Nearly one-in-five new HIV cases are the result of drug users sharing dirty needles, an extrodinarily high number. Some cities have attempted to combat the epidemic by giving free clean needles to addicts in exchange for used ones. These programs are highly controversial in the U.S., with many insisting such programs encourage drug use and increase crime. Should your community be funding needle exchange programs?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Question is Poorly Phrased
Public health initiatives can save money.
As needle exchange programs have been shown to reduce the spread of HIV and hepatitis there seems to be no reason not to fund them out of the public purse. Keeping people alive and healthy will save on health costs. Having people sick and dying of hepatitis and AIDS reduces the tax base, so an opposition to government-funded needle exchange programs could end up costing more.
- Michael Glass
November 15, 2008 4:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The problem with tax funding
I agree that there are a host of reasons to support Needle Exchange programs, but if you wanted to pay it in taxes, who's to say which programs/causes we should fund, and which ones we shouldn't?
- F2XL
November 15, 2008 5:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reduces the tax base?!
I see your argument about saving on health costs, but you are dreaming if you think the average IV drug addict is out there paying taxes. The #1 source of financial stress for people in rehab is the IRS, because typically they have not paid taxes for many, many years.
- lostlo
January 30, 2009 5:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Health and Taxes
Firstly, IV drug addicts may have sexual or other contact with healthy taxpayers and so spread any viruses they may have picked up. If there are needle exchange programs in place they are less likely to pick up viruses and pass them on to others. So even if no IV drug user was a taxpayer, helping to keep them free of hepatitis and HIV is likely to protect the healthy taxpayers they are likely to have contact with. Also, keeping an IV drug user more healthy is likely to keep that user in work and off the public purse for longer. In the mean time, they may come to their senses and quit the IV drug use.
- Michael Glass
January 31, 2009 6:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"public purse"
I think you're meshing two separate sources of money . There's taxes which mean everyone and their mother and then there's private business which means either voluntary contributions or people providing services to earn a living.
I don't pay for health insurance for addicts because I won't buy into a plan that covers them. Why should I care about their total cost? Including the cost in taxes only raises the total I pay with no reduction anywhere for me.
If we already had a universal health care system then I would agree that the reduction in cost overall would impact me. But I hope that never happens because the cost overall for me would increase dramatically because I would be helping to fund a million health problems I don't have. Did you know maternal care is covered in the proposed health care bill? Every man in this country will be subsidizing costs that they can't possibly incur. I think that's wrong (and I'm a woman!)
Also, about your point about spreading viruses, it's simple. If someone is dumb and has unprotected sex with a drug addict and gets AIDS , they'll pay the price. Not only does that seriously encourage people to be smart but also encourages condom use and responsibility and it's just simply justice. People get what they deserve.
- sunshiner424
October 2, 2009 12:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's talk saving money
Far be it from me, Sunshine, to preach compassion; I'm talking about saving money . There is evidence that needle exchange programs result in less HIV and Hepatitis B in the community, and that means a lower rate of death and chronic disease. Result: less public expense. It's one of those situations where helping others results in making it better for everyone, and that's a win-win situation for you as well.
- Michael Glass
October 3, 2009 8:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Saving money for whom?
"It's one of those situations where helping others results in making it better for everyone, and that's a win-win situation for you as well."
No, it's not. Let's look at this rationally. Let's say wealth is a curve. Very few are extremely rich and very many are extremely poor. If we redistribute wealth so that the poor get some unearned money (or needles in this case), then someone loses out. That wealth (or needles) doesn't grow on trees. So who is it being taken from? If I'm in the top half of society , I am definitely not benefiting. Actually, I'm being stolen from. You say it's a win win for everybody? I'm sorry, you'll need to explain it a little more clearly. It sounds to me like a lose lose because I'm being stolen from and addicts think it's ok to mooch so they don't have to buy their own needles. And yes, I consider dependency as a serious lose for anyone. Sure, they get free needles woooot. But then they expect free needles. And then when we find out the system really doesn't work, they say but how the hell can I take my heroin??? It's like feeding the ducks. They get dependent and then when you stop feeding them they die. Is that nicer than letting them take care of themselves? NO.
Also, I'm going to argue with the "less public expense" part. If we lower the cost of the whole country, which is as you say less public expense, then we also lower the amount the whole country gets paid. Because maybe you don't know this, but the country pays itself if you want to think in communal terms. Personally, communal terms irritates me because the "public" is invariably referring to a portion of the country. It is so much easier to speak in terms of individuals because not only do individuals actually exist, but every public is made up of those individuals that must be considered. So to say that I would benefit from "less public expense" is a complete lie. I would lose. In individual terms, I would also lose and it's much easier to explain this way: I would be paying for something I'm not getting. NO THANKS.
What confuses me most is why you would want this. You aren't an addict and you would be paying.... do you seriously think that your life would cost less? That life would be easier or better for you? Or do you feel guilty to these addicts and your supporting this out of emotional issues?
- sunshiner424
October 3, 2009 1:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
False economy
Sunshine, I see that you identify yourself with the rich and the powerful, and don't want to be burdened with the poor. If providing needles reduces the amount of HIV and hepatitis in the community, not providing them could be false economy . You save a paltry amount in not providing a needle exchange program, but the expenses are likely to come back to bite you as extra taxes to provide for more medical help. It would also mean a smaller tax base, as more people become sick. As one of the wealthy, this could end up costing you more.
- Michael Glass
October 3, 2009 5:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
coverage
“I don't pay for health insurance for addicts because I won't buy into a plan that covers them. Why should I care about their total cost? Including the cost in taxes only raises the total I pay with no reduction anywhere for me.”
You actually do pay for their health care . A serious drug user is unlikely to be able to hold down a steady job, which means that they will not be able to pay for their own insurance… and thus they will have to rely on public options like the legally mandated care that they will receive from a hospital emergency room. Your tax dollars will also go to their health care if they get arrested and thrown in jail… a cost that will be substantially higher if they have contracted a blood born disease.
“Did you know maternal care is covered in the proposed health care bill? Every man in this country will be subsidizing costs that they can't possibly incur. I think that's wrong (and I'm a woman!)”
That is a rather odd opinion. If female health issues are not covered then health issues specific to makes cannot similarly be covered (such as Prostate Cancer). Does your health insurance cover female medical problems? Mine does… and that seems perfectly fair to me (and I’m a man!)
“People get what they deserve.”
So if a man cheats on his wife and gets an HIV then goes home and spreads it to his wife is she getting what she deserves? If a drug user catches HIV from a dirty needle and then passes it along to their child then that child is getting what they deserve? Let’s not forget the person that gets raped by someone who caught HIV from a dirty needle… did they deserve it?
- MrBook
October 3, 2009 11:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The whole problem with society today
"You actually do pay for their health care . A serious drug user is unlikely to be able to hold down a steady job, which means that they will not be able to pay for their own insurance… and thus they will have to rely on public options like the legally mandated care that they will receive from a hospital emergency room. Your tax dollars will also go to their health care if they get arrested and thrown in jail… a cost that will be substantially higher if they have contracted a blood born disease."
Because a failure at life causes increased costs for everyone means we should continue in the direction of paying for their life??? No. Addicts are failures because they can't hold down jobs and support themselves. Every person in a society needs to at least support themself before they can even think about contributing back to society. Addicts included. They should not be rewarded with free stuff for being failures.
For health insurance , everyone should have the option of what coverage they want. If a man wants coverage that supports his wife then he should buy that insurance. If a gay man does not want to pay for maternity care, he should have that option. He should not be mandated to pay for maternity care, obesity care, lung cancer coverage, and psychiatrist therapy when he does not have a wife, is not fat, does not smoke and does not need therapy.
For the extreme cases where someone is screwed over because of some other idiots mistake, that's really sad and horrible but it is what it is. They should certainly have the right to sue the person for the medical costs but to base our society on the few people in that situation? No. In the overall view, there are relatively few cases of HIV being spread to somebody not at fault and the money we're wasting handing out free needles could be put to much better use. In the pockets of consumers for example to boost the economy possibly by ensuring that they can afford a flu shot.
- sunshiner424
October 4, 2009 9:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
compassionate
"No. Addicts are failures because they can't hold down jobs and support themselves."
Addicts are not failures, they are suffering from a disease. Some addicts because of a genetic predisposition, other are because of their life situation.
"For health insurance , everyone should have the option of what coverage they want. If a man wants coverage that supports his wife then he should buy that insurance. If a gay man does not want to pay for maternity care, he should have that option. He should not be mandated to pay for maternity care, obesity care, lung cancer coverage, and psychiatrist therapy when he does not have a wife, is not fat, does not smoke and does not need therapy"
You do realize that that would lead to a rather rapid increase in cost among rarer diseases... being virtually a death sentience to many who cannot afford such care. Would someone who had never paid for cancer care be able to jump directly into cancer care when they are diagnosed with it?
- MrBook
October 4, 2009 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
public purse
I find it interesting that you say you dont buy into plans that cover addicts. Im glad that not every one thinks like you. And I mean no disrespect when I say that. Because a person does drugs , does that make them less deserving of health care ? Life is not as black and white as people like to make it. I am 33 years old. I have been an addict since I was 8. First with pot...and as we all know how easy it is to get into other things, let me tell you that at the age of 30 I found myself in a bad place. I not going to preach about being a victim because certainly i was not. And I'll make my point as quickly as I can. 3 years ago my 8 yr relationship with my son's mom ended, I was fired from the best job I ever had, I was evicted from my apt and living out of my car. All due to my drug use . My daughter who usually lived with me had to go to her moms. But her mom and step-dad are addicts too. Something happened one night with her mom and step-dad that put my daughter in very serious danger. Finally realized my life was falling apart so I confessed everything to my mom who I rarely spoke to and was not at all close with. But being afraid for me, she allowed me and my daughter to come live with her. I immediately went into detox/rehab for 3 months. I really was not happy about giving up the drugs but my daughter needed to be saved. I know I'm rambling but I have point. I had been smoking pot since 8 but at 15 i ran away from home. I didn't live with my mom again until i was 30. The years in between were spent doing meth, cocaine , heroine, and anything else I could get my hands on. I should have been dead a hundred times. Its a miracle that I'm alive today and not in prison. So now I'm 33. In the last 3 years I managed to overcome a 15 year addiction to meth, cocaine, heroine. I also put myself back in school . 2 months ago I graduated with a 2 yr degree in health care that I passed with a 3.9 grade point average. Now I'm working again for the first time in about 4 years making more money than I ever have. If it weren't for the health care I received while struggling to get clean, I would be dead. My mother who had never even heard of meth amphetamines until i confessed to being addicted to it, got me help through countless gov't assisted programs, etc. 3 weeks ago I was in the parking lot of a shopping center and I saw a woman probably 30 or 40 years old collapse. I called 911 and gave the woman cpr, which I learned in school, until the paramedics got there. Later I was told that had I not given her cpr, she would have died. Now to my point. That woman could have been anyone. My mom, your mom, you. If it werent for the health care I received, much of which was govt assisted (as in your taxes ), I would more than likely be dead, my daughter in foster care, and the woman in the parking lot may have died. And I respect your lack of concern and sympathy for those of us who have chosen to ruin our lives with the evils of drugs. And you certainly aren't alone in you views. I just wonder if your views would still be as harsh if you had been the woman in the parking lot.
- caeleb
October 15, 2009 2:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nobody "deserves" health care
Whatever the media has you believing, people don't have a "right" to health care . Your health care should be more expensive for you because it is more expensive to keep you healthy.
Next, to address the story you have shared with me, congratulations on pulling your life together. That is seriously one of the greatest things about humans is that when faced with the worst, they will do their best to prevail. I believe this to the utmost. I have not been addicted to drugs but in my own way, I also saw my world falling apart and worked hard to fix it. That is what people do and it is as close to a miracle as anything I've ever seen.
You may call me selfish and careless because of the nature of this debate. I believe this debate is about two things. One is the innocent hard working people who are funding your health care. Two is about how far government will go to "save" the citizens. The more government will do for people, the less the people have to do for themselves. Just curious, please don't take offense to my questions, if you knew that government could not help your situation and rehab cost a lot of money out of your own pocket, do you think you would have let the drugs get you to the point you did? If so then all I can say is that you may either be lacking meaning in life or a sense of responsibility. It appears as though your daughter is your meaning in life because that is what made you want to change your habits. It also appears as though your sense of responsibility was seriously lacking because you did not pursue self and life improvement until recently.
As horrible as your story is, and I'm sorry for you, you admit that it's nobody else's fault. (you're not a victim) So why do you ask that everyone else pay for your health care? You do not have a right to it, nor did you earn it. It is lucky that you lived but it cost our society far more than you have given back. Saving one woman's life does not pay everyone back for what you took for granted.
I am really sorry for sounding so cold but seriously, shit happens in this world but it happens because someone didn't prevent it. We can all cry over it but that doesn't make it better. Education and foresight prevent tragedies, and I would rather prevent them than cry later. I don't know if it's your fault you ran away at 15 or your mother 's fault for not teaching you responsibility but it's not my fault.
As for my opinion on death, I have no fear of it. If I had died in that parking lot, or if I die tomorrow at work, whatever. I won't care, I'll be dead. I will obviously try to prevent it by taking care of my health and driving carefully and wearing a seatbelt but I won't live my life with the idea that nobody should ever die. That's ridiculous.
- sunshiner424
October 18, 2009 4:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
reply to "NOBODY DESERVES"
Why do you think that i don't have a right to it, or that I earned it? I worked the majority of the time i was on drugs . I paid taxes just like everyone else. So, really i did earn it. And I understand why you would think that you shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's self-induced med problems. But the fact is that when someone who is in need and is unable to get that help is going to continue the life of addiction, and in turn a life of crime . Did you know that almost 80% of people in prison are there due to non-violent, drug related crimes? And those same people get out and do it all over again. Your money is paying to keep these guys locked up. Wouldn't you rather your money go to helping these people get clean, and in turn stay out of jail, and hopefully become a productive member of society that will eventually be able to help himself. The longer these people stay down, the more we're going to have to keep them jailed. I'd rather help them now so that i won't have to help them later. I don't know if you have kids or not. But if you were to have a child in that kind of situation, and lets say you weren't able to afford help for them. Wouldn't you like to know that there are programs out there that could help before your child became a statistic either in prison or dead. One last point, while you might not think your money is going to these kind of people, but it is. Just not the way you think.
- caeleb
October 25, 2009 10:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
tax or no tax
If the government would give some tax money to the priate assistance groups to help I would say using tax money would be fine.
We do not need any more government ran programs they waste to much and the people in need never get there needs filled.
- countryboy
July 3, 2009 3:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree
Government programs have been shown to fail all over the place but still tax money should not be used for this. People can voluntarily donate if they believe in the cause.
Tax money should only ever be used for services that have a direct benefit to everyone equally.
- sunshiner424
October 2, 2009 12:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No government service benefits all equally.
Sunshine, you have set up a condition that is impossible to achieve. Those who can afford the services of tax lawyers can get the benefit of government services with a minimum of taxes . The wealthy and well-connected usually get better treatment from the police than those who are poor. Even so, the whole community is better off with some Government services even though some will benefit from them more than others.
- Michael Glass
October 3, 2009 8:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'll name some keepers
Government services to keep:
Military
Judicial system
Coast Guard
Police
CIA/FBI
..... that's probably it
and yes, the people who can afford services to lower taxes benefit. The wealthy live better because they've earned it. As far as I'm concerned there is one necessary function of government: to protect citizens from foreigners and from each other. There is no other service the government can provide that is fair, efficient and benefits everybody. I am for equality and liberty. What are you for?
Impossible to achieve? I believe this country started with even less....
- sunshiner424
October 3, 2009 12:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wealth does not equal virtue
Sunshine, wealth does not equal virtue. When the law in its majesty prohibits rich and poor from sleeping under the bridges of Paris, that law benefits the rich while penalising the destitute. Your prescription is strong on perceived self-interest, but I think your tune might change if you suffered a reversal of fortune.
- Michael Glass
October 3, 2009 5:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not here
Hay Michael my tune did not change when I suffered a reversal of fortune.
Thats when frends,family, church and neighbours came to help.And we should do the same for others too.
- countryboy
October 4, 2009 6:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Government
As far as I'm concerned there is one necessary function of government to protect citizens from foreigners and from each other.There is no other serice the government can provide that is fair,efficient and benefits everyboby.
You got that right,the way it should be.
- countryboy
October 4, 2009 6:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Government?
That's why we have public hospitals, public libraries and public schools ... not to mention public transportation . You have a very interesting idea of community. do you live in a cabin in the mountains?
- Joey Tranchina
October 4, 2009 10:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
taxes
“Tax money should only ever be used for services that have a direct benefit to everyone equally.”
That means no federal tax dollars spent at the local level… No federal support for research… no federal support for education .
This ignores the fact that we all benefit from reduced instances of blood born diseases… Most are also sexually transmittable, and all can be transmitted from a mother to a child. Thus by preventing the spread of those diseases we help contain the health costs of those STDs (free needles are far cheaper then an the anti-virals used to control HIV ).
- MrBook
October 3, 2009 11:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Exactly!
"That means no federal tax dollars spent at the local level… No federal support for research… no federal support for education ."
These services should be paid for by voluntary donations! If we reduce taxes to the minimum people would actually have money to donate! Especially if there were tax incentives to do so as there are now. Also, education should be a private business because it would be more efficient, cost effective, and the quality of education would increase tremendously.
Just as health care should be a private industry for the same reasons. We don't ALL benefit from reducing blood born diseases. SOME people benefit, some people don't. Overgeneralize much?
- sunshiner424
October 4, 2009 9:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
funding
National parks?
What about the internet ? The military ? Law enforcement? Border patrols? Roads?
"If we reduce taxes to the minimum people would actually have money to donate!"
And you can offer evidence to support this claim?
"Also, education should be a private business because it would be more efficient, cost effective, and the quality of education would increase tremendously."
So the level of education would increase if there was no public funds available for schools ?
"We don't ALL benefit from reducing blood born diseases."
We actually all do benefit. By preventing the spread of blood born diseases among drug users we are preventing the spread of those diseases to the general population. We also reduce hospital costs by reducing the number of drug users who require medical care.
- MrBook
October 4, 2009 10:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
funding solved
Private organizations or businesses.
Maybe you missed my above comment but all protection ( military , police , coast guard) should be funded by gov.
Everything else should be privately run. The level of education would increase without public funding. Since nobody is quite ready to believe that however, I am all for the idea of mimicking education as a business by funding schools based on their attendance rate and letting parents choose where to send their kids . A charter system of sorts. Taking it completely out of taxes however, would let parents choose where to send their kid and would let parents' money go directly to that school. The way it is now is that adults with no children subsidize education for other people's kids. Why?
I won't offer evidence because I rely on logic primarily with the belief that spitting numbers debases the scientific process because statistics are sooo poorly used these days. Some represent truth but most are used to prove something that they don't prove at all.
I am a firm believer in free market and having the government so involved in our lives means the money we earn is taken from some and given to others in very large quantities and as much as that's acting Robin Hood, I still see him as a thief.
And no, we don't ALL benefit from reducing blood born disease. Again, you use the term "general population" to support your claim. You are still overgeneralizing. Health care right now is still private. Hospitals pick up the tab for unpaid emergency care. If I don't use that hospital and I don't have health insurance , I am not paying for addicts at all. Except through the proposed "free" needles program. So "general population" does not apply here because it is a sad overgeneralization that is used far too much. Even if you can point out how I am paying for the treatment of AIDS , I will still disagree with funding needles through taxation because taxation needs to be dramatically decreased instead of raised. Already people can't afford mortgages and you want to buy needles for addicts instead???? Smart spending.
Just one last question: How the hell is the government funding the internet !!!???? Ever heard of Comcast or Verizon!!???
- sunshiner424
October 5, 2009 11:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.