Talk:Needle and syringe programmes

Misrepresentation

Years ago I posted a sentence with six links showing the efficacy of needle exchange programs in preventing HIV and Hepatitis C transmission and it has been recast with new wording (but the same links) now reads: They also point to dozens of studies which have purportedly shown needle exchanges to be effective at preventing the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C,[4][5][6][7][8][9] but these papers, taken against the entirety of adequate studies, show no conclusive preventative effect.

This is blantantly wrong and misleading. I reviewed the literature while working for the health department in Oregon and I found not a single paper which demonstrated that needle exchanges caused harm, while dozens demonstrated efficacy in disease prevention and other areas. What "entirety of adequate studies" is the author referring to. There is no citation. I am changing this to something that reflects the current state of the literature.

Ahimsa52 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

POV?

Perhaps the user who added the POV tag to this article might like to explain here on the talk page what they perceive the problem to be? I can't see too much of a problem with the article as it stands; if there is any credible published evidence that these schemes cause or worsen drug problems I would be happy to see the references added to the article. PeteThePill 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Major medical organizations, like the American Medical Association, fully back needle exhange programs based on their clear and documented public health efficacy.

I don't see any POV either way, and I think the tag should go, especially as it was slapped on by any anon, without any discussion. Maccoinnich 12:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the NPOV tag. This article completely skips over any objections to this type of program. There are obviously are SOME objections, because in the US, as the article states, there were general negative attitudes towards the idea, and so it was discontinued. This albeit biased site contains some interesting points that should be incorporated into the article to make it truly nonobiased. Thanks NightFalcon90909 (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to reject the speakout link as a good source of information. It's an opinion article with one reference, and many of the conclusions it reaches are not backed up by evidence out there. --rakkar (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, after reading the article, I see no justification for a NPOV tag. The first two thirds is very factual, it describes what an exchange does, and is relatively free of conclusion or statements. The final third deals more with this, and by my standards it's okay. Perhaps the positives and negatives could be seperated more, and references. If anyone feels that it is NPOV, maybe put a {{[[Template:NPOV-section|NPOV-section]]}} tag above the offending section. Thanks.--rakkar (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

noncompliant tag

I removed the noncompliant tag, as per the discussion above. Anybody putting it back should discuss it here. --Storkk 16:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Could we get some sources for this article. 'Critics', 'some groups', 'European studies' are mentioned, but none are ever specified. And the 'all reputable studies' definitely needs a source, 'all' is quite a claim. Ashmoo 07:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be doing some work on this since I am doing a paper on the effectiveness of these programs.--152.2.62.69 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like the basic public health claims are mostly decently cited. In terms of opposition to needle exchange: I'm doing some web searching, coming up with only a little that is citable. Mostly, I find proponents' refutations of opponents' views, without citing who those opponents are. But I did find some things that mention opponents by name. Someone may wish to incorporate some of this, but it might involve some rewording the article, so I'm just providing the citations here for someone else to follow up:

• USA Today Examines New Jersey Measure That Would Establish Needle-Exchange Program In Six Cities, USA Today, 5 Oct 2006: 'The [New Jersey] bill "still faces opposition," most notably from state Sen. Ronald Rice (D), USA Today reports. "I'm not ever going to vote to give people a needle," Rice said, adding that needle-exchange programs condone illegal drug use and the violent crimes that are associated with it.'
• David Buchanan, Susan Shaw, Amy Ford, and Merrill Singer, Empirical Science Meets Moral Panic: An Analysis of the Politics of Needle Exchange (page 2), Journal of Public Health Policy, 2003 has some germane quotations:
  • Christine Whitman: "…The free distribution of hypodermic needles would send a mixed signal. It would tacitly encourage illegal drug use. Government should not be in the business of facilitating illegal activity. Scientific theories about needle exchange do not outweigh the longstanding legal, public policy, and philosophical determinations that are embodied in current law"
  • The Reverend Michael Orsi: "It has been proven time and again that the first step in curtailing the growth of drug use is to send a clear and unambiguous message that it is wrong and will not be tolerated . . . Whenever we allow compromise of what is right, we diminish our ethical resolve and moral authority"
  • George W. Bush: "Drug use in America, especially among children, increased dramatically under the Clinton-Gore Administration, and needle exchange programs signal nothing but abdication, that these dangers are here to stay. Children deserve a clear, unmixed message that there are right choices in life and wrong choices in life, that we are responsible for our actions, and that using drugs will destroy your life."

None of these are "groups", but I think they are all reasonably significant opponents. - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Needle exchange kits

Much more needle exchange info is needed. About contents of the kits, how to use, photos, bleach etc. When people find these things as litter, they need to be able to figure out what they are, and how to deal with them! (Safe sharps disposal?)

• http://www.preventionworksdc.org/supplies.html Harm Reduction Supplies - details of kits

• http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/4239/needle.html photo of kit contents

-69.87.203.105 13:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing and sectioning

I'd like to propose a couple of organizational changes to this page. Firstly, I'd like to suggest a new section which gathers the arguments against needle exchange/distribution and the rebuttals to those arguments. As others have noted above, the few standard arguments against exchanges are uncited, and fixing this seems to be a basic step to avoiding future accusations about POV issues.

Secondly, I'd like to suggest a section devoted to needle exchange modalities. There's currently a list of them, but I'd like to expand this list by giving details of each modality and the pros and cons of each - this is an idea proposed by Chris from Seattle / Points of Distribution at the last Harm Reduction Conference in Oakland in 2006, and I think it has merit. The idea being that this Wikipedia article would be of greater value to municipalities / public health authorities / anyone considering starting a needle exchange if they can see a list of different ways it's been set up elsewhere and what the advantages and disadvantages of these have been for others.

If no-one objects, I'll come back in a couple of days and add these sections and start filling in some of the relevant literature.

Caitifty 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying the US situation

The article says that only covert illegal programs operate in the US, but, according to Prevention Works! website;

The District of Columbia is the only city in the nation barred by federal law from investing its own locally raised tax dollars to support needle exchange programs. Needle exchanges in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia are all supported by state and/or local government dollars.

what is the law over there? also, from what I understand, the preventionworks program is fairly new, should it be mentioned on here? --rakkar (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The US Federal 'ban' on using Federal money to directly fund needle exchange is still in place, which directly affects DC (where there are no 'state' taxes to provide anything other than Federal funding); all individual states at some point banned needle sales outside prescription at some point, however many (but not all) have since provided some exemption for 'authorized' needle exchange, where needle exhcnage is funded either by the state directly from state taxes and/or private foundations or donations. Caitifty (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So if the article is saying that only covert exchanges exist, should the article be changed to explain what Caitifty what said? rakkar (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are needle exchange programs operating quite openly in Philadelphia. I would assume the same is true of other U.S. cities. I don't understand the "covert" analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.119.71 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First Exchange Program

I removed the sentences citing Dr. Fraser James Stuart as the first to create an exchange program. The cited reference makes no mention of Stuart. The only relevant hit in a search at Google was this very article. If someone can point to an actual source, by all means place it back. Chemeditor (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Fraser James Stuart started the needle exchange in glasgow out of one of his 29 drug stores called castle milk ltd the reason there is not much said about this else where is because there was a public out cry a friend of dr stuart sir kenneth calman can confirm this as dr stuart died in 2001 at 54 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.63.211 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tidy Up

Hi all current editors, this article has a lot of information in it, and as the tags on the top of the article suggest, it is a little confusing. I know a lot of new info has been added & removed lately, and I think we need to go over these edits and turn them into a smoother, readable article.

My suggestions would be:

• Break it down into headings.

• Re-write sentences/paragraphs that have been composed by multiple editors. Some of them feel a little disjointed.

• Look out for original research or synthesis. If we say something is so, we should have evidence to back this up instead of claiming that it's common sense :)

--rakkar (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)