(This is a great series. - promoted by jmelli)
I’'ve previously documented the important facts and alarming statistics about HIV transmission in New Jersey here. I’ve also detailed how legislation stalled in the NJ State Senate will effectively address this massive problem here.
Briefly to recap, a number of facts are crucial: New Jersey’s rate of HIV transmission through injection is nearly twice the national average. Needle exchange programs have been proven to reduce the rate of transmission of bloodborne pathogens, including HIV, hepatitis C and others. And with Delaware’s recent passage of needle exchange legislation, New Jersey remains the only state to explicitly forbid such life-saving programs.
You might wonder how, in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence, some New Jersey leaders might still justify holding up needle exchange. You might wonder what reason or strategy they’d cite in opposing programs that are proven to effectively fight HIV transmission, especially considering New Jersey has the fifth highest HIV/AIDS rate nationally, including the highest rate of infection among women, and the third highest pediatric infection rate.
The answer isn't easy. |
| The assertion that syringe exchange is equivalent to drug addiction is dead wrong. The facts prove those who assert as much wrong.
Syringe exchange has been proven to reduce risk behavior and HIV/AIDS transmission. In addition, syringe exchange has also proven an effective bridge to drug abuse treatment. Indeed, the syringe exchange bill currently pending in the legislature directs that the program “shall provide information and referrals including HIV testing options, access to substance abuse treatment and available health and social services” to program participants. Shall provide. The referrals to drug treatment programs are 100% automatic, not discretionary. No nits to pick, no gray areas, period.
Given the previously mentioned statistics about New Jersey’s female, pediatric, and urban HIV/AIDS cases, given that syringe exchange programs have been proven not to increase drug use, and given that syringe exchange programs hold the best promise for simultaneously combating HIV/AIDS and drug addiction, attacks on syringe exchange don't hold up to the data. Many opponents try to tie syringe exchange to harm to women and minorities (and by association, urban centers), attempting cut into the traditional Democratic voter base and erode progressive support for syringe exchange.
Frequently, opposition to syringe exchange also relies on a clever misinterpretation of the facts, including a scientific review known as the “Vancouver Study.” The study was conducted in 1997 to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of HIV in Vancouver. Opponents claims the study contains proof of Vancouver’'s “failed needle exchange experiment”…that the study proves needle exchange “[does] nothing but destroy urban communities.”
Such comments on the Vancouver Study are the worst form of political cherry-picking. This argument plucks one sentence from the conclusions section, completely ignoring context:
Conclusions: Despite having the largest NEP in North America, Vancouver has been experiencing an ongoing HIV epidemic.
It’s easy to believe just reading that one sentence that SEP are an abysmal failure. The wording here, taken out of context, makes SEP sound ineffective at best and possibly even harmful. Now read the full paragraph:
Conclusions: Despite having the largest NEP in North America, Vancouver has been experiencing an ongoing HIV epidemic. Whereas NEP are crucial for sterile syringe provision, they should be considered one component of a comprehensive programme including counseling, support, and education
Conveniently left out by opponents is the fact that the currently pending SEP bill establishes just such a “comprehensive programme.” (Pardon the quotes, but I love British/Canadian spellings. Like colour. And theatre.)
Linguistic digressions aside, the Vancouver Study to which Rice constantly refers provides yet more evidence to undermine his demagogic arguments. Such as:
Our study was not intended to evaluate the effectiveness of NEP…[since] there were no estimates of HIV incidence among [injecting drug users] in Vancouver prior to the introduction of NEP in 1988
And also:
…without adequate and appropriate community-wide interventions such as addictions treatment, detoxification and counseling, stand-alone NEP may be insufficient to maintain low HIV prevalence and incidence for an indefinite period.
And finally:
In Vancouver, NEP was introduced early, but access to drug and alcohol treatment, methadone maintenance and counseling services remains inadequate.
Seems to me that the Vancouver Study doesn’t argue against SEP. In fact, it recommends SEP, within the context of a comprehensive treatment and education program. Since these comprehensive treatment options are established by the pending SEP bill, the Vancouver Study, contrary to Rice’s demagogy on its results, is a strong argument in favor of the pending bill.
Many of the authors of the 1997 Vancouver Study, seeing their work so twisted for political purposes, issued a clarifying study in 1999. This second study, entitled “Do Needle Exchange Programmes Increase the Spread of HIV Among Injection Drug Users: An Investigation of the Vancouver Outbreak” leaves no room for doubt:
We found little evidence to support the hypothesis that this particular NEP was causally associated with higher risk of HIV infection…There was no evidence to suggest that the NEP played a role in the formation of new needle sharing partnerships, and little support for the hypothesis that frequent attendance was causally associated with a shift to higher risk behavior…opponents of needle exchange should desist from citing the association in Vancouver as evidence that needle exchange may exacerbate the spread of HIV
Opponents of syringe exchange should get with the facts or get out of office. In New Jersey's communities, HIV and syringe exchange are issues of life and death. |
