Debate Needle Exchange Programs

Wow 1 week, 0 replies. I don't come to this board often anymore, and my critical feelings towards it are increasing. This is a good topic.

I am inclined, without any real research, to say yes to a properly-run needle program. Even the one mentioned in Ottawa, yes. It undeniably does good for people, the harm done (encourages drug use) is deniable. Or questionable, I guess is a better word. The principle on which this system is set up is this: addicts / abusers will use any means necessary, clean or dirty. Should we be paying for this? Allow me to rephrase the question: Why shouldn't we pay for a social program that actually helps people?

Like I said... I haven't looked anything up on this, I'm shooting from the hip. I'll do more work on it if anyone cares to actually engage in this discussion.

 

I'm going to play devil's advoacte here Predicide and disagree with you. With the limited resources of tax-payers dollars why should some of it be doled out to those that are wasting away their lives through drugs. The only help I see is by providing them a more sanitary means of 'shooting up'. They still get what they want, while we're out funds to do more benefical ways.

Let me put it this way. It seems to me this program only cures the symptoms of the problem and not the actual problem. Yes, the drug-users are spreading stds and yes, supplying them with sterile needles will help stem the tide of stds. But, what if more programs were inacted to find a cure for aids, improve drug-awareness, and build clinics to help these addicts say 'no' to drugs.

This may seem like a harsh view-point, but I believe it to be reasonable. I know drug-users are people to and it breaks my heart to see them miserable in their life-style, but I won't ever agree to a program that may encourage a worsening of the problem. Some kid might never go near drugs for fear of catching an std, but when you introduce a system that will enable the use of drugs without reprocussion, at least with stds, then I can't support that.

I want to get to the heart of the matter, not beat around the bush. It's like we're being parents who turn a blind eye to their 'dirty' habit and coddle them. I love people, but sometimes people need to be smacke upside the head for their own good.

In fact this program reminds me a lot like programs that hand condoms to teenagers in public schools.

 

I'm not quite sure how I feel about your viewpoint rusty, but I can't deny I find the argument you put forward very compelling. Normally I'm against the principle of "programs like these encourage drug use (or relevant socially condemned activity)", and even in this case I hardly think it's a strong argument. The number of people who are going to say "huh, a needle exchange program, I wasn't going to try it before, but now..." is going to be minimal in comparison to the number helped. BUT, I do agree that this is a bit of a cold compress on a very infected wound, and in terms of taxpayer money (which is an important consideration no matter how you feel, we're talking about democracy after all) I think there are better ways to treat the problem as opposed to tending to the wound.

Now, strictly speaking, I'd say that drugs aren't a problem. In my ideal world, people would be able to take any substance they chose in a legal way, but would have all responsibilities for taking said substance come down on their own head. As long as they harm no one but themselves then I see no problem, and if they do harm others as a result (and I'm not talking like emotional harm to your family etc, there are plenty of other routes to that which aren't illegal, you can't make laws about how families interact) then they should be treated just as any other criminal who had committed harm against someone. BUT, I do realise that this is not the majority view, and so it's unfair to expect people to pay for such a service when such drug use is still held in low regard by them, and is still (more to the point) illegal unless the goals are clear and it's one of the better choices. I'd say putting the same money towards rehab, clinics and various such programs would do more good in the long run for the people who actually want to get off drugs and wouldn't just be using the public's money to make their own habit easier (once again, I support freedom to take whatever you want, but scrounging is scrounging)

This, my dear friend, is where we part ways I'm afraid. I see no deeper similarity between these two situations, partly because what the hell is wrong with sex in comparison to drug abuse? Sex is a part of society, a part of being human, whereas drugs are a choice that some people make and no one should suffer anything from that choice but themselves.

It's been said time and again, teenagers are going to have sex, and imo there's nothing wrong with that as long as they are safe about it. It's fun, big whoop, I hold no sanctity by sex, and those who do shouldn't expect everyone else to do so just because they do. And even if they weren't going to have sex just because they couldn't get condoms, because the only reason they'd refrained was that they're scared of STI's, don't you think that's a little ****ed up? Even if you think abstinence is right (based on age, marriage, whatever), isn't it only right if people do it for the right reasons? It's like saying that someone who follows the teachings of the bible to the word is a good christian, even though they're only doing it because of some guy constantly holding a gun to their head. You can't force views on other people, and even if you could I'd say you shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with sex at that age as long as it's done responsibly, and I think that teaching young people the facts and helping them to make informed decisions does no harm. Again, I can't see the number of people going "free condoms? Wasn't gonna have sex before, but now..." is negligible, and not even relevant imo. So what if they do think that? There's nothing wrong with sex (and I know I said before that there's nothing wrong with drug use, but sex is a part of life that they'll have to deal with in the end and should be introduced to in a mature way that keeps them grounded and doesn't instill fear, denial of self etc. Drugs are not this.)

Wow, got a little off topic there, sorry. But yeah, in regards to the actual debate you make some good points rusty. There is a tendency for the liberal minded to be badgered into supporting any such scheme on the basis of 'helping people', and I'm not saying it wouldn't help people, I just think there may be better ways of going about it. And seeing as I think that drug use is a personal choice which should be allowed but harm no one else, then I don't see these people as victims. If they want to get off drugs then there should definitely be help available, but if not then on their own head be any consequences.

 

Dammit Peg, you're such a hard act to follow. I think I'll just cosign everything you say from now on, as you always speak my mind, only in much lengthier detail than I would have.

I do have a couple of points to add.

AIDS can spread from drug users to non drug users very easily. Any efforts to contain it will save more people than the obvious immediate people in the danger zone. We're doing more good than simply helping a junkie die of something other than AIDS.

If you believe in the notion that drug abuse should be officially treated as a public health problem instead of a criminal offense (this is another debate, but one that I feel strongly about), than this is exactly the way to go about it. Sure it's not a solution, but it is a integral part of it. When you look at the incredible amount of taxpayer money that has been completely wasted on the criminal offense approach, arguments that clean needles (which cost pennies) are a waste of money are insane.

 

Your point about AIDS is something I hadn't even considered, and a good point at that. And the same goes for the point about wastes of money on the criminal offense side of things. I guess I'm letting my beliefs on drugs in general guide my views a bit here, since I'm pro substance freedom but strongly distance myself from those who think it an excuse to do anything and demand anything. But you're right, my own view on the matter does tend toward a public health problem perspective, and you raise interesting comparisons that are really bringing me round to this idea. I think this should be dealt with carefully, and the users themselves not treated like helpless animals who can simply do as they please (this is a 2 way street after all). I also think that other alternatives should be explored thoroughly, but I'm really coming round to your point that it's not an 'either/or' situation, and that this can well be part of the larger puzzle. Touche dude.

 

Good points all around indeed. Peg it would seem you're more of a libertarian when it comes druge usage. I, personally, am not a libertarian. We're just going to have to disagree on the fundamental basics.

About sex, well we just have different perspectives about it. I believe in the sanctity of sex. That doesn't mean I'm going to use the law to enforce my viewpoint. I dislike the distribution of condoms because of how I view the situation. To me, it's animalistic. It seems to send the message, "Well since you're going to do it anyways, it's alright, just be safe." I disagree with the alright part. Yes, some people my age will be inclined to enjoy the lust of the flesh, but I don't think it's right. To continue this argument will only be arguing semantics. You say tomato, I say tomoto.

As for this discussion. The influence of having clean needles will be a minor influence.

How siginificant is the spread of AIDS to non-drug users?

Will these clinics that distribute clean needles have other progrems to help addicts fight their addictions?

How much money are we exactly talking here?

Back to what I think. I once saw a series of pictures where a man had ingested extacy. It was disturbing what the man had done to himself. To put it bluntly, the man had cut open his abdomen and pulled out his intestines.

Did he deserve to go to prison regardless of what the law says? Laws are in place to protect citizens from each other, but also from ourselves. The man didn't harm anyone else, it certainly seems he suffered enough punishment by his own doing. Yet, will he really learn a lesson?

I'm not too familiar with drug culture, but the pursuit and usage of drugs often leads to more hanous crimes. In a sense, drugs are a 'gateway' for more lawlessness.

Basically I just believe in giving druggies free handouts. I don't think they should be made to suffer, but they need to realize the reprucussions of their actions either through counseling or short-term prison sentence. I would rather people be drug-free in a prison where they can be re-habilitated than be a prisoner to drugs.

 

I agree rusty, there are some points where we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, tru dat my friend.

But one thing I will say is that I don't think the law should be there to protect us from ourselves, only to protect us from each other. I believe in ultimate personal freedoms up until what you do infringes on someone else's freedoms. I believe that the law should govern society, and not the individual in the strictest sense, it is there to aid social interaction and progression, not shape people or define their personal freedoms (again, as defined above). I think the law is a practical social device, not a moral one in that sense.

And with regard to that example, I'm with Tex on this one. There may have been some ecstasy in whatever that guy took, but it sounds to me like he got slipped something real nasty as well, bad pills ftl.

With regard to your statement about 'gateways' into other illegal activities with regard to drugs, I'm again with Tex in that this is a key argument for legalisation. There is nothing inherently bad, wrong or criminal about any drug. The association of criminal activities with drugs comes because they are illegal, alcohol being the key example of a socially acceptable drug that does not suffer this fate.

True, there may be some people who, once having done a drug that is illegal, see having passed the line of the law in one respect as an excuse to do so in others. But isn't that their fault, not the drug? It's a pretty lousy excuse on their part, and I don't think any condemnation of the substance itself can come into play here. If someone's gonna 'justify' or 'reason' committing illegal acts based on the fact that they've already broken the law once in a completely different way, then they're gonna do these things regardless. People like this using drugs as an excuse for stupid logic and decisions on their part does not reflect on the drug itself, only on them.

 

Why couldn't we just make these needles available from drug stores? The government probably shouldn't be giving out needles for free, yet at the same time I fully agree with the principle that making clean needles available will reduce the spread of HIV.

Just allowing them to be sold through pharmacies without prescription would be my opinion.