Although religion can rub me up the wrong way, those who have true faith tend to be pleasant and I find their company enjoyable. I’m talking real faith here, not brainwashed fundamentalists or hypocritical evangelists or the once-a-week-to-church, traditional catholics. Those who genuinely believe in goodwill to mankind, peace and tolerance. These are things I alwas thought were supposed to be god’s teachings. Real people of faith care for others regardless of their faults. Sure, they may snot someone if they’re really provoked but they are basically good people. They aren’t restricted by dogma and they don’t ponce about with their eyes closed muttering JEEEESUS OH JEEEEEESUS like Benny Hinn reaching an orgasm. Faith for them is personal. They trust science, don’t believe in magic underwear and are tolerant of other religions. Most importantly, real people of faith are humane and compassionate. When I see so called religious groups or individuals criticising Harm Minimisation, I know they’re not those of real faith ... they have a more earthly agenda. Opposing Harm Minimisation is breaking every rule in their particular religious handbook that they are supposed to follow. So when I see religious folk brushing against the grain by supporting HM, I can’t help but feel a sense of victory over the frauds who use religion as a weapon. It hammers home how religion can be so divisive when hijacked by self righteous egomaniacs. There is an organisation called the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative (IDPI) who are dedicated to true Christian values in drug policy. They support HM and safe practices for users. They believe in compassion and the dignity of drug addicts and their time is spent helping people in trouble, not judging them. A far cry from the professional Christian-political groups who infest the drug treatment industry. It’s always a good feeling to find opposition to the powerful Christian lobby who are so hell bent on destroying HM. So when I recently stumbled onto an article from a group with similar aims to IDPI, I was pleasantly surprised and wanted to share it.
Needle-Exchange Programs Christian Thing To Do By William Martin Houston Chronicle April 2009 The Texas Legislature is currently considering bills that would allow the establishment of programs to enable injecting drug users to exchange used syringes for sterile ones, as a proven means of reducing the spread of blood-borne diseases. The Senate version of the bill has already passed, by a vote of 23-6. An almost identical bill is under consideration by the House Public Health Committee, where its future is uncertain. Texas is the only state in the Union that still prohibits the purchase or possession of syringes for purpose of injecting illegal drugs. As the state with the fourth-highest HIV/AIDS rate in the nation, this is not a lone star of which we can be proud. Consider the following relevant facts: • The sharing of needles by injecting drug users contributes significantly to the spread of blood-borne diseases, most notably HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C. • Treatment of these widespread diseases is enormously expensive — more than $300,000 in lifetime costs for a single case of either disease — much of which is covered by taxpayer funds. Between 2001-2005, Texas Medicaid paid more than $300 million for the treatment of HIV/AIDS alone. • Extensive worldwide and long-term experience with needle-exchange programs has demonstrated conclusively that they reduce the spread of disease without increasing or encouraging drug abuse and, in addition, serve as a bridge to treatment for a substantial proportion of participants. Supported by repeated scientific research, American medical and public health personnel overwhelmingly support making sterile syringes available to injecting drug users. Despite the evidence, many politicians, often reflecting the sentiments of their constituents, oppose the establishment or public funding of needle-exchange programs. Conservative Christians have been among the most resistant to these programs. Though some sincerely question the scientific evidence supporting various forms of needle exchange, the major opposing argument continues to be, “It sends the wrong message.” Before we accept that rationale, we need to think about the message we currently send: “We know a way to dramatically cut your chances of contracting a deadly disease, then spreading it to others, including your unborn children. It would also dramatically cut the amount of money society is going to have to spend on you and those you infect. But because we believe what you are doing is illegal, immoral and sinful, we are not going to do what we know works. You are social lepers and, as upright, moral, sincerely religious people, we prefer that you and others in your social orbit die.” Less than a decade ago, this was the attitude most churches manifested toward people afflicted with HIV/AIDS. If people were determined to engage in sinful behavior, they should expect to reap the full terrible harvest of their actions. God might be merciful toward sinners, but we were not. Then, in 2002, Franklin Graham hosted Prescription for Hope, a global conference attended by more than 800 Christians from many countries and denominations. PBS Frontline pointed to that gathering as the moment at which Christians got involved in confronting HIV/AIDS. Soon afterward, Rick (author of The Purpose Driven Life) and Kay Warren launched a major HIV/AIDS initiative. Today, many other churches, large and small, minister to people stricken with this disease. These ministries do not screen the people they serve to make sure they were infected through no fault of their own. They meet them at the point of their need and offer what help they can. Suppose we worked in such a ministry and were confronted by a person who had contracted the virus from a contaminated needle. While we may rightly decry drug addiction and find injecting drug use abhorrent, what defense could we offer if that person said, “You knew that, by using a sterile syringe, I could lessen my chance of getting this disease, and yet you refused to support programs that would make those available to me. What kind of neighbor are you?” How can we justify saying it is permissible, even laudable, to help people after they have contracted HIV/AIDS, but wrong to approve of measures that significantly reduce their chances of contracting that disease? Jesus had nothing to say about needles, but we do know how he treated social outcasts and sinners, and he had a great deal to say about people who let prim concern with their own righteousness interfere with offering needed assistance to those in peril. Needle-exchange programs save money, demonstrate compassion, preserve lives, and offer a helping hand to people in desperate need. These are criteria for public policy that thoughtful religious people can support with a clear conscience. Martin is the Harry and Hazel Chavanne Senior Fellow in Religion and Public Policy at the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University. For more on this issue, see “Needle Exchange Programs: Sending the Right Message,” at http://www.bakerinstitute.org/programs/drug-policy.