Needle Exchange Programs Funding Essay

Themis Mano
Persuasive Speech Outline
Topic Needle Exchange Programs Funding
Introduction In all like hood, most of us have probably made mistakes in our lifetime, some of which have been instructional and some of which we deeply regret. Reserved for those regrets are second chances. That is what the congress is trying to show with the current uplifting of the ban on federal funding of needle exchange programs.
Relevance There has been a continuous growth of needle-exchange program despite the long standing ban implemented in the 1980, and Seattle has been one active participant in such programs. The increase in federal funding, which is only applicable to the programs and not the purchase of the needles themselves, is going to further implement the message of these programs, which is nothing else than decreasing the HIV-rates and other transmittable diseases, as well as providing a helpful hand to an addict and further options for rehabilitation.
Thesis We should support the Congress's proposal of uplifting federal funding for needle exchange programs.
1. Needle Exchange Programs are necessary for the prevention of disease related to addiction.
a) Reduces the rate of transmission of diseases through contaminated needles.
b) Reduces the risk of accidental infection from a discarded contaminated needle.
c) Many programs offer counseling and HIV testing.
2. Needle Exchange Programs obstruct drug use.
a) Needle Exchange programs assist those in need of help for their drug program with counseling and information about support groups and reference to treatment options.
3. Needle Exchange justifies Harm reduction
a) Harm reduction promotes that the health or well-being of an individual is a primary concern, therefore despite one's addiction he should not be denied that service.
4. Needle Exchange does not promote drug use, but offers care to drug-addicts
a) Giving clean needles to drug users is not a promotion for drug use, but instead it shows that despite their choices and afflictions we still care about them and want them to be healthy.
b) HIV afflicted drug users cannot recover.
5. Needle Exchange does not increase the rates of drug use
a) Studies of the Amsterdam program show that Needle Exchange programs do not increase drug use in area but instead only attracts those who are already intravenous drug users.
b) San Francisco showed decline in drug use.
c) Increased administration of addicts to drug treatments programs in places where needle exchange programs take effect.
6. Needle Exchange programs DECREASE cost.
a) Needle Exchange programs decrease disease and therefore cost required for the treatment of such a disease.
b) There are mathematical models that show that the implementation of such programs could have saved 4,400 to 10000 HIV infections and over 500 million dollars between 1987 and 1995. And action before 1997 could have prevented an additional 11000 infections and saved up to 600 million dollars.
Conclusion Needle exchange programs obstruct disease and drug use, provide options for treatment for both, and are cost effective by for the government and us. Therefore increased funding is justified.