Well if someone's gonna use them, the least he could do is use them right.

I agree, this seems odd - I tried looking for more information like the cost to the city of each kit, any actual measure of its usefulness but couldn't find anythng that helped me understand this. In theory, I'm fine with spending money if it actually does save in the long run - I don't see how this does though.

I look at this and think "Hey you like drugs? Here, let me help you take more." Shouldn't we spend a little more on drug prevention, rather than enabling? Oh wait, this is the enlightened NYC, so I shouldn't question...

Sadly, the government encourages drug use instead of trying to help get them off drugs. Other examples of encouragement... they are given welfare and food stamps which is used to fund their drug habit. A drug addict can be arrested many many times and it's against the law to send them to rehab, instead they are put back onto the street, given more money and these kits. Poorly run government decisions and wasted tax dollars!

Like a drug user is going to worry about a safety kit???...PLEASE
"Hey before I go shoot up some heroin, I must make sure I have a bandaid and some neosporin to apply just in case..." That is not their mentality nor their care.
& on top of it, this gives non-users the idea that it may not be so bad as long as you follow precautions because after all, the government is saying so.

"If drug users aren't exposed as easily to diseases and live longer as addicts, what kind of future societal health problem could we be creating?"

I understand the concern with health care costs, and the burden on society. I'll be the first to go on a giant soap-box rant about how someone who smokes and gets lung cancer is raising MY health care premiums even though I don't smoke, because of the expense of their care.

But at some point, it's called survival of the fittest/smartest. You're right in questioning if we should really be so concerned with extending the life of someone who is a serious heroine user. These people, at one point, knew the dangers of drugs and were aware of the damages, and still chose to become users. Shouldn't they have to step up and take responsibility at some point?

I think that while yes, it does seem to be superfluous, as most users probably won't use the kit, it at least shows NYC is trying to do something. Most of the other drug prevention methods have not worked. Most cities just keep trying the same old method, with the same horrible results. I applaud them for trying a new method, if only for the possibility of it succeeding.

"At what point is the line between encouraging drug use by making it so much safer, easier, and government-sanctioned? If drug users aren't exposed as easily to diseases and live longer as addicts, what kind of future societal health problem could we be creating?"

Substitute "drug use" with "premarital sex". I did and I found it kind of interesting.

I guess I feel like there are always people who do drugs, just as there are always people who have premarital sex. They are both personal decisions, and yet the gov't is supposed to be "against" both.

I'd rather have a society where we give out condoms and clean needles than one where we don't. I think the cost saved in the long run, both in terms of human costs and money, is worth it.

Now, whether the addicts will use the kits or not is a different story. I can't deign to put myself in their shoes.

These kits seem to encourage drug use. Wouldn't it make more sense to put money towards rehab and/or drug prevention programs and educaation? Oh, I forgot we're talking about the government...

"capsules of sterilized water for mixing the drugs (see, I had no idea this was necessary) "
me either.

I, too, find this rather odd. Both sides have made valid points though.

um, one glaring difference, pop, is that while premarital sex is legal the drug use these kits promote are still illegal in this country.

So, unless they legalize it, handing out condoms and handing out drug kits are not comparable.

My post was flagged. So in case it doesn't show up, the gist of it is this:

I'm not an idiot. I get that drugs are illegal. I really felt your tone to be quite condescending.

To expand on that, you can compare two things and it's not a perfect comparison, but aspects of the two things are the same.

In this case, my main point is that you can educate and try to prevent, but it doesn't work. Drugs and sex. They are inevitabilities. And whether they're legal or not isn't relevant in their inevitability.

And in my mind, the important point isn't their legal status, but how we can try to mitigate the consequences.

I agree with pop. I think we go down a dangerous path when we start saying that education and safety materials are actually encouraging use, when we have no proof. That argument could be applied to handing condoms out in high school (sex between teens is illegal in many states).

Personally, I believe in legalisation and subsequent regulation of all recreational drugs. This safety issue wouldn't exist if a heroin addict could go to a clinic to get a safe boost. I also believe rehab programs for "hard" drugs would be more effective if they were able to give their patients a slow decrease in the drug rather than having to cut them off cold turkey and give them alternative drugs to address the symptoms.

I say the above to give context when I say that I have no problem with this, and I find it a little odd that anyone is thinking that the world would be better off if heroin addicts just died from diseases caught by unsafe needle practices. That seems unfair to me. I'm sure there are people who this world would be better off without, but I don't think it's ethical to wholesale write-off any group.

There's also the part being largely ignored wherein heroin addicts give diseases such as HIV to unsuspecting non-addicts. So, if you are a cold and callous person who is like, "just let the addicts die"...well, an addict might infect someone who isn't, and how is that fair? And shouldn't we do what we can to prevent that scenario at least?

I would probably be more okay with the sex metaphor if we were talking teenagers having sex, or at least removed marriage from the equation. Do you really think an unmarried 30 year old woman having sex poses a danger to society? Is the government officially against consenting, unmarried adults getting it on?

um, you can interpret my tone anyway you would like Ms. Pop. But since you can't hear my voice, see my face or read my body language, I'd say you overreacted.

No one called you an idiot. I was pointing out what I saw was a flaw in your argument. I still think it's a stretch to say if we stop giving out drug kits, the next - logical - step would be to stop giving out condoms.

Eh. Can you really imagine anyone reading that comment aloud, with emphasis on the bolded words, in a cheerful and polite tone?

Re: tone, that is why I said I felt that it was condescending, not that it was. I could counter that I wasn't overreacting, which I don't think I was since there wasn't any kind of attack. But the reality is that it's your perception, what it feels like to you, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

Also, sy, I'm not sure if your last point is in response to me or someone else, but I don't believe I ever stated that if we stopped giving out kits we'd stop giving out condoms.

My main point, and I'll state it again, is that the gov't has spent millions of dollars, perhaps even billions, trying to prevent drug use, in a similar way they've tried to prevent premarital sex.

I'm literally just saying that education and prevention have fallen flat, so perhaps accepting these things as inevitabilites and trying to make people as safe as possible is the best we can do to prevent outbreaks of disease and unwanted children that will cost our society so much more in the long run.

To some of the other points, I'm absolutely not saying people who have premarital sex are dangerous. But there are obviously aspects of sex that are dangerous (disease) and of course unwanted pregnancies which end in abortion which no one likes etc.

torg, really?

pop, I see your point now. I just don't like to admit that our education and prevention methods have completely fallen flat. While they are not perfect (by any means) I do think that they have helped at least some.

I still don't like the idea of these kits. But I think we'll both just disagree on this one.

Sy, yes. I've read that comment at least a half dozen time in my head, and I honestly cannot come up with a cheerful, polite way for it to come out.

Pop, again, is the government really against premarital sex? It's against unmarried adults having consensual sex with other adult partners?

torg I agree they don't really care about adults. I just didn't articulate that well.

People act as if the majority of the drugs weren't put on the streets by the police and the DEA. You know, every civilization since the beginning has had a recreational drug that was big in the society, so Americans need to stop acting like we, as a society, are immune to drug use. Just because alcohol and prescription drugs are legal doesn't mean they are any better for you than some of the drugs that are illegal. It's ok for a doctor to give you a dose of heroin in the form of morphine, and even get you addicted to morphine and provide you with a morphine pump INSIDE your body, but heavan forbid you do the same damage to yourself? To each their own, and if they happen to kill themselves in the process, so be it, we are overcrowding our planet anyways. If these people happen to rob someone or a store to support their habit, then you put them in prison. Imprisoning drug addicts does absolutely nothing to cure their addiction, you think they can't get the drugs, or some sort of high in prison? Now, that's a waste of tax dollars! Drunk drivers kill people everyday, but there is no argument to make alcohol illegal. We recently had a drunk driver (who was leaving a bachelor party) run down and kill 2 bicyclists at 8am on a Sunday morning... Do you drink? If so, then you have absolutely no leg to stand on in the argument against drugs. I see drunk people act far worse on a nightly basis.

Brandy, that argument doesn't make sense because it involves drinking and driving, not just drinking. I have no problem with the legalization of some drugs (mostly marijuana), but drugs like heroin have been proven to have a greater adverse affect on behavior than alcohol has, particularly if alcohol is taken in moderation. You can't honestly say that someone who has a glass of wine once a week has no room to criticize a heroin addict.

Anyway, I think the kits are a waste of money because I honestly don't think they will be used, but that's just opinion, as I can't really find any facts to support this. (Nor can I really find any facts in the other direction; I imagine this data would be extremely difficult to collect.)

I had read this and had mixed feelings at first but my opinion is that drug users are a certain type - they are addicted and before they started doing drugs- many knew and were aware of the dangers involved. They are now at the point where safety is clearly not their concern. They are addicts and cannot see or think clearly about their actions. I cannot imagine a drug user actually taking advantage of these kits. The highly addictive drugs have a lot of other serious issues tied in with them besides offering safety kits. But I am willing to see the research and evidence after a few years - if it actually helps then I will stand corrected.

Good point, it would be extremely hard to track results.

I guess I just don't understand what these kits are going to accomplish? Will they even be utilized by the illegal drug users...probably not. Maybe, maybe they would prevent future spread of disease by users, however, why is it the government's job to protect the health of someone who has no regard for themselves? We should be spending money on people who are not responsible for their own destruction.

Okay..I work for the city of new york and i get so many calls from parents saying "my childs needs help with drugs". I reffer them to programs and conseling and etc. Sometimes the parents may not be able to actully afford these programs. I think that the money they are spending on these kits should be spent on helping drug addicts.

Further more I aslo understand them trying to stop the spread of diease yes okay but isnt there a program where addicts can get clean needles? i wonder how that program is doing and the statics on the spread of disese once that program was started.

And lastly in the back of my mind you never know, what if this kits helps one person advoid getting aids. Is is worth it?

From everything I've ever read the needle exchange programs tend to be at least somewhat successful, even though it is quite hard to track. Google scholar is really helpful, if you'd like to search "efficacy of needle exchange" you can find a wealth of articles on the subject.

And despite the fact that our society enjoys demonizing addicts (of any sort, really), I think it's important to at least try and give them the tools to do it safely. It's been said before, but there will always be people using/abusing drugs. I think it would be an important achievement to at least stem the tide of infectious diseases. Would every drug user take advantage of this program? Definitely not, but I think we'd all be surprised by just how many would.

I would rather see more spent on needle exchange (just the needles) and less spent on all-out safety kits, if we're going to spend on one. I do remember a little about Baltimore's needle exchange kit in the Tipping Point. (which I think I left on a plane)