Can anyone help me find the arguements in these sentences?

I
I
CLEAN NEEDLES BENEFIT SOCIETY
USA Today
Our view: Needle exchanges prove effective as AIDS counterattack.
They warrant wider use and federal backing.
Nothing gets knees jerking and fingers wagging like free needle-exchange
programs. But strong evidence is emerging that they鈥檙e working.
The 37 cities trying needle exchanges are accumulating impressive
data that they are an effective tool against spread of an epidemic now in its
13th year.
鈥?In Hartford, Conn., demand for needles has quadrupled expectations鈥?br> 32,000 in nine months. And free needles hit a targeted
population: 55% of used needles show traces of AIDS virus.
鈥?In San Francisco, almost half the addicts opt for clean needles.
鈥?In New Haven, new HIV infections are down 33% for addicts in
exchanges.
Promising evidence. And what of fears that needle exchanges increase
addiction? The National Commission on AIDS found no evidence. Neither
do new studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

An argument is a postulation. So: "Needle exchanges prove effective as AIDS counterattack." is the statement in need of verification. "They warrant wider use and federal backing." is the postulation.
The rest of the article is an attempt to verify the first statement.

further:
After re-reading the article the question; "And what of fears that needle exchanges increase addiction?" can actually be perceived as an argument with "The National Commission on AIDS found no evidence. Neither do new studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association." being the statements of verification.
Technically the question poses an argument but is in fact not an argument. So the following statements are in effect voiding the need for argument.
Kind of confusing huh?
Just look for a statement that requires verification. That statement is usually the argument.
I hope this helped.

forget about it

This article explains how The exchange of needles encourages people to continue in their drug habits (more than before)

I would say the argument here would be how is promoting drugs is not benefiting society.

You should do your own homework.

This has been going on for years. I don't mean the free needles but the arguments for and against the idea. I feel that it encourages the use of drugs.

Needle exchange encourages more people to continue in their drug habits just like a gun exchange would encourage continued killing.

There are really two parts, components. There are the facts such as, "鈥?In New Haven, new HIV infections are down 33% for addicts in
exchanges." and there is analysis or commentary that is supported by the facts. An example of analysis or commentary would be "Needle exchanges prove effective as AIDS counterattack."

Free Needle exchange programs are popular with addicts, reduce the spread of AIDS, and are not proven to increase addiction.
That is the argument of all the sentences.

No one is arguing for or against anything here/ just stating an opinion piece about the effectiveness of a needle exchange program in regards to slowing down the spread of HIV. This column would be printed in the opinion piece as it is not an argumentive piece with pro's and con's either way. Neither is it stating a daily news worthy item to make it valid for front page fodder. It is making a bias judgement for the positive effects and finding no negtive. A true article that would want to give its case would showcase all of the negative and the positive letting the reader decide for him/herself. He would also argue the negative of his positive to reinforce his position. This article is only one sided.