NEPs are NOT the Answer
Sample Letters-to-the-Editor

Needle Exchanges Do NOT Reduce Harm to Society
Needle Exchange programs (NEPs) are based on a flawed “harm reduction” philosophy. Reducing the harm of addicts contracting and spreading HIV and other blood-bourne diseases has not been proven with hard statistics, while the increased harm to communities where the NEPs reside has been avoided by NEP supporters. In Leicester UK, d espite a city sponsored needle exchange program, the Leicester City Council’s cleansing team reports that needles discarded in public places has risen dramatically. They’ve collected 3.5 times more syringes in the past four months (1,100), than they typically retrieve in a full year (~300). The latest stash was discovered in the public toilets in Mandela Park on August 18 th. Workers were faced with the potentially dangerous task of retrieving more than 200 used needles - which can carry infections including HIV and hepatitis - from a drain. Ian Lomas, manager for the cleansing team, said: “The trouble is that once these people have taken a drug like heroin they are like zombies. The last thing they think about is how they discard their needles. We find they leave them in holes in walls, toilet roll holders, underneath the pans, places where they can hurt people.” Is this what NJ wants for Camden, Atlantic City and Newark?
(207 words)

Needle Exchanges Do NOT Reduce Harm to Society
Needle Exchange programs (NEPs) are based on a flawed “harm reduction” philosophy. First, there are no hard statistics to prove that NEPs reducing the harm of addicts contracting and spreading HIV and other blood-bourne diseases. Yet sadly, there is increased harm and fallout to communities where the NEPs reside. NJ Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) reported in 2003 that parents with drug abuse problems represented 85% of their complaints. What would giving these parents free needles do for all these children? In addition, DYFS points out that current treatment programs are lacking because there is a six month waiting list and that for those who complete the treatment, there is no program that looks at developing any kind of employment skills afterwards. Wouldn’t taxpayer dollars be much more wisely spent on more treatment for these parents and training so they can take care of their children? (148 words)