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.
Logic and research tell us no one鈥檚 saying, 鈥淗ey, they鈥檙e giving away
free, clean hypodermic needles! I think I鈥檒l become a drug addict!鈥?br>
Get real. Needle exchange is a soundly based counterattack against an
epidemic. As the federal Centers for Disease Control puts it, 鈥淩emoving
contaminated syringes from circulation is analogous to removing mosquitoes.鈥?br>
Addicts know shared needles are HIV transmitters. Evidence shows
drug users will seek out clean needles to cut chances of almost certain
death from AIDS.
Needle exchanges neither cure addiction nor cave in to the drug
scourge. They鈥檙e a sound, effective line of defense in a population at high
risk. (Some 28% of AIDS cases are IV drug users.) And AIDS treatment costs
taxpayers far more than the price of a few needles.
It鈥檚 time for policymakers to disperse the fog of rhetoric, hyperbole and
scare tactics and widen the program to attract more of the nation鈥檚 1.2 million
IV drug users.
PROGRAMS DON鈥橳 MAKE SENSE
Peter B. Gemma Jr.
Opposing view: It鈥檚 just plain stupid for government to sponsor dangerous,
illegal behavior.
If the Clinton administration initiated a program that offered free tires to
drivers who habitually and dangerously broke speed limits鈥攖o help them
avoid fatal accidents from blowouts鈥攖axpayers would be furious. Spending
government money to distribute free needles to junkies, in an attempt to
help them avoid HIV infections, is an equally volatile and stupid policy.
It鈥檚 wrong to attempt to ease one crisis by reinforcing another.
It鈥檚 wrong to tolerate a contradictory policy that spends people鈥檚 hardearned
money to facilitate deviant behavior.
And it鈥檚 wrong to try to save drug abusers from HIV infection by perpetuating
their pain and suffering.
Taxpayers expect higher health-care standards from President Clinton鈥檚
public-policy 鈥渆xperts.鈥?br>
Inconclusive data on experimental needle-distribution programs is no
excuse to weaken federal substance-abuse laws. No government bureaucrat
can refute the fact that fresh, free needles make it easier to inject illegal
drugs because their use results in less pain and scarring.
Underwriting dangerous, criminal behavior is illogical: If you subsidize
something, you鈥檒l get more of it. In a Hartford, Conn., needle-distribution
program, for example, drug addicts are demanding taxpayer-funded needles
at four times the expected rate. Although there may not yet be evidence of
increased substance abuse, there is obviously no incentive in such schemes
to help drug-addiction victims get cured.
Inconsistency and incompetence will undermine the public鈥檚 confidence
in government health-care initiatives regarding drug abuse and the
AIDS epidemic. The Clinton administration proposal of giving away needles
hurts far more people than [it is] intended to help.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
81
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 You have two opposing arguments here, one is well supported and sensible, the other relies on rhetoric and bad analogies. The first argument makes a lot of sense, the second is poor.
Note how the first argument relies heavily on actual facts and statistics to show that the programs are accomplishing what they set out to do.
Let's compare the analogies used in each. The first compares infected needles to mosquitos that spread illness. Getting rid of the infecting mosquitos will reduce the amount of new infections. This analogy is pretty good because it accurately compares needles that carry HIV and can spread it with Mosquitos that also specifically carry disease and can spread it. The similarity between needles and mosquitos makes the analogy memorable.
The second argument compares exchanging needles with giving new tires to bad drivers. Huh? In needle exchanges you are taking needles which specifically carry the disease and can directly spread it from the drug user to someone he shares the needle with. You are taking away the specific threat that carries the danger you are trying to reduce and replacing it with something safe. In the tire example you are changing tires for bad drivers but the tires aren't the source of their bad driving nor are they very relevant to what poses a threat to others. Rarely are tire blowouts the way that bad drivers injur people. But HIV infected needles are a primary way that addicts spread AIDS. Also, tires are expensive, needles aren't. Tires are a benefit anyone would want. Give bad drivers needles and it's like a reward. Needles are something nobody but someone already an addict wants. Exchanging needles won't encourage anyone to get involved in drugs.
The second argument doesn't address at all whether needle exchanges will reduce the spread of HIV. That's their purpose. It only says that it wants the addiction cured. Well, that's another matter entirely. Nothing stops us from using another effort to stop addiction- in the meantime we can reduce HIV spread with needle exchange.
The first is well argued and well reasoned, the second argument is unconvincing. Your question rambled...however I believe in clean needle exchange programs. yes ok |
