House Repeals Needle Ban

[Dale_M]

Decision on Funding Thrills D.C. Officials Fighting the HIV/AIDS Epidemic

The House yesterday lifted a nine-year-old ban on using D.C. tax dollars to provide clean needles to drug addicts, handing city leaders what they consider a crucial new weapon against a severe AIDS epidemic.

Advocates say providing clean needles to addicts lessens the chance that they will share dirty ones, potentially passing on HIV and other blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis. Intravenous drug users make up about one-third of the District’s new AIDS cases annually.

In a statement, the Drug Policy Alliance noted that the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed needle-exchange programs as critical to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS without increasing drug use. Many such programs also urge treatment to overcome addiction.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801878.html?nav=rss_email/components

The article also quotes Rep. Mark Souder, who offered an amendment that would keep the ban in place. His amendment was narrowly defeated. Said Rep. Souder: “It is not compassionate to enable addicts to continue their addiction. What we need to do is get them off.”

I’m not sure how to feel about this change. On one hand I want to go with the experts. The HIV rate in Washington DC is something close to 5% - which is a rate rarely seen in the developed world. On the other hand, handing out needles is enabling continued IV drug abuse, which makes a person more exposed to the risk behaviors leading to HIV transmission. It seems a sticky wicket.

 

[emily47017]

it’s not so much enabling as harm reduction. we don’t yet have the resources/infrastructure/methodologies/public will to serve all drug users who want to quit… while we work on fixing that, there are still people out there using. needle exchanges at least help them to avoid passing on HIV in the process.

it’s frustrating to me that the politicians who fight harm reduction measures are the same ones who fight social programs that might indeed “get them off”.

 

[Andruschak]

Decision on Funding Thrills D.C. Officials Fighting the HIV/AIDS Epidemic

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801878.html?nav=rss_email/components

The article also quotes Rep. Mark Souder, who offered an amendment that would keep the ban in place. His amendment was narrowly defeated. Said Rep. Souder: “It is not compassionate to enable addicts to continue their addiction. What we need to do is get them off.”
.

That’s the problem. It costs money to provide treatment. It may take several rounds of treatment for some addicts. Some will relapse, some will never get into recovery.

In the long term, study after study has shown the value of treatment. But FUNDING…for facilities, therapists, and counselors?

 

[BobCatholic]

. Said Rep. Souder: “It is not compassionate to enable addicts to continue their addiction. What we need to do is get them off.”

Agreed.

However, there are those who are so pro-drug, they’ll rail against this congressman.

Pro-drug is not equal to compassionate.