Pro verses Con

Pro Argument:
-All Needle Exchange Programs offer information about safer injection methods and referral to substance abuse treatment centers
-Reduces drug use through effective referrals to drug treatment and counseling
-NEPs are widely supported by the public
-Has been proven to actually reduce the spread of AIDS
-By failing to support these programs, government officials are failing to save human lives
-NEPs only attempt to make drug addiction less harmful
-Vast majority of NEPs are exchange programs, not distribution services. This means that they require a set of dirty needles for clean ones.
-Federal studies found that these programs did not increase drug use but proved that NEPs can reduce the spread od H.I.V. and save lives without losing foot in the battle against illegal drugs.

Con:
-NEPs will expose the public to dirty needles
-These programs do not stop people from using illegal drugs
-NEPs aren't exchanges, but are infact giveaways to IDUs, saying that participants rarely exchange dirty needles for clean ones meaning that dirty needles are still out on the streets
-Government funding for AIDS is expensive and not extremely efficient
-By funding NEPs, we are sending mixed messages to our children
-Critics also argue that NEPs don't reduce the suffering of drug users or prevent them from spreading the disease, but they do further foster drug use.

Argument Position: Pro.

Needle Exchange Programs (overview)

NEPs are simply programs that offer IDUs (injection drug users) clean needles in exchange for their dirty ones. This topic is highly debated in the United Staets while accepted widely all over the rest of the world. Needle exchange programs are highly controversial because they directly correlate to the ongoing HIV/AIDS epidemic. Everyday 16,000 people are diagnosed with the disease. Needle exchange programs have been proven to indeed stem the flow of HIV/AIDS and to help the people already living with the disease live longer lives. NEPs are considered counterproductive and morally inadequate. Pro NEP argue that they slow the spread of HIV/AIDS and that it is wrong to abolish a program that could potentially save lives. Con NEPs counter that although NEPs may be medically effective, they give the impression to young adults and children that drug use is acceptable. They also stress the fact that the public would be exposed to dirty junkie needles that were'nt disposed of properly. This arguement is debatable because in order to recieve clean needles from Needle Exchange Programs you must EXCHANGE your dirty needle for a clean one. Although NEPs are effective, they still technically promote the use of drugs by giving the impression that drug use is widely known and accepted by the public. The issue at hand however is that even if drug use is accepted or not, it is an ongoing problem that continues to impact future generations and while the United States is presented with a solution, the government is choosing not to act and let the epidemic spread for fear of posining the decision process of our youth. What are we saving? The next generations lives or their mindsets.

Federal funding for NEPs are banned in the United States, but by funding Needle Exchange Programs the U.S. government would be making a huge step in saving lives.