The back page of New York magazine every week is the Artifact feature, where they archive a tidbit of the city — this week was an annotated picture of the kit [1] given by the city to drug users to ensure the safe usage of their substance of choice. I was more than surprised by its. . . thoroughness? I mean I have hobbies, but no government agency has ever given me a kit that contains not only every thing I need to accomplish said extracurricular — down to a nine-step info card of how to do so, but that's just me.
I honestly don't know where to stand on this conundrum, but I have some questions:
- If someone is a habitual drug user, what are the chances that they will actually use all of these items as they're intended? The kit contains 10 different doodads, including capsules of sterilized water for mixing the drugs (see, I had no idea this was necessary) itsy-bitsy cotton balls to trap dirt and debris from getting in the syringe, a bottle of bleach, and an empty bottle to use to clean the needles in. Oh, and the needles come from a whole different location. Will the complexity stop these goods from actually getting put to use?
- 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?
I'm just getting started — we haven't even considered money yet. To see the rest, .
- Then there's the question of harm reduction. Is it more harmful to not provide clean paraphernalia and have drug users potentially spreading more deadly diseases? If drug addicts have to come in to exchange needles, is it a valuable opportunity to also give out education and condoms, aiding the cause even further?
- And then there's the money. Preventing people from contracting HIV does save public health money. According to the Lancet [2] if needle exchange had been implemented in early 1997, by 2000, 11,000 fewer HIV infections would have occurred saving over $600 million. But then there's the reason this kit was featured this week: New York's $300 million budget cuts are impinging on the centers that distribute them. Do you spend money to save money?
Is giving out kits like this the answer? How much support is too much? Where do you stand?
Source [3]