Needles In Exchange For Dirty Needles

On the other hand, people who are against of needle exchange programs claim that the needle exchange programs don’t save lives but instead it can cause drug-related deaths. Even though NEPs help reduce the transmission of HIV and other diseases, they still encourage people to use more drugs, which could lead to death. Addicts are prone to death, perhaps not from HIV, but from overdosed, collapsed veins, poisoned dope, or the violence and criminality that go along with the illicit drug trade. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there are more than 33,000 people who died from drug overdose in 2005. As a result, drug overdose become the second

However, this step isn't necessarily to cure the epidemic, but rather to keep it from becoming more catastrophic. This drug is not to be used as away of getting people to stop using opioids in anyway, but rather just keep them from dieing when they do use opioids. Then those who have overdosed can go get help from the types of programs previously mentioned. This is the most important step because it needs to be put into action immediately. If this step takes as long as predicted then the epidemic will only be getting worse and far too many lives will be taken away yet again by opioids. Although, “While DuPage County is the only county currently using intranasal naloxone, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will Counties are set to implement plans to use both forms of naloxone in the coming months” (Kirk launches suburban anti-heroin task force 1 death every 3 days on average since 2012; using narcan during an overdose was 100% effective in Dupage County, States News

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

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.

As the number of intravenous drug users continues to rise, so does the risk of dangerous and potentially fatal complications that are associated with illicit drug use. In this population, death rates are higher due to overdose, AIDs-related mortality, and other blood-borne viruses (Mathers et al., 2013). Mortality rates remain high even though precautions have been taken to reduce them. According to Lavender & McCarron (2013), “Mortality in injecting drug users is up to 22 times higher than for the age-adjusted population, despite increased provision of needle and syringe programs, reduced needle and syringe sharing, and higher uptake of hepatitis B vaccination” (p. 511).

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,

Imagine for a moment being able to walk down the street without seeing used needles or other drug equipment. Although it will not completely eradicate the problem, safe injection sites will allow users to have a safe and clean environment that they do not have access to now; not just to inject their drugs, but also to dispose of their used syringes. When given a 3-year trial at the first facility in Canada, it was found that fatal overdoses within 500 metres of the facility were reduced by 35 percent, and a 9 percent decrease in the rest of the city (Stueck, 2011). Thus proving the effectiveness of injection facilities not only in Vancouver, but nationwide. Giving access to support can significantly increase the quality of life for intravenous drug users. By providing sterile equipment the

The professors said “that addicts should not be the focus of HIV prevention efforts because they would not change their behavior.” Parker was outraged and organized meetings with IDUs to warn them of HIV transference. In one of his meetings two addicts came in with clean syringes, their actions motivated him. In 1986, Parker began distributing and exchanging needles and syringes on the streets of New Haven and Boston, Massachusetts. He has been arrested several times in eight states where it is still illegal to purchase syringes without a prescription. Because of foundational work by Jon Parker and the work in Amsterdam, in two year later the first SEP operated with a bit of community consent opened in Tacoma. In the same year, two more exchange programs surfaced, one in New York and another in San Francisco. Today, there are currently 203 exchange programs operating. Despite the “on and off” support from private state and local funding and help from activist and advocates keep the programs afloat.

Walters believes that the heroin epidemic is a serious issue that must be addressed, but his solution is different from safe injection sites. The problem with his claim is that it fails to address the complexities of opioid addiction. If there are mass amounts of OD deaths, then the best way to get those

In conclusion, methadone clinics and needle exchange programs have many stigmas linked to them due to the biases that have been associated with these programs in the past. The programs are trying to create ways to encourage more drug users to use the programs available especially the needle exchange program for those who inject

Harm reduction can be defined as an approach that aims to reduce the consequences of high risk behaviours such as injection drug use on the individual and on society as a whole. Harm reduction programs provide injection drug users with access to a clean injection environment, sterile injections, drug-preparation equipment and safe disposal of contaminated material at the time of injection. Staff members in harm reduction facilities provide health teaching, anonymous HIV testing, information on addiction treatment, condoms and assist in connecting clients to social and health services (Semaan et al., 2011; Ball, 2007). Although, the benefits of harm reduction are evident through reduction of accidental drug overdose and prevention of

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.

Needle exchange programs have long been a controversial subject with both the general population and government lawmakers. The primary objective for needle exchange programs (NEPs) is to prevent the spread of blood-borne disease and is very successful in doing so. But, issues of morality due to the perception of drug enablement and the stigma of intravenous drug users (IDUs) and their potential effects on the decline of society are continually used as arguments for those against NEPs. It has been proven through many studies that these programs not only reduce harms associated with intravenous drug use, they are also cost effective and reduce the circulation of used syringes to the general population. Beyond epidemiological efforts, NEPs also provide a de-stigmatized center for gathering and offers health services such as HIV testing, counselling and referrals to treatment for drug addiction. This paper aims to highlight the efficacy of needle exchange programs, safe injection sites and address the social and political issues associated with them.

America has been fighting a long war with drugs and the many diseases that are spread due to drug habits and dirty needles. Many people believe that the cure to solving this widespread epidemic is The Clean Needle Exchange program; this is a program that offers clean needles to drug abusers and also counseling to reduce the need for drugs. Though there are definitely benefits to the program it does not come without pitfalls, the programs have received a great deal of controversy because some people view it as drug promoting and supporting. The program is also funded by taxpayers which has sparked a lot of criticism and created the ban on needle exchange

Vancouver is a city with multiple “claims to fame”. Known to be one of the worlds most livable, expensive, and beautiful cities, it is also well known for its large population of drug users, and the detrimental effects intravenous drugs have had on the Downtown East Side community. One of the major concerns connected to intravenous drug use is the large proportion of users who report a history of needle sharing, greatly increasing their chances of contracting HIV, Hepatitis B or C, and other injection related infections (Strike, Myers & Millson, 2004). With an estimated 15000 intravenous drug users (IDUs) currently residing in Vancouver, and up to an estimated 125000 nationally, the Canadian government has taken a proactive “Harm Reduction” stance allowing the implementation of controversial Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs) throughout most of the country (Weekes & Cumberland). Canada’s first NEP opened in Toronto in 1987, with Vancouver following suit in 1989. While it was still considered an offence to possess drugs under the Canadian Criminal Code, section S.462.2 stated that it was “not an offence […] to distribute needles to prevent the spread of HIV infection” (Weekes & Cumberland). The goal of these early NEPs was to supply IDUs with injection equipment to eliminate the necessity for needle sharing between users, operating on a strict “one for one” model. For each used needle returned, it would be replaced with a new, sterile