The Role of Religion in the Opioid Epidemic

Martin P. Repetto

In recent years, Syringe Service Programs (SSPs) have been established all over the United States to curb the substance use disorder (SUD) epidemic, often referred to as the “opioid epidemic.” These programs have provided numerous forms of assistance, ranging from needle exchange services that reduce needle sharing and, by extension, the spread of bloodborne diseases, to safe injection sites that treat overdoses, to programs that go out to the community to treat their wounds. 

SSPs have proven effective, improving the livelihoods of many people suffering from SUD. Still, they have strangely attracted a great deal of criticism despite the good they do. Many detractors of these programs claim that they promote substance use and actually increase the likelihood of overdose. In addition, those same detractors often argue that harsher, more punitive legal policies are required to combat the spread of substance use. They state that the threat of painful punishments will “scare people who use drugs straight” and make them choose substance abstinence.

It has become something of a trope that the people who repeat these claims are typically religious and that they oppose policies that help people suffering from SUD because of their religion.  But what is the relation between religion and support for drug policies?

A research study by Durantini et al. (2022) set out to answer this question. It investigated whether religious affiliation, frequency of attendance at religious services, and/or perceived norms of religious leaders correlate with support for different drug policies.

Study Outlines

Before research could begin, several rules for the study had to be laid out. These rules would frame the data collected throughout the study, giving it borders within which the researchers could be most effective. The first rule was to separate all drug-related policies into two categories so that the effects of those policies could be easily distinguished. 

The first category was “protective drug policies.” These would encompass anything that sought to assist people with SUD. These policies aim to reduce harm, allowing people to avoid the adverse medical consequences of substance addiction while individuals work to overcome it. The policies include promoting SSPs and medication-assisted treatments.

The second category was designated for “punitive drug policies.” In contrast to protective policies, these would take on a “war on drugs” stance, punishing individuals with SUD instead of providing treatment or support. These policies are generally associated with higher rates of overdose and bloodborne disease spread.

Results

After gathering and analyzing survey data from 14 midwestern and Appalachian states, the authors reached three key conclusions. 

First, religious affiliation, or what creed an individual follows, had no association with policy support from one faith to another. On average, identifying with any religion made individuals less compassionate to people with SUDs.

Second, the frequency of attendance at religious ceremonies was positively correlated with support of punitive policies. The more an individual went to church, the stricter the penalties for substance use they wanted.

Third, the policy position of the leader of a religious congregation was positively correlated with the positions of their assembly. Leaders who support protective measures correlate with support for protective policies among their adherents. Similarly, leaders who support punitive measures correlate with support for the same policies by their herd, too.

Discussion

These findings, that participating in religious ceremonies and following religious leaders is correlated to support for specific SUD-relevant policies, may also be relevant to understanding the reluctance of people with SUD to attend harm reduction programs. This reluctance may be propagated by drug-related stigma, which is known to correlate with religiosity.