Legalize needle-exchanges for addicts in Texas?

[RandomGuy]

Pretty straightforward.

Currently, free-needle exchanges are illegal in Texas.

Should this change?

[RandomGuy]

Texas officials studying needle-exchange program


Health officials in Bexar County, Texas, are considering if they should launch the state's first needle-exchange program in an effort to reduce the spread of HIV and other bloodborne diseases, but Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed has said that she will not hesitate to prosecute anyone who distributes needles before the program is approved, the Los Angeles Times reports (Bustillo, Los Angeles Times, 1/28).
The Bexar County Commissioners Court in August 2007 unanimously voted to move forward with a pilot initiative to establish the program. The court voted to approve spending $60,000 for a staff position and planning costs for the program. The program likely will cost more when it begins operations, and organizers plan to seek funding from private groups to offset costs.

The Texas House in May 2007 voted 71-60 to approve a provision in a Medicaid bill (SB 10) that would establish the state's first needle-exchange program in Bexar County, which includes San Antonio. Rep. Ruth McClendon (D), who sponsored the provision, initially tried to add an amendment that would have created a statewide program. However, the program was limited to the San Antonio area after the broader program failed to gain support in the House. Following the vote from the County Commissioner's Court, Reed recently said that the law authorizing the exchange program is faulty (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 8/20/07). The Texas attorney general is reviewing the situation, according to the Times.

Texas is the only state nationwide that does not have a needle-exchange program, the Times reports. Reed, who is opposed to the initiative, said that people who distribute needles before the program is approved do not have "any kind of criminal immunity." San Antonio police earlier this month arrested three individuals from the Bexar Area Harm Reduction Coalition for distributing needles to injection drug users and commercial sex workers, the Times reports (Los Angeles Times, 1/28).

Link to slow website, be patient it is a non-profit (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=34770)

[RandomGuy]

The attorney general recently ruled that a case against workers in such a program could be pursued as the laws are currently written. (http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/50abbott/op/2008/htm/ga-0622.htm)



In May of 2007, the Legislature authorized a pilot program in Bexar County "to prevent the spread of HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and other infectious and communicable diseases." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 531.0972 (Vernon Supp. 2007). The legislation provided that the Health and Human Services Commission "may provide guidance" to Bexar County in establishing such a program. Id. (emphasis added). The statute also allowed Bexar County to include in its pilot program a needle- and syringe-exchange program. See id.

The Texas Controlled Substances Act provides that possession or delivery of drug paraphernalia--including "a hypodermic syringe, needle, or other object used or intended for use in parenterally injecting a controlled substance into the human body"--is an offense that subjects a person to criminal prosecution. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.002(17)(K) (Vernon Supp. 2007).

Because a needle and syringe exchange is an optional component of Bexar County's pilot disease-prevention program, the program need not include a needle- and syringe-exchange component. If Bexar County's pilot disease-prevention program does not include a needle and syringe exchange, a person would not be subject to prosecution under section 481.125 of the Health & Safety Code for participating in the program. If, however, Bexar County elects to include such a needle- and syringe-exchange program as part of this overall disease-prevention program, the participants in that program appear to be subject to prosecution under the Texas Controlled Substances Act because the Legislature did not except them from such prosecution.

In contrast to the Bexar County pilot-program statute, the Legislature has, in numerous statutes, adopted express language that excludes certain activities from criminal prosecution under the Texas Controlled Substances Act. Because the Legislature has expressly demonstrated its ability and willingness to exclude otherwise criminal acts from prosecution under the Texas Controlled Substances Act--but did not do so here--this office can neither assume nor legislate such an intent.

Additionally, even if the participants are not subject to prosecution under the Texas Controlled Substances Act, participants may face criminal charges under other Texas or federal statutes.

Finally, any decision to prosecute program participants is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.

Very truly yours,
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/images/abbott_sig.gif
GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

[xrayzebra]

In a word: No!

[RandomGuy]

In a word: No!

I disagree.

The best data we have is that it doesn't encourage any more drug use at all, and that it actually decreases overall use in addition to lowering health care costs.

Answer this:

Which costs you less money: 10 years worth of 50 cent syringes, or 2 years worth of complex treatment for uninsured AIDS patients (who hospitals are required to admit by law when they have life-threatening conditions)?

[RandomGuy]

Study confirming reduction in AIDS spreading (http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/news/syringe_exchange.html)

[RandomGuy]

Link to something that shows the results of lots of other studies (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/syringee.htm)

[xrayzebra]

I disagree.

The best data we have is that it doesn't encourage any more drug use at all, and that it actually decreases overall use in addition to lowering health care costs.

Answer this:

Which costs you less money: 10 years worth of 50 cent syringes, or 2 years worth of complex treatment for uninsured AIDS patients (who hospitals are required to admit by law when they have life-threatening conditions)?

RG, you and the studies, are more than likely correct. But
I, like Reed, have a thing about doing something that
is not authorized by law. If it really is that good for
society, then legalize it. Like tobacco, if the damn stuff
is so bad for you, outlaw it. It is just a thing with me.

[RandomGuy]

The link is pretty clear at the very least that it reduces the spread of AIDS and Hepatitis.

Another argument in favor of it, is that you can get contact with users and offer them access to treatment programs. This platform arguably offers a chance at reducing overall drug use.

Another bit that should be taken into consideration is that the cost-benefit of such treatment programs is VERY favorable to society in general, even if you can't get IV drug users to completely kick the habit.

If someone goes from a level of usage that requires criminal activity to support, like 7-14 times a week, and reduces that to 3 times a week through treatment, you can ELIMINATE a source of crime, and all the costs that go with that crime.

I am for what works, and the data shows this kind of stuff works.

[RandomGuy]

RG, you and the studies, are more than likely correct. But
I, like Reed, have a thing about doing something that
is not authorized by law. If it really is that good for
society, then legalize it. Like tobacco, if the damn stuff
is so bad for you, outlaw it. It is just a thing with me.

I am not advocating legalizing the drugs themselves. Just the distribution of needles.

[xrayzebra]

I am not advocating legalizing the drugs themselves. Just the distribution of needles.

I understand that. But needles are consider paraphernalia
and if society wants to give them to addicts then make it
legal and above board. I have no problem with helping
addicts kick the habit or at least lower their dependency.

One thing though. You know England has for years let
doctors prescribe heron for addicts and let them use it
legally. But it hasn't worked. Drugs are used illegally there in great quantities and sold illegally. Also which
scandinavian country legalized mj and having problems.
I cant recall right off hand. So I really don't know what
the real answer to drug use. Many with more knowledge
and smarter than me cant figure it out, so I am not
going to try. Obviously been tried both ways, legally
and illegally, and that hasn't worked. Like all habits,
some people are just going to form bad ones...I guess.

[RandomGuy]

I understand that. But needles are consider paraphernalia
and if society wants to give them to addicts then make it
legal and above board.

I don't think giving needles has to be linked 100% to legalizing the drugs those needles are used for.

I think the drugs should be kept illegal, but use some common sense in punishment.

High level dealers should get some nasty prison hell-holes reserved for them, but punishing most users with harsh prison sentences simply makes them into worse criminals.

Don't get me started on prison reform... ;)

[xrayzebra]

I don't think giving needles has to be linked 100% to legalizing the drugs those needles are used for.

I think the drugs should be kept illegal, but use some common sense in punishment.

High level dealers should get some nasty prison hell-holes reserved for them, but punishing most users with harsh prison sentences simply makes them into worse criminals.

Don't get me started on prison reform... ;)

No, you misunderstood. I am not talking about legalize
drugs just the needles.

Prison reform.....I will have to keep that in the back of
of mind when I want a good discussion..........:toast:lol

[RandomGuy]

Interesting.

5 no votes so far, but no one wants to step up and try to say why except Ray.

(sighs)

I really hate knee-jerk reactions when it comes to making policy decisions.

[RandomGuy]

No, you misunderstood. I am not talking about legalize
drugs just the needles.

Prison reform.....I will have to keep that in the back of
of mind when I want a good discussion..........:toast:lol

So you are actually FOR specifically legalizing programs that give out free needles?

The problem now is that the law could be, and is, interpreted as making such programs illegal.

[xrayzebra]

So you are actually FOR specifically legalizing programs that give out free needles?

The problem now is that the law could be, and is, interpreted as making such programs illegal.

I thought I already said that.......:lol

[PlayoffEx-static]

I thought I already said that.......:lol

Yet, you voted no. Did you read the poll question?

[Wild Cobra]

I disagree.

The best data we have is that it doesn't encourage any more drug use at all, and that it actually decreases overall use in addition to lowering health care costs.

Answer this:

Which costs you less money: 10 years worth of 50 cent syringes, or 2 years worth of complex treatment for uninsured AIDS patients (who hospitals are required to admit by law when they have life-threatening conditions)?
I say let them benefit from the work they do, positive or negative. If they don't have their own insurance, or cannot pay for the treatments themselves, let them die. Why do people try to thwart Darwin?

When you make something free, it encourages more.

I'll tell you what. I'm sick of the addicts in downtown Portland begging on every block corner. If that passes, I'll every now and them take one to the Airport, and buy a one-way ticket to county seat of Bexar County if they like the free benefits offered there. Want to see a population of homeless increase there? There are plenty of people like me who do just that from time to time. Pay an indigent to go elsewhere.

[Yonivore]

I voted no but, I am in favor of decriminalizing the use of narcotics. Addicts can pay for their own needles.

And, RG, I voted no because I don't think the government should be in the business of supporting addicts in their bad behaviors.

[PlayoffEx-static]

What needle exchange programs do is buy time for the possible change in addict behavior. If they can keep from sharing needles and stay relatively healthy, there's a chance, albeit a small one, that they may put down the needle for good. Why would they, though, if they have one of the host of hepatitis viruses, or HIV? There would be no reason to quit if they're going to die anyway.

Any program that prevents the spread of disease, no matter what the vector, is all to the public good. As stated above, if they come into an ER, they must be treated. Who pays for that? You and I do. Even if you're absolutely compassionless like WC, think of it from a financial standpoint.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I voted no. Why should addicts of illegal drugs get comped on their needle supply when diabetics have to pay for theirs to some extent?

How is that fair?

[PlayoffEx-static]

I voted no. Why should addicts of illegal drugs get comped on their needle supply when diabetics have to pay for theirs to some extent?

How is that fair?

What about diabetic addicts?

[jochhejaam]

What about the people <undocumented sources list this number in the hundreds of thousands> that don't use heroin because they're afraid of contracting a disease from an unsterile needle? All of sudden there's an unlimited supply of sterile syringes.
Voila! Just like that the State and taxpayers have become accessories to drug addiction.

Can you say class-action lawsuit? <some of you probably can't, but that's not the point>

[ChumpDumper]

I say let them benefit from the work they do, positive or negative. If they don't have their own insurance, or cannot pay for the treatments themselves, let them die. Why do people try to thwart Darwin?

When you make something free, it encourages more.

I'll tell you what. I'm sick of the addicts in downtown Portland begging on every block corner. If that passes, I'll every now and them take one to the Airport, and buy a one-way ticket to county seat of Bexar County if they like the free benefits offered there. Want to see a population of homeless increase there? There are plenty of people like me who do just that from time to time. Pay an indigent to go elsewhere.So, since Bexar County doesn't have a needle exchange, it is ok for the homeless addicts from there to be sent to someplace that does have a government funded needle exchange program like -- oh, I don't know -- say, Multnomah County?

http://www.mchealth.org/cd/hivhcv/needlex.shtml

Thanks for the idea! Be sure to welcome them at the airport!

[PlayoffEx-static]

What about the people <undocumented sources list this number in the hundreds of thousands> that don't use heroin because they're afraid of contracting a disease from an unsterile needle? All of sudden there's an unlimited supply of sterile syringes.
Voila! Just like that the State and taxpayers have become accessories to drug addiction.

Can you say class-action lawsuit? <some of you probably can't, but that's not the point>

:lmao Yeah, I'm sure hundreds of thousands are just waiting for those free needles so they can ride the white horse.

Turning to drugs isn't a rational decision that you think out. People turn to drugs because they despair. They need chemical anesthesia to get through a DAY in their life, and I don't think they are considering if the needles are dirty or clean, just if they have heroin in them.

[jochhejaam]

:lmao Yeah, I'm sure hundreds of thousands are just waiting for those free needles so they can ride the white horse.

Turning to drugs isn't a rational decision that you think out. People turn to drugs because they despair. They need chemical anesthesia to get through a DAY in their life, and I don't think they are considering if the needles are dirty or clean, just if they have heroin in them.

Detective Exstatic, I state, with a high degree of confidence, that you are the only one that took my post at face value.

[Wild Cobra]

So, since Bexar County doesn't have a needle exchange, it is ok for the homeless addicts from there to be sent to someplace that does have a government funded needle exchange program like -- oh, I don't know -- say, Multnomah County?

http://www.mchealth.org/cd/hivhcv/needlex.shtml

Thanks for the idea! Be sure to welcome them at the airport!
Exactly. Our homeless population has exploded by programs like this and others already. We also have a place call "Dignity Village (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity_Village)." We are a sanctuary city for many undesirable habits. I've had enough of it. I wouldn't place to much stock in the articles accuracy, especially if you know about the chronic lies and deceptions perpetrated by the county I live in.

When another place opens up, I'm more than happy to try to pawn off some of ours elsewhere!

Believe me, these lowlifes here living off the tax dollar are a real big problem. You don't want to encourage more of the same activity anywhere!

[ChumpDumper]

Are there studies showing an increase in overall IV drug use when a needle exchange program is established?

[jochhejaam]

I have a problem with buying someone a needle to shoot up with, but that pales in comparison to how I feel about addicts passing along HIV because they don't have sterile syringes.





Maybe you can get the free needles if you can prove that you are living in abject poverty.
<careful ex>

[Wild Cobra]

Are there studies showing an increase in overall IV drug use when a needle exchange program is established?

I don't know. It would defy common sense to think otherwise.

Can you explain how free needles vs. hard to acquire ones would decrease the number of cases?

I would suggest that the lower rates are not factual. AIDS is spread easily by only a limited number of means. I think it can be assumed with confidence that if people are both gay and intravenous drug users, and drugs being found in blood tests, that they would claim the needle is how they got AIDS rather than admitting they were gay! When you have needle programs, they can no longer make such a claim now, can they? At least not by the same numbers...

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know. It would defy common sense to think otherwise.Why?


Can you explain how free needles vs. hard to acquire ones would decrease the facts?Decrease the facts?


I would suggest that they are not facts. AIDS is spread easily by only a limited number of means. I think it can be assumed with confidence that if people are both gay and intravenous drug users, and drugs being found in blood tests, that they would claim the needle is how they got AIDS rather than admitting they were gay! When you have needle programs, they can no longer make such a claim now, can they? At least not by the same numbers...What the hell are you talking about?

You were better off stopping at "I don't know." That mere ignorance was better than the stupidity that followed.

[Wild Cobra]

Decrease the facts?

I made an error in my typing. I went back and edited my work.



You were better off stopping at "I don't know." That mere ignorance was better than the stupidity that followed.
Theory is not stupidity. I did not say it with enough conviction to call it such. Besides, people who have poor care for themselves will likely increase the risk of AIDS and or Hepatitis by the other living standards they have let decline. Do we really want to make it easier for people to live in such settings? I say we should emphasize increasing a persons dignity rather than making it easy for them to live undignified existences.

[ChumpDumper]

I made an error in my typing. I went back and edited my work.The argument for needle exchange programs don't necessarily include decreasing overall IV drug use, but at least an anecdotal argument could be made that treatment options could be made available to those who take part in the program. It's more about slowing the spread of disease.



Theory is not stupidity. I did not say it with enough conviction to call it such. Besides, people who have poor care for themselves will likely increase the risk of AIDS and or Hepatitis by the other living standards they have let decline. Do we really want to make it easier for people to live in such settings? I say we should emphasize increasing a persons dignity rather than making it easy for them to live undignified existences.I still have no idea what this tangent is all about. Maybe you need a time out.

[xrayzebra]

Maybe we can get SA210 to check in and give us her opinion. She
works with the homeless quite a lot. I haven't seen her in her since
her favorite Presidential candidate withdrew, but her opinion would
be welcome.

[RandomGuy]

I voted no but, I am in favor of decriminalizing the use of narcotics. Addicts can pay for their own needles.

And, RG, I voted no because I don't think the government should be in the business of supporting addicts in their bad behaviors.

(shrugs)

I don't think the government should be in the business of supporting addicts in their bad behaviors either.

BUT

This isn't "supporting" them.
They WILL do the drugs whether or not you give them clean needles, yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

I voted no. 1) Why should addicts of illegal drugs get comped on their needle supply when diabetics have to pay for theirs to some extent?

2) How is that fair?

It isn't quite fair.

BUT

This isn't about fair or not.

This is about preventing disease.

Do you want to pay for, say $100, worth of needles per year, or a $50,000 medical treatment when they get so sick they need to be hospitalized?

or worse yet, spread Hepatitis to you?

Would that be fair?

[RandomGuy]

If they don't have their own insurance, or cannot pay for the treatments themselves, let them die. Why do people try to thwart Darwin?


immoral
Adjective
1. morally wrong; corrupt

wicked, bad, wrong, abandoned, evil, corrupt, vicious, obscene, indecent, vile, degenerate, dishonest, sinful, unethical, depraved, impure, unprincipled, nefarious, dissolute, iniquitous also see amoral

Because, unlike most animals, humans are capable of morality, and living for something beyond their own selfish interests.

You might not have any morals, but the rest of us do.


When you make something free, it encourages more.

Indeed. That's the point isn't it? In this case we are making clean needles free, not the drugs themselves, you idiot.


I'll tell you what. I'm sick of the addicts in downtown Portland begging on every block corner. If that passes, I'll every now and them take one to the Airport, and buy a one-way ticket to county seat of Bexar County if they like the free benefits offered there. Want to see a population of homeless increase there? There are plenty of people like me who do just that from time to time. Pay an indigent to go elsewhere.

Short-sighted, economically costly, and stupid.

Make the symptom go elsewhere instead of dealing with the underlying problems. Because sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" always worked when you were a kid, right? :rolleyes

Are we as a nation incapable of dealing with grown up problems, with grown up solutions?

I think we are better than that.

[RandomGuy]

Are there studies showing an increase in overall IV drug use when a needle exchange program is established?

I don't know. It would defy common sense to think otherwise.

Can you explain how free needles vs. hard to acquire ones would decrease the number of cases?

I would suggest that the lower rates are not factual. AIDS is spread easily by only a limited number of means. I think it can be assumed with confidence that if people are both gay and intravenous drug users, and drugs being found in blood tests, that they would claim the needle is how they got AIDS rather than admitting they were gay! When you have needle programs, they can no longer make such a claim now, can they? At least not by the same numbers...

This isn't just AIDS, brain trust. This is a host of blood-borne diseases.

I would suggest that the lower rates are not factual.

You can suggest that your penis is 12" long too, but proving either statement is another thing. :lmao

There are plenty of reasonable studies in peer reviewed medical journals. You can "suggest" that they are not factual as much as you want, but the actual science doesn't back you up on that.

You talk about "common sense" backing up the thesis that giving clean needles to addicts doesn't slow the spread of blood-borne diseases, but how about this common sense question:

Yes or no, if an addict uses a clean needle, and does not share it, would that tend to decrease the possibility of disease transmission?

[RandomGuy]

Link to something that shows the results of lots of other studies (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/syringee.htm)

Syringe/Needle Exchange Programs


"Syringe exchange programs (SEPs) provide sterile syringes in exchange for used syringes to reduce transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other bloodborne infections associated with reuse of contaminated syringes by injection-drug users (IDUs). . . . SEPs can help prevent bloodborne pathogen transmission by increasing access to sterile syringes among IDUs and enabling safe disposal of used syringes. Often, programs also provide other public health services, such as HIV testing, risk-reduction education, and referrals for substance-abuse treatment."

Source: "Update: Syringe Exchange Programs -- United States, 2002," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 15, 2005, Vol. 54, No. 27 (Atlanta, GA: US Centers for Disease Control), p. 673.



"While it is not feasible to do a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of needle or syringe exchange programs (NEPs/SEPs) in reducing HIV incidence, the majority of studies have shown that NEPs/SEPs are strongly associated with reductions in the spread of HIV when used as a component of comprehensive approach to HIV prevention. NEPs/SEPs increase the availability of sterile syringes and other injection equipment, and for exchange participants, this decreases the fraction of needles in circulation that are contaminated. This lower fraction of contaminated needles reduces the risk of injection with a contaminated needle and lowers the risk of HIV transmission.
"In addition to decreasing HIV infected needles in circulation through the physical exchange of syringes, most NEPs/SEPs are part of a comprehensive HIV prevention effort that may include education on risk reduction, and referral to drug addiction treatment, job or other social services, and these interventions may be responsible for a significant part of the overall effectiveness of NEPs/SEPs. NEPs/SEPs also provide an opportunity to reach out to populations that are often difficult to engage in treatment."

Source: Volkow, Nora, Director, US National Institute on Drug Abuse, correspondence with Allan Clear, Aug. 4, 2004, as accessed online at http://hepcproject.typepad.com/hep_c_project/2004/09/re_souderzerhou.html, on May 11, 2005.


"After reviewing all of the research to date, the senior scientists of the Department and I have unanimously agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention that reduces the transmission of HIV and does not encourage the use of illegal drugs."

Source: US Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher, Department of Health and Human Services, Evidence-Based Findings on the Efficacy of Syringe Exchange Programs: An Analysis from the Assistant Secretary for Health and Surgeon General of the Scientific Research Completed Since April 1998 (Washington, DC: Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2000), as accessed at http://www.harmreduction.org/research/surgeongenrev/surgreview.html, on May 11, 2005.


According to Dr. Harold Varmus, then-Director of the National Institutes of Health, "An exhaustive review of the science in this area indicates that needle exchange programs can be an effective component in the global effort to end the epidemic of HIV disease."

Source: Varmus, Harold, MD, Director of the National Institutes of Health, Press release from Department of Health and Human Services, (April 20, 1998).



"For injecting drug users who cannot gain access to treatment or are not ready to consider it, multi-component HIV prevention programs that include sterile needle and syringe access reduce drug-related HIV risk behavior, including self-reported sharing of needles and syringes, unsafe injecting and disposal practices, and frequency of injection. Sterile needle and syringe access may include needle and syringe exchange (NSE) or the legal, accessible, and economical sale of needles and syringes through pharmacies, voucher schemes, and physician prescription programs. Other components of multi-component HIV prevention programs may include outreach, education in risk reduction, HIV voluntary counseling and testing, condom distribution, distribution of bleach and education on needle disinfection, and referrals to substance abuse treatment and other health and social services."

Source: Committee on the Prevention of HIV Infection among Injecting Drug Users in High-Risk Countries, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, "Preventing HIV Infection among Injecting Drug Users in High Risk Countries: An Assessment of the Evidence" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006), p. 142.


A literature review in 2004 by the European Union's drug monitoring agency, the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction, found that "Major reviews (summarised in Vlahov and Junge, 1998; Bastos and Strathdee, 2000; Ferrini, 2000) suggest that NSPs (Needle and Syringe Programs) may reduce rates of seroconversion to HIV and hepatitis by one third or more, without negative side effects on the number of IDUs (Vlahov and Junge, 1998). A landmark study from Hurley et al. combined HIV seroprevalence data from 81 cities with (n=52) or without (n=29) NSPs (Hurley et al., 1997). They showed that the average annual seroprevalence was 11% lower in cities with an NSP than in cities without an NSP, providing important evidence on the effectiveness of NSPs in reducing the spread of HIV."

Source: de Wit, Ardine and Jasper Bos, "Cost-Effectiveness of Needle and Syringe Programmes: A Review of the Literature," in Hepatitis C and Injecting Drug Use: Impact, Costs and Policy Options, Johannes Jager, Wien Limburg, Mirjam Kretzschmar, Maarten Postma, Lucas Wiessing (eds.), European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2004.


"Access to sterile needles and syringes is an important, even vital, component of a comprehensive HIV prevention program for IDUs. The data on needle exchange in the United States are consistent with the conclusion that these programs do not encourage drug use and that needle exchanges can be effective in reducing HIV incidence. Other data show that NEPs help people stop drug use through referral to drug treatment programs. The studies outside of the United States are important for reminding us that unintended consequences can occur. While changes in needle prescription and possession laws and regulations have shown promise, the identification of organizational components that improve or hinder effectiveness of needle exchange and pharmacy-based access are needed."

Source: Vlahov, David, PhD, and Benjamin Junge, MHSc, "The Role of Needle Exchange Programs in HIV Prevention," Public Health Reports, Volume 113, Supplement 1, June 1998, pp. 75-80.


"Pediatricians should advocate for unencumbered access to sterile syringes and improved knowledge about decontamination of injection equipment. Physicians should be knowledgeable about their states' statutes regarding possession of syringes and needles and available mechanisms for procurement. These programs should be encouraged, expanded, and linked to drug treatment and other HIV-1 risk-reduction education. It is important that these programs be conducted within the context of continuing research to document effectiveness and clarify factors that seem linked to desired outcomes."

Source: "Policy Statement: Reducing the Risk of HIV Infection Associated With Illicit Drug Use," Committee on Pediatric AIDS, Pediatrics, Vol. 117, No. 2, Feb. 2006 (Chicago, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics), p. 569.



"We found that in cities with NEPs HIV seroprevalence among injecting drug users decreased on average, whereas in cities without NEPs HIV seroprevalence increased. A plausible explanation for this difference is that the NEPs led to a reduction in HIV incidence among injecting drug users.
"NEPs have the potential to decrease directly HIV transmission by lowering the rate of needle sharing and the prevalence of HIV in needles available for reuse, as well as indirectly through activities such as bleach distribution, referrals to drug treatment centres, provision of condoms, and education about risk behaviour. Although these mechanisms have strong theoretical support, the published evidence for NEP effectiveness is limited. Previous studies of the effect of NEPs on HIV incidence used observational designs or statistical models. ... Our study is distinguished from previous work by its worldwide scope and its design, which compares changes in HIV seroprevalence in cities with and without NEPs, rather than changes within a single city."

Source: Hurley, Susan F., Damien J. Jolley, John M. Kaldor, "Effectiveness of Needle-Exchange Programmes for Prevention of HIV Infection," The Lancet, 1997; 349: 1797-1800, June 21, 1997.



Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Clinton Administration, stated: "A meticulous scientific review has now proven that needle exchange programs can reduce the transmission of HIV and save lives without losing ground in the battle against illegal drugs."

Source: Shalala, D.E., Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Press release from Department of Health and Human Services (April 20, 1998).



Between 1991 and 1997, the U.S. Government funded seven reports on clean needle programs for persons who inject drugs. The reports are unanimous in their conclusions that clean needle programs reduce HIV transmission, and none find that clean needle programs cause rates of drug use to increase.

Sources: National Commission on AIDS, The Twin Epidemics of Substance Abuse and HIV (Washington DC: National Commission on AIDS, 1991); General Accounting Office, Needle Exchange Programs: Research Suggests Promise as an AIDS Prevention Strategy (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1993); Lurie, P. & Reingold, A.L., et al., The Public Health Impact of Needle Exchange Programs in the United States and Abroad (San Francisco, CA: University of California, 1993); Satcher, David, MD, (Note to Jo Ivey Bouffard), The Clinton Administration's Internal Reviews of Research on Needle Exchange Programs (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control, December 10, 1993); National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Normand, J., Vlahov, D. & Moses, L. (eds.), Preventing HIV Transmission: The Role of Sterile Needles and Bleach (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1995); Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress, The Effectiveness of AIDS Prevention Efforts (Springfield, VA: National Technology Information Service, 1995); National Institutes of Health Consensus Panel, Interventions to Prevent HIV Risk Behaviors (Kensington, MD: National Institutes of Health Consensus Program Information Center, February 1997).



Research published in the Journal of Urban Health estimated that in 1998, there were 1,364,874 injection drug users in the US.

Source: Friedman, Samuel R., Barbara Tempalski, Hannah Cooper, Theresa Perlis, Marie Keem, Risa Friedman & Peter L. Flom, "Estimating Numbers of Injecting Drug Users in Metropolitan Areas for Structural Analyses of Community Vulnerability and for Assessing Relative Degrees of Service Provision for Injecting Drug Users," Journal of Urban Health (New York, NY: NY Academy of Medicine, 2004), Vol. 81, No. 3, p. 380.



"Estimates of the annual number of syringes required to meet the single-use standard run in the range of 1 billion. The most recent estimate of the number of syringes distributed by needle exchange programs in the United States (1997) was 17.5 million."

Source: Burris, Scott, JD, Lurie, Peter, MD, et al., "Physician Prescribing of Sterile Injection Equipment to Prevent HIV Infection: Time for Action", Annals of Internal Medicine (Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians, August 1, 2000), Vol. 133, No. 3, from the web at http://www.annals.org/issues/v133n3/full/200008010-00015.html, citing Lurie P, Jones TS, Foley J. A sterile syringe for every drug user injection: how many injections take place annually, and how might pharmacists contribute to syringe distribution? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1998;18(Suppl 1):S45-51, and Update: syringe exchange programs -- United States, 1997. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1998;47:652-55.


In 1997, Dr. Ernest Drucker wrote in The Lancet that if current U.S. policies limiting clean needle programs were not changed, an additional 5,150 to 11,329 preventable HIV infections could occur by the year 2000. In 1999 alone, the CDC reported there were at least 2,946 new injection-related HIV infections.

Source: Lurie, P. & Drucker, E., "An Opportunity Lost: HIV Infections Associated with Lack of a National Needle- Exchange Programme in the U.S.A.", Lancet, 349: 604-08 (1997); Centers for Disease Control, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report (1999 Year-End Edition, December 1999), Vol. 11, No. 2, Table 6, p. 15, available online at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1102/table3.htm.


The estimated lifetime cost of treating an HIV positive person is $195,188.

Source: Holtgrave, DR, Pinkerton, SD. "Updates of Cost of Illness and Quality of Life Estimates for Use in Economic Evaluations of HIV Prevention Programs." Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology, Vol. 16, pp. 54-62 (1997).


"Eastern Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and significant parts of Asia are experiencing explosive growth in new HIV infections, driven largely by injecting drug use (UNAIDS, 2006). While the primary route of transmission in most of these areas is sharing of contaminated injecting equipment, sexual and perinatal transmission among IDUs and their partners also plays an important and growing role. In many highly affected countries, rapid growth in the number of IDUs infected with HIV has already created a public health crisis. Countries where the level of HIV infection is still relatively low have the chance -- if they act now -- to slow the spread of HIV."

Source: Committee on the Prevention of HIV Infection among Injecting Drug Users in High-Risk Countries, "Preventing HIV Infection among Injecting Drug Users in High Risk Countries: An Assessment of the Evidence" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006), p. 141.



In 2005 the US Centers for Disease Control published the results of a survey conducted by staff from Beth Israel Medical Center and the North American Syringe Exchange Network (NASEN) of 148 Syringe Exchange Program (SEP) directors around the country (of whom 126 completed the survey). According to the report: "These 126 SEPs reported operating in 102 cities in 31 states and the District of Columbia (DC). More than two-thirds (86) of SEPs were in seven states: California (25), Washington (15), New Mexico (14), New York (12), Wisconsin (eight), Massachusetts (six), and Oregon (six). "SEP size was classified by the number of syringes exchanged (Table 1); 119 SEPs reported exchanging a total of 24,878,033 syringes; seven SEPs did not track the number of syringes exchanged. The 11 largest programs exchanged 49% of all syringes."

Source: "Update: Syringe Exchange Programs -- United States, 2002," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 15, 2005, Vol. 54, No. 27 (Atlanta, GA: US Centers for Disease Control), p. 673.



"The findings indicate that in 2002, for the first time in 8 years, the number of SEPs, the number of localities with SEPs, and public funding for SEPs decreased nationwide; however, the number of syringes exchanged and total budgets across all programs continued to increase."

Source: "Update: Syringe Exchange Programs -- United States, 2002," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 15, 2005, Vol. 54, No. 27 (Atlanta, GA: US Centers for Disease Control), p. 673.



"SEPs provided other services in addition to syringe exchange. One hundred ten (87%) SEPs provided male condoms, 96 (76%) female condoms, 111 (88%) alcohol pads, and 86 (68%) bleach; 97 (77%) provided referrals for substance-abuse treatment; 91 (72%) offered voluntary on-site counseling and testing for HIV, 54 (43%) for hepatitis C, and 37 (29%) for hepatitis B; 42 (33%) provided vaccination for hepatitis A and 45 (36%) for hepatitis B; 39 (31%) offered sexually transmitted disease (STD) screening; 29 (23%) provided on-site medical care; and 28 (22%) provided tuberculosis screening. Most programs provided risk-reduction and risk-elimination education to IDUs. One hundred fifteen (91%) programs provided education on hepatitis A, B, and C; 114 (90%) on HIV/AIDS prevention; 111 (88%) on safer injection practices; 104 (83%) on abscess prevention and care; 100 (79%) on vein care; 110 (87%) on STD prevention; 110 (87%) on male condom use; and 94 (75%) on female condom use."

Source: "Update: Syringe Exchange Programs -- United States, 2002," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 15, 2005, Vol. 54, No. 27 (Atlanta, GA: US Centers for Disease Control), pp. 673-4.



"During 2002, a total of 126 SEPs maintained an average of six exchange sites each (median: 3.0; range: 1-47). SEPs served clients for an average of 26 hours/week (median: 18 hours/ week; range: 1-202 hours/week). Buildings (e.g., storefronts, clinics, or health centers) were the most commonly reported sites; 68 total SEPs (54%) operated 156 sites/week for 1,334 hours/week). Forty-five (36%) programs served clients through health vans or car stops (203 sites/week for 616.5 hours/week), and 25 (20%) operated other types of fixed sites, such as at tables on streets, in private homes, or at shooting galleries (i.e., locations where persons inject drugs) (141 sites/week for 413.5 hours/week). Fifteen (12%) programs used mobile workers on foot or bicycle (81 sites/week for 202.0 hours/ week). Of the 126 total SEPs in 2002, 69 (55%) had multiple types of exchange sites, 36 (29%) were entirely building-based, 14 (11%) were vehicle-based, five (4%) used other fixed sites, and two (2%) used mobile sites only. Delivery of syringes and other risk-reduction supplies to residences or meeting spots was reported by 62 (49%) SEPs. Secondary exchange (i.e., exchange of syringes on behalf of other persons) was allowed by 103 (82%) programs."

Source: "Update: Syringe Exchange Programs -- United States, 2002," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 15, 2005, Vol. 54, No. 27 (Atlanta, GA: US Centers for Disease Control), p. 674.


According to the National Institutes of Health, "individuals in areas with needle exchange programs have an increased likelihood of entering drug treatment programs."

Source: National Institutes of Health Consensus Panel, Interventions to Prevent HIV Risk Behaviors (Kensington, MD: NIH Consensus Program Information Center, February 1997), p. 6.



Needle exchange programs can "prevent significant numbers of [HIV] infections among clients of the programs, their drug and sex partners and their offspring. In almost all cases, the cost per HIV infection averted is far below the $119,000 lifetime cost of treating an HIV infected person."

Source: Lurie, P. & Reingold, A.L., et al., The Public Health Impact of Needle Exchange Programs in the United States and Abroad (San Francisco, CA: University of California, 1993), Vol. 1, Executive Summary, pp. iii-v.



"The purchase of syringes through pharmacies may be a major source of contact with the health service for some injectors, and the potential to exploit this contact point as a conduit to other services clearly exists. Work to motivate and support pharmacists to develop the services they offer to drug users could form an important part of extending the role of pharmacies, but to date only France, Portugal and the United Kingdom appear to be making significant investments in this direction."

Source: "Annual Report 2006: The State of the Drugs Problem in Europe," European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006), p. 79.



"Although most US states have legal restrictions on the sale and possession of syringes, pharmaceutical practice guidelines often allow pharmacists discretion in syringe sales decisions; this may lead to wide variation in syringe sales by individual pharmacists and to discrimination based on gender, age, race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Individual-level factors associated with pharmacists' relative willingness to sell syringes include familiarity with customers; concerns about deception, disease transmission, improperly discarded syringes, and staff and customer safety; business concerns, including fear of theft and harassment of other customers by IDU patrons; and fear of increased drug use because of easier syringe access."

Source: Diebert, Ryan J., MPH, Goldbaum, Gary, MD, MPH, Parker, Theodore R., MPH, Hagan, Holly, PhD, Marks, Robert, MEd, Hanrahan, Michael, BA, and Thiede, Hanne, DVM, MPH, "Increased Access to Unrestricted Pharmacy Sales of Syringe in Seattle-King County, Washington: Structural and Individual-Level Changes, 1996 Versus 2003," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96, No. 8, Aug. 2006, p. 1347.



"Studies on behalf of the US government conducted by the National Commission on AIDS, the University of California and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Academy of Science, and the Office of Technology Assessment all concluded that syringe prescription and drug paraphernalia laws should be overturned or modified to allow IDUs to purchase, possess, and exchange sterile syringes."

Source: Diebert, Ryan J., MPH, Goldbaum, Gary, MD, MPH, Parker, Theodore R., MPH, Hagan, Holly, PhD, Marks, Robert, MEd, Hanrahan, Michael, BA, and Thiede, Hanne, DVM, MPH, "Increased Access to Unrestricted Pharmacy Sales of Syringe in Seattle-King County, Washington: Structural and Individual-Level Changes, 1996 Versus 2003," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96, No. 8, Aug. 2006, p. 1352.



According to a study in 1996, "Drug paraphernalia laws in 47 U.S. states make it illegal for injection drug users (IDUs) to possess syringes." The study concludes, "decriminalizing syringes and needles would likely result in reductions in the behaviors that expose IDUs to blood borne viruses."

Source: Bluthenthal, Ricky N., Kral, Alex H., Erringer, Elizabeth A., and Edlin, Brian R., "Drug paraphernalia laws and injection-related infectious disease risk among drug injectors", Journal of Drug Issues, 1999;29(1):1-16. Abstract available on the web at http://www.nasen.org/NASEN_II/research1.htm.


"The data in this report offer no support for the idea that anti-OTC laws prevent illicit drug injection. However, the data do show associations between anti-OTC laws and HIV prevalence and incidence. In an ongoing epidemic of a fatal infectious disease, prudent public health policy suggests removing prescription requirements rather than awaiting definitive proof of causation. Such action has been taken by Connecticut, by Maine, and, recently, by New York. After Connecticut legalized OTC sales of syringes and the personal possession of syringes, syringe sharing by drug injectors decreased. Moreover, no evidence showed increased in drug use, drug-related arrests, or needlestick injuries to police officers."

Source: Friedman, Samuel R. PhD, Theresa Perlis, PhD, and Don C. Des Jarlais, PhD, "Laws Prohibiting Over-the-Counter Syringe Sales to Injection Drug Users: Relations to Population Density, HIV Prevalence, and HIV Incidence," American Journal of Public Health (Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, May 2001), Vol. 91, No. 5, p. 793.



"Anti-OTC laws are not associated with lower population proportions of IDUs. Laws restricting syringe access are statistically associated with HIV transmission and should be repealed."

Source: Friedman, Samuel R. PhD, Theresa Perlis, PhD, and Don C. Des Jarlais, PhD, "Laws Prohibiting Over-the-Counter Syringe Sales to Injection Drug Users: Relations to Population Density, HIV Prevalence, and HIV Incidence," American Journal of Public Health (Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, May 2001), Vol. 91, No. 5, p. 793.



"In multivariate analyses, we found that police contact was associated independently with residing in the area with no legal possession of syringes; among SEP users, those with access to SEPs without limits had lower syringe re-use but not lower syringe sharing; and that among non-SEP users, no significant differences in injection risk were observed among IDUs with and without pharmacy access to syringes. "Conclusion We found that greater legal access to syringes, if accompanied by limits on the number of syringes that can be exchanged, purchased and possessed, may not have the intended impacts on injection-related infectious disease risk among IDUs."

Source: Bluthenthal, Ricky N., Mohammed Rehan Malik, Lauretta E. Grau, Merrill Singer, Patricia Marshall & Robert Heimer for the Diffusion of Benefit through Syringe Exchange Study Team, "Sterile Syringe Access Conditions and Variations in HIV Risk Among Drug Injectors in Three Cities," Addiction Journal, Vol. 99, Issue 9, p. 1136, Sept. 2004, abstract online at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00694.x/abs/ last accessed Jan. 6, 2005.



The US Office of National Drug Control Policy in 2005 was caught by the Washington Post misrepresenting the results of research on syringe exchange programs. According to the Post in its editorial, "Deadly Ignorance":
"An official who requested anonymity directed us to a number of researchers who have allegedly cast doubt on the pro-exchange consensus. One of them is Steffanie A. Strathdee of the University of California at San Diego; when we contacted her, she responded that her research "supports the expansion of needle exchange programs, not the opposite." Another researcher cited by the administration is Martin T. Schechter of the University of British Columbia; he wrote us that "Our research here in Vancouver has been repeatedly used to cast doubt on needle exchange programs. I believe this is a clear misinterpretation of the facts." Yet a third researcher cited by the administration is Julie Bruneau at the University of Montreal; she told us that "in the vast majority of cases needle exchange programs drive HIV incidence lower." We asked Dr. Bruneau whether she favored needle exchanges in countries such as Russia or Thailand. "Yes, sure," she responded."
The Post further noted:
"The Bush administration attempted to bolster its case by providing us with three scientific articles. One, which has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, was produced by an author unknown to leading experts in this field who is affiliated with a group called the Children's AIDS Fund. This group is more renowned for its ties to the Bush administration than for its public health rigor: As the Post's David Brown has reported, it recently received an administration grant despite the fact that an expert panel had deemed its application "not suitable for funding." The two other articles supplied by the administration had been published in the American Journal of Public Health. Although each raised questions about the certainty with which needle-exchange advocates state their case, neither opposed such programs."

Source: "Deadly Ignorance," The Washington Post, Feb. 27, 2005, from the web at http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v05/n327/a08.html, last accessed March 18, 2005.


Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey misinterpreted results of two Canadian needle exchange studies when he suggested in testimony to Congress that the studies showed needle exchange efforts have failed to reduce the spread of HIV and may have worsened the problem. In a clarification published in The New York Times, the authors of the studies corrected him, pointing out that among other factors, in Canada syringes can be purchased legally while they could only be purchased with prescriptions in the United States. Therefore, unlike in the USA studies, the populations in the Canadian studies were less likely to include the more affluent and better functioning addicts who could purchase their own needles and who were less likely to engage in the riskiest activities. Thus, it was not surprising that participants in the study had higher rates of HIV than those who did not - they were in different risk categories.

Source: Bruneau, J. & Schechter, M.T., "Opinion: The Politics of Needles and AIDS," The New York Times (April 9, 1998); Federal Information Systems Corporation Federal News Service, "Hearing of the National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee subject: Office of National Drug Control Policy chaired by: Representative Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Barry R. Mccaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy." (March 26, 1998)


-----------------------------------------------------

Knock yourself out there WC.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow RG.... All that work. You need free needles or something?

I don't care how many studies you find. If I made the effort, I'm sure I can find studies that support my opinion.

Here is the bottom line for me. We should not take tax dollars to help people who make a choice to engage in dangerous activities. If you want to start a charity to do a free needle program, then have at it. But stay out of my wallet.

We have too many programs that rob the working class of their hard earned money. We have working people who do not live as well as people on the government take. That simply isn't right. I am against all government programs that give to people who can help themselves, except for short term help. The exception to this is those who cannot support themselves because of some disability.

All the social programs out there rob support to the people who legitimately need it!

Again, if you believe in such programs to help others, do it as a charity. Don't expect the government to do it. If you with to live as a socialist, then please move to a socialist country and leave this great nation alone.

[RandomGuy]

I don't care how many studies you find. If I made the effort, I'm sure I can find studies that support my opinion [that needle exchange programs don't decrease the rate of disease transmission among IV drug users].

No. You can't.

I call bullshit. Find a study. Any study.

I fucking dare your dumb ass to find one single, solitary, scientific study from a peer-reviewed medical journal that backs up your bullshit.

Tits or GTFO.

[RandomGuy]

Wow RG.... All that work. You need free needles or something?

I don't care how many studies you find. If I made the effort, I'm sure I can find studies that support my opinion.

Here is the bottom line for me. We should not take tax dollars to help people who make a choice to engage in dangerous activities. If you want to start a charity to do a free needle program, then have at it. But stay out of my wallet.

We have too many programs that rob the working class of their hard earned money. We have working people who do not live as well as people on the government take. That simply isn't right. I am against all government programs that give to people who can help themselves, except for short term help. The exception to this is those who cannot support themselves because of some disability.

All the social programs out there rob support to the people who legitimately need it!

Again, if you believe in such programs to help others, do it as a charity. Don't expect the government to do it. If you with to live as a socialist, then please move to a socialist country and leave this great nation alone.


After Connecticut legalized OTC sales of syringes and the personal possession of syringes, syringe sharing by drug injectors decreased. Moreover, no evidence showed increased in drug use, drug-related arrests, or needlestick injuries to police officers."

I don't mind opinions and public policy based on data and reasonable assumptions.

BUT

What pisses me off to no end is morons like you who spew a bunch of feel-good rhetoric at the expense of solutions that provably work.

At least, when you say you are willing to watch fellow human beings die for lack of health insurance, you don't try to pretend you are a moral person. I have never seen anybody revel in outright evil though. Honest, but evil. Scary.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't mind opinions and public policy based on data and reasonable assumptions.

BUT

What pisses me off to no end is morons like you who spew a bunch of feel-good rhetoric at the expense of solutions that provably work.

Provable work? We have had a war on drugs for how long? Has it made any difference? Now this?

Why is it not a reasonable assumption that new users will be more easily attracted to shoot up if the fear of catching some disease is nearly eliminated? Why is it not reasonable to think someone might actually dry out if they cannot find a needle?

Why must we protect people from themselves in a free society?

Even if such a program works, which I doubt works beyond reducing transmission of diseases, I am not for robbing the public treasure to help someone destroy themselves.

QUOTE]After Connecticut legalized OTC sales of syringes and the personal possession of syringes, syringe sharing by drug injectors decreased. Moreover, no evidence showed increased in drug use, drug-related arrests, or needlestick injuries to police officers."[/QUOTE]

This is fine. Make it legal o sell them. Selling it OTC (over the counter) is not taking tax dollars. You will never convince me it reduces usage. Are you saying it violates the laws of supply and demand?



At least, when you say you are willing to watch fellow human beings die for lack of health insurance, you don't try to pretend you are a moral person. I have never seen anybody revel in outright evil though. Honest, but evil. Scary.

Is it moral to steal from others to help others? If you want to take the moral high ground here, then dammit. Do it with your money. Form a charity of like minded individuals. Not other tax payers money who want to maintain a limited government. I'm tired of fucking socialists like yourself. I pick and choose causes for my money. Lord knows, I cannot help everyone. When my tax burden increases, that is less money I can contribute to charities and causes I agree with.




I don't care how many studies you find. If I made the effort, I'm sure I can find studies that support my opinion [that needle exchange programs don't decrease the rate of disease transmission among IV drug users].
No. You can't.

I call bullshit. Find a study. Any study.

You're the fucking liar. I never said it doesn't reduce the rate of transmission. I said it entices more users. I agree it reduced infection rates. Where did I say otherwise?

Fuck off if your going to put words in my mouth. I responded to "increase in overall IV drug use"

Are you an idiot or a liar? People only seeing your response to me with misquoted words see something not true. That was my concern on the thread with ozone. You are guilty of what I said the article was. Apparently it is a normal way of life, lying that way, that you don't see the blatant propaganda within that article.

New Name = RandomPropagandist!



I fucking dare your dumb ass to find one single, solitary, scientific study from a peer-reviewed medical journal that backs up your bullshit.

Tits or GTFO.

Are you telling me I wont find any worth while story supporting that something free doesn't encourage it to expand?

Are you really that dumb?

Again. I'm not wasting my time. I have a life outside this internet. Apparently you don't.

[jochhejaam]

In 2002 Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report to Congress that concluded:

“After reviewing all of the research to date, the senior scientists of the Department and I have unanimously agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe exchange programs . . . are an effective public health intervention that reduces the transmission of HIV and does not encourage the use of illegal drugs.”


Additional organizations that support needle-exchange programs as effective tools for protecting the public health of communities include:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Bar Association
American Foundation for AIDS Research
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors
New York Academy of Medicine

http://eliminateaids.blogspot.com/2006/10/ondcp-misconstruing-evidence-on-needle.html

[ChumpDumper]

I said it entices more users. Prove it.



Should be really easy given all programs, including the one in your county. Give them a call.

As for your overly simplistic tax rant -- if needle programs cut down on the HIV and other infections, that will save money for the federal government and health care providers and insurers and premium payers.

That's a good thing.

[RandomGuy]

Are you telling me I wont find any worth while story supporting that something free doesn't encourage it to expand?

Repeat after me:

Needles are not drugs

needles are not drugs

needles are not drugs


Giving needles to people will not cause them to use more illegal drugs.

If your theory was correct, then increasing the supply of needles would cause more illegal drug use.

Connecticut increased the supply of available needles by allowing them to be legally sold over the counter, and experienced no increase in narcotics usage.

THEREFORE:

It can be logically concluded that the supply/demand curves for illegal drugs are not dependant on the supply/demand curves for needles.

[RandomGuy]

As for your overly simplistic tax rant -- if needle programs cut down on the HIV and other infections, that will save money for the federal government and health care providers and insurers and premium payers.

That's a good thing.

(sighs)

But it wouldn't make him feel smug and superior, which is rather obviously a more important metric than say, data and causality.

People like him rail against social services to poor kids in order to save $10000 per year for 5 years, and then throw money hand over fist at $50,000 a year for 50+ years on trials and prisons for those kids after they reach adulthood.

Myopic and sad.

[RandomGuy]

You're the fucking liar. I never said it doesn't reduce the rate of transmission. I said it entices more users. I agree it reduced infection rates. Where did I say otherwise?


Can you explain how free needles vs. hard to acquire ones would decrease the number of cases?

I would suggest that the lower rates are not factual. AIDS is spread easily by only a limited number of means. I think it can be assumed with confidence that if people are both gay and intravenous drug users, and drugs being found in blood tests, that they would claim the needle is how they got AIDS rather than admitting they were gay!When you have needle programs, they can no longer make such a claim now, can they? At least not by the same numbers...

To be fair, you were responding to a quesiton about overall drug usage.

For whatever reason you then went off and talk about "cases" which normally is linked to "AIDS cases". This is implicit when you start trying to bullshit your way through data you don't like in the second paragraph.

Maybe I am wrong about what you really meant. If so: I take it all back. Well, except for the part where I said you were evil for wishing people without health insurance dead. That part was pretty unambiguously evil.

[RandomGuy]

Again. I'm not wasting my time. I have a life outside this internet. Apparently you don't.

Translation:

"I don't like it when someone smarter than I am spanks my proverbial pee-pee, and being smarter than most other people is important to me. So, I will simply try to negate/reduce that loss to my ego by implying that getting spanked in that manner isn't really that important."

Meh. Whatever. Just stop pretending your opinions are based on anything other than making you feel better about yourself at the expense of others.

[Wild Cobra]

RG, I'll tell you what. Let's say the needle program works without increasing the number of drug users. Still, what gets me about all this is more tax dollars being spent. I go back to if this is something youi support, do it with your own money. To use county, state, or federal money is flat out wrong. There are other issues that need money to, and more deserving. Where do we stop before we tax this society into oblivion?

[clambake]

RG, I'll tell you what. Let's say the needle program works without increasing the number of drug users. Still, what gets me about all this is more tax dollars being spent. I go back to if this is something youi support, do it with your own money. To use county, state, or federal money is flat out wrong. There are other issues that need money to, and more deserving. Where do we stop before we tax this society into oblivion?

why can't you understand that free needles=less diseases spread=less tax burden compared to the price of needles?

[Wild Cobra]

why can't you understand that free needles=less diseases spread=less tax burden compared to the price of needles?
I understand that is the viewpoint.

I am 100% against making it any tax burden. If you want your drugy friends to get clean needles, fine. Start a charity of make them legal over the counter. Do not use tax money that is better spent elsewhere.

As for needles being cheaper than expensive HIV drugs, if that is being done with tax dollars already, whay the cry for free healthcare?

[ChumpDumper]

As for needles being cheaper than expensive HIV drugs, if that is being done with tax dollars already, whay the cry for free healthcare?It's not free. Never is. Your thinking in this thread is incomplete.

[RandomGuy]

RG, I'll tell you what. Let's say the needle program works without increasing the number of drug users. Still, what gets me about all this is more tax dollars being spent. I go back to if this is something youi support, do it with your own money. To use county, state, or federal money is flat out wrong. There are other issues that need money to, and more deserving. Where do we stop before we tax this society into oblivion?

I don't find it "wrong" to use tax money to alleviate problems that affect everybody.

[Yonivore]

I don't find it "wrong" to use tax money to alleviate problems that affect everybody.
So, we should use tax money to support laziness? Or, is supporting lazy, unproductive types with our tax dollars an acceptable price to pay so that we can also support those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to make a living?

Because, quite frankly, private and non-profit charities are better at weeding out the lazy from the unable than is any government.

Once you involve government people start screaming for the right to not be stigmatized by the fact they're relying on government. That leads to abuse, waste, and fraud.

Just look at any government program.

[Supergirl]

Needle exchanges prevent the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. That is all. They don't encourage or discourage drug use. But unless you're OK with people using dirty needles and then having sex with people who may have had sex with someone you've had sex with - well, then you ought to support needle exchanges. It really is just that simple, people.

[Wild Cobra]

Needle exchanges prevent the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. That is all. They don't encourage or discourage drug use. But unless you're OK with people using dirty needles and then having sex with people who may have had sex with someone you've had sex with - well, then you ought to support needle exchanges. It really is just that simple, people.
I have a friend who's brother died of AIDS. He was a dug user and got the disease that way. This was way back before we knew what we know today. I knew him well enough o know he would have used safer practices, and didn't need a free program. He would have bought them by the dozen. I'll bet much of the data collected that shows clean needles reduce risk of passing diseases are flawed. How do they eliminate the changes in habits people exercise when they gain knowledge? If people are not going to exercise better judgment on there own, how are free needles going to help? They still have to find the source and take the time. The cost would be minimal compared to the time they take. I have a hard time believing it will stop the spread of diseases in people who fail to exercise god judgment to begin with. Can we really assume that an addict, mostly concerned with his next high, is going to get a new needle? No... He sneaks his passed out buddies....

Again. Make needles legal to sell rather than using tax dollars. If you want to help addicts, then form your own charity. Stop finding more reasons to drain the tax dollar resources.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll bet much of the data collected that shows clean needles reduce risk of passing diseases are flawed.:lmao

[Supergirl]

I have a friend who's brother died of AIDS. He was a dug user and got the disease that way. This was way back before we knew what we know today. I knew him well enough o know he would have used safer practices, and didn't need a free program. He would have bought them by the dozen. I'll bet much of the data collected that shows clean needles reduce risk of passing diseases are flawed. How do they eliminate the changes in habits people exercise when they gain knowledge? If people are not going to exercise better judgment on there own, how are free needles going to help? They still have to find the source and take the time. The cost would be minimal compared to the time they take. I have a hard time believing it will stop the spread of diseases in people who fail to exercise god judgment to begin with. Can we really assume that an addict, mostly concerned with his next high, is going to get a new needle? No... He sneaks his passed out buddies....

Again. Make needles legal to sell rather than using tax dollars. If you want to help addicts, then form your own charity. Stop finding more reasons to drain the tax dollar resources.

Most needle exchange programs receive a mixture of money from public health departments and private funding. The money they receive from the government is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the money being used to fund, say, the war in Iraq.

As for how they work: Well, addicts who want to use are going to use. And if they have needles accessible to them that are clean, they will use them. They find them. The programs seek out the addicts and make them available. If they aren't available, they'll use ones that are dirty, which is how the spread of HIV and Hep C continues.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

OK, you have a right to fall down laughing. I must not be getting enough sleep. I'm still not adjusted to changing my work schedule. I worded that wrong. I meant to say "I'll bet much of the data collected that shows clean needles reduce disease are flawed." I'm sure it reduces rates. Just not quantity. I say this because of the gained knowledge of people practicing better safety in general. Does a free needle exchange really work when all a conscientious user has to do is boil the needle? Maybe store it in alcohol?

I have a hard time believing it has to do with availability. It has to do with education, knowledge that past practices are not safe. Only those who care about reducing the risk will reduce the risk themselves.

I see it like birth control. Free birth control has caused more pregnancies, not less. People get wrapped up in this false security yet it isn't 100%. Condoms, pills, etc. fail. Carefree sex with lower pregnancy rates still amounts to more pregnancies. For drug usage, Lower rates with higher usage can actually end up being more cases.

I refuse to believe it does not encourage more drug usage. Let me rephrase that. It removes a fear, or stigma, that would otherwise prevent someone from trying the drugs for the first time. I'll bet if there was a study that addressed that aspect of it, we would see a growth that otherwise would be less growth, or a reduction of usage. Keep in mind, studies have not looked for such trends.

[Wild Cobra]

Most needle exchange programs receive a mixture of money from public health departments and private funding. The money they receive from the government is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the money being used to fund, say, the war in Iraq.

I don't give a rats ass how little the public funding is. I am one who wants to see most social programs eliminated.

If you care about this cause, give some of your money to it. Don't ask you fellow tax payer to give up their hard earned money. If we used government money to also finance all good caused more worthy than this one, we would be in financial ruins.

Charity is the way to go with most social expenditures. It allows certain limitations from the groups giving money or services out whereas the government must remain neutral. he more taxes the government imposes on the public, the less us tax payers have to give to the causes we believe in. Charities also are a free market method to deliver services the public wants rather than forcing things on us we don't want.

What I find is prevalent is that liberals want to do it with other peoples money (tax dollars) but conservatives want to do it with their own money. The general trend I find is that liberals, as a general rule, DO NOT GIVE TO CHARITIES. Because they don't, they believe nothing would get funded without taxing the bejesus out of all of us.

I have a strong disdain for most liberals because of the public theft they believe in.

How dare you mention something like the Iraq War when it is a valid cause constitutionally. Please, show me in the constitution that allows for social programs.

[ChumpDumper]

It's a public health issue. I don't mind public money going to a program that cuts down on the spread of disease, especially if it will keep more of our money from being spent on the treatment of those diseases down the line.

And no federal money has gone to needle exchange programs since 1988, so there is no US constitutional argument to be made here.

EDIT: It looks like there was a recent lifting of the ban in Washington DC. That's a whole $650k.

[clambake]

How dare you mention something like the Iraq War when it is a valid cause constitutionally.

:lmao

[Supergirl]

OK, you have a right to fall down laughing. I must not be getting enough sleep. I'm still not adjusted to changing my work schedule. I worded that wrong. I meant to say "I'll bet much of the data collected that shows clean needles reduce disease are flawed." I'm sure it reduces rates. Just not quantity. I say this because of the gained knowledge of people practicing better safety in general. Does a free needle exchange really work when all a conscientious user has to do is boil the needle? Maybe store it in alcohol?

I have a hard time believing it has to do with availability. It has to do with education, knowledge that past practices are not safe. Only those who care about reducing the risk will reduce the risk themselves.

I see it like birth control. Free birth control has caused more pregnancies, not less. People get wrapped up in this false security yet it isn't 100%. Condoms, pills, etc. fail. Carefree sex with lower pregnancy rates still amounts to more pregnancies. For drug usage, Lower rates with higher usage can actually end up being more cases.

I refuse to believe it does not encourage more drug usage. Let me rephrase that. It removes a fear, or stigma, that would otherwise prevent someone from trying the drugs for the first time. I'll bet if there was a study that addressed that aspect of it, we would see a growth that otherwise would be less growth, or a reduction of usage. Keep in mind, studies have not looked for such trends.

You can refuse to believe whatever you want, but you are flat out WRONG. Check out this link: http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/020049.htm

The evidence is overwhelming. Not only do needle exchange programs reduce the rates of HIV and Hep C infection, which is a public health and safety concern for any sexually active adult, but according to the above study as well as others, needle exchange programs are also very successful at getting addicts into treatment.

Birth control, by the way is 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy, when used correctly. That's about as accurate as you can get from anything. It is, however, only about 80% effective in preventing STDs, while condoms are
95% effective in preventing STDs, when used correctly. And as someone who works with teenagers, I can tell you this assuredly: the kids who are going to have sex early are already having sex, usually by age 13 or 14. The kids who aren't are not "tempted" to do so because birth control and condoms are available. But the rates of herpes, syphilis, and other STDs is skyrocketing, because of the Christian right's efforts to prevent effective safer sex education.

[Wild Cobra]

You can refuse to believe whatever you want, but you are flat out WRONG. Check out this link: http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/020049.htm

Read that more carefully. Think about the limitations of the words used, and what better words would be if more conclusive facts were present.



The evidence is overwhelming. Not only do needle exchange programs reduce the rates of HIV and Hep C infection, which is a public health and safety concern for any sexually active adult, but according to the above study as well as others, needle exchange programs are also very successful at getting addicts into treatment.

So they say. I wonder, if the program is so successful, why is there only a 33% reduction in those particpatig? Again, I say those concerned only need to know how to protect themself.

Look at the timelines. They start at 1987, and use it wrong. First of all, AIDS was a realatively new discovery. Naturally, education alone will reduce the numbers from that point. There are too many other factors that lend to unreliable results of such studies.

As for getting addicts treatment... That becomes another subject, but still. Government should not be aiding drug usage. It should be a stigma. If you believe differently, then again... Do it with your money. Not mine.



Birth control, by the way is 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy, when used correctly. That's about as accurate as you can get from anything. It is, however, only about 80% effective in preventing STDs, while condoms are
95% effective in preventing STDs, when used correctly. And as someone who works with teenagers, I can tell you this assuredly: the kids who are going to have sex early are already having sex, usually by age 13 or 14. The kids who aren't are not "tempted" to do so because birth control and condoms are available. But the rates of herpes, syphilis, and other STDs is skyrocketing, because of the Christian right's efforts to prevent effective safer sex education.

The false assumtion is that it has become accepted to have sex at an early age. Kids are taught in school about it a way too early ages, then basically told it's OK. We have far higher pregnacy rates today than when I was in school because of government prevention!

[Supergirl]

The false assumtion is that it has become accepted to have sex at an early age. Kids are taught in school about it a way too early ages, then basically told it's OK. We have far higher pregnacy rates today than when I was in school because of government prevention!

And what makes you think YOUR assumption is any more accurate than my "assumption" - mine is based on hard data. What is yours based on? I challenge you to find one single peer-reviewed, scientific study that shows sex education programs causing an increase in sexual activity.


An alternate theory might be that the increased sexualization of kids and teens on TV and in movies increases kids' interest in sex at an early age. There's also some evidence to suggest that environmental toxins are actually causing kids to reach puberty at an early age: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080206121505.htm

[RandomGuy]

Free birth control has caused more pregnancies, not less.

I call bullshit.

Prove this.

I am getting really tired of you passing off your opinion as fact.

[Wild Cobra]

I challenge you to find one single peer-reviewed, scientific study that shows sex education programs causing an increase in sexual activity.

I don't need to see a peer reviewed study. I've seen the DRAMTIC rise in teen pregnacies grow in my lifetime.



An alternate theory might be that the increased sexualization of kids and teens on TV and in movies increases kids' interest in sex at an early age. There's also some evidence to suggest that environmental toxins are actually causing kids to reach puberty at an early age: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080206121505.htm
You're joking right? We had plenty of sexualization when I was a kid. The difference is, now the schools teach of abortion rights, hand out condoms, and girls can get birth control from the school nurse without their parents knowledge or consent, they think it's OK! No matter how much the parents say it's a bad thing, the government schools undermine the parents authority.

This is a total disgrace.

[Wild Cobra]

I call bullshit.

Prove this.

I am getting really tired of you passing off your opinion as fact.
You are stupid as to think what I see with my own eyes is opinion. How do I sum up nearly 50 years of experience? It still wouldn't be proof enough for you, would it?

[Supergirl]

I don't need to see a peer reviewed study. I've seen the DRAMTIC rise in teen pregnacies grow in my lifetime.



Anecdotal stories are very cute, but don't mean shit. I could tell you a million anecdotal stories that are all true from my own life, which contradict everything you could come up with from yours.

Let's see some facts, and some data. Otherwise, what you're stating is an OPINION. Which is fine. But don't try and pass it off as FACT.

[Wild Cobra]

Anecdotal stories are very cute, but don't mean shit. I could tell you a million anecdotal stories that are all true from my own life, which contradict everything you could come up with from yours.

Let's see some facts, and some data. Otherwise, what you're stating is an OPINION. Which is fine. But don't try and pass it off as FACT.
I'm not going to bother. But tell me one thing. Are you saying for the record that teen pregnacy rates are lower now than 30 years ago? I would diagree with that!

[Supergirl]

I'm not going to bother. But tell me one thing. Are you saying for the record that teen pregnacy rates are lower now than 30 years ago? I would diagree with that!

No, i am not, although as I said, I don't actually know whether it is or not. Since you are going to try and hold a discussion without actually providing any research or facts for your arguments (which is just plain lazy) I am going to end this discussion with you.

However, I will leave you with another reference:
http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm

This article's first paragraph disputes everything you've tried to say, and it's just the first thing that comes up when you Google teen pregnancy:

"The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the western world, despite the fact that our teens are not more sexually active than Swedish teens, or Canadian teens, or British teens.

Why? Because we don't educate about birth control in sex education classes, we don't discuss it at home, we don't give teens good access to it, and we don't advertise it in our media. Other countries do, and they are rewarded with low rates of teen pregnancy and teen abortions. But, you say, making condoms available in school-based clinics would ‘give kids the wrong idea’. In fact, 5 recent research studies indicate that it doesn't."

[Wild Cobra]

No, i am not, although as I said, I don't actually know whether it is or not. Since you are going to try and hold a discussion without actually providing any research or facts for your arguments (which is just plain lazy) I am going to end this discussion with you.

Not lazy, just that if I take the time needed to address this subject right, I don't have the time for other things.

As for that article, I don't care what it says. Look at what it really says. Lack of proper education. Back to the government schools, they teach the subject, but not very good. I agree the parental involvement is lacking. I lived in Europe for six years, and they do have better social structures than se do. I'm not comparing us with other countries, but a now vs. time past.

I don't know how old you are, but ask anyone growing up in the 60's and 70's about what they saw for teen birth rates then vs. today. It is so blatantly obvious, I shouldn't have to find an article on it.

[RandomGuy]

I don't need to see a peer reviewed study.

Ah, I see.

Your opinion is better than all the scientific data gathered on any given subject, because you are so smart that you don't need real data.

:rolleyes

Gotcha.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not going to bother. But tell me one thing. Are you saying for the record that teen pregnacy rates are lower now than 30 years ago? I would diagree with that!

http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg514_500_350.jpg


As of the date of this pdf report in late 2006 (based on data up to 2002) it is.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/pregrate_oct2006.pdf

1972 95
1973 96
1974 99
1975 101
1976 101
1977 105
1978 105
1979 109
1980 111
1981 110
1982 110
1983 109
1984 108
1985 109
1986 107
1987 107
1988 111
1989 115
1990 117
1991 115
1992 111
1993 108
1994 105
1995 100
1996 96
1997 91
1998 89
1999 86
2000 84
2001 80
2002 75


You fail, dogma-boy.

[RandomGuy]

I don't have the time [for these] things.



Results 1 - 10 of about 173,000 for teen pregnancy rates graph. (0.31 seconds)

If you can't take a less than a second to back up your bullshit, GTFO.

Not even trying = lazy

[Wild Cobra]

If you can't take a less than a second to back up your bullshit, GTFO.

Not even trying = lazy

Searches on such subjects are nothing but information overload. That information has no merit.

How about one that breaks down by age, without including the 18 and 19 year old girls who were married and had planned pregnacies... You know, and times changed, and more women want to work rather than have kids, that effects those numbers too.

I think it was clear I was speaking of unplanned, unmarried teen pregnancies. That graph does not fit the argument. How many kids in the 60's and 70's would get married right after school and start families? Intentionally?

[RandomGuy]

Searches on such subjects are nothing but information overload. That information has no merit.

How about one that breaks down by age, without including the 18 and 19 year old girls who were married and had planned pregnacies... You know, and times changed, and more women want to work rather than have kids, that effects those numbers too.

I think it was clear I was speaking of unplanned, unmarried teen pregnancies. That graph does not fit the argument. How many kids in the 60's and 70's would get married right after school and start families? Intentionally?

The data was on unplanned, umarried teen pregnancies.

This response simply fits into your pattern, dogma-boy.

When faced with data that contradicts your world-view, it must be "flawed" somehow, or "not worth the time".

Your first response isn't "well maybe I should see if I should re-examine my position based on new evidence and data", it is "this must be wrong somehow because it doesn't agree with my opinion."

Begone from here. I wave my stick at you that wards off stupid spirits....

http://www.aokcorral.com/pmpre/images/coloradowalkingsticks/coloradowalkingsticks_image1.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

The data was on unplanned, umarried teen pregnancies.

Where does it say that?



This response simply fits into your pattern, dogma-boy.

At least I don't make things up like you do.



When faced with data that contradicts your world-view, it must be "flawed" somehow, or "not worth the time".

How does it contradict my word? You must be seeing things. I don't see where it says unplanned and unmarried.



Your first response isn't "well maybe I should see if I should re-examine my position based on new evidence and data", it is "this must be wrong somehow because it doesn't agree with my opinion."

I reject your flawed data. Not because it doesn't agree with my opinion, but it doesn't say what you say it does.



Begone from here. I wave my stick at you that wards off stupid spirits....

Looking in a mirror again?

[RandomGuy]

I'm not going to bother. But tell me one thing. Are you saying for the record that teen pregnacy rates are lower now than 30 years ago? I would diagree with that!

http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg514_500_350.jpg


As of the date of this pdf report in late 2006 (based on data up to 2002) it is.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/pregrate_oct2006.pdf

1972 95
1973 96
1974 99
1975 101
1976 101
1977 105
1978 105
1979 109
1980 111
1981 110
1982 110
1983 109
1984 108
1985 109
1986 107
1987 107
1988 111
1989 115
1990 117
1991 115
1992 111
1993 108
1994 105
1995 100
1996 96
1997 91
1998 89
1999 86
2000 84
2001 80
2002 75


You fail, dogma-boy.

[RandomGuy]

Where does it say that?


At least I don't make things up like you do.


How does it contradict my word? You must be seeing things. I don't see where it says unplanned and unmarried.


I reject your flawed data. Not because it doesn't agree with my opinion, but it doesn't say what you say it does.


Looking in a mirror again?

(shakes anti-stupid stick harder)

Away spirit of stupidity, cease inhabiting my computer!!!

http://www.ec-securehost.com/BlackArrowIndianArt/images/415A_sm.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

(shakes anti-stupid stick harder)

Away spirit of stupidity, cease inhabiting my computer!!!

http://www.ec-securehost.com/BlackArrowIndianArt/images/415A_sm.jpg

Man, you've lost it.

Again, where does it say that?

[Wild Cobra]

Well RandomPropagandaGuy...

Two days later...

I ask again, where does it say that?

[RandomGuy]

How does it contradict my word? You must be seeing things.



I'm not going to bother. But tell me one thing. Are you saying for the record that teen pregnacy rates are lower now than 30 years ago? I would diagree with that!

http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg514_500_350.jpg


As of the date of this pdf report in late 2006 (based on data up to 2002) it is.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/pregrate_oct2006.pdf


TEEN PREGANCY RATES FROM TEEN PREGNANCY.ORG
1972 95
1973 96
1974 99
1975 101
1976 101
1977 105
1978 105
1979 109
1980 111
1981 110
1982 110
1983 109
1984 108
1985 109
1986 107
1987 107
1988 111
1989 115
1990 117
1991 115
1992 111
1993 108
1994 105
1995 100
1996 96
1997 91
1998 89
1999 86
2000 84
2001 80
2002 75

[RandomGuy]

The data was on unplanned, umarried teen pregnancies.
Where does it say that?



Where does it say that?

It is kind of implicit in the data, dogma-boy.

If you intend it not to be you would have to have some data regarding the "planned, married" rate of pregancy is for US teens aged 15-19.

Given that the law in most states prohibits most 15 year olds from marrying in the first place, it is kind of hard for any given 15 year old girl to get married and "plan" the pregnancy, isn't it?

Backpedal and provaricate, dogma-boy, I expect no less. Your opinions are based on your own preconceived notions, not actual data, whether you admit it or not.

[RandomGuy]

I don't need to see a peer reviewed study. I've seen the DRAMTIC rise in teen pregnacies grow in my lifetime.

Fucking oops.

Ever find any data to support this, asshat?

This whole thread is a prime example of how self-righteous bullshit judgmentalism keeps decent policies from seeing the light of day and slowing economic growth for everybody.

[RandomGuy]

Pinned to the wall, WC looks for any out he can feverishly and quickly think of.

You made the statement Cobra.

Back it up, because the only data available directly contradicts your statement.

It isn't my burden of proof, it is yours.

[scott]

Another case of society chopping off its own nose in spite of its face.

[scott]

And I was just referring to the OP, not to WC's continued asshattery.

[Wild Cobra]

Good.

You did bump it.

I'll look at this tomorrow. Have to go now. Have to leave for work within 15 minutes.

[RandomGuy]

Another case of society chopping off its own nose in spite of its face.

Here is a good question for an economist, because one of the arguments given here was an economic one.

"If you make something free, you increase its usage".

In this case, the "free" thing is clean needles.

All things equal, making needles free, but not the drugs, will push up clean needle usage, but not affect the overall usage of drugs by any appreciable amount.

Is that a reasonable statement? Given the cost of needles is such a small part of the monetary cost of injectable drugs.

[RandomGuy]

Good.

You did bump it.

I'll look at this tomorrow. Have to go now. Have to leave for work within 15 minutes.

Take all the time you need to find the data to support your statement about teen pregnancy rates, of any type.

Hell, we've been waiting four years, what is another few days?

You go wit yer bad self on that one. I would LOVE to see data supporting it.

(edit)

I double DOG dare you.

[RandomGuy]

... TRIPLE DOG DARE you to find anything. Anything at all.

[RandomGuy]

And I was just referring to the OP, not to WC's continued asshattery.

See, he is pinning his hopes on some difference between planned and unplanned.

As if "planned" pregnancies by teen age girls/women constitute a significant part of overall pregnancies.

He was unwittingly vague enough in his statment that he thinks there is some weasel room there for him.

Overall, in addition to the data on "unplanned" pregancies, women in general have been waiting to have kids, longer and longer.

The average age of a female in the US at her first birth, if at all, has been creeping up as well.

WC might surprise everybody by admitting he fucked up, but I am not holding my breath.

[DarrinS]

At least Winehole bumps other people's really old threads.

Carry on

[RandomGuy]

At least Winehole bumps other people's really old threads.

Carry on

Don't you have some shopping to do before the jackbooted thugs git yer bulbs?

[Yonivore]

Don't you have some shopping to do before the jackbooted thugs git yer bulbs?
Is this place the only home you know? It's like you remember every obscure thing anyone has ever said in here.

Fuck, I can't even remember what you said in any post before today. It's not just you, there's a number of posters in here that either write shit down and keep it hand or have no real life that bumps this crap out of your brain when you're not logged in.

[Th'Pusher]

Is this place the only home you know? It's like you remember every obscure thing anyone has ever said in here.

Fuck, I can't even remember what you said in any post before today. It's not just you, there's a number of posters in here that either write shit down and keep it hand or have no real life that bumps this crap out of your brain when you're not logged in.

Probably all that grass you smoked when your brain was still developing :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Is this place the only home you know? It's like you remember every obscure thing anyone has ever said in here.

Fuck, I can't even remember what you said in any post before today. It's not just you, there's a number of posters in here that either write shit down and keep it hand or have no real life that bumps this crap out of your brain when you're not logged in.
Or there's another possibility.
It's called thread subscriptions. It's really easy. Look into it.

[ElNono]

Or there's another possibility.
It's called thread subscriptions. It's really easy. Look into it.

technology... that evil thing :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Fucking magnets!

[Yonivore]

Or there's another possibility.
It's called thread subscriptions. It's really easy. Look into it.
God no; the last thing I want is you people flooding my inbox.

[TeyshaBlue]

God no; the last thing I want is you people flooding my inbox.

Protip: It has nothing to do with your inbox.

[CosmicCowboy]

needle exchange for addicts? This isn't anything that excites me one way or another. However, if it keeps the fucking idiots out of the emergency rooms with hepatitis, aids, etc. then fine, by all means give the morons clean needles.

[vy65]

self-righteous bullshit judgmentalism


http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/10/25/2ci9cpdgwu.jpg

[Pelicans78]

I'm leaning towards yes.

[LnGrrrR]

Wow RG.... All that work. You need free needles or something?

I don't care how many studies you find. If I made the effort, I'm sure I can find studies that support my opinion.

Here is the bottom line for me. We should not take tax dollars to help people who make a choice to engage in dangerous activities. If you want to start a charity to do a free needle program, then have at it. But stay out of my wallet.

We have too many programs that rob the working class of their hard earned money. We have working people who do not live as well as people on the government take. That simply isn't right. I am against all government programs that give to people who can help themselves, except for short term help. The exception to this is those who cannot support themselves because of some disability.

All the social programs out there rob support to the people who legitimately need it!

Again, if you believe in such programs to help others, do it as a charity. Don't expect the government to do it. If you with to live as a socialist, then please move to a socialist country and leave this great nation alone.

WC, why do you ask for facts if you're just going to dismiss them when confronted with them? :lmao :lmao :lmao

[baseline bum]

needle exchange for addicts? This isn't anything that excites me one way or another. However, if it keeps the fucking idiots out of the emergency rooms with hepatitis, aids, etc. then fine, by all means give the morons clean needles.

That's pretty much the reason. Cheaper to just let them kill themselves than spread diseases all around.

[DMC]

Fuck them. When are we going to stop financing these dipshits? Let them die. Nature finds a way to off these clowns to keep them from breeding and humans come along and thwart it.

[DMC]

I have a problem with buying someone a needle to shoot up with, but that pales in comparison to how I feel about addicts passing along HIV because they don't have sterile syringes.





Maybe you can get the free needles if you can prove that you are living in abject poverty.
<careful ex>
Whoever is fucking a needle sharing addict needs to go as well.

[RandomGuy]

Is this place the only home you know? It's like you remember every obscure thing anyone has ever said in here.

Fuck, I can't even remember what you said in any post before today. It's not just you, there's a number of posters in here that either write shit down and keep it hand or have no real life that bumps this crap out of your brain when you're not logged in.

Dude, the lightbulb thing is A#1 classic comedy gold.

It doesn't get more illustrative of fucktarded right wing hysteria than a chain email about how the gubmint is coming to git yer litebubs.

How the does someone forget about that funny?

As for this thread... it was the only thing that came up when one searchs "teen pregancy rates".

I only remembered dimwit saying something truly, monumentally stupid like this, and a search engine did the rest.

One of the things that makes stuff like this stand out in my head, is that I actually dig down for actual data behind claims. I prefer, unlike you right wing propaganda regurgitators to have opinions based on things like facts and science, with reasonable conclusions. When you do that, things tend to actually stick around. Being informed is like that. Try it sometime.

I see so much of what you believe as self-righteous bullshit and things that you read on some website that gives you all warm fuzzies about being superior to other people, that when I find stoopid shit, it sticks in my mind.

Call it my confirmation bias. Call it the fact that I have a pretty good memory all things told.

Whatever you want to believe to make yourself feel better about being a hack, and the other right wing hack crazy uncles that you want to kid yourself are rare on your side of the isle.

Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble. Aiken isn't as rare as you want us to believe.

[RandomGuy]

Fuck them. When are we going to stop financing these dipshits? Let them die. Nature finds a way to off these clowns to keep them from breeding and humans come along and thwart it.

You didn't really read anything in thethread other than the title, did you?

(sigh)

[RandomGuy]

self-righteous bullshit judgmentalism


http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/10/25/2ci9cpdgwu.jpg

Speak of the devil.

Protested any rape victims today?

or maybe you finally discoverd the difference between legal and moral?

[Wild Cobra]

There was another thread we expanded this discussion on. Your old link is not longer valid. I will still contend that unplanned teen birth rates are higher in recent history than in the 60's and 70's. I have not been able to find complete data that specifies unplanned. Any idea where that other thread is?

[Wild Cobra]

Random, consider something please. These studies you find are including marriage age adults. Does it break down how many are married and how many are not? How many are actually unplanned pregnancies?

Here is my contention, poorly worded before. I say that there are less pregnancies to unmarried high school girls in the 70's than today. I will add the specificity of unmarried and of high school age. We can add Jr. high if you like. Stop with the studies that include married women and those who are 19 and 20 years old.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

RG, you and the studies, are more than likely correct. But
I, like Reed, have a thing about doing something that
is not authorized by law. If it really is that good for
society, then legalize it. Like tobacco, if the damn stuff
is so bad for you, outlaw it. It is just a thing with me.

If everyone were like you, they'd still be prosecuting witches in Salem.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

Random, consider something please. These studies you find are including marriage age adults. Does it break down how many are married and how many are not? How many are actually unplanned pregnancies?

Here is my contention, poorly worded before. I say that there are less pregnancies to unmarried high school girls in the 70's than today. I will add the specificity of unmarried and of high school age. We can add Jr. high if you like. Stop with the studies that include married women and those who are 19 and 20 years old.

It's your premise, YOU fucking prove it. Even if RG were to provide those numbers, you'd only move the goalposts again.

[RandomGuy]

There was another thread we expanded this discussion on. Your old link is not longer valid. I will still contend that unplanned teen birth rates are higher in recent history than in the 60's and 70's. I have not been able to find complete data that specifies unplanned. Any idea where that other thread is?

Not my job to support your statement.

If you can't find the data, then logic dictates a rejection of your statement.

[Wild Cobra]

Not my job to support your statement.

If you can't find the data, then logic dictates a rejection of your statement.
Well, you are the one worried about this four year old argument. I'm not. Are you still butt-hurt from me catching you on your confusion between ozone and smog you never admitted?

[RandomGuy]

Fucking dolt.

Let me google it for your dumb ass.

http://www.google.com/search?q=teen+pregnancy+rates

So let's see what the most current reports show.


Something quite remarkable has happened to teenage pregnancy rates in the past few years. They’ve reached a three-decade low, down by 40 percent since 1990. Teen births and abortions also have fallen respectively by one-third and one-half.

Better sex education, though a sensible practice, doesn’t deserve the full credit. Teen pregnancy is often blamed on some states’ promotion of school-based “abstinence-only” education, which neglects contraception. But the recent drops in teen pregnancy were present across the country, in states with comprehensive sex education (like New Jersey, where annual teen pregnancy rates dropped from 11 percent to 7 percent) and those without it (like Texas, where the rate is higher but fell by about the same relative amount). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 40 percent of teens didn’t use a condom at last intercourse, and that sorry figure doesn’t vary much by state. And between 1995 and 2010, depressingly, the substantial percentage of teens who used no contraception at all remained unchanged nationwide, indicating that teens didn’t suddenly start using birth control.

Part of the explanation is that teenagers are waiting longer to have sex. According to federal surveys of teenage girls, 49 percent reported they were virgins in 1995, but 57 percent said they were in 2010. (The trend was even more pronounced among black teens, whose rate of abstinence rose from 40 percent to 54 percent.) However, these modest changes don’t fully explain the dramatic drop in teen pregnancy.

Advertisement

So what really changed? Even though the same proportion of teens has used birth control during the past 20 years, the key to lower pregnancy rates has been a shift from condom use alone to more effective hormonal methods like the pill. It turns out that not all contraception is the same. No matter how well-educated they are, teens who do use birth control can’t reliably use condoms every time. To be sure, condoms prevent sexually transmitted diseases and are an important public health tool. But we now realize they should never, ever be the sole method of birth control for teens. They find condoms too much of hassle to use time after time—so they don’t.

Why Have Teen Pregnancy Rates Dropped?
A new study shows how to reduce them even more.
By Darshak Sanghavi|Posted Tuesday, July 31, 2012, at 11:30 AM ET

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/07/preventing_unwanted_pregnancies_forget_sex_ed_and_ compare_the_pill_to_iuds_.html

Give young girls free birth control pills, and you get another predictable result.

Keep looking for data supporting your stupid ideas, by all means. My search was not lengthy or detailed by any stretch. I was merely curious to see what was there.

Shockingly enough, your idea about what the country is/was is based on nothing but what makes you feel good. Emotion over data and pragmatism.

[RandomGuy]

Random, consider something please. These studies you find are including marriage age adults. Does it break down how many are married and how many are not? How many are actually unplanned pregnancies?

Here is my contention, poorly worded before. I say that there are less pregnancies to unmarried high school girls in the 70's than today. I will add the specificity of unmarried and of high school age. We can add Jr. high if you like. Stop with the studies that include married women and those who are 19 and 20 years old.

I will consider it.

I consider it a blindingly stupid obfuscation on your part, of the kind that Cosmored tries to pull when you corner him in his bullshit.

Your fucking mediocre mind grasping at irrelevant straws that do nothing to change the context under which the data as we know it exists.

[Wild Cobra]

How many of these teens are 19 and 20 years old, or married? More people married right after HS four decades ago than today, and that is using data 3 decades back.

[Wild Cobra]

I will consider it.

I consider it a blindingly stupid obfuscation on your part, of the kind that Cosmored tries to pull when you corner him in his bullshit.

Your fucking mediocre mind grasping at irrelevant straws that do nothing to change the context under which the data as we know it exists.
You get to be a real asshole when you get frustrated.

Must be that you cannot defend against what I said.

[RandomGuy]

Well, you are the one worried about this four year old argument. I'm not. Are you still butt-hurt from me catching you on your confusion between ozone and smog you never admitted?

:lmao

The problem you have here is that I freely admit when I am wrong.


THat particular case was you hanging your hat on a spelling mistake, when cornered.

JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING HERE, YOU DUMB ASS.

[RandomGuy]

You get to be a real asshole when you get frustrated.

Must be that you cannot defend against what I said.

I am not frustrated.

I'm just tired of your stupidity.


Quit responding to my posts and find some data to support your moronic thesis, you fucking hack.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

The problem you have here is that I freely admit when I am wrong.


THat particular case was you hanging your hat on a spelling mistake, when cornered.

JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING HERE, YOU DUMB ASS.
I was wrong in what I originally said. I meant something I stated incorrectly. That's no different, I corrected my words.

You never admitted to my recollection that you were wrong in that smog/ozone thing.

[RandomGuy]

Here is my contention, poorly worded before. I say that there are less pregnancies to unmarried high school girls in the 70's than today. I will add the specificity of unmarried and of high school age. We can add Jr. high if you like. Stop with the studies that include married women and those who are 19 and 20 years old.



Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise.

Either provide some solid data to support your claim, or it can be and should be, logically rejected.

That is the nice way to say:

Back it up, or get the fuck out, hack boy.

[RandomGuy]

I was wrong in what I originally said. I meant something I stated incorrectly. That's no different, I corrected my words.

You never admitted to my recollection that you were wrong in that smog/ozone thing.

Does this support your statement about teen pregnancy?


It doesn't?


How unsurprising.


The lack of evidence continues. Quit trying to change the subject, it makes you look worse.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't get it Random. I don't care what you think. I have looked for studies that support the criteria I laid out, but the internet is just information overload. I have not found statistics on unmarried women with unwanted pregnancies in Jr. High or High School. They all include other groups that skew the data. A married 18 year old women very likely has a child at 19, yet is counted in the teem statistics you find.

[TeyshaBlue]

I can't find the data that I just know must be there! It's so obvious! My God. It must be libtards censoring the internet!

[Wild Cobra]

Teysha, you are welcome to look through that information overload.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

needle exchange for addicts? This isn't anything that excites me one way or another. However, if it keeps the fucking idiots out of the emergency rooms with hepatitis, aids, etc. then fine, by all means give the morons clean needles.
I agree with this 100%. Enabling drug addicts isn't a good thing, but if giving them free needles makes them less of a burden on tax payers and makes them spread less disease, then it's a no brainers.

I still say legalize all drugs and tax the hell out of what you can. If people are going to pay "crack prices" for crack, we're better off using that as a source of revenue rather than letting it empower cartels.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't see how giving away needles is enabling. They are going to use needles period, whether they are clean or not. Might as well make 'em clean and reduce the other tax payer burdens ala DuncanownsKobe above.

[TeyshaBlue]

Teysha, you are welcome to look through that information overload.

"Im not going to do your research for you." ---WC

[RandomGuy]

You don't get it Random. I don't care what you think. I have looked for studies that support the criteria I laid out, but the internet is just information overload. I have not found statistics on unmarried women with unwanted pregnancies in Jr. High or High School. They all include other groups that skew the data. A married 18 year old women very likely has a child at 19, yet is counted in the teem statistics you find.

I found what you need to prove or disprove your fucktarded theory. If I wanted to, I could stick it into an excel spreadsheet, run some statistical analysis, and ferret it out for you.

I'm not going to. I will tell you what I found pretty much disproves your moronic theory, even without that.

You can't prove your statement. End of story.

[RandomGuy]

I don't see how giving away needles is enabling. They are going to use needles period, whether they are clean or not. Might as well make 'em clean and reduce the other tax payer burdens ala DuncanownsKobe above.

I agree.

All giving away clean needles does is increase the usage of cleen needles.

In the end, even if it does increase drug usage, it decreases the societal costs of that drug usage, by decreasing the worst health care costs.

Hell, let's even grant that clean needles is enabling addicts, ignoring the fact that they will use dirty needles to get their fixes, regardless.

A few more addicts is a price I am willing to pay for having a healthier group of addicts that aren't using expensive health care.

+a small number of addicts
-a large decrease in consumed health care
===============================
Lower costs to society, and lower taxes.

Yeah, I went there. Dirty needles equals higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums. If you get rid of the needle programs you are for higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums.

Suck it.

[RandomGuy]

I agree with this 100%. Enabling drug addicts isn't a good thing, but if giving them free needles makes them less of a burden on tax payers and makes them spread less disease, then it's a no brainers.

I still say legalize all drugs and tax the hell out of what you can. If people are going to pay "crack prices" for crack, we're better off using that as a source of revenue rather than letting it empower cartels.

Eyup.

All Prohibition did was put money in the hands of Al Capone and the like.

We tried this with alchohol and got enough information to figure out whether this kind of policy ultimately works, IMO.