The economy has been struggling for years and authorities in the United States government have had to make some tough choices in terms of how best to spend tax dollars. Until recently, drug addiction prevention and harm reduction programs have been on the list of supported programs. Many officials recognized that an ounce of prevention costs millions less than pounds and pounds of an attempted cure, but now some of these programs, specifically needle exchanges, are on the chopping block. Some government officials say that it doesn’t make sense to spend the small amount of tax money available for social programs on those living with drug addiction when other programs (like schools and Medicare) suffer cutbacks. The argument over how best to spend tax dollars to support the largest part of the population is one that, in this case, begs the question: What exactly is our responsibility to heroin addicts? Are we ethically responsible to provide care and treatment? Does the care of someone living with heroin addiction impact others in society?
Supporting the Drop of Harm-Reducing Needle Exchange Programs From the Budget
Needle exchanges provide active injection drug users with clean needles in an effort to stem the spread of diseases like HIV and hepatitis C. Paid for in large part by government grants, needle exchanges are scheduled to be dropped from the federal spending package. Why? Proponents of dropping funding for needle exchanges say that federal funds must be made available to support the widest range of people and create the most benefit across the board. Some think that needle exchanges only benefit a small portion of the population – namely, injection drug users and those who have sex with them – and that those funds would better serve the population and the future of our country if invested in education and more generalized healthcare.
Supporting Federal Funding for Harm Reduction and Treatment Programs
For the past decade and a half, studies have been pouring in that support the efficacy of needle exchanges in minimizing the health damage caused by injection drug use and lowering the rates of deadly illnesses like HIV and hepatitis C. A lower rate of infection means a lower number of deaths as well as decreased cost to government healthcare resources in the treatment of those illnesses. Whatever the thoughts on the morality of drug addiction or the perception of needle exchanges in the ethics debate on addiction in general, the bottom line may just be the dollar; it’s cheaper to pay for needle exchanges than it is to pay for medical care.
What Do You Think?
Are needle exchanges a good way to help addicts stay healthy and alive, moving a day closer to rehabilitation and treatment that will help them change their lives? Or are needle exchanges supported by the federal government sending “the wrong message” about drug addiction? Leave us a comment below and share your thoughts.
