The Constitutional Right to be Stupid

There are so many people that attack AA for being a cult or overly religious that it seems they must be regularly forcing people to drink cyanide laced fruit punch instead of encouraging recovery. You don’t have to twist my arm for me to admit that AA has religious roots. That should be all too easy to recognize in the twelve steps themselves, also that you will regularly run across a particular group or member that is religiously overzealous is a given. Conversely, you will also find groups and outspoken members that are just generally spiritual in nature or even purely secular.

Now I think it is obvious that many are just bashing Christians because it seems to be the progressive thing to do these days, some have probably rationalized their hate for AA out of their inability to make it work for them, and some even use it as a way to promote their own programs or personal agenda. For these I have one thing to say, don’t go if you don’t like it but please stop generalizing AA as a negative entity instead of as one of the most beneficial voluntary programs of all time. But there is one group that may actually have the “right” to complain; those that are ordered by the court to attend AA and NA programs as part of their alcohol and drug related sentencing.

SFGate.com ran a story on a particular case this month:

When Inouye was arrested for trespassing in March 2001 and tested positive for drugs, his parole officer, Mark Nanamori, ordered him to attend a Salvation Army treatment program that included participation in Narcotics Anonymous meetings, the court said… Inouye showed up but refused to participate, dropped out after two months, and, for that and other reasons, was sent back to prison in November 2001 for violating his parole… After his release in 2003, he sued Nanamori and others for violating his constitutional rights. Inouye died while the suit was pending, and his son took over the case.

Apparently Inouye was a Buddhist who was against any treatment program with religious content. It seems that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agrees with him.

In fact, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the constitutional dividing line between church and state in such cases is so clear that a parole officer can be sued for damages for ordering a parolee to go through rehabilitation at Alcoholics Anonymous or an affiliated program for drug addicts. Rulings from across the nation since 1996 have established that "requiring a parolee to attend religion-based treatment programs violates the First Amendment," the court said. "While we in no way denigrate the fine work of (Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous), attendance in their programs may not be coerced by the state."

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the 9th Circuit on not forcing a parolee to AA or NA because it may offend him, however the right to sue for damages seems grossly extreme. I mean when you get down to it they are categorizing AA and NA as religious programs but this is a very relative designation. In the same manner as the big books of AA and NA talk of higher powers and in some cases call upon “God” so does our money, our court systems, and even the leaders of our nation as they are sworn in. If some people are offended by a court ordered treatment program that very well may save their life, then it would seem likely that living in a nation where one can not even purchase the bare necessities without seeing a reference to God would make living here unbearable.

So what’s my take on this whole mess? Well I think those charged with crimes have the Constitutional right to refuse to go to a court ordered AA or NA, but they should best be ready to face alternative sentencing (more jail). Should there be more choices available? Absolutely, I am always in favor of recovery alternatives and in many areas there are more choices. But for those places where meetings of any kind are limited I would think that a desire for recovery and the thought of more incarceration would be enough to just make one grin and bear it. Of course if someone is just dead set on not attending these programs then there is always the choice of jail or the other Constitutional right, the one to leave the country. Yeah I know that seems kind of extreme, but the truth of the matter is if someone is having troubles with drugs and alcohol they better be ready to accept some extreme measures!

There are many people who are turned off by even the general nature of the religious content of AA and NA, but their recovery is more important to them than someone else’s beliefs. The twelve steps provide a path and structure to recovery, a grounding influence in a time of turmoil. They continue to go because of the support structure and the sense of belonging. Talking and listening to others that have the same problem, being with those that can relate and can lend an understanding ear are indispensable recovery tools. You have the Constitutional right to turn these things down, but it just seems stupid to do so especially when the alternative is jail.