6 of 8

Yes

Write now Article Tools

4000 thousand people contract HIV each year in the United States and about 3600 contract Hepatitis C, of these people the majority are injection drug users. Needle exchange programs have proven to reduce the incidence of HIV by 30% in this population, the real question at hand is do you support federal funding for reducing HIV.

Needle exchange programs save lives and prevent the spread of blood borne pathogens; they allow addicts a fighting chance against their addictions. It is interesting to note the barefaced divide in opinion that is elicited by this issue; people feel very strongly about this issue, there appears to be no middle ground here. This is probably the result of the stigmatization, lack of education, and images provoked by intravenous drug use. The sad reality is that regardless of the presence of needle exchange programs, there are a certain number of people that will continue to use intravenous drugs, by allowing needle exchange programs to operate, with the aid of government funding, we allow the addict a real chance against their circumstances.

The perils of drug addiction do not lie in the drug use itself but in the danger imposed by societal constraints. It is limited access to clean needles, and the possibility of adulterants in illicit drugs that posses the greatest threat to the addict. The harm reduction philosophy aims to reduce potential harm associated with drug use without promoting drug use, the idea is to protect the addict from harm and reduce the possibility of infection. Unfortunately many people will use drugs in their life time the hope is to help these people during their addiction, to ensure that they one day may lead normal lives, regrettably for many, after drug use has stopped people find themselves facing a harsh reality; life with HIV or Hepatitis C.

The aim is not to encourage drug use but instead to make it less dangerous to the addict and society. Needle exchange programs often act as a gateway for the addict to other public health services such as, medical clinics, methadone clinics, mental health services, and other addiction related services. The life of the Intravenous drug user is difficult enough without the added problem of blood borne pathogens, it does not make sense to not utilize government funding in the prevention of diseases, simply because these people have substance abuse issues, which is considered to be a diseases in of it self, especially when it is so much cheaper to provide preventative care than

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Should the government fund needle exchange programs??
We want to hear your view. Write now!