4 of 8

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 4

dies away and she moves on as he moves down. Neither at this stage is aware they are infected with Hepatitis C, by far the biggest blood borne virus problem in injecting dug use.

It does not take a genius to work out where this is going. Hepatitis C out in the community, away from drug users, expanding its influence dramatically and all because the drug users could not get clean needles.

Now let's jump forward five years and add HIV as another player in the game, can you imagine how many people could be infected from this original couple by now? Now count the cost of these infections. The argument that money from things like Medicare would be wasted on needle exchange is now ridiculous, because the money that treating these blood borne virus outbreaks costs is exponentially higher than the cost of a good needle exchange program. In the UK we calculate that for every 1 spent on needle exchange we save 10 in medical costs. Yes, we actually save money in the long run.

The arguments about cost are therefore completely nullified by the realities of the situation. The argument that giving people clean needles didn't stop the AIDS epidemic is also false, it most certainly did have a massive impact and continues to do so. The massive rise in the prevalence of AIDS came about through risky sexual practices not through injecting drug use.

Not providing harm reduction initiatives amounts to burying our head in the sand and supports only the prohibition stance. But let us bear in mind that, since the very earliest records we have available, human beings have taken mind altering substances. We always have and we always will. The US has spent well over a trillion dollars fighting the so called "war on drugs" and yet it is now easier to get them. The simple fact of the matter is this; not once, in any example of prohibition, in any country in the world, even when the death penalty is applied, has prohibition achieved anything of note. Nothing. The authorities can argue that they have locked up X number of drug dealers but the fact its, X+5 dealers have taken their place. We can argue that it's the only way to protect our children but in fact, education is the best way to do that. The evidence against a prohibitive stance is now completely overwhelming and it is only an ill-informed moral high ground that believes this to be a way forward. It is not, the evidence is there.

A writer has suggested we should use the money from needle exchange programs to help stop the use of drugs

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next page >>

Add your voice

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