Ambular

Story 1 - Philadelphia Inquirer

Story 2 - Gloucester County Times

Story 3 - Courier Post Online

I was curious what people's opinions on this were ...

It's about New Jersey's new Needle-Exhange Program that's about to go into effect. Apparantly, Jersey and Delaware are the only US states that have not adopted this progam yet!

Personally, I really don't think it' such a great idea at all. I mean, I completely support instituting programs that will help bring down the number of people infected with HIV/AIDS, but more in terms of counseling or treatment, not free needles.

I just don't feel like it's really going to make a substantial change in the number of people infected, because all we are doing is now distributing an overabundance of needles that can still infect others if not properly disposed of. Another article I read said that this program will allow drug-users to get up to 10 needles at a time, not to mention that they will be permitted to get new needles from pharmacies without being required to have a prescription. The problem here is, I have a hard time that all drug users are going to throw them out once they ARE used in a safe way.

Like I mentioned on another thread, my boyfriend (who works for our town's Department of Public Works) has, on several occasions, found used needles lying on the ground, and even on children's playgrounds. Also, once, while removing the garbage from the public trash cans that are out on the street, he was stabbed in the leg with a used needle because whoever had it couldn't be bothered to put it inside something so that it would not poke out of the bag and possibly injure someone.

I just think this kind of stuff will be happening non-stop if there are that many more needles circulating around, and if it's that easy to obtain them.

I also think that this is so much bigger than just the AIDS issue. (And I don't say "just AIDS" to downplay it; I realize it is a very serious health issue in our country, and I am aware of the growing number of people who have died from it). But if you think about it, won't this increase the number of drug users in our country? Because now they can feel free to shoot up without fear of being arrested for carrying drug paraphanelia, since it was issued by our state government? I would think that the fear of AIDS is what keeps a lot of people from even trying it, don't you?

I don't know, I'm rambling a lot. But I could think of plenty of cases where this can do more harm than good...

Raonaild

I'm curious how you feel about this then: http://www.vch.ca/sis/

Vancouver has gone beyond simple needle-exchange programs and actually provides needles AND a safe site to inject where medical staff (and counsellors) are onhand to supervise.

Ambular

Raonaild , I most certainly think that the program Vancouver offers is a hell of a lot better, being that the "drug use" is supervised and the needles aren't at risk of ending up in the streets where children can pick them up.

Regardless, though, it doesn't make any sense to me how someone can shoot up in their home, without sharing needles or throwing them into public areas, and get thrown in jail simply for having the drugs and needles on them.

Or that very same person can walk into a clinic and have someone watch them shoot up heroin with their needles instead, and suffer no other consequences other than the drug itself.

It doesn't seem right.

Also, are these counseling services required, or simply "available"? Because I think they should be forced to if they are going to be getting free drug paraphanelia.

mh67511

I'm surprised the police don't hide out and see who is getting the free needles. Seems like it would make their job a heck of a lot easier.

I don't really know what to think about this. I have very mixed feelings on it. Obviously I don't want anyone to get AIDS but for every action this is a reaction....everything you do has a consequence and people need to start realizing that.

Then again if these creeps do get AIDS the taxpayers will probably start footing their medical bills and whatnot so might as well give them a few needles as it will save us money in the long run, hopefully.

Ambular

That's what I'm curious about. Can someone get arrested walking back to their home from the clinic if an officer sees them with needles? Even if they were legally given to him?

mh67511

I don't having the needle is what would be illegal. I think it's then having the drugs that would be illegal but I would think they could just follow these people and then catch them in the act.

Raonaild

There's a trade off ... you want drug users to use needle exchange programs and safe injection sites to prevent the spread of disease and make sure they don't OD, but you can drive them away by putting too many restrictions on it, ie. by forcing them to take counselling. I think the idea with Vancouver's program is just by having those services available in the same place that people are using the drugs encourages the users to use them when they're ready. If you try to force counselling or rehab onto someone who isn't interested, it's not going to be as effective, or they'll just avoid the place.

As for the relationship with police, I think these programs have to be run with police cooperation. If the cops hung around these safe injection sites or needle exchanges, it would chase people away, completely defeating the purpose. What they're trying to do in Vancouver is emphasize the prosecution of the drug dealers and prevent robberies committed by drug users to fund their habit, rather than going after the users directly. I believe there have been some accusations of police intimidation at the site, but overall it is being run with the support of the Vancouver Police. In fact, one of its biggest proponents is the city's Mayor, who's a former police drug officer and city coroner.

Ambular

But don't you think that, if the clinics hand out needles to you, and let you even shoot up in front of them, but don't insist that you enroll in a counseling program, it's more or less going to sound like they are condoning your drug use? Or don't really care if you go home and OD, because it's only important to them that you stop contributing to the AIDS epidemic and not that you get clean? I know it isn't their responsibility to rehabiliate every drug user in the city, and it ultimately has to be something that the invidivual would cooperate with, but, I just don't think it sounds right not to do something about it.

pacifierrocks

i think the needle-exchange program is a good idea. i mean, i think drug using is bad but i'd rather have people use drugs and be safe and not infect other people. i think about it this way, what if there's a drug user and he's sharing needles. then one day decides to go straight. has a little family, everything going fine and then he finds out he has HIV/AIDS.

Ambular

Or what if people start ODing and dying inside the clinics, because they are making it that much easier for them to use the drugs?

Raonaild

That is why they have medical supervision at the site. It's not like it's making it easier to get drugs though, nor are the medical staff helping them take the drugs ... they could OD on what they have whether they were at the site or not.

As for condoning ... look, the downtown East Side of Vancouver has a huge AIDS and Hepatitis C problem due to intravenous drug use, one of the worst in North America. Something needs to be done about it. As another Vancouver mayor said, "It's pretty obvious you can't incarcerate your way out of the drug problem. You can't liberalize your way out of it and just give anybody the drugs they want, " he says. "You can't ignore it. So you manage it." You manage the harm, try to keep these people alive and healthy and give them options that could lead to them getting out of their addiction. You keep them from hurting other people by keeping them from injecting on the streets. You give these hopeless people a bit of hope, show them that society does actually care whether they live or die.

As I was doing some research on this, I found a recent article on the site, and the success they've had in their first year of operation:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/nati...ite040927.html

Ambular

I'm not talking about supplying them with actual drugs, though, just easier venues of using them.

I totally agree that we need to give them whatever help we can, and assure them that their health is valuable to us - and that is exactly why I think this sends the wrong message. I think there are other ways of helping somoene's problem than feeding into it, even if it seems like a worthy cause. It's like having supervised keg parties at AA meetings. I realize that alcoholism is not spreading disease to other people the way drug use does, but it is still assisting them in continuing to do something that harms their body.

And is AIDS as much of a worldwide problem as drug use is? I really don't know, so it's a legit question for whoever knows the answer...

Raonaild

The difference is that people in AA want to quit. But what about someone who's an alcoholic who refuses to deal with the problem? Maybe you can't force them to stop drinking, but you can convince them not to drive drunk and give them a place to sleep it off. Sure, maybe you're making their alcoholism more comfortable and giving them less incentive to stop, but at least you're saving lives. Until they're prepared to help themselves, maybe that's all you can do.

The difference I think between alcoholics and drug users too (the kind of street IV drug users we're talking about anyway) is that if you want an alcoholic to change, shutting them out and only supporting them when they are prepared to deal with their problem might actually work ... they're part of society, if society rejects them, that may be an incentive to change their ways. If a person starts using drugs because they already feel rejected by society, hopeless and unimportant, society rejecting them more by saying they'll only help if the person changes might just make them more hopeless, not give them any incentive to change.

I'm not saying that there is no validity to your point, that it's not possible that these sort of programs could be interpreted as condoning drug use ... it's not a perfect solution, but at least it's doing something, rather than sticking with the traditional strategies that were not working.

TheAngel

I think the needle-exchange program is a good temporary fix. I personally would rather have people not taking the drug at all but I also understand the fact that most IV drugs have a relapse rate of nearly 100%. They're highly addictive and the withdrawls can easily kill someone so counseling and other programs won't work unless these people undergo a personal change and decide they want to quit because of the effort that quitting these drugs calls for. Obviously needles are going to end up in places that they shouldn't but probabaly a number less of them than if people weren't going to needle exchange sites. At least if there are a group of people that are using clean needles every time they shoot up then the spread of AIDS and HIV might go down amongst IV drug users. There will be a minority that doesn't use clean needles and throws their needles into the street but I'm tired of the majority being punished for something that the minority does.

Ambular

But the clinics in New Jersey are not going to have supervised injections, they just give you new needles to use. I have read many, many news articles covering this over the last month, and none of them specifically said that the users would be shooting up in the clinics and then disposing of them under proper supervision, rather they just hand you clean ones and send you on your way. And also, pharmacies can do the very same thing. Which means that these people can still use their 10 free needles and then throw them wherever they want.

I'm not saying that every intravenous drug user in our state is a depraved junkie who doesn't care to throw their dirty syringes in the streets, but a good enough number of them do that makes this a big concern on mine.