Really fascinating look at a controversial prevention program. What do you guys think? Is it worth the dollars if it is proven to lower the rate of new infections and increase compliance? Conservatives would obviously have a huge problem with it, but what is a better alternative? Read the rest: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/health/08vancouver.html?hp?src=dayp&pagewanted=all
This is yet one more in the LONG list of issues that is tied in with the War on Drugs. We need to have a system that takes a healthcare and education based approach to drugs so that proven programs like this one are not written off because they are "soft on drugs." The prescription heroin trials in Switzerland are a similar example. http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/tlcnr.cfm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7757050.stm
^ You should probably mention to read the first link, or at least BOTH links, before jumping to conclusions. The BBC link fails to discuss how enrollment in the program is restricted to "hardcore" addicts who have exhausted other avenues. Also, the BBC link failed to mention that the drugs must be paid for by the addicts (albeit at a much smaller cost than on the street), must be administered at the clinic and cannot be taken home. While I see the merits of this program, it seems to be tackling the "War on Drugs" issue more than the HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, endocarditis issue. I'm not saying that it won't help in both avenues, I'm just saying that I don't agree with the focus.
Actually, I provided those two links mostly to show how long the Swiss program has been going, 16 years now. You are correct that the Swiss program is more about drugs than public health, my point is that prescription heroin, like safe injection sites, is an issue that is inextricably linked to the War on Drugs. Once the WoD policy is changed, safe injection will get a lot more attention than it does now.
