By Andrew S.
A mother screams as she finds the cold dead body of her son on the floor of his bathroom with no note or warning, just a needle lying beside him. This is a common scene for drug overdoses all around the world, including the United States.
Flipping through the January 10 weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal, I found an article entitled “Heroin Program’s Deadly Toll,” which sparked my interest. The article brought light to a topic that has been overlooked by many, the needle exchange. Needle exchange programs are one of a number of drug-addiction programs that follow the principle of “harm-reduction.”
“Harm-reduction,” according to the article, is the “philosophy that argues that the best way to save users’ lives isn’t to force them off illegal drugs. Instead, its adherents teach safer ways to use drugs-supplying clean needles to prevent the spread of disease, for example or teaching how to avoid overdosing.”
There is a flaw in this theory, however. By supplying clean needles and teaching “safe” ways to administer intravenous drugs, aren’t we encouraging drug use in a nation that is currently funding a war on drugs?
America is not the only one experimenting with needle-exchange programs. An article published on the BBC News website entitled “Heroin ‘Epidemic’ Hitting UK” in May of 1999 reported that, “York’s Compass Needle Exchange Centre told the BBC it has seen a 20% increase in the number of heroin users in the last year.” According to the same article, heroin use has become an “epidemic… in areas like Lincolnshire, Gloucenestershire and Norfolk.”
Yet there are agencies, such as From Our Streets With Dignity, who claim that needle-exchanges do not encourage drug abuse. A The New York Times article entitled “Agencies Defend Needle Exchange Programs,” reported, “From Our Streets With Dignity is one of nine needle exchange programs in New York City that serve about 55,000 of the city’s estimated 200,000 intravenous drug users.”
The New York Times article reports that according to epidemiologists in New York, the rate of new HIV infections among injection-drug users dropped more than 75% between 1995-2002, which is great. But, what about overdoses?
The irony of the situation is that all of the people mentioned who overdosed in The Wall Street Journal article are either workers for the needle exchange programs or so-called professionals in the field of drug addiction that support the philosophy of “harm-reduction.”
How can one justify “harm-reduction” if the very workers that are supposed to be promoting this philosophy are dying due to overdoses on hard drugs?
The violence that occurs because drug lords and dealers just want to make their money does not seem like something our nation should be supporting. In essence, aren’t we supporting drug lords and dealers by funding needle exchange programs? In the January weekend edition of the The Wall Street Journal it stated, “State and local government funding for needle exchanges tripled in 2007 to $14 million, compared with 1996.”
One may argue the fact that these programs often teach how to administer naloxone which is an anti-overdose medication for opiates.
A common misconception with intravenous drug use is that opiates are the only things that people shoot-up. Naloxone may be a great solution if this assumption were true. Unfortunately, you can shoot uppers as well which have no anti-overdose medication. This includes drugs like cocaine and methamphetamines.
In spite of these relative successes, this is public enabling of drug addicts, giving the idea that it’s okay to by-pass laws set forth by the government that ban the use of illegal drugs.
As a recovering drug user, I know that by supplying clean needles all we are doing is supporting a habit that may not kill you instantly; but no one can live for long dependent on a substance. I almost lost my own life and the last thing I would want to see is this nation condone drug use.
