Addiction has been going around for a very long time but today drug use has become more popular than ever. According to Aaron Cooper’s CNN article Study: 22 Million Americans use illegal drugs, “More than 22 million Americans age 12 and older - nearly 9% of the U.S. population - use illegal drugs, according to the government’s 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.” Once you become addicted it becomes very hard to stop, and others do not want to stop or feel they cannot. Many people believe that providing drug users with free disposable needles could help prevent the spread of AIDS and ultimately prevent countless drug related deaths. Although this is an extremely controversial idea it is still something that should be explored more in depth. In Pro & Con: Free Needles for Addicts, to Help Curb AIDS? Bruce Lambert discusses the debate on giving drug addicts free needles. Lambert goes on to say, “AIDS has spread more rapidly among intravenous drug users than any other group. Sample tests show that more than half the city's estimated 200,000 addicts are infected with the vir...
By providing clean needles to drug addicts, are we causing another issue such as increased drug
The documentary states that over 27,000 deaths a year are due to overdose from heroin and other opioids. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2015 prescription pain relievers account for 20,101 overdose deaths, and 12,990 overdose deaths are related to heroin (Rudd et al., 2010-2015). The documentary’s investigation gives the history of how the heroin epidemic started, with a great focus on the hospice movement. We are presented with the idea that once someone is addicted to painkillers, the difficulty in obtaining the drug over a long period of time becomes too expensive and too difficult. This often leads people to use heroin. This idea is true as a 2014 survey found that 94% of respondents who were being treated for opioid addiction said they chose to use heroin because prescription opioids were “more expensive and harder to obtain (Cicero et al., 2014).” Four in five heroin users actually started out using prescription painkillers (Johns, 2013). This correlation between heroin and prescription painkiller use supports the idea presented in the documentary that “prescription opiates are heroin prep school.”
Needle exchange programs are a type of harm reduction initiative used in different parts of the world to combat HIV transmission. These programs provide injection drug users (IDUs) with clean needles and syringes (AVERT, 2015). These programs are run by pharmacies or other drug services, and can be either fixed or mobile sites (CDC, 2010). Besides aiming to reduce the transmission of HIV, these programs also provide advice on safe drug injection, how to minimize harm by drugs and overdose, how to safely handle injection equipment, and provide access to treatment if the person wishes. There are at least 90 countries that have implemented these programs, located in various areas such as the United States, Australia, Asia, Europe, Latin America,
After considering both parts of the issues I am all for methadone treatment and am about 50% on board for the needle exchange. For example, the needle exchange benefits people who get pierced benefit because the piercers must also use sterile needles even if this is not for drug use. But, at the same time needle exchange doesn’t necessarily reduce the spread of HIV and in the long run I don’t think that it’s worth it to showcase needle exchange as the top preventer of the transmittance of HIV. I am all for methadone treatment because of the fact that opiates are extremely hard to get off and at least this way it is proven that the addicts can at least try to assimilate themselves back into normal living if that is their wish.
To conclude, although the main goal of the Needle exchange programs is to reduce the transmissions of HIV and other diseases, they still fail to help the drug addicts they intended to serve and prevent any injuries in community. In fact, they encourage them to use more drugs, which could lead to overdose and death. Therefore, Needle exchange programs should be abolished.
The purpose of this essay is to indicate how the needle and syringe program in prisons will benefit the Australian government as well as the wider Australian community. As well as the maintenance of NSPs can be maintained while acknowledging concerns of those against it. Needle and syringe programs (NSP) are aimed at intravenous drug users, so as to prevent and limit blood borne diseases like HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. These NSP programs help drug addicts by supplying needles and also through referrals and provide education among other services. All these efforts are made to control the spread of blood borne diseases like Hepatitis and AIDS in Australian population with 872 Blood Borne viruses reported 4th quarter 2013(Quarterly Surveillance Report Notifiable Sexually Transmissible Infections and Blood-borne Viruses in Western Australia, Government of Western Australia, Department of health period ending Volume11(1) 31st of December 2013). Blood borne diseases being a major concern all around the globe and prisons being a hub for these diseases its best that NSPs are introduced in prisons.
Although needle exchange programs have been successful, they have had some criticism. One of the main goals in the needle exchange program is to prevent or to reduce the rate of transmission of any infectious diseases, such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or hepatitis C by distributing sterile syringes. The intended group that this program is trying to focus on is injecting drug users, since they have a high rate of either repeatedly using a contaminated syringe or sharing the same syringe with others. These programs do not only focus on distributing syringes to those who choose to accept them, some of the programs provide different services such as, counseling groups, education classes about the risk of using contaminated syringes, free medical visits, and HIV testing. On the other hand, some people may be against these types of programs because they are allowing injection drug users to continue to use drugs. Another reason why people may not be as accepting of the needle exchange programs is due to the fact that these programs are government funded.
It has been said that addiction is the plague of the 21st century. In an age of unprecedented life expectancy and medical breakthroughs, people are dying from both disease and overdose that are self inflicted and the cure is currently out of reach. Implementing progressive ideas such as safe injection sites have been a battle, both for caring social workers and front line emergency workers looking to minimize the health risks associated with risk taking behaviors that inevitably occur with intravenous drug use. While the addicted population currently uses considerable government funding by way of shelter services as well as prison and jail time, safe injection sites are a necessary step in the battle against drug abuse as is a major prevention
“Safe injection sites” are not a valid response to the Opioid Crisis it will defeat the purpose of treatment for people looking to end their addiction. If someone is an opioid drug addict, treatment to end the addiction would not be more appealing than going to an injection site to get high without prosecution. If addiction to opioid drugs is such a hard thing to stop, then it should not be promoted in any way.
The Government needs to draw the line somewhere. In Sweden the Government was giving out free heroin, in order to keep the drugs free from being impure. However, Margaret McKay (2001) declares that if we follow in same steps, soon we will be giving out not only free heroin, but also other illegal substances as well. It will then lead to problems with other drugs as well.
The arguments that I have just laid out are not perfect and they have some apparent flaws that some philosophers would strongly disagree with, while there are other arguments that some of the great philosophers would agree with. I will critique the arguments that I have just laid out using the perspective of three different philosophers who all have their own ideas of how the state should function and the role of the citizen. The three philosophers that I will use in this critique will be Karl Marx, John Stewart Mill, and John Locke. The reason why I picked these three philosophers is because they all agree with some aspects of my writing, while disagreeing with others. One will disagree with the role of the state and the citizens, but agree with legalizing recreational drug use, while the other two will agree with the role of the state and citizens, but disagree with legalizing drug use.
The National Drug Control Strategy was issued two years ago to reduce drug use among teenagers and adults. The success of the President’s drug policy can be measured by its results. The student drug testing approach has reduced drug use and discouraged first time users significantly. Communities have been more actively involved in anti-drug programs for youth and adults. The increase in budget for law enforcement will enhance their effectiveness in detaining drug lords and cartels.
The war on drugs and the violence that comes with it has always brought around a hot debate about drug legalization. The amount of violence that is associated with drugs is a result from harsher drug laws and prohibition.
Drug abuse and addiction are issues that affect people everywhere. However, these issues are usually treated as criminal activity rather than issues of public health. There is a conflict over whether addiction related to drug abuse is a disease or a choice. Addiction as a choice suggests that drug abusers are completely responsible for their actions, while addiction as a disease suggests that drug abusers need help in order to break their cycle of addiction. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that addiction is a disease, and should be treated rather than punished. Drug addiction is a disease because: some people are more likely to suffer from addiction due to their genes, drug abuse brought on by addictive behavior changes the brain and worsens the addiction, and the environment a person lives in can cause the person to relapse because addiction can so strongly affect a person.
The ethics of drug testing has become an increased concern for many companies in the recent years. More companies are beginning to use it and more people are starting more to have problems with it. The tests are now more than ever seen as a way to stop the problems of drug abuse in the workplace. This brings up a very large question. Is drug testing an ethical way to decide employee drug use? It is also very hard to decide if the test is an invasion of employee privacy. “The ethical status of workplace drug testing can be expressed as a question of competing interests, between the employer’s right to use testing to reduce drug related harms and maximize profits, over against the employee’s right to privacy, particularly with regard to drug use which occurs outside the workplace.” (Cranford 2) The rights of the employee have to be considered. The Supreme Court case, Griswold vs. Connecticut outlines the idea that every person is entitled to a privacy zone. However this definition covers privacy and protection from government. To work productively especially when the work may be physical it is nearly impossible to keep one’s privacy. The relationship between employer and employee is based on a contract. The employee provides work for the employer and in return he is paid. If the employee cannot provide services because of problems such as drug abuse, then he is violating the contract. Employers have the right to know many things about their employees.