Intravenous (IV) drug use is a major cause of preventable transmission of blood-borne diseases in the United States. Within this realm, it is the common practice of sharing previously used needles that makes IV drug users more susceptible to contracting diseases such as Hepatitis C and HIV. In recent years across the United States and worldwide, a method of controlling dirty needle-sharing has been to provide access to clean needles and syringes, regardless of the intended use. Although the nation has an estimated 289 000 heroin users as of 2013 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2014), the legislature in a highly populous state, California, has been reluctant to
…show more content…
The implication is that, if the process of injecting illegal substances was made safer, more people would do it. This argument presumes that the major deterrent to individuals at risk of commencing IV drug use is the safety of the injections or the challenge of getting needles in the first place. (This is an inductive argument; there may be a vague connection between visibility/access and incidence of use, but there is no firm correlation. It is a weak induction at best, as the implication is that, if some individuals believe that clean needles make drug use more favorable, there will be an increase in the overall user population). The American Pharmacists Association’s research has supported the idea that regulated needle exchange programs can have “a clear effect in improving the health outcomes of [IV Drug Users] by decreasing the transmission of blood-borne disease and lowering high-risk injecting behaviors” (Alkiviadis G. Nacopoulos, Andrea J. Lewtas, & Maria M. Ousterhout, 2010). Furthermore, in places where safe needle exchange programs have been initiated, high-risk use has actually decreased (Lurie, et al., 1993). And, as mentioned above in the Vancouver example, going that one step further and providing safe locations to inject decreases visibility of drug use and gives users direct contact with healthcare professionals, thereby providing access to safe cessation options (City of Vancouver,
The implication is that, if the process of injecting illegal substances was made safer, more people would do it. This argument presumes that the major deterrent to individuals at risk of commencing IV drug use is the safety of the injections or the challenge of getting needles in the first place. (This is an inductive argument; there may be a vague connection between visibility/access and incidence of use, but there is no firm correlation. It is a weak induction at best, as the implication is that, if some individuals believe that clean needles make drug use more favorable, there will be an increase in the overall user population). The American Pharmacists Association’s research has supported the idea that regulated needle exchange programs can have “a clear effect in improving the health outcomes of [IV Drug Users] by decreasing the transmission of blood-borne disease and lowering high-risk injecting behaviors” (Alkiviadis G. Nacopoulos, Andrea J. Lewtas, & Maria M. Ousterhout, 2010). Furthermore, in places where safe needle exchange programs have been initiated, high-risk use has actually decreased (Lurie, et al., 1993). And, as mentioned above in the Vancouver example, going that one step further and providing safe locations to inject decreases visibility of drug use and gives users direct contact with healthcare professionals, thereby providing access to safe cessation options (City of Vancouver,