Reasonable and informed decision making will always be at a disadvantage when compared to "what sounds good". Informed decision making involves research and careful consideration, weighing the pros and cons of situations and keeping an open mind until enough information is gathered that one can come to a reasonable conclusion. Human beings are, by their nature, lazy and have a tendency to do what is easy over what is prudent. I am not just talking about Sarah Palin style, slogan screaming conservatives here, I am talking about all of us. How many discussions have you seen here devolve into name calling and invective just because they're easy? To my shame, I've done a bit myself.
I just received an email from the San Francisco Aids Foundation which notified people that Congress had passed a bill this last summer on July 15 which removed the ban on using Federal money for needle exchange programs but that the Senate has not taken action on a bill which is currently going through that body. Please follow me below
To quote from the email:
Public health advocates, law enforcement agencies, mayors and service providers applauded this step to stand up for evidence-based public health practices. To date, the Senate has not taken any action and the fate of syringe exchange will be decided in conference later this month. Senators need to hear from President Obama that his Administration supports syringe exchange. Now is the time to urge President Obama to fulfill his campaign promise to end the ban on federal funding of syringe exchange. Please call the White House Comment Line TODAY at (202) 456-1414 or (202) 456-1111, or send President Obama an email through whitehouse.gov.
The arguments against needle exchanges might sound good to some people. "Needle exchanges send a message to people that we, as a society, are permissive and do not disapprove of drug use." These statements are always made without citing any evidence that they are actually true, but are made on the assumption that they must be true because they "sound right". They echo the claims of advocates of "abstinence only" sex education. It might sound good but take it from Sarah and Bristol Palin's experience, it doesn't work.
"If you allow needle exchanges in a neighborhood you will attract drug addicts to it and this will increase crime and result in used syringes littering the landscape." This sounds like a reasonable assertion at first, but if you just think about it a little you will realize these people live among us already and will do what they do with or without needle exchanges. The problem isn't needle exchanges, the problem is too few needle exchanges. If there is only one exchange in a city, then yes, that neighborhood will be impacted. If there are 50 exchanges in a city, perhaps operating out of already existing medical clinics which would be reimbursed by the federal government as a legitimate public health program, then no one will be adversely affected and we will reduce the spread of HIV and other blood born diseases.
Many people feel that "needle exchanges exist only for the benefit of addicts and that if addicts die or become ill then so what? We'll all be better off. Why should we spend money to enable people engaged in self-destructive behavior to be healthier?" In answer to these people I would say that addicts spread diseases to all of us, and that a government which does not advocate for the health of all of it's citizens does not promote the health of any of it's citizens. I would further argue that a long time ago we decided that we would not knowingly and willingly be the type of society that would just let people die or suffer if we could avoid it, but that we would take care of one another and promote the welfare of all, and that we would take seriously the claim that our citizens had the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As a former heroin addict I can assure you that an addict is not a thing, but a person at a stage in their life. Rather than waste time arguing over decisions which were made a long time ago, I suggest we move forward with a conversation about how we can improve our country and the health of it's people. Like the current struggle to reform health insurance coverage in this country, where 20,000 people die every year because of a lack of health insurance, the issue is really beyond argument when the facts are understood. We have on one side a group who lack any hint of empathy and whose talking points sometimes sound good but lack any scientific validity and on the other side people who understand the issues, have science on their side and who believe in promoting the common good. Like Ronald Reagan's Voodoo economics and "trickle down" theories, it's easy to sound right when you don't have to come up with facts or scientific studies.
Do needle exchanges work? Let's take a look.
From the Washington Post
In 1997, the National Institutes of Health said needle exchange programs contributed to an 80 percent reduction in risky behavior and a 30 percent decline in HIV infection. A quarter of HIV and AIDS infections in the United States were the result of drug use, according to AIDS Action
From the Minnasota Independent
Since the advent of needl-exchange programs in the state, Minnesota saw the number of people infected with HIV through needle use drop from 61 in 1992 to a low of 3 in 2005. In 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, Minnesota saw 13 cases of HIV where the route of infection could be traced to needle use — less than a fourth the rate seen in early- to mid-1990s
If you can find the time to make the call (or send the email) The San Francisco Aids Foundation is urging you to make please also urge the administration to advocate for a better bill as even the House bill is deeply flawed:
In the House bill, the restrictions are so tight that most needle exchanges in urban areas would essentially be unable to operate.
"[T]he bill ... prohibits needle exchanges within 1,000 feet of universities, pools, parks, video arcades ‘or an event sponsored by any such entity,’" notes Lillis.
A Senate version of the bill retains the ban on needle exchanges. But needle-exchange supporters will have to wait until September when the Senate and House meet to reconcile the two bills. It’s during that process that ban opponents are hoping to remove the restrictions in the House bill and eliminate the outright ban in the Senate version.