What? I HATE These 'Family' Groups.

[KJ!]

=======================

VICTORIAN taxpayers have footed the bill for more than 2 million condoms - most of them flavoured - for drug users in the past 2 1/2 years, tender documents reveal.

Taxpayers have also been slugged for almost 700,000 sachets of lubricant, as part of an add-on to a needle exchange program.

The free prophylactic program means Victorian taxpayers supply more than 2000 condoms a day to drug users, at a cost of more than $100,000 a year.

A spokesman for the Department of Health defended the program, saying it had saved more than $200 million over the past decade in medical costs and restricted the spread of infectious diseases.

"In terms of the supply of flavoured and coloured condoms, the objective is that they be used," a department spokesman said. "This program has had wide support for a number of years."

The existing government program will end in September, but tenders have been called to extend the condom program.

Although coloured and flavoured condoms are by far the most popular category supplied, the Department of Health has drawn the line at other non-standard condoms.

"Novelty or medicinally enhanced condoms are not required and offers for these types of products are not to be submitted. Coloured/flavoured condoms are acceptable," tender documents stipulate.

"To promote and facilitate the practice of safe sex among at-risk populations, the needle exchange makes available a range of safe sex, sexually transmissible infection protection consumables to its clients," the documents say.

Family groups yesterday said they objected to the program.

"We are against both the needle exchange and the condom programs," said Terri Kelleher of the Australian Family Association.

"People aren't making the best decision when they are on drugs, and therefore shouldn't be supplied with condoms. There's no guarantee they are going to use them anyway."

http://www.news.com.au/national/you-pay-100000-bill-for-addicts-sex-and-disease-control/story-e6frfkvr-1226058550083

========================================

I used to work at a needle exchange, and it did a LOT of good work for the community, that went unrecognised.

I hate interest groups like this that know NOTHING about the subject, but simply demand to be heard.

This is one of the most absurd comments I've ever read in my life: "People aren't making the best decision when they are on drugs, and therefore shouldn't be supplied with condoms. There's no guarantee they are going to use them anyway."


This just absolutely boggles my mind.

It basically translates to : ''They've made one bad decision, therefore we should make it harder for them to make a GOOD decision. That'll help reduce STD's etc.''

[Jim Schnobrich]

"Screw the junkies. Don't take my money."

[Treacle]

So they can spend $100,000 or spend $200,000,000 and they'd rather spend $200,000,000?

$100,000 distributed across an entire city is nothing, especially if it saves money over the long term.

[dasNdanger]

While I don't condone the practices, I see the value in these programs, especially where the spread of disease is concerned. However, I would like to see some money spent on rehab as well, and not only on 'enabling' programs. There needs to be a balance (perhaps there is since I don't know all the facts in this regard).


das

[Patrick Gerard]

People really don't get that spending money often saves money.

[Patrick Gerard]

I do like the phrasing of the article, though, as I picture actual English Victorians appalled at their money being spent on condoms. So appalled that the women are fainting (not at all due to cut off blood circulation related to corsets, obviously) and the men are removing their gloves to challenge these condom peddlers to a duel.

[Treacle]

While I don't condone the practices, I see the value in these programs, especially where the spread of disease is concerned. However, I would like to see some money spent on rehab as well, and not only on 'enabling' programs. There needs to be a balance (perhaps there is since I don't know all the facts in this regard).


das

I somehow doubt that the city is spending $100,000 on a needle exchange and condoms and no money whatsoever on rehab programs.

And since drug addicts don't decide to go clean and sober all at once (and that's not even bringing up the inevitable reality of relapse) you need these programs along with rehab programs. They complement each other.

[Tommy]

As always when it comes to these sorts of things, Fred Clark (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/01/pro-family-means-anti-families.html) explains it best:


These groups sometimes announce their "pro-family" stance by stating their allegiance to "The Family" right there in their name -- Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, American Family Association, etc. But there are also dozens more such groups without that word in their names.

The problem with this idea is that it doesn't actually mean anything. What is this "The Family" they speak of? These groups all say they want to "strengthen The Family" or "defend The Family" or celebrate, validate, honor, protect, support or advocate for "The Family."

But there is no such thing. This abstraction -- "The Family" -- does not actually, tangibly exist in any meaningful way. All those verbs they pile on in front of this abstraction -- strengthen, defend, support, etc. -- require a direct object. They require a direct object that actually is an object, a thing, something objective and real. Strengthening the abstract concept of The Family doesn't really mean much of anything.

This would be a purely semantic complaint if it were a purely semantic problem, but it's not. It's not simply a matter of these groups saying "pro-family" and speaking of "The Family" when what they really mean is that they are pro-families or that they are in favor of helping families. The track record of these organizations shows the opposite. When it comes to policies, regulations or legislative proposals that will actually, tangibly help actual, tangible families, these groups are almost always opposed to such proposals.

That suggests to me that this semantic slipperiness, this elusive abstraction is deliberate. It is a feature, not a bug. It allows these groups to avoid any accountability for the consequences of the positions they advocate. Their effect on or effectiveness on behalf of The Family is, like The Family itself, hopelessly abstract. It cannot be measured or evaluated.

And I think that's intentional. Or at least suspiciously convenient. Because after decades of work, the impact of these pro-The Family groups is clear. Their efforts to strengthen The Family have weakened families. Their efforts to protect The Family have attacked families. The result of their work is, quite simply, pro-Family and anti-families.

[Jim Schnobrich]

So they can spend $100,000 or spend $200,000,000 and they'd rather spend $200,000,000?

$100,000 distributed across an entire city is nothing, especially if it saves money over the long term.

It would seem, yeah. That kind of thinking is pretty baffling, IMO.

[Tommy]

It would seem, yeah. That kind of thinking is pretty baffling, IMO.

This is a point I made earlier about pro-life groups/people. As much as they claim to be "pro-life," they're actually pro-abortion. Judging by everything they do, they are incredibly pro-abortion. If they were actually pro-life, they'd be demanding more funding for Planned Parenthood, since Planned Parenthood tries to reduce abortions. PP should be inundated with pro-life money, if they were actually pro-life. If they were actually pro-life they would be demanding comprehensive sex education in schools, and free condoms, instead of fighting for failed abstinence-only education and fighting against condoms. They would be working to make the social safety net stronger and more comprehensive, so no one who is pregnant has to fear their economic well being, but instead they vote against it. A concrete analysis demonstrates that everything the pro-life movement votes for and supports is clearly designed to increase abortions, not decrease them.

Which I think is sort of the point. The people in charge know as long as they do everything possible to ensure that abortions keep happening, they can squeeze money out of people. And the people who donate either are donating, and then feeling morally superior or simply playing follow-the-leader and not being able to put two and two together in order to think critically about what is, supposedly, the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVER! (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/06/killing-in-th)

[Danimal]

I somehow doubt that the city is spending $100,000 on a needle exchange and condoms and no money whatsoever on rehab programs.

And since drug addicts don't decide to go clean and sober all at once (and that's not even bringing up the inevitable reality of relapse) you need these programs along with rehab programs. They complement each other.

Right. The decision to get sober has to be the decision of the addict/alcoholic. Exposing someone to rehab might plant some seeds but tends to not do much unless the person in question has a desire to get clean.