NEEDLE EXCHANGE DEBATE MISSES POINT

Political Considerations Win At Expense Of Facts, Science, People's Lives

The recent controversy in the Clinton Administration over federal funding
for a needle exchange program for drug users closely resembles the debate
in state senate last year -- a battle between facts and politics with
people's lives at stake.

Last week, the administration announced it was continuing a nine-year ban
on federal funding for the needle exchange programs that are designed to
reduce the spread of AIDS among intravenous drug users. This decision came
despite evidence from scientific studies that such programs reduce the
number of people infected with HIV/AIDS.

Last year in the North Carolina General Assembly, a bill to allow pilot
needle exchange programs in a handful of North Carolina counties passed a
Senate committee, with nearly unanimous support. The committee heard
testimony from the state health director about how needle exchange programs
have three important positive effects. They reduce the number of people
infected with HIV, increase the number of addicts who seek treatment for
their addiction, and take infected needles off the street, protecting law
enforcement officers who often are forced to search drug users during arrests.

The bill was then set to go to the Senate floor for a vote but never made
it. Reportedly, the needle exchange was proposal was pulled from the
calendar after a Senate leadership meeting in which key senators agreed the
plan could save lives but would make senators who supported it vulnerable
to political attacks for supporting drug use. Political considerations won
and the bill was never voted on.

Last week in Washington, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala
said extensive studies show that needle exchange programs do not encourage
the use of illegal drugs and do reduce the incidence of HIV transmission.

Dr. Harold Varmus, Director of the National Institutes of Health cited two
recent studies that show needle exchange programs reduce the sharing of
dirty needles by as much at 80 percent, with estimates of a 30 percent
reduction of HIV infection.

Forty percent of the total number of AIDS cases reported in the U.S. have
been linked to IV drug use. More than 70 percent of the HIV cases among
women of childbearing age are related to drug use.

Clinton's drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, opposes the programs because he
says it sends the wrong message to children. Other conservatives groups
like the Christian Coalition oppose it on moral grounds or say they believe
it will increase and encourage drug use. Local talk shows have been filled
with conservative hosts blasting the Clinton Administration for even
discussing the issue. The facts, science and people's lives apparently do
not matter.

There are no lobbyists for people strung out on drugs. There are no
interest groups or generals or talk show hosts advocating for pregnant
woman who are married to a IV drug user who could infect his wife and
unborn child. The only chance they have is that the people in positions of
power will look at the facts and try to save lives, not their political
careers.

Despite the cowardice of the Clinton Administration, 28 communities have
needle exchange programs in place. It is not too late for our state. The
General Assembly could revive the needle exchange bill in this summer's
short session.

It is hard to be optimistic about that happening. It is hard not to think
people in North Carolina will die because our political leaders don't have
the political courage to stop it.