"It's just a little prick." - Dr. Evil

Arguably one of the most controversial issues in the United States is that of needle exchange for injection drug users. Those who oppose those programs, (like those who oppose condom distribution) base their position off of their moral beliefs and not science or reality.

This is not a moral or value issue, it is a public health issue. Transmission of HIV/AIDS and other diseases through injection drug use is second only to unprotected sexual activity. And unlike safe sex programs and condom usage, there is very little being done by society to address the transmission of deadly diseases through dirty needles and syringes.

Studies by the University of California, Berkley and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have shown that governmental and private programs that exchange dirty needles for new, sterile needles substantially decrease the transmission rates of HIV/AIDS and other diseases such as Hepatitis among drug users in those communities. The average cost per disease prevention for needle exchange programs in $9,000. That cost is significantly lower than the $150,000 typically needed to treat HIV over a lifetime.

The same studies by UC Berkley and the CDC show that the needle exchange programs do not increase the number of injection and non-injection drug users or the amount those users take drugs. This is another similarity between needle exchange HIV/AIDS prevention and condom distribution HIV/AIDS prevention.

The other argument naysayers of needle exchange programs make is the concept of "personal responsibility." In a vacuum, that argument may have some merit. In the real world, that concept is easily debunked. "How has personal responsibility worked so far?" I ask those who oppose needle exchange. The only truthful answer is, "it hasn't and wont."

Conservatives need to get out of the "Leave it to Beaver" back to the fifties mindset. Pretending like there is no problem or believing that if you tell someone that you think what they are doing is wrong will change anything is naive and idiocy. We have the opportunity to address the catastrophic problem of HIV/AIDS/STD transmission, and the ability to significantly reduce its deadliness and transmission. How can we do otherwise in the name of "moral cleanliness?"