MADELY WRONG ON NEEDLE EXCHANGE

Re "Needle exchange does more harm than good," by Steve Madely (Aug. 10):
Madely tries valiantly to make the assertion that needle exchange programs
have actually caused infection rates to rise in major urban centres,
including Ottawa. But, he never discusses what is really causing the rates
to rise.

In his main argument, he fails to note that in most of the main urban
centres in this country, there has been a huge increase in the number of
addicts injecting crack cocaine rather than (or, in addition to) heroin.
Since crack cocaine is typically injected many more times than heroin would
be, this has led to much more needle use, and resulted in more people both
sharing dirty needles and using needle exchange programs.

Of course, this means that we can expect the statistics to show that those
using needle exchange programs are more at risk, and also accounts for the
rise in infectious diseases among users. Combine this with a pitiful lack
of treatment centres, over-reliance on police and the courts to uselessly
try to deal with what is a health and not a legal issue, and you have an
extremely serious health situation that is not going to go away no matter
how many times you decry the lack of morality in today's society.

Madely tries to shrug all of this off by writing that needle exchange
programs have caused a rise in infectious diseases. However, this is like
saying that providing treatment for alcoholics simply means that more
people will drink because the resources are there. Trying to say that this
is the result of a "permissive society" is just as wrong -- would Madely
also try to assert that if he had access to condoms in high school, he
would have had more romantic partners in Grade 12? I know I couldn't!

But, in the end, Madely's biggest mistakes are his assertions that more
policing and forced treatment will solve these serious drug problems. One
needs to only glance at the U.S., where rapists and murderers are routinely
let out of prison early to make room for non-violent drug offenders serving
horrendous mandatory minimums.

And, with respect to forced treatment, that approach has never worked to
reduce drug use, period. Why not have voluntary treatment beds readily
available so that when someone addicted to heroin or cocaine really wants
to quit, they don't face a soul-crushing six-month waiting period? It would
be an order of magnitude cheaper than relying on police and the courts to
try to (but rarely) heal our sick.

Dave Haans
Toronto

(Your first point only makes sense if you assume crack users get their
needles solely from needle exchange programs, but at least we'll agree
there needs to be more treatment programs)