Clean Needle Exchange Research Paper

Moreover, NEPs will provide sterile needle and syringes to avoid exchanges of used injections between drug users. Since NEPs are implemented, the number of HIV cases and other diseases are declined. In Saskatchewan, distributing needles reduces the total costs for health care because needle exchange programs reduce the transmission of HIV by one-third and accommodate a return of four thousand dollars investment in health care costs. (Thompson) Needle exchange program provide safety not only in drug addicts but also provide safety in the community. Many of needle exchange programs perform a one-for-one basis to decrease the exposure of contaminated needles in streets and playgrounds so that children and other people are away from needle sticks accident. (Franciscus)

An increase in drug use, specifically opiates, has overwhelmed the United States. This behavior has led to a rise in the transmission of HIV/Hepatitis C which would be otherwise preventable. The needle exchange programs in Moorhead, Milwaukee, and Scott County are working to lower the transmission rate and increase participation in treatment programs.

Children, starting as early as elementary school, are being educated on substance abuse. As of 2013, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, D.A.R.E., administers a school-based substance abuse, gang, and violence prevention program in 75 percent of the United States school districts. Since 1983, 70,000 police officers have taught the D.A.R.E. program to approximately 114 million elementary through high school students in the United States alone ("Is the D.A.R.E. Program Good for America's Kids K-12?"). This program is aimed at preventing drug use in elementary, middle, and high school students. A needle-exchange program implicitly encourages the exact opposite message, condoning immoral and illicit behavior. Governments should focus on discouraging drug use, providing more productive treatment for recovery, and punishing drug users instead of supplying the materials to continue their addiction. Young children have the potential to take more risks and must receive a clear message on drugs, which should coincide with the no tolerance policy they are being taught in school with implementation of the D.A.R.E. program. A needle-exchange program is more of a hopeful harm reduction campaign that sends the wrong message to young children and society as a whole. If there is to be a positive change in America regarding intravenous drug use, then the government and school programs all need to be on the same page; we

Several studies have shown that injection drug users lower their risk of transmitting infectious diseases when there is a needle exchange program available. There has not been a valid study of whether or not the amounts of time needles are returned to the exchange programs are harmful to communities. The Journal of Public Health, conducted surveys, evidence from needle exchange sites, jails, and institutions that needle exchange programs are effective in reducing illnesses such as HIV and AIDS (Burt & Theide, 2016). Furthermore, Reepalu, Blome, Bjork, Widell, & Bjorkman (2012), researched the same individuals for 20 years, with no breaks. Their studies concluded that injection drug use, not only heightens the risk for HIV and AID’s, there is also an increase in Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. However, there studies showed that there is not an increase rate of cancer diagnoses due to injection drug use. In a study conducted by Bonar and Rosenberg (2014), they wanted to see if self-initiated harm strategies, such as: proper needle sterilization techniques, proper disposal of needles, and cleaning of the pre injected skin, could help improve the health of those that use drugs intravenously. Their study was conducted over an eight-month period, results showed that their

Although these clients will still be abusing illegal substances, Sheon (2004) indicated that any reduction of harm is a step in the right direction, and the amount of success is measured by the client’s quality of life and well-being (as cited in Brown et al., 2005). “Harm reduction is about being respectful in somebody else’s world” (Georgina Perry, Service manager and co-author, England as cited in Cusick et al., 2010). By not respecting somebody else’s choices, the clients feel they must lie about their unhealthy lifestyles, which prevents the clients from getting assistance because they were trying to protect themselves from the real situation (Georgina Perry, Service manager and co-author, England as cited in Cusick et al., 2010). A way to reduce the harm from illegal substance abuse is clean needle exchange, and teaching clients how to properly inject themselves (Brown et al., 2005). The needle exchange is a program where clients exchange their used needles for clean ones, which helps reduce the spread of diseases such as HIV/AIDS (Brown et al., 2005). With continuation of these programs the harm from abusing illegal substances is reduced and the spread of life threatening diseases, such as HIV,

A safe injection site (SIS) has been placed in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside where drug use is a challenging problem. The program is a vital piece of the cities known harm reduction approach to its serious problems with homelessness, drugs, crime and AIDS. Canada has drastically shifted its method. Going from punishing drug users to establishing the plan of harm reduction. Since 2003 when the supervised SIS opened, it has presented a safe health-focused center where drug users have access to inject illegal drugs using sterile equipment in a clean environment under the supervision of medically trained professionals. Although there are some serious concerns about the

If needle exchange programs will be banned in United States than it will cause even greater stigma towards needle sharing practices. Even today, in the 21st century due restriction policies and laws against publically available injecting equipment, most people developed a negative attitude towards a needle exchange programs. As was mentioned by Dr. Epidemiol, most of the time individuals that engage in needle sharing practices would not report the fact of needle sharing , even if it indeed occurred. Less drug users would report it because most people feel stigmatized if they tell in public about the act of needle sharing.

Although there are many pros, there are a few cons. Many people who oppose the program believe that it accepts IV drug use and is funded by taxpayers’ dollars, which can be used for something else to better the community. Many residents feel insecure and vulnerable due to the programs. Giving out clean needles does nothing to discourage drug use and is completely government funded.

Who would be providing these drugs? Drug dealers? Pharmacists? The safe injection sites would just be a “clean alternative to alleys and shabby rooms to shoot up” (Katel). The drug dealers would just have more of a market to be able to make their living and they would not be punished for it now. The new “safe injection sites are yet another proposal that would have the government subsidize the addictive drug industry” (Johnson). The government would not be able to say anything about the drug deals taking place, because they are essentially funding it. These safe injection sites are “just another way to help dealers sell their drugs in the guise of being ‘safe’”

One controversial topic is giving out clean needles to heroin addicts through needle exchange programs. This essay will explain why needle exchange programs are beneficial to society. Needle exchange programs have become a controversial topic because one argument states that it starts more drug use and makes the community worse, and one states that it benefits the community and reduces diseases. We should morally fund needle exchange programs, even if people don't utilize them correctly, because many people can change their lives for the good.

Worldwide and in more than 80 cities in 38 US states, NEP has emerged to address the risks of injection drug use. There are currently 113 NEPs in the US, and in Hawaii, the NEP is funded by the State Health Department. The NEP offers drug treatment referral, methadone clinic and a peer education program to teach IDUs the benefits of not sharing needles. HIV rates among injecting drug users have declined 5% in 1989 to 1.1% in 1994-96. From 1993-1996, 74% of NEP clients reported no needle sharing, and 44% of those who report sharing admitted that the used needles were previously cleaned with bleach. Harm Reduction Central in Hollywood, CA, reported a low rate of shared needles of young IDUs, specifically those of ages

A person may progress to injecting drug use or increase their drug use because they have access to new, clean needles. Additionally, there are questions concerning the appropriateness of supporting a program that encourages drug users to inject and cause themselves more harm. Needle exchange programs have always been controversial; with opponents arguing that they sustain people's addictions and send the wrong message about drug use Hulse (2015).

Although the usage of these harsh narcotics are illegal now as they were then, having a secure place to carry out these activities reduce multiple negative outcomes. There were several specific events during the 1990’s, mentioned by Boyd (2013: 235), that caused the city of Vancouver to realize that the public health of this area was at risk. For instance, he refers to the “more potent and less expensive” injectable substances that became obtainable, which resulted in approximately 300 deaths per year in relation to heroin. This caused a number of drug users and supporters to open a safe injection location, called the ‘Back Alley Site’, which was terminated by the police in 1994 (Boyd, 2013: 235). In 1995, crack cocaine became available to this area in which Boyd (2013: 235) described to be “cheap, addictive and highly destructive”, being a vast concern for the mentally ill. So, would this have even been an issue if the Back Alley Site were to remain open, without the interference of the law? Then in 1997, there was a high occurrence of the HIV infection among injection drug users who shared needles; it was argued that the infection was more common with those who regularly visited needle exchange programs, which was only due to the fact that these addicts were “higher risk drug users” (Wood, Tyndall, Spittal, Li, Hogg,

Clean needles should not be distributed to IV drug users. The reason for this is because, it is promoting illicit drug use, making drug abusers assume that it is ok to abuse drugs, and it will only put their life in more danger. To be clear, I am not presuming that they should use unsanitary needles, because not only would they be damaging their body by abusing drugs, but they are also putting their life at risk for contracting some type of infectious disease. Consequently, they should not be provided with any needles at all. Providing them with clean needles will only increase the rate of drug use. Furthermore, providing these drug users with clean needles is against the law. Since when did promoting illicit drug use became ok? Additionally,

yringe exchange programs are a very necessary service within Canada for which we should advocated. Syringe exchange programs help to reduce HIV infection rates among injection drug users while at the same time do not facilitate an increase in drug use (Wodak, A., 2006, p. 837). Syringe exchange programs provide injection drug users with sterile syringes for little to no cost (Zhang, S., Yan, P., Archibald, C., 2004). Contracting blood-borne diseases from sharing and using infected needles contributes to the overall epidemic and can spread to populations outside of injection drug users (Zhang, et al. 2004).