Part of me really dislikes this approach because it means we are spending our money and our resources on supplying people with the means to continue with their addiction or unwise choices, which will ultimately be their downfall. Not only does it seem to condone the action, my biggest problem with it is that it removes the natural consequences to negative actions. And since we already know that people will do extremely destructive things to themselves and others when the consequences are removed, I feel like its a big step in the wrong direction.

The flip side however, is that we do need to be realistic in our approach to helping people and to meeting them where they are at. I don’t know where the line balancing these two concepts is yet.

Maybe that’s my problem, though. I have a strong tendency to believe that drug addicts deserve what they get, even though I know this tendency is wrong. I have the same tendency with teenagers having sex, and I suspect I’m not alone in feeling that if you’re so stupid that you can’t prevent a pregnancy you deserve what you get. Even though this is completely wrong-headed and wholly uncharitable.

Yet I know that it’s better to not have HIV or AIDS, and I know it’s better for young people not to have babies. Of course it’s even better not to use drugs at all, and even better if you abstain from sexuality before marriage, but neither of those ideals address reality.

But I still don’t know.