it's an after-school special kinda thing

[afuna]

Attending a government-mandated drug abuse seminar.

I feel like I should take this seriously, but I can't get past the ominous background music to focus on the message.

===

Ah, and suddenly background music turns inspiring. We're in the section of the video where we talk about God's supernatural healing power. I'm not sure why I'm surprised at the sudden turn but I am.

I am twitchy because it's the *government* pushing religion, not just some random private institution. I'm used to moral and religious lessons in videos (catholic schoolgirl for 13 years!), but I always half-expect better from the government. Despite all the evidence, I tend to forget we don't actually have any formal separation of church and state here.

On the other hand! One thing I've been excited about is that the Department of Health recently stood up against the church, and is continuing its program to give out condoms and to educate people properly about AIDS. But that is getting off topic (I just needed to wave a tiny *go brave public officials* flag for a moment)

Comments

[thorfinn]

It's a pantomime. Shout "BEHIND YOU! IT'S BEHIND YOU!"

[afuna]

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN. (Lions and tigers and illegal drugs, oh my)

[omgaeula]

Wow, that's cheesy.

I'm Catholic (but only a Catholic schoolgirl for 6 years hahaha). I don't condone the use of barrier contraceptives. However, I understand that the incidence of HIV/AIDS is increasing at an alarming rate. And many cases aren't reported, so the current figures we have are an underestimate.

I only hope the HIV/AIDS education program will be holistic, and include risk reduction strategies: delay sex, fewer partners. Also such information as condoms are only 80-85% effective in preventive HIV transmission. (The naturally-occuring pores in condoms are still larger than the HIV particle). That leaves a 15-20% chance of being infected even through "safe sex," which for me is still a pretty big number. Condom promotion is a bandaid solution (that isn't working in Africa) and I hope we can find a more effective long-term solution for the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

[branchandroot]

Yeah, once you start listening to the music it's all over; it's so /obvious/ when you actually listen.

[starlurker]

Oh wow, good for the DoH in the Philippines! Go them!

[pauamma]

Hmm. "government-mandated drug abuse seminar"? IMO, whether it has religious overtones is the *least* of its problems. Or, to put it in other words, it would have religious overtones no matter what - the religion being "intrusive government propaganda", if no other. (IMO, it's still propaganda if it's true, as long as you're required to listen to it.)

[kerravonsen]

Oh my. Half of me is appalled, and half of me is intrigued. Over here, the separation of church and state is taken so much for granted that we speak of it a lot less than the Americans do; it just is.

Or maybe I'm completely blinded by WASP-privilege and I haven't noticed.

[afuna]

DOH is promoting a three-prong approach: (A)bstinence, (B)e faithful to your partner, (C)ondom use, so it does sound like they're trying to reduce risk by as many factors as possible. I've mostly focused on the condoms because it is so unexpected; it takes courage to promote condom use, despite religious opposition, and I'm grateful that the DOH is prioritizing people's health over any political gains they could obtain by toeing the Church line.


I'm not sure about the naturally-occurring pores in condoms being larger than the HIV particle -- I'm having difficulty finding a study one way or another which actually states it. I'm seeing a lot of articles and websites saying "x said this" or "y said that" or "everyone knows that...", but very little actual statistical proof. Any ideas where to look?


I came away with an entirely different conclusion to that article about HIV in Africa. I don't see the author arguing against the physical effectiveness of condoms. The issue is that people are not using the condoms being provided (or are at best only using them some of the time, not all of the time), because of false assumptions about what constitutes safe sex.

It would be like installing seatbelts on your car, but never actually buckling up because you're always in a hurry; or buying the latest most-accident-proof bike helmet, but just leaving it at home because it doesn't look cool; or installing a fire alarm but never bothering to replace your battery when it runs down. The presence or availability of a protective device may make the owner feel better (maybe even run more risks because they know they have a condom/seatbelt/helmet/fire alarm and are reassured subconsciously), but it doesn't matter unless they're actually using it properly.

In that case, the solution isn't to dispose of the protective device; it's to figure out a way to remove the stigma of using said protection, or to step up education and remove the complacency associated with that risk, or to make it commonplace so people just do it without thinking.


I agree that condoms are only one among many approaches that should be carried out simultaneously, but I worry about discounting their actual effectiveness out of hand.

[afuna]

Ahahahaha, yes. I... wow now I wonder if there is (and wish for if there isn't!) a page on TVTropes about thematic background music used in shows.

[afuna]

SERIOUSLY, and it is about time!

(We also had the Reproductive Health Bill, which wasn't perfect but I thought was a good step forward and ANYWAY some bishops were threatening excommunication of the bill's authors, and they didn't back down and even though the RH bill isn't going to push through I am so absurdly proud of how well-reasoned the bill's authors were in their reply to the threats. So much ♥ and maybe some hope to something better in the future)

[jan]

"Ah, and suddenly background music turns inspiring. We're in the section of the video where we talk about God's supernatural healing power."

I totally laughed out loud when I read that. But it makes sense, as most addiction-recovery programs are based, to some extent, on religion or the belief in a "higher power." (See, e.g., the 12-step programs.) If that's what it takes to get a person clean, or to keep them clean, then I'm all for it. Religion can be an effective shield against anxiety over the iniquities of the world. As long as people don't go overboard and start using religion as a sword to oppress others, I try not to judge. I remember being a small child and squeezing my eyes shut in prayer; I believed with all my heart. My faith was an all-encompassing comfort in a scary world. Christ, what I wouldn't give to have that again (some days). But that ship sailed a long time ago. *hands*

Also, bravo DOH!

[afuna]

Oh yeah, I guess it does make sense, but there are no positive influences mentioned other than religion, leaving the whole thing feeling incredibly unbalanced. Mostly I don't mind religion, so long as I can avoid it *g* (Or avoid the thing that's bringing it to me, that also works).

I do somewhat miss belief in some form of higher power that would keep me safe *wistful* But yeah, ship, sailed... meh :)

[afuna]

I wonder if I misunderstood? Apparently the government mandates a drug-free workplace, so you can't keep hired anyone who you know is abusing drugs. But I can't tell if the seminar itself was government-mandated, or if it was what our company did in order to make itself compliant with the law.

*headtilt* I'm not sure how much that difference counts though?

[afuna]

I crave the kind of rational discourse that does not demand that the other person share your religion in order to be considered moral or to be of right mind.

Strongly, fiercely, crave.

[pauamma]

Hmm, it kinda counts? (By which I mean, yes, the difference is relevant, but government mandating of a drug-free workplace is IMO asking the wrong question. if Alice uses drugs that don't impair her work performance or put others at risk, why should it matter? And if Bob has poor work performance, does it matter whether it's because of drug use, lack of motivation, poor work ethic, or just inability to master the skills involved?)

[afuna]

IOW, it should be the workplace doing the deciding on whether to keep the employee or not, and not some government entity? :-)

[pauamma]

whether and why, yes.

[afuna]

*nods thoughtfully*

Is that how it is where you are, or is that just how you think things should be? (Trying to get a feel for how life is in other places)

[pauamma]

It's how I think they should be. It's also kinda how they are here: labor laws here are very restrictive about acceptable reasons for firing or laying off someone (no equivalent of employment at will), but I believe drugs possession (even for soft drugs or in amounts small enough to indicate personal use only) can still get you arrested, which might cost you your job even if you aren't charged.