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

[RandomGuy]

The attorney general recently ruled that a case against workers in such a program could be pursued as the laws are currently written.

In May of 2007, the Legislature authorized a pilot program in Bexar County "to prevent the spread of HIV, hepa is B, hepa is 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,

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

[RandomGuy]

Link to something that shows the results of lots of other studies

[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 Hepa is.

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 quan ies 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 -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 -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..........

[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..........

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.......

[PlayoffEx-static]

I thought I already said that.......

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 hepa is 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 <undo ented 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 <undo ented 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>

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.