco, California, a facility recognized by California's governor to be "overcrowded" and "very dangerous for...the inmates." Hazle was incarcerated a total of roughly 125 days as a result of the revocation of his parole.
This is blatantly unconstitutional by any sane standard. If the first amendment prevents anything at all, it must prohibit this.
Politics
Comments
I'd say sue them into the stone-age, but that's probably and advancement for them.
Posted by: Rich | September 30, 2008 10:01 AM
I'm sure that placing him in a metaphorical 'lions den' is the Christian thing to do. Bleaugh.
Posted by: Umlud | September 30, 2008 10:08 AM
Ah but faith in jebus would have prevented this. Specifically it would have prevented him being sent to jail for refusing to pretend to believe in god like da gubahment told him to.
Posted by: tincture | September 30, 2008 10:08 AM
Agreed - but there is a more pragmatic problem here: lack of any centers that offer a secular program. The '12-steps' have been so ingrained in rehabilitation that its next to impossible to find a program that isn't based in some capacity around them and the notion of a higher power. So what is a court to do?
Posted by: yoshi | September 30, 2008 10:26 AM
yoshi, that was my thought exactly. Does anyone know of genuinely secular rehab programs that are available nationally? Or know of a list of by-state programs?
Posted by: WScott | September 30, 2008 10:41 AM
The problem here is not "Jebus" but the fact that California has privatized it's recovery system, the last stage of the trend of "deinstitutionalizing" mental health tht started back in the 1970's. If the state were running a rehab program, there wouldn't be a problem.
I don't think he has a lawsuit, simply because it was a conditional sentence: He had the choice of serving the suspended part of the sentence or accepting the conditional treatment (and, presumably, intensive probation). Does this choice suck? Yes, it does. But his remedy is political, to get the legislature to raise taxes a bit to fund state-operated mental health facilities, rather than paying private providers who are not bound by the First Amendment.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 30, 2008 10:42 AM
While that may be the case, that's not really the defendant's problem, is it?
Posted by: chris | September 30, 2008 10:58 AM
This is the exact sort of coercion that is prohibited by the first amendment. The choice between religion (even in a rehab sense) or imprisonment has been forbidden by the 2nd circuit, 7th circuit, and most recently, the 9th circuit (Inouye). I recently wrote an article (that I will try and get published AFTER graduation and bar passage) detailing the insipid nature of state forced religious rehab for drug and alcohol offenders.
Posted by: Bryan | September 30, 2008 10:59 AM
This is the exact sort of coercion that is prohibited by the first amendment. The choice between religion (even in a rehab sense) or imprisonment has been forbidden by the 2nd circuit, 7th circuit, and most recently, the 9th circuit (Inouye). I recently wrote an article (that I will try and get published AFTER graduation and bar passage) detailing the insipid nature of state forced religious rehab for drug and alcohol offenders.
Posted by: Bryan | September 30, 2008 11:01 AM
I only know of one off hand, SMART Recovery. They have one treatment center in NC, located in Raleigh. Anyone else know of another national secular rehab program?
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 30, 2008 11:06 AM
12-step programs have been proven time and time again not to work for most people.
Posted by: marilove | September 30, 2008 11:07 AM
I think there is another one, Abby Normal, but for the life of me I can't remember what it is. I discovered it when doing research for solutions for an atheist alcoholic friend of mine. If I remember, I'll let you know!
Posted by: marilove | September 30, 2008 11:09 AM
marilove: what program has been proven to work better than 12-step programs?
And yes, such programs are very "higher-power" oriented -- but the honest ones don't tell you who/what the HP is; they let you find your own, and don't even ask you to specify who/what yours is. Their only qualification is that it has to be someone/something who cares about you and is greater than yourself. (There is one story about an addict who couldn't get his head around the concept, possibly because he was an atheist; and he was told he could think of his group as a higher power: they cared about him, and they were able to help him do something he couldn't do alone.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 30, 2008 11:18 AM
SOS
Save Our Selves
Secular Organizations for Sobriety
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 30, 2008 11:19 AM
marilove, the same is true of all treatment programs as far as I know. (I'd love to be wrong about that. Can someone show me I am?)
Which reminds me, how many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? ...One, but the light bulb has to want to change.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 30, 2008 11:21 AM
Hazle is in California, right? SOS is associated with CFI-Los Angeles.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 30, 2008 11:21 AM
My best thoughts go out to this poor man. Would state control of rehabilitation facilities even help, given the stranglehold 12-step programs have gained both in the courts and the public mindset?
Posted by: nicole | September 30, 2008 11:26 AM
Oops, I read North Carolina, instead of Northern California. SMART has a center in Sacramento in case that helps. The rest of their CA centers are in Southern California.
Thanks for the link Herod.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 30, 2008 11:32 AM
kehrsam said:
Or to get the legislature to revoke the law against drug possession in the first place, or at least not allow judges to make rehabilitation a condition of probation. Possession of a drug does not make you an addict, as every casual drinker knows.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 30, 2008 11:34 AM
It's understandable that an atheist would object to a 12 step program and that needs to be respected. But the reason that the judicial system can get away with mandatory 12 step programs is because the "higher power" prescribed is soooo vague. It's the mentality that the First Amendment only prohibits sectarian not generic religion.
Posted by: Bill in NC | September 30, 2008 11:44 AM
Gretchen: Agreed, but we do not know the circumstances of this particular case. If he (for instance) committed a robbery to fund a drug addction, then treatment for that addiction seems like a reasonable condition for release. But yes, if it was just possession or trafficing, then intensive probation is the most that would be needed.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 30, 2008 11:51 AM
Here's a report from his hometown paper, didn't see it linked:
Redding Record Searchlight
He's getting pretty savaged in the comments.
Posted by: Bob Wahr | September 30, 2008 11:51 AM
kehrsam wrote:
That is precisely why it is unconstitutional, because this is clear coercion. The government cannot say "well we would punish you, but if you just agree to go to church we'll let you off the hook." That is clearly using the power of government to privilege religion and use de facto coercion to push people toward religion.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 30, 2008 12:13 PM
Thanks for the link, Bob. OK, so it was for simple possession of meth on a three-strikes law. I can see ordering the treatment after he failed a drug test on probation, but Gretchen is right, there was no particular reason that he needed the treatment at the time he came out on parole.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 30, 2008 12:16 PM
Yikes, it's not often I'm in complete disagreement with kehrsam. But believe me Kurt, I disagree respectfully.
Well, there wouldn't be this problem, but the odds are we'd have phenomenally ineffective programs, so I'm not sure that's the best way to go. Requiring the state to offer the option of the closest non-religious program seems a more straightforward solution. I don't think the first amendment allows this kind of choice--"you accept religious indoctrination or go to jail." I wouldn't be overly eager to defend that, particularly before the 9th Circuit.Posted by: James Hanley | September 30, 2008 12:16 PM
I am going through a similar situation.
I was arrested on drug charges three years ago, and received four years of felony probation. As a condition of my probation, I was required to 'voluntarily' admit myself into a residential rehabilitation center, and then follow up for 2 years in an outpatient facility. I am also required to attend at least three Narcotics Anonymous meetings every week for the duration of my probation.
I quit fighting the system, it did no good and the thought of going back to jail for 2-20years was a price I'm not willing to pay to make my point. Instead, I decided that during the meetings, I would keep my mouth shut, unless I was asked a specific question. The program directors learned quickly to leave me alone.
In addition to learning to overcome my addiction, I was placed in a very uncomfortable situation on a daily basis during a very volatile time in my life. I was expected to pray to the 'God of my understanding', was held a few extra days in treatment because the director 'feared for my soul', and was considered an outcast because I am an athiest.
I will be following this story closely, as I've longed for the day someone finally steps up and calls AA what it is ... a deeply religious program that works hand in hand with a government agency, who threatens to take your freedom if you don't cooperate.
Thank you for posting this.
Posted by: Justice9311 | September 30, 2008 12:26 PM
Ed and James: I should have been clearer before. The issue is the second prong of Lemon: If there is a compelling state interest and if no other alternative program exits, then this passes. See the concurring opinion in Inouye from the 9th Circuit, which appears to be directly on point.
That's why I claim the real problem is California not providing an alternative secular program. Also, since his original sentence has already been overturned, can this suit be mooted? I do tax, not criminal procedure, and would really like to know.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 30, 2008 12:30 PM
We should probably establish that 1) they actually work, and 2) are necessary before even considering that possibility.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 30, 2008 12:38 PM
The only reason any court or other government entity gets away with coerced 12 step attendance is because the victim of their coercion is either 1) ignorant of the fact that it's illegal, 2) effectively powerless to fight it, or 3) both.
A steady stream of court decisions over the past two decades (including 3 Circuit Courts, at least 3 District Courts, and 2 State Supreme Courts, as well as numerous other lower courts) have unanimously and unequivocally held 12-step programs such as AA to be religious programs, and court ordered attendance in these programs to be unconstitutional when a secular alternative is not also offered.
This includes a 9th Circuit ruling from just one year ago which not only agreed that mandatory 12-step attendance as a condition of parole is illegal, it also found that the law is so clear and so well established on this point that the parole officer who did it couldn't claim qualified immunity as a defense when he was sued. INOUYE v. KEMNA
Posted by: Ken | September 30, 2008 12:49 PM
:::Their only qualification is that it has to be someone/something who cares about you and is greater than yourself. (There is one story about an addict who couldn't get his head around the concept, possibly because he was an atheist; and he was told he could think of his group as a higher power: they cared about him, and they were able to help him do something he couldn't do alone.):::
This is a crock. We were told this very same thing in rehab, but it doesn't make sense. The 'group' being referred to is made up of addicts and alcoholics in various stages of recovery. The absolute worst 'higher power' an addict can rely on is another addict. If my 'group' fails, there is a very high probability that I will fail too.
At the NA I attend, it is frowned upon to use the group as a 'higher power'. Instead, you're told that if you don't have a religion to 'fire God and get a new one' .. or 'Don't have a God? Use mine!' Huh?
All of these slogans are simply ploys to sucker people in the lowest point of their lives into a Christian-based religion. We have nothing to lose and are desperate for anything/anyone that offers a better life. What better place for the religious nuts to pick up new members than rehab?
My favorite moment in rehab was when I was having a very heated conversation with the counselor during a group meeting. I was sick of being told that the 12 step program was not religious in nature, that it was simply a 'spiritual' path to recovery. At the end of the meeting, she ends by insisting that the group make their own decisions and take what I said with a grain of salt. As she finished speaking, the group rose to their feet and ended the meeting like always ... they formed a hand-holding circle, and prayed to God.
Posted by: justice9311 | September 30, 2008 12:49 PM
Uh?!?
I say the whole thing is fucked up.
Honestly, reading the redding.com article, I feel the whole system there seems to be totally messed up.
Really, counting a bottle of whiskey as a drug offense?
Maybe that's because I'm European, but that is really crazy.
Posted by: student_b | September 30, 2008 12:58 PM
Let's be serious. I'm all in favor raising awareness about discrimination and Christian Privilege... but we need to be real about it. Nothing is going to happen and no one is going to care until we get our shit organized and as a group, get lawyers on our payroll to defend our rights. We can't depend on the ACLU (as thankful as I am for them)to jump to attention and do our bidding whenever something like this happens.
We've all seen the demographics. We all know there are enough of us to come up with a well funded organization dedicated to legal advocacy.
We need leaders who will take the reins.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | September 30, 2008 1:07 PM
If not the ACLU, there's The Freedom From Religion Foundation Foundation, who has been helpful in the court system or, on the legislative side, there's The Secular Coalition for America, a lobbying group. Or did you have something else in mind? Speaking of funding, both organizations accept donations through the web sites linked to above. [hint hint] ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 30, 2008 1:32 PM
kehrsam wrote:
I don't think the Lemon test will be used in this case, which was filed as a free exercise challenge rather than just an establishment clause challenge.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 30, 2008 1:54 PM
My ex-husband got a DUI 6 or 7 years ago. He had to go to rehab, but only so he could get his license back. He was provided with a list of about 10 programs, secular and religious, and he could choose whichever one he wanted. And this was in Kentucky!
Posted by: Liz | September 30, 2008 2:17 PM
There is a partial list of treatment programs that offer a secular option or are wholly secular, posted on the LifeRing Secular Recovery website, http://unhooked.com. Click on the "Find Treatment" tab.
LifeRing has more than 40 meetings in Northern California.
Posted by: Martin Nicolaus | September 30, 2008 2:43 PM
Posted by: WScott | September 30, 2008 2:43 PM
Of course, then there's the small elephant over there in the corner...
The fact that 12-step programs do not work better than going it alone. Period.
Posted by: StuV | September 30, 2008 2:44 PM
I really don't give a shit what some drug addled atheist wants.
The country is going to hell, and my family is suffering.
Fuck him.
Posted by: Coila | September 30, 2008 2:45 PM
Dangit WScott, beat me by a hair!
Posted by: StuV | September 30, 2008 2:47 PM
I really don't give a shit what some drug addled atheist wants.
The country is going to hell, and my family is suffering.
Fuck him.
Posted by: Coila | September 30, 2008 2:48 PM
I hope things improve for you and your family, and the country in general. But doesn't that book that you hold so dear tell you things about love and compassion? WWJD?
Posted by: Rich | September 30, 2008 2:51 PM
kehrsam, OK, I get it.
Coila, Do you care about someone who's trying to turn their life around so they can stop being a drug addled atheist and become a law abiding socially productive atheist?
Or are you just overcome with hate for everyone who's not like you?
Posted by: James Hanley | September 30, 2008 2:55 PM
12-step programs have been proven time and time again not to work for most people.
I haven't perused the addictions literature in some time, but when I last did so the problem was that there wasn't much research either way available on 12-step programs. Part of the problem was that most 12-step programs are outpatient and voluntary groups with members coming and going for a variety of reasons. And, in keeping with the commitment to anonymity, these groups were not inclined to allow their members to become study participants.
Maybe there is some research you know about pertaining to outcomes after inpatient 12-step program completion compared with outcomes among addicts who receive no treatment-- maybe a diversion versus incarceration study. I've never heard a claim like yours, but I don't work in addictions. Perhaps I'm completely out of the loop, but I'm not ready to take the word of an anonymous commenter who makes a sweeping claim without a single reference to support that claim. Are you a clinician, an addictions researcher or have you investigated the research literature on the subject? Could you refer me to a few of the studies that have found no benefit to 12-step programs?
True, Google isn't a good way to find out what's happening in the research literature, but the first thing that turned up in my search was this:
http://www.pire.org/detail2.asp?core=38220&cms=114
It's not that I'm especially a fan of 12-step groups. It's just that I was surprised by your very authoritative-sounding claim.
You can email me drxblog AT gmail.com
Thanks
Posted by: Dr X | September 30, 2008 3:19 PM
WScott -
I don't think there are any national programs, but here in Oregon, we have Cascadia Systems, as well as some other options that are not twelve step based (though Cascadia does provide that option).
Gretchen -
As others have mentioned, twelve step programs don't work any better than going it alone. And while it isn't much better than nothing, Cascadia has a lower recidivism rate than twelve step programs in our area - which in turn actually have lower than average recidivism rates. I suspect that this is because there are secular options in the area, so very few non-religious people actually use them.
Coila -
And fuck you too. My family is suffering as well. We are barely keeping a roof overhead and food on the table (I ate lunch yesterday, might get some dinner tonight - but my kids are fed). And yet, I am able to find compassion for someone who has been seriously fucked over.
Pragmatically, you should at the least have objections to wasting taxpayer dollars keeping this guy incarcerated (and those like him). Gods know we don't have a lot of tax dollars to spare at the moment.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 3:20 PM
There is a partial list of treatment programs that offer a secular option or are wholly secular, posted on the LifeRing Secular Recovery website, http://unhooked.com. Click on the "Find Treatment" tab.
LifeRing has more than 40 meetings in Northern California.
Posted by: Martin Nicolaus | September 30, 2008 3:25 PM
I spent about 10 years going to Al-Anon and ACoA meetings. There were certainly people there who were trolling for converts or sex partners (those are called 13th steppers, by some). Almost always, if someone brought up God, it was allowed--if they brought up religion they were told it didn't belong. Some got very upset and left, that was just fine with the rest of the group. AA, I don't know much about. I had a number of friends who were in and out of it. For some it worked, for many it was a way to get their spouse, family or the law off their case.
Posted by: democommie | September 30, 2008 3:36 PM
Yes, that's what I was talking about-- if it can't even be demonstrated that 12 step programs work, then why should we put the state government in charge of running them? I'm saying: don't make attending one a condition of parole, period, whether private or state-run.
And the "drug addled atheist" has what to do with your family suffering, exactly?
Posted by: Gretchen | September 30, 2008 3:36 PM
Dr X -
If I can find the damned thing, I will email you a link to the article that made the claim that twelve step programs are ineffective. They cited two different studies and the studies cited seemed reasonably sound.
There is a significant problem with finding actual statistics, because as you mention, alanon and narcanon are not fond of cooperating with statisticians. But that is just alanon and narcanon official policy. Local groups can and some do make the option of joining studies available to their members and there are a lot of non-alanon treatment centers that also use twelve step programs, many of which are required to ask patients to take part in studies.
I haven't even tried to find the information online, but I have seen the statistics in Portland, where they were broken down by type of treatment and the centers that provided the treatment. The two programs with the lowest recidivism rates, were Cascadia (secular) and Union Gospel Mission (most decidedly religious, using aspects of traditional twelve step - inpatient). Our local alanon showed better rates than the national aggregate of the studies I saw in the article I can't bloody well find.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 3:49 PM
I was in a 90 day residential treatment center. They are ALL like that. They are all AA + therapy groups, that's it. And when you leave, you often have to sign contracts to continue attending AA for some amount of time.
They are also extortionists. Many of the people at my rehab were health care workers who had been caught using or abusing drugs. Their jobs depended on successful completion of the treatment program, which means the counselors could do whatever they wanted. They could claim that the patient was "not progressing adequately" and hand the patient a two or four-week extension, which the patient has to pay for, of course. If the patient threatened to leave, the first place the counselors would call is his job.
In my 12 weeks there, nobody had been court-ordered to attend, but there were people facing criminal charges who checked themselves in, 1) to delay the inevitable court case, and 2) to look good to the judge.
But the whole thing is centered around the 12 Steps, and as an atheist, I struggled with that myself. They say you can define "higher power" to be a chair, or your sponsor, or the AA group, or something, anything, that isn't you. They say AA isn't religious, but an actual court HAS defined them as a religion, and if you read the Big Book (the AA central text), especially the Chapter to the Agnostic, you'll find that they are talking about a PERSONAL God. I underlined every mention of God in that chapter. The book constantly uses words like Creator and Intelligence. It was very clear Bill W. meant a personal God, which I simply didn't believe in.
So what did I do? I bullshitted my way through it. A lot of people do.
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 3:52 PM
I should also note that Union Gospel Mission, by their own choice, is not a default option for the courts to send people for treatment. They flat out will not treat people who are not Christians. If the defendant wants to go there for their treatment option, they are allowed, but the courts cannot simply assign defendants to go there.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 3:56 PM
As for the efficacy of AA, the data goes both ways. Studies of people who attend AA meetings voluntarily show that only 5% stick with them for 12 months. So there's a huge drop-out rate. Other studies show that 80% of addicts who quit do it on their own.
That being said, the best 12-step based rehabs claim an 85% success rate, defined as passing all drug tests for the next five years. What helps those rehabs is that most of the patients, as I said, are people whose jobs depend on successful completion of the program, and I still argue today, just as I argued when I was in rehab, that the threat of random drug tests does more to keep people clean than any AA meetings or group therapy sessions.
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 4:13 PM
Gretchen: Ah, I understand what you mean now, and I agree. Thanks for the clarification.
DrX: The page I mentioned before has links to several studies: www.orange-papers.org. (Sorry, can't seem to get the linkage to work.) Disclaimer: I don't pretend to have any clincal creds, nor can I claim to have read the underlying studies in any detail.
Posted by: WScott | September 30, 2008 4:16 PM
MZ -
I also suspect that what helps those rehabs, is that they probably leave out those who drop out of the program. This is the value of studies, over rehab center statistics. Studies follow patients from the beginning, treatment center stats generally are based on only those who complete the program.
The study that was done in Portland was independent of any treatment center and didn't depend on their stats.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 4:45 PM
The notion that Lemon can be used in this circumstance doesn't make sense, as it requires that there are no other treatment options. There are secular rehabilitation facilities.
The idea that the state would mandate not simply that he had to go to rehab, but force him to go to a rehabilitation facility that violated his religious freedom is a bit absurd, and I hope he takes them to court over this.
Posted by: JStein | September 30, 2008 4:57 PM
JStein -
It is not always true that there are secular options available. In a great many locales, twelve step programs are the only ones available, unless the defendant can drive a great distance to a town that has other options. Of course part of the sentence for many drug/alcohol offenders, is to lose their license.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 5:03 PM
It seems as though some people have missed the entire point here. The point is not the efficacy of a given 12 step program. These programs have been proven effective for those that want to utilize their tools. Other methods of rehabilitation have likewise been proven effective for those that desire to utilize those tools. The point of the lawsuit is that the plaintiff was forced to choose between religious indoctrination and jail.
In his dissent in Lee v. Weisman, Scalia said "The coercion that was a hallmark of historical establishments of religion was coercion of religious orthodoxy and of financial support by force of law and threat of penalty." This Constitutional standard (as any of Scalia's standard) was the "standard" as of 1789 and 1868.
Now, we have the plaintiff (and hundreds of thousands of other drug and alcohol offenders) who are required to engage in either in-patient or out-patient programs. Most of these programs hinge on a belief in a higher power, and also practice other orthodoxy that is decidedly Christian in nature. The coercion comes from forcing these offenders to choose either religion or jail.
We could go into O'Connor's endorsement test, and Kennedy's version of coercion used in Santa Fe Ind. Sch. Dist. (essentially a peer-pressure test), but the result is the same. In this instance, the most compelling argument can be made using the law as defined by the spokesperson for the ultra-right and conservatives: Scalia's historical coercion test.
Posted by: Bryan | September 30, 2008 5:06 PM
Bryan -
While it may not be very relevant to the topic of the post, efficacy became part of the conversation and I'm going to respond to your little jump into that.
These programs have been proven effective for those that want to utilize their tools. Other methods of rehabilitation have likewise been proven effective for those that desire to utilize those tools.
Which is complete and utter bullshit. Especially given that the aggregate for the efficacy of twelve step programs shows the same recidivism rate as people who try to overcome their addiction on their own and the aggregate for secular programs isn't much better.
I have personally dealt with substance abuse issues, since I was a teenager. I have a great many friends who have also dealt with addiction. There are a lot of people out there who really want to overcome their addictions, who want to use tools that will help them, who are still fucking addicts. Desire does not make it work.
And even those who are "successful" often do what I have done, traded addictions to substances that were destroying their lives, for addictions that are a little more benign. For me, it's caffeine , cigarettes and occasionally marijuana.
No, we're not missing the point, we were merely going where the conversation went.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 5:20 PM
Bryan said: "The point of the lawsuit is that the plaintiff was forced to choose between religious indoctrination and jail."
And: "The coercion comes from forcing these offenders to choose either religion or jail."
It can be interpreted another way. These people broke the law, so jail is supposed to be their punishment. There's nothing coercive about that. The courts are being nice, from their perspective (whether drug offenders should be imprisoned in the first place is a separate debate), in giving them another option. It's not a matter of "go to this rehab OR will will send you jail." It's a matter of "we are sending you to jail, but you can get out of it by going to this rehab."
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 5:52 PM
MZ -
That's pretty weak tea. Especially given that in most places, the choice between jail and treatment has been implemented legislatively. It is not that the punishment is jail, but they are giving them an optional out, it is that Judges are required by law to give defendants that choice.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 5:57 PM
DuWayne, you bring up a good point. I estimate that a quarter of the patients who entered the 12-week residential program that I was in dropped out before completing it. Generally, they were the ones facing the least consequences. They didn't have job or court problems to incentivize them to stay. Among those who graduated, some were further referred to a halfway house for 6 or 12 months, and most of them were put on random drug tests, plus mandatory AA meetings, plus, sometimes, other kinds of counseling and therapy.
When you go to those lengths, and you're provided with that much support, and you face those kinds of consequences, an 85% success rate is not unreasonable.
But the success rate among those who dropped out was, I would say, less than 10%, and that's about what you can expect if you're trying to do it voluntarily, on your own. There were several people who left and later contacted us, who said that they relapsed within the first few days of leaving the rehab.
On another point, many addicts trade their addictions for exercise. I've found that useful.
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 6:03 PM
Well, if the choice of jail or rehab is a mandatory option, then it's an unfair one, because rehabs are expensive. The one I went to was $25,000 for 12 weeks. Not everyone can afford that. So this "choice" provides you either with jail or a $20,000+ fine, essentially, and not everyone can pay. It's not much of a choice for some people.
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 6:10 PM
MZ -
On another point, many addicts trade their addictions for exercise. I've found that useful.
I'm aware. I actually considered mentioning that many trade their addiction to their drug of choice, for addiction to AA or NA meetings, but didn't want to come off as an asshole.
One of my old "friends with benefits," was a recovering cocaine addict, who traded cocaine addiction for sex - lots of sex. We hooked up because I was sitting at the table next to her in a coffee shop, when she was feeling pretty hard up. We talked for about twenty-five minutes, before she looked me dead in the eye and asked me if I might happen to be horny. I had to laugh a little, because I was nineteen at the time and, well your a guy who was nineteen once. After we had the sex, she explained why she had so suddenly gotten rather straight forward, as it were. Took enough time to figure out that I wasn't the wrong sort of freak and she was ready to go. As far as I know, she never went back to coke.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 6:12 PM
Oh, and health insurance only covers the first four weeks, so it covers 25% of the cost for most 12 week / 90 day treatment programs.
I don't know why. The health insurance industry is still sketchy about financing mental health treatment.
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 6:14 PM
MZ -
The Union Gospel Mission, for example, is expensive, but they operate on a sliding scale and don't demand money up front. They also provide most patients the option of working off some of the costs - work that is usually integrated into their program. Cascadia is covered by some insurance policies and also has an ability to pay scale that makes it free for indigents. I imagine that most treatment centers have similar programs - except for the more exclusive ones that wouldn't be a default option for the courts.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 6:18 PM
As an atheist I have no problem with the guy being required to include a religious program as part of his 12 step recovery.
The biggest problem with the world's current secular movement is that it's not based in a foundation that defines right and wrong in the way that our Judeo-Christian history always has.
If a bit of religion can help people get a better sense of right and wrong then that's fine.
Posted by: Jack Lacton | September 30, 2008 6:20 PM
As far as I know, she never went back to coke.
The sex was that good? :)
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 6:21 PM
As an atheist I have no problem with the guy being required to include a religious program as part of his 12 step recovery.
The biggest problem with the world's current secular movement is that it's not based in a foundation that defines right and wrong in the way that our Judeo-Christian history always has.
If a bit of religion can help people get a better sense of right and wrong then that's fine.
Posted by: Jack Lacton | September 30, 2008 6:21 PM
MZ -
The health insurance industry is still sketchy about financing mental health treatment.
This is because mental illnesses in general is very expensive to treat and often doesn't bring the desired results. It is much the same logic that keeps many insurers from covering smoking cessation programs. No matter how much is tried, no matter how much money is spent, many, if not most patients will never see dramatic results or successful treatment.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 6:23 PM
That just reminded me that the insurance companies would only cover even the 25% if you completed your treatment, so that was yet another incentive to stay, especially after you'd been there for more than 3/4 the time... which was usually when they unloaded their 2- and 4-week extensions, pissing a lot of people off.
Also, DuWayne, you're right, psychiatry suffers from poor treatment outcomes.
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 6:31 PM
Jack Lacton said:
Numerous reasons have already been mentioned for why you should have a problem with it. If you disagree with those reasons, I would be interested to hear why. So far, the list includes:
1. It violates his 1st Amendment rights,
2. 12 step programs have a dubious record of success,
3. It has not been demonstrated that he needs to recover from anything
No, not in the way that "our Judeo-Christian history" always has-- and that's precisely the point. Secularists tend to think it's wrong to legislate religious morality, for one thing.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 30, 2008 6:31 PM
MZ -
With me it was - or I like to think it was. But then she was playing with more people than me when we were still playing (I was too). When I last saw her (about six years ago) she was still clean and had actually gotten married. She traded the sex addiction for parenting and working a lot.
Jack Lacton -
The biggest problem with the world's current secular movement is that it's not based in a foundation that defines right and wrong in the way that our Judeo-Christian history always has.
If a bit of religion can help people get a better sense of right and wrong then that's fine.
What movement? More importantly, why would you support state coerced religion? It may be fine and good that you see a value in religion in this context, the problem is that many folks don't. Someone who truly believes that their is no higher power and can't play the mental gymnastics to build a secular amalgam, is simply not going to have success in a twelve step program. That isn't to say that they won't be able to overcome the addiction, it just means that the program they are required to attend isn't a contributing factor to that success.
It should also be noted that secular treatment programs provide better results than religious based programs (albeit not a great deal better). They do a very fine job of helping their patients discern what is right and wrong - even without the religion. The major difference being that they accept that right and wrong is subjective and so they provide tools that help the patient figure it out for themselves.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 6:35 PM
Back when I got popped for DWI in 1982 I was ordered into NH's ASAP (Alcohol Safety & Awareness Program). It was a fairly minor deal--six saturday mornings and $400. Half of the "students" (all of whom had lost their licenses for at least the duration of the program) drove to the class and went out to get stiff together afterwards. At the end of the course I had an interview and was honest about perhaps having a "problem" with alcohol (drunk most days) and for being honest I was told I would have to come back in 90 days for another interview and attenc AA meetings. I said "fuck it" and walked for a year. I also stopped getting drunk a few weeks later and have enjoyed drinking without getting drunk for over 26 years.
Al-anon did help me, but my problem, at that point, wasn't drinking.
Now, then, I say all this, because in all the time I was associated with 12 step programs I never heard of AA, Al-Anon or ACoA being involved in any rehab programs other than meetings. I know that a lot of rehab programs supposedly follow the precepts of AA but I don't know that AA is actually involved with any of them. Something I'll have to check out.
Posted by: democommie | September 30, 2008 6:55 PM
What a brilliant troll Jack Lacton is - almost got Fundie Bingo with that one:
"As an atheist" - are you? Are you really? One point.
Reference to a nebulous "secular movement" - one point.
Meaningless buzz-phrase and total lack of historical knowledge with "our judeo-christian history" - one point.
Idiotic statement about "defin[ing] right and wrong" - one point.
Assuming that drug-taking is covered by a moral absolute - one point.
Well done Jack.
Posted by: Matthew | September 30, 2008 7:05 PM
Jack Lacton wrote:
I smell a concern troll.
This, of course, depends entirely on what you mean by "secular movement" and you leave that phrase entirely undefined. It certainly isn't true of humanism or any number of other ethical theories or philosophies that contain them.
A clear misstatement of the situation. If your statement had anything to do with what we're discussing, it would say, "If a bit of religion can help people get a better sense of right and wrong then the government can force them to get religion."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 30, 2008 7:20 PM
democommie: When I was in rehab, we went to a meeting every single day, seven days a week, and we had daily classes which often involved "Big Book studies" Monday through Friday.
Actually, the only exception to attending an AA/NA/CA meeting was on Sundays when you could go to church instead. As an atheist, I actually went to church several times just to get away from the meetings.
I had a choice of three different rehabs, and I chose that one because it was only one where church service was an option, a substitute for AA meetings, while the other two had mandatory church attendance on Sundays.
But my point is that AA is usually a big part of the rehab experience. That's why I sometimes call rehab "glorified AA." It's AA with therapy sessions.
It AA involved "in any way other than meetings"? No, but then what else does AA *do* other than meetings?
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 7:52 PM
Oh, also, I was required to get a sponsor and get through the 4th Step before my 12 weeks were up.
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 7:56 PM
MZ:
I don't doubt that any of what you say happens. I just wonder if it's really AA. In all the time I spent at meetings I was never coerced into doing anything, not once. It sounds to me like somebody is using the books and shell of AA, but they sure as fuck are abusing the notion of "take what you like and leave the rest".
Posted by: democommie | September 30, 2008 8:42 PM
The problem is that 12-step programs work very well for people who seek them out, and very badly for people who are forced into them.
Posted by: The Ridger | September 30, 2008 8:45 PM
My father, a life-long athiest, used AA to maintain his sobriety for over 25 years, up to the time of his passing.
While I don't believe that 12 step programs should be mandated to anyone, I will say that most people I have run into over the years that object to the whole "higher power" issue are in truth less bothered by any religious connotations than they are terrified at the sacrifice of false pride that any diligent practice of the 12 steps requires.
I have seen the same thing sort of reaction from Christians who loudly complain that AA is un-biblical. Its usually a grand display of a hyperactive defense mechanism. It's often an example of their ego getting in the way of their getting treatment. Regardless of whether that actual treament is secular-based or not.
Posted by: Patrick (gryph) | September 30, 2008 9:08 PM
demcommie: the meetings we went to were off-campus. They were actual AA meetings in and around Birmingham, AL, near where my rehab was.
Posted by: MZ | September 30, 2008 9:25 PM
I've met a lot of AA people through working at coffeeshops. As much as I drink, you'd think I'd meet them another way but no, at least not yet. Anyway, the AA people I've been around, in fairly liberal college towns, weren't big sticklers on the 'higher power' being a traditional god. They were content to let you define that however you wanted. YMMV though.
Posted by: steve s | September 30, 2008 9:29 PM
Jack Lacton doesn't sound like an atheist at all to me.
About AA: it definitely promotes religious thought. A close family member who had a drinking problem checked in with AA and in less than a month, the rest of us were getting concerned letters from him asking whether we'd accepted Jesus Christ as our Savior, whether we'd been baptized as adults, etc.
People arguing that the threat of prison term isn't serving a form of coercion are simply being obtuse. And really, it doesn't matter, does it? Didn't Ed already cite the case law that argues that point definitively?
Have I said that Jack Lacton is not an atheist yet? You would think people serious about their religious beliefs wouldn't stoop to lying, wouldn't you? (Or would you? The logic "it's OK to lie if it helps the religion" has a long and proud history.)
It seems to me that the original problem behind laws like these are when they let religious organizations serve secular purposes in the first place. Once you do that, you're bound to have cases where the possibility of a "secular alternative" are going to be pooh-poohed.
But I'm glad that both of our Presidential candidates have taken such strong stances against the inanity known as "faith-based initiatives".
(chuckle)
Posted by: RickD | September 30, 2008 10:34 PM
Patrick -
I know several atheists who have utilized AA succesfully, that doesn't change the fact that it just doesn't work for all of them. Especially when they get stuck with a fucked up group that plays up the religion more. The thing that needs to be understood, is that local meetings are run by the locals, not the central organization. In Portland alone, you can find several different groups, all of which operate very differently. In some meetings, you might have a group that isn't focused too much on the higher power aspects, or at least encourage the non-religious to find other ways of defining that higher power. In others, you will find the polar opposite. Not only will they shove religion down everyone's throats, they shove their own, very specific brand. You don't believe, sorry, they can't do much for you.
That's in one, moderately sized city. Many places don't have the population for multiple meeting sites or multiple organizers. If they happen to be a group that is focused on the religion, well, you're shit out of luck if you aren't.
I really take exception to the condescending attitude about those who just can't make it work because of a lack of faith. Just because your dad had a successful experience with it, doesn't mean that any atheist who can't is too scared - though that certainly happens and they can use that as an excuse.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 10:36 PM
Was this guy an addict or a recreational user? If he's not an addict, it seems a bit odd to send them to rehabilitation. Just seems like the government is looking to do something to sound tough on drugs, pragmatically useless.
Posted by: Kel | September 30, 2008 10:42 PM
Rick D -
It seems to me that the original problem behind laws like these are when they let religious organizations serve secular purposes in the first place.
Here's the thing, they do serve a admirable, semi-secular purpose. Here in Portland, where there are plenty of alternatives, they are mainly utilized by people of faith, people who are unlikely to have a great deal of success in a secular program, in much the same way that an atheist is going to have problems in an overtly religious program. The problem with these laws, is that they do not make provisions for people who are atheists or non-religious to seek treatment that will work for them - if they don't happen to live somewhere that doesn't have other options.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 10:45 PM
Kel -
When one gets busted for possession, they are usually put on probation and their probation officer will have them take a test to determine whether they are an "addict" or not. It is really hard for anyone who uses any recreational drugs not to end up with the addict label. At one point, if you answered any of a series of questions in the affirmative, it was enough to get you put into treatment - one of the questions was; Have you ever been arrested for any drug related crimes? Well, if your probation officer is the one giving you the test, then yes, yes you have. When I took it (I got busted with a used pipe and enough weed to pack it) I was borderline, but my PO didn't think I really needed to go into treatment. They had changed the test some, so that it conformed to the DSM criteria for diagnosing addiction.
But even so, it is still very easy for anyone who answers the questions honestly to be considered an addict and get mandatory treatment. And all bets are off, if you appear before the judge and s/he decides you need treatment. Could be the judge is having a shit day and takes it out on you by slapping you with the maximum sentence and giving you the option of treatment. Much of the time though, judges only do that on a second or third offense - unless the offense was a driving offense, then they almost always offer treatment as an option to getting out of jail time.
I would surmise that the gent described in the post, probably had a lot of drugs in his possession, but that they couldn't prove he was dealing. Either that, or it was a second or third offense. It is rather rare that someone would get a year in jail for the first offense of a "user's" quantity of drugs. And it could well be that he had large quantities of whatever he got busted with, even though it was for personal use. I used to buy quarter pounds of weed when I could afford to, because it is much cheaper that way and at that time in my life, I was smoking an awful lot of weed.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 30, 2008 11:03 PM
Thanks for the explanation. So the border between recreational and addictive behaviour is largely down to the discression of the judge? Why does that seem the opposite of pragmatic...
Posted by: Kel | September 30, 2008 11:14 PM
Chaz Bufe's _Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?_ has some references on studies of the efficacy of AA, as well as covering its history and its pluses and minuses. He answers both of his title's questions with a "no."
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 30, 2008 11:19 PM
12-step programs specify a "higher power", who is not nessesarily Jeebus. Why not Satan? For more information, check www.churchofsatan.com .
Posted by: Paul Murray | October 1, 2008 1:54 AM
MZ:
Okay; I agree with DuWayne's comment that meetings come in many flavors. One meeting I used to go to (the best group I found in my area) was located about half a mile from a rehab/halfway house. We used to get guys who would come in about halfway through the meeting and sit in the back, drinking their coffee and saying nothing. At the end of the meeting they would ask someone to sign a form saying that they had attended the meeting so they could take it back to their counselor. They would sometimes complain about us forcing them to come to meetings. They were told that we had no contact, none, with the halfway house staff. That's the point I was trying to make earlier--AA and Al-Anon were then being used--and probably still are--as a free resource by the treatment programs.
One of the major tenets of Al-Anon and ACoA (and, I'm fairly certain, AA)--then and now, afaia--is that the organizations have no affiliation with any professional treatment entities. They don't keep records, make assessments for or accept payment from them.
I'm sorry that you and others have had shitty experiences with AA but it always about the people at the meetings. I spent a lot of hours at meetings and never, ever had an experience of someone trying to make me into a christian. We sure had our share whackjobs--alcoholism affects the drinker and those that care about them.
Posted by: democommie | October 1, 2008 7:06 AM
I agree that secular treatment options should be available for people who have a hard time reconciling AA with their atheism. But I have to back up democommie's experience about AA with my own; it's not the fault of AA that treatment centers send people there. In fact, at many of the AA meetings I have gone to, the group actually refuses to sign attendance slips for those directed to come to AA meetings by the courts or treatment centers. The general feeling is that AA is really only for people who choose to be there; there is a general resistance to being used by treatment centers as free therapy.
As far as religion goes, in every AA group I've been associated with for the past 20 years, there is strong discouragement of any mention of particular religion or religious beliefs. I've become an atheist over that time, and still have very little problem fitting into AA, largely because no one cares about my individual beliefs. I just look at people who try to convert others to religion as the nutjobs they are.
Finally, though the studies are inconclusive, even if we grant that AA is not highly effective at reducing repeat offenses, we should also remember that neither is prison.
Posted by: CJ | October 1, 2008 8:23 AM
CJ:
And AA is cheaper than any other therapy.
Posted by: democommie | October 1, 2008 8:46 AM
@ Abby Normal
Hey, thanks for the links... I figured there was something out there. They seem like pretty well organized resources. I guess the real question is how well they are funded... which I guess is a question of whether the irreligious will put our money where our mouth is. There are xtians all over the nation giving 5 bucks a week in offering plates. What could we do if all of us gave five bucks a week?
It seems like they can't be terribly well funded because things like this don't seem to be showing up on their radar.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 1, 2008 8:53 AM
I hate skipping 90 responses to make my reply, but I have to get to work.
As I have said before on this blog, Yoshi hit on the real problem. Secular rehab is very rare in a lot of areas. When I was forced to attend a 45 day inpatient rehab and a 90 to 120 day rehabilitation half way house as part of my parole for my conspiracy to deliver charge, I simply had no secular programs in the state to choose from. My options were simply attend the religious 12 step based locations or rot in jail.
Inpatient secular rehabs are becoming a little more common, as far as I've noticed, but this only addresses one part of the problem. I'm not proud of the fact, but I have spent several periods in jail, all for violation of probation over that one original charge. Every time I was released, a condition of my probation was to attend an outpatient rehab program and go to either 12 step or SMART/SOS/RationalRecovery meetings.
The problem? Of the three outpatient facilities in my area, they are all based on the twelve steps. I actually got kicked out of one of them for expressing my atheism. As for the meetings, when the court requires you to attend 90 meetings in 90 days, it's hard to attend secular meetings when the closest Smart meeting is 2 hours away and the nearest SOS is 3 and a half hours away.
Is it horrible that the state arrested and put in jail the reader for essentially following the constitution. It isn't surprising though.
We need more secular rehabs. The failure rate of the 12 steps needs to be common knowledge. This should be a scandal. Instead, the public just thinks it is "what we deserve."
-Someone who made it through the system, including a max security state pen, alive and sane, all over my prefered intoxicant.
Posted by: Foster Disbelief | October 1, 2008 12:30 PM
Kel -
So the border between recreational and addictive behaviour is largely down to the discression of the judge? Why does that seem the opposite of pragmatic...
That is mostly just the case with DUI offenses - mainly because driving drunk/high in this day and age is pretty indicative of a problem. While I imagine that some folks who don't have addiction problems might drive while a little too intoxicated, I would imagine that most people who do it have problems.
It is much more rare for someone busted for simple, first offense possession to get that from the judge. It would take extenuating circumstances for a judge to use jail time and that is the only time the choice comes into play. It still isn't perfect, because the test is somewhat bullshit, but it is very similar to the test that a doctor or therapist would give a patient to determine whether they have addiction problems or not. It still misses out on the therapist or doctor's interaction, something that is also a part of a medical determination. But then, some POs can reasonably fill that role themselves.
I know it's not the case everywhere, but the PO I had was actually a licensed clinical psychologist. At the least, POs hired in to my old hometown are required to have a bachelors in social work, master being preferred. I imagine that most places require social work degrees or similar. While it isn't the same as having a medical or clinical psych, it theoretically gives them tools to help make the distinction.
That said, a great many probably just go by the test alone.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 1, 2008 1:23 PM
My daughter was court ordered to go HERE:
http://www.tdfh.org/
After a month, they kicked her and her infant son out on to the street (while acknowledging she had no place to go) for not being "Christ-like" enough!
How the court can order one into religious rehab is beyond me. There is even a quote on the comments section of that site from a judge and a parole officer! How is this legal?
Posted by: Prairie Kittin | October 21, 2008 2:13 PM
th'n'k's's
Posted by: netlog | January 24, 2009 1:08 PM