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
Public health initiatives can save money.
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.
We shouldn't have them
Public schools , hospitals, transportation and libraries run very inefficiently and many run on a constant deficit. Compare that to private schools, hospitals, and transportation services and you can see the clear difference. Not only running with a profit but providing better service. Without the superficially "cheap" public options, more private businesses would penetrate the lower income market to still provide superficially cheap services but running with a small profit so it wouldn't drain everyone's pocket money through taxes .
- sunshiner424
October 5, 2009 11:33AM
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.
Public money
Do you live in a cabin in the mountains?Sound good but no I don't.
You have a very interesting idea of community.Yes I might if everyone would be a part of there community the public hospitals,public libaries and public school would be ran by the public!With out Government money .
- countryboy
October 5, 2009 4:10PM
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.
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.
funded
“Maybe you missed my above comment but all protection ( military , police , coast guard) should be funded by gov.”
I agree that the military and police should be funded to protect my location… but why should my money be spent to defend California or Maine? The same goes for the Coast Guard… I do not own, operate, or even spend time on boats… why should my money go to support those groups?
“The level of education would increase without public funding.”\
On what factual basis to you rest this claim?
“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.
Except for parents that live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford the additional expense.
“The way it is now is that adults with no children subsidize education for other people's kids . Why?”
Because they benefit from educating other peoples children. Those who are educated are much better equipped to get and hold jobs . Thus they are better able to contribute to the economy and are in a better position to support themselves economically. Furthermore since crime rises as more people enter the lower economic brackets, and since education decreases the number of people in the lower economic brackets public education reduced the crime rate… which is of benefit to everyone
“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.“
{ Our opinions are worthwhile only to the extent that we support them with credible evidence and sound reasoning. Everything else is either superstition or the same hot air we can get from a drunk in a gin mill }
-PZ Myers
“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.”
The free market is very powerful, but it is not a perfect system.
“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.”
Yet by that logic I do not benefit from the Coast Guard if I live in Nebraska… I don’t benefit from police operating in California if I live in Rhode Island… I do not benefit from contract enforcement in Florida if I live in Alaska… and I don’t benefit from the military at all.
No federal program can explicitly benefit each individual equally.
“Hospitals pick up the tab for unpaid emergency care.”
You are fond of saying that nothing is free… who do you think carries the resultant cost? It is passed on to those who use the hospital.
“If I don't use that hospital and I don't have health insurance , I am not paying for addicts at all.”
So if you break an arm or come down with pneumonia what are you going to do? It benefits you, even if you are not in need of medical care to have a hospital near by… because you do not know when you are going to become sick or injured.
“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.”
The funding received by needle programs is a metaphorical ‘drop in the bucket’ compared to areas of serious government waste. Though I do agree that the government lower taxes and scale back in some areas that does not mean the abandonment of a program proven to help.
“Just one last question: How the hell is the government funding the internet !!!???? Ever heard of Comcast or Verizon!!???”
I am referring to the origin of the Internet… created at a public university for use by the military and the scientific community.
- MrBook
October 6, 2009 6:24AM
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.