Humanists Challenge Alcoholics Anonymous Monopoly
September 12, 2007
Today the American Humanist
Association notified its members, local chapters, and allies nationwide that
there is now a well-established legal precedent that Alcoholics Anonymous
and Narcotics Anonymous are "pervasively religious" recovery programs.
Moreover, government officials shouldn't specifically promote religious
programs to the public, may not coerce incarcerated individuals into them,
and may not sentence people to attend their meetings without offering a
secular alternative. This action by the American Humanist Association comes
in the wake of the September 7 decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco that the government can't force parolees to attend
such programs as a condition of staying out of prison.
"Our members and allies will now be more vigilant than ever in seeing to it
that government agencies remain scrupulously neutral in their advocacy of
substance-abuse treatment programs," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director
of the American Humanist Association. "Though public officials may prescribe
self-help group attendance in general, they shouldn't advocate for or
discourage any particular program, especially if that program is religious."
Joseph Gerstein, M.D., past president of the SMART Recovery Self-Help
Network, added: "The most up-to-date scientific literature on substance
abuse treatment has made it clear that matching a client to the most
appropriate resources for that individual produces the best outcome. This
means that one size doesn't fit all. It is refreshing to see the courts
recognize that constitutional requirements coincide with established ethical
and clinical imperatives."
SMART Recovery is a worldwide, science-based, secular substance abuse
recovery program that, from its inception, has been endorsed by the American
Humanist Association and offered through many of its local chapters. There
are other such programs, including Secular Organizations for Sobriety, LifeRing and Women for Sobriety, all of
which contribute to greater public choice among mutual-help recovery group
options. "While some people may benefit from a religious program," added Dr.
Gerstein, "that doesn't justify giving Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics
Anonymous a treatment monopoly. Millions of people would benefit most from a
secular, science-based program. And SMART Recovery was developed to help
break that monopoly by offering a secular or religiously-neutral alternative
that would work for humanists, for atheists, and for religious people who
aren't comfortable with a blatantly faith-based approach."
The case law on efforts to require parolee attendance at religion-based
treatment meetings has grown clearer over the years. Since 1996 courts have
increasingly recognized that such a requirement violates the First Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. This precedent is now so well established that
nine state and federal courts have ruled that a parolee has the right to be
assigned to a secular program. Moreover, the latest decision by the Ninth
Circuit makes it clear that a parole officer can be personally sued for
damages if he or she acts otherwise.
"Though Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are well-established
programs that have benefited many, their demand that participants
acknowledge a 'higher power' is religious," added American Humanist
Association President Mel Lipman. "Federal courts for the Second, Seventh,
and Ninth circuits, as well as numerous lower courts, have found that
mandating the program constitutes a violation of the First Amendment. We
intend to make sure that these established court precedents are remembered
and followed."
The latest case involved Ricky Inouye, who was paroled in November 2000. His
parole officer, Mark Nanomori, ordered him to participate in a program that
included Narcotics Anonymous meetings, despite the fact that Inouye, a
Buddhist, had objected to treatments with any religious content. When Inouye
refused to participate in the Narcotics Annonymous meetings he was sent back
to prison in November 2001 for violating his parole. Inouye died while his
suit was pending, and his son has continued the litigation on his behalf.
