Operating a drug den is religious liberty?

I’ve got to give Progressives credit: They never give up and are willing to adopt the most absurd political stances to get what they want, and are often rewarded by judges who are not only blind, but also either gullible or politicized.

Such as the federal appeals judge who just ruled that Safehouse, the nonprofit that encourages drug use, can use a religious argument to continue trying to force its operations into neighborhoods that do not want it. 

This argument has been going on for years, during which Safehouse stopped calling itself a “safe injection site,” because anyone with half a brain knows there is no such thing as “safe” consumption of drugs. It then tried on  “harm reduction site,” which also flopped. It now approaches honesty by calling its operations a “supervised drug consumption site.” It is still a drug den.

Safehouse splashed across the front pages in 2020 when it tried to sneak its ill-advised operations into South Philly, and was met with a fierce wall of opposition that didn’t want a legalized drug den in its midst. 

Safehouse insists it saves lives by offering drug addicts a “safe” place to shoot up, guaranteeing someone will be there to give them clean needles, and revive them if they OD. Kind of like promising to send the fire department after allowing children to play with matches.

The holes in this so-called safety net are enormous, aside from drug use being illegal. First, Safehouse was going to be open only a few hours a day. Second, it supposes that drug addicts all over the city will travel to Safehouse. Third, if they do, that supports the neighbors fears that is a magnet for druggies, something not likely to improve poperty values.

But, but, if it saves even one life. . . Safehouse supporters bleat.

If even one life is supreme, we should ban automobiles, because they kill 40,000 Americans a year. There is always a balance sheet, a level of risk that must be accepted in life.

Instead of fostering drug addiction, how about engaging in programs to cure drug addiction, which I admit is hard.

But even harder is enabling a class of drug zombies to remain addicted.

So a court has ruled the Safehouse advocates can argue their religious values give them special standing.

Earlier court rulings found that free expression of religion isn’t restricted to religions, they can be invoked by anyone. So Mormons have a free expression right to as many wives as they like? Animal sacrifice is OK, if it is religious? 

Well, Rastafarians do get to use marijuana as part of their religious practice.

But that’s innocuous. How about religious teaching that would put adulterers or homosexuals to death?

That pork should be banned? That slavery and sexual concubines are just peachy?

Clearly, there are many cases where religious beliefs are contrary to those of our society.

“Protected“ drug use should be another one of them.