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:
"Drug War" does not properly deserve to be called a "failure." Failure implies some serious attempt at success. For the 40 years that I know about drug war , there has been no serious attempt at success or belief, except among a few fanatics, that the concept of repression through enforcement alone would have any chance of success. Even much maligned Richard Nixon, who is the progenitor of modern drug war, for the purely political reason that he saw his opponents as "pot smokers," proposed a budget that directed 50% of the drug-fighting funds to drug treatment.
Beat-cops know this; so do prosecutors. They are on the merry-go-round, they see how it goes around & around and down & down. A few of them even read the research. Those cops and prosecutors know that heroin prescription programs in Switzerland resulted in an 85% reduction in drug-related crime . You run the numbers --- even apart from the economic savings, you tell me what that rate of reduction in crime would do for the safety and security of American communities. Then go back and understand the underlying fact that 85% of these crimes are driven by the desperation of addiction, which is built into our system to insure profits for mobsters. Please, tell he how that makes sense? Drug war is not a failure, it is not even only a fraud although millions cynically profit from it, but when the people, who prosecute it, openly say that it doesn't work, there is a problem taking the concept of "drug-war," as anything other than a social harm, seriously. Yet, we continue to invest billions of borrowed dollars into the obvious failure and fraud, that "drug war" has become. America's "drug-war" is a farce.
Then we can talk about "They hate us for our freedom..." but don't get me started on what drug war has done to degrade the civil rights of citizens. As my father would have said: "It's a sin and a shame."
Compared to making heroin available to addicts or communicating the evisceration of our civil liberties in the name of "drug-war" ideology, advocacy for needle exchange is a no-brainer. Needle Exchange works; not doing needle exchange abets the spread of a sexually transmitted disease that threatens our children 's lives while failure to fully implement this reasonable prevention effort accelerates the bankruptcy of our public health system.
And the reason not to implement this successful intervention is... Quoi? ¿Que? What?
- Joey Tranchina
June 26, 2009 4:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I absolutely agree with supplying clean needles to addicts... through private organizations funded by voluntary donations.
We don't have a public health system (yet) and we should never adopt one.
- sunshiner424 October 5, 2009 11:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"I absolutely agree with supplying clean needles to addicts... through private organizations funded by voluntary donations."
If needle programs are just enabling addicts to do drugs then why would you support any program?
- MrBook October 6, 2009 7:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Then how doesn't that help the larger population?
- MrBook October 6, 2009 7:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It helps some of the larger population. I still want to support some but I want it funded by some (voluntarily)
- sunshiner424 October 7, 2009 11:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Jacob says: "Government should concentrate more on curing them completely..." The problem with that bit of fantasy is that neither Jacob nor the government know how to do that and while they delude themselves with magic opinions and fantastic solutions the blood borne pathogens continue to spread, where we know how to stop them. Syringe exchange is the most effective HIV intervention know to date. It deserves the full support of communities who have the will to live. Those who would rather keep their delusions intact rather than have lower rates of HIV, HBV, HCV infection, can continue to imagine the facts of life and suffer the consequences. Personally, I thought that it was better to lower the prevalence of HIV infection in the community where my children were growing up in order to increase their chances of survival. Jacob may have other priorities.
- Joey Tranchina September 10, 2009 10:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Should communities fund syringe exchange?
Only if they want to reduce the spread of HIV and HIV disease in the most efficient and cost-effective way currently possible.
What is the other side of this argument?
I don't believe there is one; not within the realm of reason or of compassion or of simple self-preservation. That does not eliminate all contrary arguments but it certainly minimizes the arguments that deserve our attention.
- Joey Tranchina June 25, 2009 5:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Basic Human Rights can only apply to personal ID matters (any supra-structural category), and in any other context to non-rivalry of rights.
That means, everybody have the right to fight for X. But anybody have the right, by condition or definition, to X.
Whether needles or medical treatment automatic rights are a destruction of the rights of other social rules obedient citizens, and that is not justice.
Social order can not survive on hostage taking menace.
To appeal to the pandemia argument is exactly that, a hostage taking threat.
In order to survive societies have condemned some attitudes and behaviors. One of them are drugs.
To assign responsabilities is futile endeavour...nature or nurture debate has not been solved yet.
The path of the middle on the drugs affair is legalizing drugs, a methadone program, and a compulsive restoring programm for drug adicts (of course, paid by adict with work while in treatment and after that...but the public is encouraged to support the cure financially -if it is their will-).
- Ricardo
January 18, 2009 12:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
We have a basic human right to life. Not to health . This is because one human's rights end where another's begin. So one man has the right to live freely and does not have the right to take away another man's right to live. The entire meaning of the right to life is that another person cannot rightfully cause you death. Then we also have the right to property and an unstated right to our own time and energy . In other words, you cannot force me to work for you and you cannot take what I have earned.
To say that everyone has a right to health is in itself a contradiction. Health sometimes relies on an expert and expensive treatments. Well, making a doctor serve someone is impinging on that man's rights so you have no right to do that. An addict having a right to needles is like saying everyone has a right to a car. I need a car because I can't get to work without one. Or I need a needle because I'll get sick without one. Simple solution: earn what you need by working for it. This is the only way large groups of people can live together peacefully. (Or communism but I'm not a big fan because there's not much freedom...) Every man deserves to use his time to help himself. A doctor does not become a doctor so that others can demand that he serves them.
If my community decides that they all want to fund needles to drug addicts, I need to live somewhere else. People who mess up in life should get what they deserve.
- sunshiner424 October 2, 2009 11:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Needle exchange is the next best thing to rehab.
If we can't get the drug user to rehab.The compassionate thing to do is keep them alive and healthy with needle exchange .
- countryboy July 26, 2009 6:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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
Should Cities Fund Needle Exchange Programs?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Question is Poorly Phrased
I GUESS I vote yes for this issue, but there is no distinction between private assistance and tax-funded programs. If they mean the city govt. should pay for it then I would say no.
- F2XL
November 6, 2008 7:31PM
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not with tax money
City govt.should not be forced to pay.Private assistance can and do a good job at this with out govt.
- countryboy
July 3, 2009 3:01PM
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.
Not much opposition here!
Dr. Martin posts succinct and complete arguments in favor of syringe exchange and as the Yes side we heartedly concur!
- Chicago Recovery Alliance November 8, 2008 7:14PM
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.
Why is it
Chicago seems to be the source of all the dumb socialism????
- sunshiner424
October 3, 2009 1:13PM
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.
Chicago
It must be the water !
- countryboy
October 4, 2009 7:01PM
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.
seems like they want to promote it
Why not offer rehab rather then needles
- cc76
March 22, 2009 9:40PM
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.
Because some wont go to rehab.
Needle exchange is a good program,as long as we keep it out of the govt.hands.
- countryboy
July 3, 2009 3:16PM
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.
Simply abstaining isn't as easy as many people believe.
Simply put, "DEAD ADDICTS DO NOT RECOVER''. Yes, rehab works for a great deal of people, although sometimes many attempts are required in order to lead a sober life. Offering clean needles to addicts isn't going to make them use more, just safely. Not only does using dirty "works" increase the chances of contracting HIV or Hepatitis C, but also increases chances of an addict injecting other contaminates into the bloodstream, causing infections & abscesses. If an abscess occurs, they likely don't have a Primary Care Physician. This means they are likely going to an ER, usually without insurance. Which costs taxpayers more money ? Hospital visits. Please put your thoughts away concerning your view on drugs "being bad", addiction is a disease, not necessarily a choice. Read some medical research on the subject.
- Lizzbot
May 27, 2009 12:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
As a conservative, I have to agree with you.
People who are addicted to drugs , which IV heroin users usually are, are not criminals for their use of drugs. Sure, like other criminals, they are likely to commit crimes to support their habit, but the habit itself should not be a crime . Just the habit supporting illegal acts.
It is too simplistic to lump them together as criminal behavior. It is bad public policy to try and protect people from themselves. It is an attack on personal liberty and by refusing to allow heroin addicts the opportunity to reach the point in their lives where they have to choose between their drug or their life, we as a society are effectively enabling them to continue.
I change my vote from "uncommitted" to "yes".
- SolarSanitizer
October 5, 2009 9:28AM
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.
Absolutely true statement
"It is bad public policy to try and protect people from themselves."
However, you are supporting the opposite. Who chooses to use dirty needles? Who are we protecting by handing out free ones?
No, they are not criminals. They have every right to do whatever they want to their own bodies. We shouldn't be paying for their choices.
- sunshiner424
October 5, 2009 11:38AM
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.
We are paying so that their addiction
Causes less impact on system due to expensive treatments of Hepatitis, HIV , AIDS , and abscess/infection. Clean needles can easily be seen as charitable giving, in this case.
Alternatively, I see your point and agree to a point. Charity should not be forced as are taxes . And I admit that taxes are the source of revenue for this program. The enigma occurs when we consider how impossible it would be for the church to acquire donations for clean needles for drug addicts.
I guess this is a case where, given the circumstances, the ends might justify the means.
WWJD?
- SolarSanitizer
October 5, 2009 11:55AM
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.
fund needle exchage programs any way possible
IMO, it doesn't matter if private money , city, state or federal money is used for needle exchage programs. Anyone that thinks a junkie can just say no to their addiction is foolishly deluded. They will also use dirty needles if they need a fix due to withdrawal. I would also suggest that we fund EFFECTIVE treatment programs, and that involuntary commitment be used to get junkies clean, whether it takes a day, week, month or year. This is called civic responsibility IMO. Current treatment programs try to do well, but have poor funding and usually cannot provide enough treatment to be effective in the long term.
- BostonGuy55
June 10, 2009 5:21PM
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.
Absolutely not
This is extremely foolish to even think of. You do illegal drugs, your breaking the law , but LETS give out needles just so these criminals can stay HIV free. No, no, no. It WAS their choice to take the drugs, it's their choice to not get help, it's their choice to use someone else's needle so they can suffer the consequences. All this will do is encourage and promote drug use. This is a foolish program that makes anti-drug promotion ineffective.
- Dylandts
August 13, 2009 9:08PM
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.
Absolutely YES...jt
You speak with confidence and conviction, in abstractions, but you do not know what you're talking about.
- Joey Tranchina
September 10, 2009 10:33PM
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.
How so?
How so then? Addiction?
- Dylandts
September 26, 2009 9:34PM
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.
Absolutely not
YEAH how so I agree with with our fellow marine and I am wondering what it is you mean by ur comment.
- muffmonster36
September 30, 2009 12:42PM
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.
Absolutely YES because it works...jt
Try this Marine. More Americans have died of AIDS that died in WW II and Nam, combined. What do you do about an enemy that's spreading geometrically when you know how to prevent a great deal of the spread? Do you do nothing, because you are waiting for some "anti-drug promotion" programs to work when they do clearly not work? Do you watch people die and sit on your can or do you do what you know how to do --- what scientific studies here and all over the world have demonstrated conclusively works --- to protect your brothers & sisters and make the world a little safer for your children ? It was a clear decision for me. Make sure that as many people as possible had clean needles.
I've been taking needle exchange clients to the VA in Menlo Park, CA for 20 years. Many of our clients have been Viet Nam Vets; now more & more are Iraq & Afghanistan vets. There are complex reasons for addiction, but dramatically reducing the spread of HIV among injectors, is relatively straight forward.. Needle Exchange Saves Lives. You have no right to call these programs "foolish," considering that you know nothing about them. If you want to learn, I'll be glad to refer you to research that has earned the respect of an overwhelming consensus of medical professionals around the world.
Do not make the mistake of confusing addiction with AIDS. Preventing HIV disease among IDU is efficient and hopeful. Treating addiction is complex, time-consuming, expensive and uncertain. AIDS doesn't wait.
What do you do when it hits the fan? You do what you can.
- Joey Tranchina
October 4, 2009 10:22PM
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.
With whose money?
What makes it right to steal?
- sunshiner424
October 5, 2009 11:40AM
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.
Anyone
Anyone that truly want's to help is gonna get off their butt's and DO something to stop the addiction and stop the drug use all together. If my buddy was doing drug's I'd set him straight, and I'd do everything I could to help him stay DRUG free. I'm not gonna give him that needle to make it easier to do drugs . If anything the possibility of getting AIDS is gonna make people think twice about doing drugs and sticking that needle in their arm.
- Dylandts
October 17, 2009 9:57PM
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.
Absolutely not
OOOORAH!!! well said.
- muffmonster36
September 30, 2009 12:38PM
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.
Good initiative .. but ..
Instead of directly giving the easy way out to people and indirectly telling them that we are with you and you can carry on with whatever you are doing, why dont government tries harder to inspire these people to go to rehab and completely get rid of their addiction. There are rehabs like malibu drug rehabilitation with a good success rate. Government should concentrate more on curing them completely instead of telling them that doing this is okie and we will help you do this safely.
- jacob
September 4, 2009 6:25AM
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.
programs
“There are rehabs like malibu drug rehabilitation with a good success rate.”
Solid rehab programs are fairly expensive to run, and we are dealing with limited resources.
“Government should concentrate more on curing them completely instead of telling them that doing this is okie and we will help you do this safely.”
The assumption here is that only one possible program can exist at a given time. Needle exchange programs work in conjunction with rehab / counseling programs by limiting the spread of blood born diseases.
- MrBook
October 3, 2009 11:54PM
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 think
That even if you give people clean needles they are still going to be too lazy to change them after every use or stop sharing them.
- Memo213
September 23, 2009 12:35AM
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.
Should Cities Fund Needle Exchange Programs?
No I do not think we should even tho I am all for legalizing marijuana I do believe most drugs use is A major problem for all countries and should not encouraged by no means by giving out clean needles it say's hey we're ok with this if they ain't got enough since to use a clean one then they deserve what they get and if they haven't the money they don't need to be spending what they do have on drug's.
- muffmonster36
September 30, 2009 12:26PM
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.