1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
  1. Spucky
    Action Alert: End Religious Harassment in Rehab

    Imagine you or someone you love is desperately in need of alcohol rehabilitation services, and the only provider in the area is faith-based.

    Counseling sessions are held in a room containing crosses and scripture, but because the center receives federal funds, you know they are required to provide secular alcohol and addiction services.

    After a few weeks of attending counseling sessions, you are invited by a church employee who is not a counselor to stay at the center for a Bible class held in the same building.

    As a nontheist, you politely refuse. The following week this same employee corners you after class and starts a long, awkward conversation about how you need to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

    You feel as though you cannot comfortably continue to attend this treatment center when you are forced to interact with this individual in the midst of your treatment. You tell your counselor, but you’re told that the law says there is nothing to be done.

    Proselytizing to someone in the middle of addiction treatment – at a vulnerable moment -- is nothing less than harassment.

    Since legislation containing so-called “charitable choice” provisions were first enacted in 1996, anyone obtaining counseling at a faith-based substance abuse treatment center could be subject to this kind of treatment by church employees.

    While counselors are forbidden from proselytizing, there is no measure prohibiting employees or volunteers of a faith-based organization or religious institution from doing so before or after treatment.

    Tell your senators to remove “charitable choice” provisions that allows religious organizations to proselytize to people seeking counseling for substance abuse or mental health issues.

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Act (SAMHSA) was just re-introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI). Despite many behind-the-scenes meetings, Mr. Kennedy refused calls by the Secular Coalition for America to introduce this legislation with stronger protections for beneficiaries of social services.

    The Senate is now working on their version of SAMHSA and it’s important that they hear from you. Tell them to remove charitable choice provisions that allow proselytizing at federally-funded substance abuse and mental health centers—be they religious or not.

    So-called “charitable choice” provisions also allow the direct funding of houses of worship with your tax dollars. They are given carte blanche to perform secular social services without having to separate taxpayer money from the funds they receive from their parishioners for strictly sectarian purposes.

    Before “charitable choice”, all religious institutions and faith-based organizations were required to set up separate 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations to which taxpayer money was directed.

    This money could then be audited by the federal government. Since 1996, faith-based organizations no longer have to allocate the money they receive from the federal government in a 501(c)3 – they can literally keep it in the same account as money from the collection plate!

    It is often impossible to know whether houses of worship are using government funds for sectarian purposes, or whether they are really keeping this money separate. Moreover, IRS rules make it very difficult to audit houses of worship and the lack of 501(c)3s make it even more difficult to pinpoint corruption.

    If we must send federal dollars to faith-based organizations and religious institutions to perform social services, they must be held accountable for how they spend taxpayer’s dollars.


    source: http://www.addictioninfo.org/articl...-End-Religious-Harassment-in-Rehab/Page1.html


  1. Smeg
    A friend of mine went into a possibly similarly place in the UK.She was part-truthfully informed in the establishment that there would be no religious indoctrination during her entire stay there.
    It was only towards the end of her transition that she and others were periodically and dogmatically dive-bombed by some long abstinent visiting AA representatives.
    They mentioned belief in a then unspecified "belief in a higher power". She told SWIM that she felt compelled to cling to this generic ideology due to her fledgling sober vulnerability.
    She attended meetings in the same place night after night, and found it hugely beneficial. On the phone, and in person she told SWIM that her longings for alcohol were diminishing "a day at a time." I was pleased for her.
    The joy of her continuing contented sobriety was evidenced by her enthusiasm, by the way she was leading her life.
    She told me a few weeks later that her sponsor was phoning her mobile phone at usual and unusual hours (of the night and early morning) often suggesting that a "life course" for her would be a natural extension. The course was one of fundamentalist Christian ideology. She was batting it off politely, but said that the persistent texts and calls were making her irritable. I read some of them, and listened to voicemails too.

    One of the recorded ones asked that they lay on a bed together "and read scripture aloud to each other".

    It was she that implied that her AA group was a bit more cult-like as time went on. I suggested that it may be her just wanting to opt out of recovery to drink again. Her facial expression belied any such motive. I did feel bad for offending her.

    She told me recently that she'd moved on from that group after hearing well founded rumours about the predatory nature of some of the "elders". She hastened to inform me that this wasn't usually the case for most AA meetings:That ethics normally prevailed and God-governance was frequent though not compulsory. She said there are some creepy gatherings though.

    She told mentioned tonight that she's doing fine.
  2. Euthanatos93420
    Swim wishes those proselytizers had the balls to do that to him.

    I think somewhere deep inside they know that their bullshit can't stand the light of day and that swim would cut through their bullshit like a hot knife through butter.

    Nevertheless, it is harrassment. I believe these people should more than have an opportunity to seek religious counseling but that any establishment should respect the right of any religious affiliation to attend and the option should be just that, and OPTION TO SEEK.
  3. PapaSmokes
    Swim had the same experience in Pensacola Fl. It puts this nastly paste like feeling over you while your trying to isolate yourself to things that trigger intoxication responses, horrible. Good luck bro, would love to see a place that uses psychedelics instead of fear mongering.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!