Need a New Tip For Your Crack Pipe?

[sinclairmcevoy]

Vancouver, B.C. Canada is prepared to give free rubber tips to crack smokers for their pipes. This way, it will lower the spread of Hep C.
Way to go again Vancouver. Safe injection sites, free needle exchange, (not if you require them for say diabetes). If doing dope is a lifestyle you choose to pursue, this seems lika a good place to be. What next? Free drugs? That would help stop the spread of break and enters.

[quixotecoyote]

So what's your beef with it?

Obviously adopting a holier-than-thou attitude and jailing a bunch of non-violent people hasn't worked in the past several decades. Why not take a more constructive approach>

[madurobob]

I had no idea crack pipes were of uniform enough manufacture to accept a one-size-fits-all mouthpiece. Those crackheads are more industrious than I thought!

[sinclairmcevoy]

I just think that the focus isn't put in the right place. Making it easier and safer to do drugs won't do much to help people stop. I really don't know what a good solution to the problem is. More treatment programs? There's not a whole lot there. Harsher penalties for dealers? Maybe.
Any ideas?

[sinclairmcevoy]

I think the mouth pieces are just a piece of surgical tubing. One size fits all.
BTW, I've seen some pretty inventive pipes.

[quixotecoyote]

I just think that the focus isn't put in the right place. Making it easier and safer to do drugs won't do much to help people stop. I really don't know what a good solution to the problem is. More treatment programs? There's not a whole lot there. Harsher penalties for dealers? Maybe.
Any ideas?


Maybe. But right now the problem with drugs is (ostensibly) that it's harmful for the people that use them. I'm not sure what the situation in Canada is but I know that in many parts of the US getting caught with the drugs leads to a result much much worse than merely using them. So the situation is this: "To keep you from ruining your life with drugs, we the government are going to **** your life up more throughly than you ever imagined possible."

[madurobob]

There's not a whole lot there. Harsher penalties for dealers? Maybe.
Any ideas?

I think very harsh penalties for distributors is the right way to go. We seam to do a pretty good job of clogging the legal system and prisons with petty dealers and users. The real point of the attack should be on producers/distributors.

Secondly, some level of legalization would probably have a positive impact. But, thats another thread.

[sinclairmcevoy]

Maybe. But right now the problem with drugs is (ostensibly) that it's harmful for the people that use them. I'm not sure what the situation in Canada is but I know that in many parts of the US getting caught with the drugs leads to a result much much worse than merely using them. So the situation is this: "To keep you from ruining your life with drugs, we the government are going to **** your life up more throughly than you ever imagined possible."

Well, using drugs openly in Vancouver is a common sight. So are used needles. Getting caught with small amounts of drugs isn't much of a problem here. Perhaps that's partly why it seems to be such a problem. I've seen crack dealers selling within 1 block of the cop shop in downtown Vancouver. They didn't seem too deterred by the punishment. It's a multi-faceted problem that there's no easy solution to. I guess.

[sthomson]

I just think that the focus isn't put in the right place.

What, you don't think we should promote public health and safety by providing equipment that stops the spread of deadly and infectious diseases? Or do you think that drug addicts and all who come in contact with them somehow deserve to contract a disease.

[sinclairmcevoy]

What, you don't think we should promote public health and safety by providing equipment that stops the spread of deadly and infectious diseases? Or do you think that drug addicts and all who come in contact with them somehow deserve to contract a disease.

I think that more effort on providing ways of stopping would be a good place to start. I don't think addicts or anyone else deserve to contract a disease. That wasn't what I said or meant.
From what I've seen firsthand, if you're smoking crack you don't give much of a rat's ass about whether or not you have your own mouthpiece.

[Pvt. Stash]

Cops say legalize drugs...

http://www.leap.cc

[Wolfman]

There are two entirely different issues here. One issue is prevention of the spread of disease by drug use; the other issue is the prevention of drug use itself.

This policy has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of drug addiction, or preventing drug addition. It has to do with preventing the spread of diseases that come as a result of drug addiction. Attacking it because it doesn't do anything to discourage/prevent people from using drugs is simply a strawman argument.

And if such a policy does, in fact, reduce the rate of transmission of diseases as a result of drug use, then the policy can be considered effective.

Its quite a ludicrous argument to try to claim that this will encourage drug use. "Yeah, well, I wasn't gonna' try drugs, until they announced that they were gonna' give out free rubber tips for crack pipes."

If you want to discuss policies to discourage/decrease/prevent drug abuse in the first place, feel free to do so. But try using a topic which is actually related to that issue, rather than trying to shoehorn an article like this.

[TheAnachronism]

It's a multi-faceted problem that there's no easy solution to.

Similar to ending one's sentences in prepositions.

:p

[skeptifem]

I just think that the focus isn't put in the right place. Making it easier and safer to do drugs won't do much to help people stop.

making it harder and more dangerous to do drugs doesnt put a dent in the problem either. it just means a lot more people get preventable diseases. that is why measures like the one in your op make sense to me.

I really don't know what a good solution to the problem is. More treatment programs? There's not a whole lot there. Harsher penalties for dealers? Maybe.
Any ideas?

I am just curious about what you think the problem is exactly. Some folks have a problem with anyone doing drugs period, I wonder if you are one of those or not.

[a_unique_person]

Well, using drugs openly in Vancouver is a common sight. So are used needles. Getting caught with small amounts of drugs isn't much of a problem here. Perhaps that's partly why it seems to be such a problem. I've seen crack dealers selling within 1 block of the cop shop in downtown Vancouver. They didn't seem too deterred by the punishment. It's a multi-faceted problem that there's no easy solution to. I guess.

Needle exchange.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Wouldn't the easiest solution be for people to not share crack pipes with people who have Hep C?

[Space_Ed]

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=28

Watch this video because what they are saying here is the truth. This is the way forward in regards to the drug issue no doubt.

[JoeEllison]

I'd like to see someone in government convince the American people that spending $4000 on rehab is a better deal than $20,000 a year on incarceration. In the meantime, the most society seems willing to pay for in preventative medicine is free needles and now rubber crack pipe tips.

[sthomson]

I don't think addicts or anyone else deserve to contract a disease.

Of course. In making a point I overstate your opinion and my opinion, and for that I apologize.

There are two entirely different issues here. One issue is prevention of the spread of disease by drug use; the other issue is the prevention of drug use itself.

This policy has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of drug addiction, or preventing drug addition. It has to do with preventing the spread of diseases that come as a result of drug addiction. Attacking it because it doesn't do anything to discourage/prevent people from using drugs is simply a strawman argument.

Thank you for making my point much more clearly than I can.

In the meantime, the most society seems willing to pay for in preventative medicine is free needles and now rubber crack pipe tips.

But free needles and rubber crack pipe tips are NOT meant to be preventative medicine, unless you mean that they prevent spread of an infectious disease. Funding for such programs generally comes out of public health budgets, not substance addiction and abuse prevention budgets.

[Segnosaur]

I'd like to see someone in government convince the American people that spending $4000 on rehab is a better deal than $20,000 a year on incarceration. In the meantime, the most society seems willing to pay for in preventative medicine is free needles and now rubber crack pipe tips.

You know, I've always wondered... just how exactly are things like needle exchange programs and/or crack pipe programs supposed to actually reduce the incidence of HepC and HIV?

After all, they are typically exchange programs, so you're not necessarily increasing the supply of needles and such. And people aren't necessarily going to be at a needle exchange site every time they need to shoot up. So, you're still going to get needle re-use, and sometimes needle sharing, even if the addict sometimes gets new equipment.

And in the worst case, there is a chance that they will actually make the problem worse, since you'll be setting up areas where various drug users can meet and mingle and get new contacts, allowing non-infected users to become introduced to infected users.

There has been at least one university study that has called needle exchange programs into question (even finding a higher proportion of disease among users of needle exchange programs than those who don't use such programs).

http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/4e1a2.htm

[Wildy]

You know, I've always wondered... just how exactly are things like needle exchange programs and/or crack pipe programs supposed to actually reduce the incidence of HepC and HIV?

Well as far as I can tell they are supposed to help slow down the transmission rate by removing needles that may be infected from circulation.

After all, they are typically exchange programs, so you're not necessarily increasing the supply of needles and such. And people aren't necessarily going to be at a needle exchange site every time they need to shoot up. So, you're still going to get needle re-use, and sometimes needle sharing, even if the addict sometimes gets new equipment.

So? Just because it isn't a 100% effective program means that we should not have one?

If you could lower the transmission rate by 75% would you do it?
How about 50%? 25%? 10%? How about only 1%? Would you implement a program that could lower the transmission rate by only 1% if it means that 1% of people wouldn't get a preventable disease?

And in the worst case, there is a chance that they will actually make the problem worse, since you'll be setting up areas where various drug users can meet and mingle and get new contacts, allowing non-infected users to become introduced to infected users.

That is assuming that they are sharing needles.

There has been at least one university study that has called needle exchange programs into question (even finding a higher proportion of disease among users of needle exchange programs than those who don't use such programs).

http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/4e1a2.htm

Here is an overview of a paper that found no significant difference in HIV transmission (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TDC-4MY68PN-H&_user=1098731&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2007&_rdoc=15&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235195%232007%23998799997%23643232%23F LA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5195&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=31&_acct=C000051593&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1098731&md5=377945cda9a67f7cf1ff1ec5c64521cd).

And then there is this article (http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/news/syringe_exchange.html) which covers a wide range of studies.

The problem with this issue is similar to that of "Circumcision prevents AIDS" (err, I'll keep this here as an example because I can't think of another one, but I have some reading to do). There are plenty of articles that support and do not support the hypothesis that they are testing. In this case we seem to have a whole lot of studies that are inconclusive.

However studies that were positive found in some cases a substantial decrease in transmission of preventable diseases.

[Segnosaur]

Well as far as I can tell they are supposed to help slow down the transmission rate by removing needles that may be infected from circulation.

Yes, that's the theory... but if I've got HIV, and I get a clean needle/crack pipe, is there something magical about it which will prevent others from using it?

So? Just because it isn't a 100% effective program means that we should not have one?

No, but if its effectiveness is 0% (or even worsens the problem) , then we shouldn't have one. That's the issue... do such programs really help?

If you could lower the transmission rate by 75% would you do it?
How about 50%? 25%? 10%? How about only 1%? Would you implement a program that could lower the transmission rate by only 1% if it means that 1% of people wouldn't get a preventable disease?

Again, you are assuming that such programs actually work.

That is assuming that they are sharing needles.

But if people aren't sharing needles/crack pipes, then why exactly do we need such programs? If someone already has HIV/HepC, reusing their own needles on themselves won't really matter much. And if a person doesn't have HIV/HepC, they won't necessarily pick up anything from their own equipment.

HIV/HepC infections result from sharing, not reusing on yourself. I just don't see how exchanging needles once will eliminate the risk when a 'clean' needle might still end up getting shared in the future when a user is not at a safe injection site.

Here is an overview of a paper that found no significant difference in HIV transmission (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TDC-4MY68PN-H&_user=1098731&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2007&_rdoc=15&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235195%232007%23998799997%23643232%23F LA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5195&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=31&_acct=C000051593&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1098731&md5=377945cda9a67f7cf1ff1ec5c64521cd).

Which again, suggests that perhaps such programs are not useful.

Yes, I'm sure there are studies which show they help
The problem with this issue is similar to that of "Circumcision prevents AIDS" (err, I'll keep this here as an example because I can't think of another one, but I have some reading to do). There are plenty of articles that support and do not support the hypothesis that they are testing. In this case we seem to have a whole lot of studies that are inconclusive.

Yes, there are studies that suggest needle exchange programs may help. There are some that suggest they don't. When you have as many factors involved (social, economic, medical, etc.) trying to come to any such conclusions is pretty difficult. But I'm concerned that people seem to jump on the "needle exchange programs save lives" without considering evidence, or figuring out whether there is actually even a mechanism that will save lives.

[skeptifem]

Which again, suggests that perhaps such programs are not useful.

no, its just not easy to get hiv through a needlestick injury. Its pretty easy to get hep b or c that way though.

[Segnosaur]

Which again, suggests that perhaps such programs are not useful.
no, its just not easy to get hiv through a needlestick injury. Its pretty easy to get hep b or c that way though.

What exactly is your point?

Given the number of studies that have been done (supporting both sides of the needle exchange debate), its obvious that researchers believe that while hiv isn't as easy to contract as HepC, needle use is a common transmission method. Therefore looking at HIV rates is a way to determine the effectiveness of exchange programs.

One study showing a non-effectiveness of a needle exchange program doesn't mean needle usage isn't a significant vector for HIV transmission, it means that the exchange program itself may not be useful.

[Wildy]

Yes, that's the theory... but if I've got HIV, and I get a clean needle/crack pipe, is there something magical about it which will prevent others from using it?

The idea is that other people won't use the infected one.

No, but if its effectiveness is 0% (or even worsens the problem) , then we shouldn't have one. That's the issue... do such programs really help?

By the looks of it in some cases it does help.

Again, you are assuming that such programs actually work.

And what? I am supposed to assume that the programme (if I spelt it the other way I made a spelling error) doesn't work?

But if people aren't sharing needles/crack pipes, then why exactly do we need such programs? If someone already has HIV/HepC, reusing their own needles on themselves won't really matter much. And if a person doesn't have HIV/HepC, they won't necessarily pick up anything from their own equipment.

What about the people who do share the needles? What about the off chance that people scavenge for needles? As far as I can tell these programmes are designed to help prevent other people from getting infected.

HIV/HepC infections result from sharing, not reusing on yourself. I just don't see how exchanging needles once will eliminate the risk when a 'clean' needle might still end up getting shared in the future when a user is not at a safe injection site.

In other words you don't agree with a programme that doesn't work 100% of the time. Do you at least agree that such a programme allows for the safe disposal of needles which helps unrelated parties from getting infected by accident or sharing with someone who just found the needle?

Which again, suggests that perhaps such programs are not useful.

No. The results in that experiment suggest that there is no significant difference in the HIV transmission rate between people who go to the exchange programme every day, and those who don't go every day.

Yes, there are studies that suggest needle exchange programs may help. There are some that suggest they don't. When you have as many factors involved (social, economic, medical, etc.) trying to come to any such conclusions is pretty difficult. But I'm concerned that people seem to jump on the "needle exchange programs save lives" without considering evidence, or figuring out whether there is actually even a mechanism that will save lives.

So you target your study to the main group involved? You make sure that you have as detailed notes on the people that cover those factors so you can extrapolate from the results by grouping them according to those factors? I don't think that they just run an experiment and not think about these things at all.

[Segnosaur]

The idea is that other people won't use the infected one.

This only makes sense if people always injected at so-called "safe" places and/or properly exchanged needles. You are dealing with drug users though (not likely the smartest people around) and they may not always properly use exchanged needles, and/or engage in sharing.

(Note: I've already pointed out how such exchange programs could harm, by providing a mechanism for infected and non-infected people to meet via the exchange programs.)

By the looks of it in some cases it does help.

And in other studies it hurts. The problem is, so many people seem to automatically assume they help, when the evidence is at best mixed. Do you want to spend money on programs that actually cause more deaths due to HIV transmission, even if your goal was to reduce the number of deaths?


And what? I am supposed to assume that the programme (if I spelt it the other way I made a spelling error) doesn't work?

I assume you should be looking at both the evidence (the fact that there are studies both for and against the effectiveness of needle exchange programs suggests they may not be effective at all and may actually harm) AND logic (which, from the looks of things, seems to be flawed).

(Side note: programme appears to be a British spelling.. in the U.S. 'program' is the usual spelling. Here in Canada we use a mishmash of British and American spellings.)

What about the people who do share the needles? What about the off chance that people scavenge for needles? As far as I can tell these programmes are designed to help prevent other people from getting infected.


Again, you haven't really shown where the logic is supposed to be.

These are usually needle exchange programs. If you have 2 junkies and 1 needle, they will share, even if the needle originally came from a needle exchange program. (And once again, there is no guarantee they will actually be NEAR an exchange center when they want to inject.)

As for scavenging, remember that these are usually needle exchange programs. They typically don't provide new needles to people that have none.


In other words you don't agree with a programme that doesn't work 100% of the time.

Uhhhh... no. I never said that. Even if it worked 1% of the time it would be worth it. My argument is that it may not work at all and may actually cause more harm.

In other words, I'm not complaining that its not effective enough, I'm complaining it may not be effective at all.

I thought I made my point clear when I stated: ...if its effectiveness is 0% (or even worsens the problem) , then we shouldn't have one.. Don't really know how to make it any clearer than that.


Do you at least agree that such a programme allows for the safe disposal of needles which helps unrelated parties from getting infected by accident or sharing with someone who just found the needle?

If there was such a program I'd be all for it. I'm just not convinced that the current needle exchange programs actually accomplish that purpose.


Which again, suggests that perhaps such programs are not useful.
No. The results in that experiment suggest that there is no significant difference in the HIV transmission rate between people who go to the exchange programme every day, and those who don't go every day.


And this is different from my suggestion that "these programs are not useful" how? If the rate of HIV transmission is the same for people who use the exchange programs and the people who don't use them (or don't use them often), then how are they helping?


So you target your study to the main group involved? You make sure that you have as detailed notes on the people that cover those factors so you can extrapolate from the results by grouping them according to those factors? I don't think that they just run an experiment and not think about these things at all.

I never claimed that researchers never thought about those things. But there are just some things which are far too complex to analyze.

If it were so easy to study the effect of needle exchange programs, then we'd actually have multiple studies, and they'd all come to the same conclusion. Instead, we have some studies that show they're effective, some studies that show they're harmful, and some that show no effect.

[Wildy]

This only makes sense if people always injected at so-called "safe" places and/or properly exchanged needles. You are dealing with drug users though (not likely the smartest people around) and they may not always properly use exchanged needles, and/or engage in sharing.

(Note: I've already pointed out how such exchange programs could harm, by providing a mechanism for infected and non-infected people to meet via the exchange programs.)

How do you know that they don't always inject at safe places.

I think that the bigger disagreement that we have here is that we are in different places.

I don't know about the other cities, but here in Adelaide there are many places that provide safe disposal of needles (especially in public toilets), so they don't end up on the ground and could be a danger to other people. I don't really know what they do in Canada to help prevent loose needles. There are however, no safe injecting rooms like the one(s (?)) in Sydney.

And in other studies it hurts. The problem is, so many people seem to automatically assume they help, when the evidence is at best mixed. Do you want to spend money on programs that actually cause more deaths due to HIV transmission, even if your goal was to reduce the number of deaths?

You are aware that this makes the assumption that the people will meet infected people at the programme and will share a needle with these people.

The other thing that I don't seem to have conveyed very well is that the other purpose of these programmes must be the safe removal of needles from the environment which could affect completely unrelated third parties.

I assume you should be looking at both the evidence (the fact that there are studies both for and against the effectiveness of needle exchange programs suggests they may not be effective at all and may actually harm) AND logic (which, from the looks of things, seems to be flawed).

I am looking at the evidence. I just seem to have taken up a different position to yours.

Abstract to a positive study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9269214)

An Australian related article (http://www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/Media/Reference/KerstinKall_DFA_Presentation.pdf]Here is a PDF[/URL] that basically argues a neutral result.

[URL="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20775706-23289,00.html)


(Side note: programme appears to be a British spelling.. in the U.S. 'program' is the usual spelling. Here in Canada we use a mishmash of British and American spellings.)

Same in Australia.

Again, you haven't really shown where the logic is supposed to be.

These are usually needle exchange programs. If you have 2 junkies and 1 needle, they will share, even if the needle originally came from a needle exchange program. (And once again, there is no guarantee they will actually be NEAR an exchange center when they want to inject.)

I have never said, no implied, that a NEP will prevent needle sharing.

As for scavenging, remember that these are usually needle exchange programs. They typically don't provide new needles to people that have none.

I meant scavenging discarded needles. You know, the ones that are just tossed onto the ground for anyone to find? By taking the needles to an exchange programme you are decreasing the number of needles that can be scavenged which would mean that the people searching for needles are less likely to be successful and less likely to become infected.

However for those people they still have the problem of finding a needle.

Uhhhh... no. I never said that. Even if it worked 1% of the time it would be worth it. My argument is that it may not work at all and may actually cause more harm.

In other words, I'm not complaining that its not effective enough, I'm complaining it may not be effective at all.

I thought I made my point clear when I stated: ...if its effectiveness is 0% (or even worsens the problem) , then we shouldn't have one.. Don't really know how to make it any clearer than that.

Except that your stance falls to the same problems as mine. The evidence is just as inconclusive towards your stance as it is to mine.

If there was such a program I'd be all for it. I'm just not convinced that the current needle exchange programs actually accomplish that purpose.

Explain.

And this is different from my suggestion that "these programs are not useful" how? If the rate of HIV transmission is the same for people who use the exchange programs and the people who don't use them (or don't use them often), then how are they helping?

Apart from the blindingly obvious point that it decreases the number of discarded needles thus lowering the chance of someone else contracting HIV.

Besides, and I have noticed this through your replies, you seem to be counting results that came up as neutral as a negative when in fact they are two completely different things. The neutral results basically show that for whatever it is that they were testing they found that a place with a NEP did as well as a place that didn't have one.

I never claimed that researchers never thought about those things. But there are just some things which are far too complex to analyze.

If it were so easy to study the effect of needle exchange programs, then we'd actually have multiple studies, and they'd all come to the same conclusion. Instead, we have some studies that show they're effective, some studies that show they're harmful, and some that show no effect.

And all this actually supports the idea that we need to do more research, not that we should abandon NEP's.

[Segnosaur]

How do you know that they don't always inject at safe places.

You don't.... and I'm sure there are some "responsible" drug users who do always use safe places/needle exchanges/etc. But the fact that even studies that support needle exchange programs still show incidences of HIV transmission in drug users suggest that not all of them are using safe practices.


I don't know about the other cities, but here in Adelaide there are many places that provide safe disposal of needles (especially in public toilets), so they don't end up on the ground and could be a danger to other people.

Hey, I have no problem with safe disposal sites for needles. For those programs, I can understand how/why the logic works. But this isn't the same thing as a needle exchange program. They're different issues. (At least I consider them different issues).

And in other studies it hurts. The problem is, so many people seem to automatically assume they help, when the evidence is at best mixed. Do you want to spend money on programs that actually cause more deaths due to HIV transmission, even if your goal was to reduce the number of deaths?
You are aware that this makes the assumption that the people will meet infected people at the programme and will share a needle with these people.

Yes, its an assumption... but its an assumption which is supported by the study I had previously linked to.

The other thing that I don't seem to have conveyed very well is that the other purpose of these programmes must be the safe removal of needles from the environment which could affect completely unrelated third parties.

Again, I find that to be a different issue.


I am looking at the evidence. I just seem to have taken up a different position to yours.

Abstract to a positive study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9269214)

An Australian related article (http://www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/Media/Reference/KerstinKall_DFA_Presentation.pdf]Here is a PDF[/URL] that basically argues a neutral result.

[URL="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20775706-23289,00.html)

I never denied that there were studies which supported needle exchange programs. But there seems to be a lack of ability for some to recognize the studies AGAINST such programs, as well as an inability to explain the logic about how such programs are supposed to work.


I have never said, no implied, that a NEP will prevent needle sharing.

But that's one of the key issues... HIV is spread (in large part) through needle sharing. And if an exchange program isn't preventing sharing in many people, it may not be effective.

Yes, I admit, I'm sure there will be some people who do benefit from such programs. Yes, there will be some people who make use of such programs and as a result do not catch HIV. But there will also be other people who currently do not have HIV but (as a result of the program) end up meeting, and later sharing needles with people who do have HIV.


I meant scavenging discarded needles. You know, the ones that are just tossed onto the ground for anyone to find? By taking the needles to an exchange programme you are decreasing the number of needles that can be scavenged which would mean that the people searching for needles are less likely to be successful and less likely to become infected.

Again, I consider needle disposal to be a different issue than needle exchange.


Except that your stance falls to the same problems as mine. The evidence is just as inconclusive towards your stance as it is to mine.

You're right, it is. I never claimed to be 100% sure of my stance. But lets say there's a 50-50 chance, of the exchange programs being helpful versus it actually being harmful. Needle exchange programs DO cost money. Until we actually have more conclusive evidence we could be spending thousands of taxpayer dollars on the result of a coin flip.


Besides, and I have noticed this through your replies, you seem to be counting results that came up as neutral as a negative when in fact they are two completely different things.

That's not what I'm doing at all. I recognize that a neutral result is different than a negative result. But some of the studies have shown negative results (not just neutral), with more infections as a result of the programs. Even some of the links you've given point to negative results (as well as positive ones.)


And all this actually supports the idea that we need to do more research, not that we should abandon NEP's.
Again, if in the future its found that NEPs cause more infections than they prevent (a negative effect as some studies show), then such programs could result in unnecessary deaths.

And if NEPs don't affect infection rates either way (a neutral effect as other studies show), we may not have saved or lost lives, but we've wasted a bunch of tax dollars, money that could have been better spent on (for example) better public education, medical research into HIV/HepC, etc.

[Beerina]

Well, if I've learned anything from the "Intervention" TV show, they'd better be giving out condoms because most of the crack addicts give it up as the easiest way to get cash to support their habbit, boy and girl.