On crystal meth treatment

(Ed. note: The ads referred to in the following letter have not appeared in the Chicago Free Press.)

The Chicago Crystal Meth Task Force recognizes that there are a number of treatment choices for methamphetamine recovery. Thankfully, we have several treatment options in Chicago. Recently, we have noticed some ads in the gay press marketing new protocols and want to take this opportunity to educate the community on being an informed consumer of treatment. As we all know, marketing strategies are designed to grab our attention for a product or service. Advertisements for all types of treatment are no exception. There are many types of treatments available, and in all of them you will find success stories as well as failures.

Despite how wonderful something may appear, there is no “magic formula” when it comes to treating addiction. If it sounds too good to be true, maybe it is.

None of us needs to be a trained specialist to be an informed consumer. We just need to take the time to ask a few specific questions, such as inquiring as to the risks of treatment, if there are outcome studies, or how the treatment provider defines “success.” You will find a list of these questions on our website—www.crystalbreaks.org. Whether you are seeking services for yourself or a loved one, we recommend you ask these questions of any provider of treatment to ensure you fully understand what you are buying.

Our website also features prevention, treatment and harm reduction information for both users and non-users of crystal meth. The Task Force seeks to promote a healthy community for all and we invite participation from anyone interested.

The Chicago Crystal Meth Task Force

On the presidential forum

We experienced history in the making Aug. 9 as six candidates for the U.S. presidency took part in a forum on issues of concern to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities.

For the first time on commercial television in U.S. history, presidential candidates, at least Democratic ones, not only believed they needed the support and endorsement of the LGBT community, but were willing to take part in a public forum on LGBT issues hosted by a LGBT organization on a LGBT television network, with a panel of LGBT interviewers.

In many ways, the forum was a test of candidates’ knowledge and sensitivity to LGBT policy issues, as well as their level of personal comfort and connection to the community. The focus was heavily on marriage equality, employment non-discrimination, and the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, with lesser attention to AIDS, immigration and healthcare issues.

It was fascinating that religion played a mostly silent yet determinative role in the forum. The three leading Democratic candidates—Clinton, Obama and Edwards—each supports civil unions, but balks at the word “marriage.” Without saying it, they’ve bought into the unfortunate insistence by the Religious Right they only certain religious groups get to impose their religious views on the legal definition of marriage.

Apparently, so long as candidates can claim the tortured logic of opposing legal marriage while supporting full marriage rights, they think they’ve lessened the chance of being attacked on the issue. That may or may not be true. What is undoubtedly true is that this position settles for less than full and unequivocal equality.

Only Obama talked about homosexuality and the Bible, noting that some people "focus on a few verses in Romans and ignore the Sermon on the Mount." He may be the only candidate in the Democratic Party who can face conservative clergy on the Biblical issues with some confidence.

It was especially encouraging to hear presidential candidates discuss their personal support for transgender rights and for non-discrimination legislation providing legal protections for trans people.

It was remarkable that not one Republican candidate was willing to accept an invitation to a similar event for Republican candidates. The LOGO channel is accessible to 28 million subscribers—a remarkably large audience for any candidate to ignore.

Perhaps if anything was missing from the event, it was discourse on public issues beyond specific LGBT topics. The reality is that the LGBT community in the U.S. is passionate about a wide range of public issues. LGBT people are more opposed to the war in Iraq than the general population and deeply concerned about violations and erosions of civil liberties, the separation of church and state, the scapegoating of immigrants, the increase in poverty, and the degradation of our environment. It is important for candidates to know that LGBT people—and LGBT people of faith!—cast our votes based upon these issues as well and that our rights and well-being are connected to the well-being of everyone.

We owe our gratitude to the LOGO Channel and the Human Rights Campaign for arranging this public forum. The event marked a historic moment in U.S. history and involved a remarkable discussion on LGBT issues by presidential candidates.

Perhaps the most remarkable part of the evening was not what was said, but that this historic event took place at all.

The Rev. Nancy L. Wilson

Moderator, Metropolitan Community Churches