Do you support the end of the syringe-exchange program?

jamesrage said:

I think the legality of their drug habit is irrelevant. Tax payers should not encourage recreational drug needle use by allowing junkies to exchange their needles or to bail them out when their habit gets them infected with a disease.

Click to expand...

Right - taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill so they can exchange needles in order to keep infections down to a minimum.

But taxpayers should foot the bill for the court costs to try them for drug possession and drug use. And to pay for their imprisonment. And to pay for their medical care for the abuses perpetuated on them by prisoners with more violent behaviors. And to pay for increased police presence in order to prevent those ex-convicts from committing theft just to survive when they can't get a job because of their criminal record for drug possession.

Which then starts the taxpayers' cycle all over again...

samsmart said:

And it shouldn't be against the law to use recreational drugs. Just because something is against the law does not justify it remaining against the law. Something should be against the law because it violates the public good. And criminalization of recreational drugs does much more public harm than it does public good.

Click to expand...

Yes it should. People don't have the right to use dangerous substances in order to obtain a high. It's not necessary. It's completely illogical for us to have a medical model that says certain drugs need to be prescribed and monitored (like cholesterol meds, diabetes meds, etc) due to the potential dangers while allowing people to use drugs like crack and heroine because they need/want a high.

Drug addicts and users are a burden upon society and eventually a burden upon healthcare. There is absolutely no public god that arises when someone uses a dangerous substance to get a high. If someone can't self treat with simvastatin because it might hurt their liver why should someone be allowed to use drugs and rot their livers out?

samsmart said:

...criminalization of recreational drugs does much more public harm than it does public good.

Click to expand...

precisely that ^^^

my signature below reflects that... drugs are bad, prohibition is worse.

samsmart said:

Right - taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill so they can exchange needles in order to keep infections down to a minimum.

Click to expand...

I do not care if people who engage in reckless behavior get hurt because of that reckless behavior.

But taxpayers should foot the bill for the court costs to try them for drug possession and drug use. And to pay for their imprisonment. And to pay for their medical care for the abuses perpetuated on them by prisoners with more violent behaviors. And to pay for increased police presence in order to prevent those ex-convicts from committing theft just to survive when they can't get a job because of their criminal record for drug possession.

Which then starts the taxpayers' cycle all over again...

Click to expand...

I do not agree with certain recreational drugs being illegal and I find the punishments to be excessive.It amounts to making someone pays thousands of dollars for a 99 cent song or executing someone because they speed 5 miles over the speed limit. violent and non-violent offenders should be separated and in different facilities.

digsbe said:

Yes it should. People don't have the right to use dangerous substances in order to obtain a high. It's not necessary. It's completely illogical for us to have a medical model that says certain drugs need to be prescribed and monitored (like cholesterol meds, diabetes meds, etc) due to the potential dangers while allowing people to use drugs like crack and heroine because they need/want a high.

Drug addicts and users are a burden upon society and eventually a burden upon healthcare. There is absolutely no public god that arises when someone uses a dangerous substance to get a high. If someone can't self treat with simvastatin because it might hurt their liver why should someone be allowed to use drugs and rot their livers out?

Click to expand...

There are, actually, public good that happens when someone uses a substance to get high.

Recreational drugs are used as a coping mechanism for stress. People face different levels of stress throughout their lives. People have to find ways to cope with that stress.

There are many methods of doing so, and a number are extremely safe. Take a hot bath. Listen to music. Watch television.

But different levels of stress require different levels of coping with them. And extremely stressful situation often require extremely drastic methods of coping with that stress.

Which is why many people use recreational drugs at different levels.

I do physical labor. I have body aches and pains many days because of it. To alleviate that stress sometimes I will drink a beer when I get home. The level I drink is my choice.

But I should also be able to smoke a joint if I want in order to relax. Or, if I feel the need, shoot myself up with heroin. Or use morphine. Or use meth.

And that doesn't even count the use of recreational drugs for spiritual use, such as LSD or ecstasy for "mind expanding" purposes.

And the cost to the public to educate me and allow me that choice is much less than the cost to the public to prevent me from doing so.

digsbe said:

Yes it should. People don't have the right to use dangerous substances in order to obtain a high.

It's not necessary.

It's completely illogical for us to have a medical model that says certain drugs need to be prescribed and monitored (like cholesterol meds, diabetes meds, etc) due to the potential dangers while allowing people to use drugs like crack and heroine because they need/want a high.

Drug addicts and users are a burden upon society
and eventually a burden upon healthcare.

Click to expand...

Says who?

If the legality of actions were determined by necessity then almost everything would be criminalized.

Most of that stems from legal implications if a medical professional prescribes a substance that induces harm upon a patient. Nobody is claiming that recreational drugs (non medical/non-prescribed) are beneficial to ones health. It's simply a matter of free will. It's not illegal for an individual to take an excess of cholesterol meds/sleeping pills to induce self-harm, so why the double standard?

That's a subjective point of view that most agree with, but then again you could apply that to alchoholics, the morbidly obese, individuals who drive fast cars, or engage in action sports, etc. etc.

To solve the problem I think drug offenses should be more rehab based and instead of jail time force them to pay heavy fines or do manual labor in prison while getting through a rehab program.

samsmart said:

There are, actually, public good that happens when someone uses a substance to get high.

Recreational drugs are used as a coping mechanism for stress. People face different levels of stress throughout their lives. People have to find ways to cope with that stress.

There are many methods of doing so, and a number are extremely safe. Take a hot bath. Listen to music. Watch television.

But different levels of stress require different levels of coping with them. And extremely stressful situation often require extremely drastic methods of coping with that stress.

Which is why many people use recreational drugs at different levels.

I do physical labor. I have body aches and pains many days because of it. To alleviate that stress sometimes I will drink a beer when I get home. The level I drink is my choice.

But I should also be able to smoke a joint if I want in order to relax. Or, if I feel the need, shoot myself up with heroin. Or use morphine. Or use meth.

And that doesn't even count the use of recreational drugs for spiritual use, such as LSD or ecstasy for "mind expanding" purposes.

And the cost to the public to educate me and allow me that choice is much less than the cost to the public to prevent me from doing so.

Click to expand...

There are legal coping mechanisms for stress. If someone is stressed to the point of it taking a toll on their lives they can see a therapist who will clinically manage their stress with therapy and possibly legal medications that are designed for stress/anxiety.

Being stressed is not a valid reason for using very hard drugs. What do you do when stress treatment turns into addiction which leads to withdrawal which leads to a constant need to use the drug in order to keep withdrawal away? What about when their organs rot or they have health complications? I can understand the argument behind marijuana, but heroine, morphine, and especially meth should never, ever be legalized (especially under the argument that people have a right to use it to alleviate stress).

Like I said. If someone's stress level is to the point that it takes a toll on their personal lives/they cannot manage it someone can see a therapist who will try non-prescription stress management therapies and move towards a prescription if those methods don't work. We've already got medications specifically formulated for stress/anxiety that are far safer and would be monitored by healthcare professionals.

kaya'08 said:

In the United States, many people diagnosed with HIV are infected by dirty needles used to inject themselves with drugs.

Thanks to the War on Drugs, one of the biggest demographics in US prisons are convicted drug users, in a country that has stigmatized drug use and treats addicts as criminals, treating everything but the root cause itself.

Drug addiction is a very real thing - the prison system has thus far been ineffectual and so has every drugs policy pursued by every President since this problem began.

But now that components of the US government want to pull the plug on the syringe-exchange program, where does that leave us? Does encouraging the use of dirty needles dissuade addicts from taking the drug? What impact will this have on rates of infection across America?

Do you support the termination of the syringe-exchange program?

Congressional GOP Wants To End Federal Needle Exchange Program

Click to expand...

People usually aren't thrown in jail just for being an addict - usually they do other things and commit other crimes that lead to arrest and conviction.

Drug addiction is a personal choice that people make - you can't tell me it's not. They know it's unhealthy. They know it's traumatizing. They know it's immoral, they know that by using theyr'e risking their freedom, health and the livihood of family (etc) . . . and so on: And if someone wants to choose being an addict, choose to continue it, and choose to commit other crimes - the best place for them IS in the prison system.

so - what really needs to change isn't our social unacceptance of drugs and drug use in our society - but how we *might* respond to those who are addicts and SHOW they want to be clean. . . which we do within the prison system, actually.

For those who don't care and prove that they only intend on re-using after a jail sentence is served: continuation of jail-time is better than releasing them onto the streets to just perpetuate their drug use and *more importantly* their criminal activity. . . as it is right now.

Needle programs just perpetuate the cycle of drug use: to lower the rate of one ailment (AIDS) they perpetuated another problem (the government supplying the vital element necessary to be an addict: the needles)

I don't support this just as much as I don't support our ridiculous weapons programs the provide the enemy with firearms to 'track' it with a ill-perceived 'positive'

digsbe said:

To solve the problem I think drug offenses should be more rehab based and instead of jail time force them to pay heavy fines or do manual labor in prison while getting through a rehab program.

Click to expand...

Lets look at portugal.

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.


Read more: Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME

Click to expand...

As for the U.S:

As Webb noted, the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners.

Read more: Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME

Click to expand...

So it is clear now that the illegalization of drugs has done nothing to help drug victims or society, but has instead created a 400 billion drugs market that helps FUND the very people who have destroyed mexico, somalia, afghanistan, colombia and of course, the World Trade Center buildings - for if it where not for drugs trafficking, Al Qaeda couldnt even exist in its current form.

Thats the statistics on the ground, thats the reality of the destruction prohibition has - once AGAIN - caused.

kaya'08 said:

Lets look at portugal.



As for the U.S:



So it is clear now that the illegalization of drugs has done nothing to help drug victims or society, but has instead created a 400 billion dollar black market industry FUNDING the very people who have destroyed mexico, somalia, afghanistan and of course, the World Trade Center. It is believed that if it where not for drugs trafficking, Al Qaeda couldnt even exist in its current form.

Click to expand...

Portugal is a tiny country with a different culture and people. We can't compare a tiny country with a nation of 300 million + with more diversity.

We need to crack down on drug sellers and imports. Like I said, we also need to be more rehab based instead of criminal corrective based with drug abuses. Make them pay hefty fines or work labor if they can't afford them while forcing them into a rehab program.

Hare said:

Not without exception, but the legalization of drugs would most likely lead to easier acess to cleaner, safer paraphernalia such as needles.

Click to expand...

People who use steroids have no problem getting clean needles. In most places you walk into a Walgreens and take them off the shelf. No, it's the lifestyle that leads to dirty needles. Making all drugs (I'm not argueing that all drugs should be illegal) legal will not change this.

marduc said:

Nahh, that is just what you want him to be saying so you can argue against something.

If drugs were legal there would not be an end around attempt to discourage use by limiting the availability of needles however.. so the instances of dirty needle usage would almost certainly decline substantially.

Click to expand...

Syringes are not illegal. They are not hard to aquire. You can order them on the internet. Pick them up at Walgreens. Many places like Farm and Fleet have them on the shelfs.

No, the addictions and how that affects a person is the problem, not a lack of being able to get clean needles.

samsmart said:

And it shouldn't be against the law to use recreational drugs. Just because something is against the law does not justify it remaining against the law. Something should be against the law because it violates the public good. And criminalization of recreational drugs does much more public harm than it does public good.

Click to expand...

Few things that you have to use a syringe for is a "recreational drug". Recreational is where you can choose to ingest or not.

jamesrage said:

Yes. If junkies wish to inject themselves with illegal drugs then that should be their business. The government I.E. we the tax payers should have no part in someone injecting themselves with illegal drugs.

Click to expand...

Good thinking. Why not wait till they get HIV so we can support their treatment with our tax dollars. While we are at it let's outlaw abortion and contraception so they all can have lots of kids for us to support too. There is just too much money laying around.

iguanaman said:

Good thinking. Why not wait till they get HIV so we can support their treatment with our tax dollars.

Click to expand...

I don't support that either.

1Perry said:

Syringes are not illegal. They are not hard to aquire. You can order them on the internet. Pick them up at Walgreens. Many places like Farm and Fleet have them on the shelfs.

No, the addictions and how that affects a person is the problem, not a lack of being able to get clean needles.

Click to expand...

the laws vary by state, and even where they are available for purchase without an Rx there may be hoops to jump through to discourage purchase for illegitimate use, such as pharmacies requiring ID, or the purchaser to sign a register. The HIV issue has gav impetus to many states loosening the regulations, but there are still hoops to jump through - so the availability is still limited.

IOH - State Prescription Laws for Syringes and Insulin

marduc said:

the laws vary by state, and even where they are available for purchase without an Rx there may be hoops to jump through to discourage purchase for illegitimate use, such as pharmacies requiring ID, or the purchaser to sign a register. The HIV issue has gav impetus to many states loosening the regulations, but there are still hoops to jump through - so the availability is still limited.

IOH - State Prescription Laws for Syringes and Insulin

Click to expand...

Put them on the shelves of all Wal Marts. Is that not a better option than saying that taxpayers should be buying them? Why isn't the arguement one of making them easy to aquire as opposed to making taxpayers pay for them?

It's a tough pill to swallow.

Obviously it costs epic $$$ for law enforcement/etc, and on the other hand if most/all drugs are decriminalized, and this needle program ends, many more lives will be destroyed. Iirc, that means increased taxes.

Foolish people will always find means to destroy themselves.

1Perry said:

Put them on the shelves of all Wal Marts. Is that not a better option than saying that taxpayers should be buying them? Why isn't the arguement one of making them easy to aquire as opposed to making taxpayers pay for them?

Click to expand...

a few reasons.. the in your face availability would cause an uproar for one, certain segments of the population would likely be very vocal and up in arms just because of the perception issue of it.

Also, while I agree with the concept of you reap what you sow, the issue of the risk to public health extends beyond the user and outweighs the cost of a few needles for a small segment of our population.

If it were solely a drug user infecting themselves, so be it, that is on them - however there is no way that we can insure that they do not spread the disease to others - users will have sex with nonusers, and otherwise innocent people who were unfortunate enough to make a poor choice of who they slept with will then become a potential tax burden as a result.

It boils down to a simple concept.. harm reduction.

marduc said:

a few reasons.. the in your face availability would cause an uproar for one, certain segments of the population would likely be very vocal and up in arms just because of the perception issue of it.

Click to expand...

Because there has been no uproar over this program? As I pointed out already, in most places syringes are already sold on the shelves of drug stores. Where is the uproar? Were you even aware that they were sold this way? Sorry, this arguement holds no water.

Also, while I agree with the concept of you reap what you sow, the issue of the risk to public health extends beyond the user and outweighs the cost of a few needles for a small segment of our population.

Click to expand...

I'm willling to make them cheap and easy to get. Your arguement is that users still won't buy them. So can we end the arguement that we are giving them away because they are hard to aquire?

If it were solely a drug user infecting themselves, so be it, that is on them - however there is no way that we can insure that they do not spread the disease to others - users will have sex with nonusers, and otherwise innocent people who were unfortunate enough to make a poor choice of who they slept with will then become a potential tax burden as a result.

Click to expand...

We have a program that makes needles free. Are people still using dirty needles and getting infected? (rhetorical question as we all know they are) So since I do not need an answer as I already have it, if yor concern is ending the disease spread, you address the root cause.

It boils down to a simple concept.. harm reduction.

Click to expand...

So your arguement is for a band aid to cover a sliced major artery.

digsbe said:

Portugal is a tiny country with a different culture and people. We can't compare a tiny country with a nation of 300 million + with more diversity.

Click to expand...

But on what foundations can you legitimately argue this? What makes you think culture, people and population would make such drug legalization and control a failure? Surely the logical thing to do when a current model fails is to try a different model as opposed to promoting the continuation of the current model in a more extreme direction?

We need to crack down on drug sellers and imports.

Click to expand...

What do you think every government since the declaration of war on drugs has been doing? In fact statistics would show you that the more money and the more controls the federal government introduces the higher the value becomes for these commodities for crime syndicates to sell and the more drug use and addiction that takes place.

Like I said, we also need to be more rehab based instead of criminal corrective based with drug abuses. Make them pay hefty fines or work labor if they can't afford them while forcing them into a rehab program.

Click to expand...

So your suggesting that the government finds more money to correct a problem it itself is increasingly aggravating? Baring in mind the huge failure of rehabilitation programs and the fact that legal action has had no observable affect on the demand or supply of drugs, what makes you think hard labor would be the solution?

Public health is much more important than punishing people for not listening to (some of) us when (some of) us decided to make drugs illegal.

1Perry said:

Because there has been no uproar over this program? As I pointed out already, in most places syringes are already sold on the shelves of drug stores. Where is the uproar? Were you even aware that they were sold this way? Sorry, this arguement holds no water.

Click to expand...

Needle exchanges are for the most part out of the public eye, and there is relatively little public outcry about it (sure it is an issue for some, but it is not a high profile issue). Put needles on shelves where kids and teenagers can see them or <gasp> get their hands on them and there will most likely be a much larger uproar, and it will be a high profile issue.

While I do not personally have a problem with them being on the shelves on walmart I cannot speak for the entire populace and there will be a very vocal minority that would make this very difficult to implement.. heck we still have tobacco products kept behind the counter and you think it will be an easy sell to get needles on the shelves?

This is not an argument against the concept that i am proffering here, but rather an argument about the politics, public perception, and ability to implement this. I do not see it happening, and I do not think that it is feasible to expect to be able to sell this concept at all.

1Perry said:

I'm willling to make them cheap and easy to get. Your arguement is that users still won't buy them. So can we end the arguement that we are giving them away because they are hard to aquire?

Click to expand...

I did not put that forth as the sole reason. I just feel that making them more available will assuage the matter some, of course there will still be those who will not buy them - but if removing the hurdles results in a few more people using clean needles, then we have reduced the harm and the risk. We are not talking about eliminating risk - that is a fools errand -, but rather reducing it.

1Perry said:

We have a program that makes needles free. Are people still using dirty needles and getting infected? (rhetorical question as we all know they are) So since I do not need an answer as I already have it, if yor concern is ending the disease spread, you address the root cause.

Click to expand...

Again black and white thinking.. it is stupidity to expect to eliminate these behaviors or eliminating these risks, but it is pract6ical to take steps that can reduce them.

1Perry said:

So your arguement is for a band aid to cover a sliced major artery.

Click to expand...

harm reduction.. to use your analogy If an artery was severed you would put a tourniquet on to staunch the bleeding... heck you do anything and everything you can to staunch the flow, even if it is not perfect, it slows it down. Any improvement is - at risk of being redundant - an IMPROVEMENT.

Paschendale said:

Public health is much more important than punishing people for not listening to (some of) us when (some of) us decided to make drugs illegal.

Click to expand...

Yes, and band aids do little for public health.

marduc said:

Needle exchanges are for the most part out of the public eye, and there is relatively little public outcry about it (sure it is an issue for some, but it is not a high profile issue). Put needles on shelves where kids and teenagers can see them or <gasp> get their hands on them and there will most likely be a much larger uproar, and it will be a high profile issue.

Click to expand...

Because we would put them in the toy aisle? Look, I'm willing to discuss this but not like this. We already have syringes on shelves where kids can see them if they are in line with mom picking up a presciption. Where is the outrage?

While I do not personally have a problem with them being on the shelves on walmart I cannot speak for the entire populace and there will be a very vocal minority that would make this very difficult to implement.. heck we still have tobacco products kept behind the counter and you think it will be an easy sell to get needles on the shelves?

Click to expand...

It's already implemented. Where is the outrage?

This is not an argument against the concept that i am proffering here, but rather an argument about the politics, public perception, and ability to implement this. I do not see it happening, and I do not think that it is feasible to expect to be able to sell this concept at all.

Click to expand...

It's already implemented in most areas. I imagine I'll still have to note this over and over though.

I did not put that forth as the sole reason. I just feel that making them more available will assuage the matter some, of course there will still be those who will not buy them - but if removing the hurdles results in a few more people using clean needles, then we have reduced the harm and the risk. We are not talking about eliminating risk - that is a fools errand -, but rather reducing it.

Click to expand...

The fools errand is addressing the symptoms and not the disease.

Again black and white thinking.. it is stupidity to expect to eliminate these behaviors or eliminating these risks, but it is pract6ical to take steps that can reduce them.

Click to expand...

I stated a solution that would reduce use in my very first post.

harm reduction.. to use your analogy If an artery was severed you would put a tourniquet on to staunch the bleeding... heck you do anything and everything you can to staunch the flow, even if it is not perfect, it slows it down. Any improvement is - at risk of being redundant - an IMPROVEMENT.

Click to expand...

No, the arguement should be in addressing the harm the disease causes. You are argueing to address the issue of cancer by giving those with cancer something to alleviate their pain as oppossed to a cure for cancer.