NEEDLE-EXCHANGE PROGRAM UNWORTHY OF SUPPORT

It was recently announced that implementing needle-exchange programs would
become a priority in the last days of the current administration.

Our delegation's position, as it has been since this issue was first brought
before the Legislature, has been one of unequivocal opposition.

It is difficult to see any beneficial measures resulting from allowing
individuals with drug addictions to have greater access to an instrument
that serves as an injection method for destroying their health.

There have been several studies indicating the failure on a fundamental
level by needle-exchange programs. A study conducted in 1997 in Vancouver,
site of North America's then largest needle-exchange program, depicted a
grim and disturbing picture with statistics and analyses of the detrimental
aftereffects resulting from the program. According to the study, since the
inception of the program in 1988, AIDS prevalence in intravenous users rose
at an alarming rate from 2 percent to 27 percent. Furthermore, the study
showed that 40 percent of HIV-positive addicts participating in the program
lent a syringe in the previous six months, and 60 percent of HIV-negative
addicts had borrowed a syringe in the past six months.

We do not believe that putting more needles out on the street is the answer
to reduce drug use or protect the health of addicts. In fact,
needle-exchange programs may serve as an incentive for individuals to
continue down a path of self-destruction. Law enforcement agencies, with
expertise in the area of drug prevention, have contacted our office in
strong opposition to this measure. This provided us with additional reasons
for taking a strong position against the needle-exchange legislation
scheduled to be put before the State Senate last year, but was withdrawn at
the last minute, no doubt due to the lack of sufficient support among
legislators. In addition to allowing a person 18 years of age to purchase a
hypodermic needle for the administration of drugs without a prescription,
this bill also prohibited police from arresting individuals found in
possession of needles found to contain drug residue.

Other and more effective means of drug treatment exist as opposed to
creating needle-exchange programs. The continued support of law enforcement
and their efforts to apprehend those who break laws established to curtail
drug usage in our communities must still be recognized as the best approach.
Currently, legislation supported by our delegation, that would establish
drug courts in eight additional counties, awaits action and hopefully will
be seen as a priority by the Legislature. Drug-court programs provide
intensive, court-supervised substance-abuse treatment for nonviolent,
addicted offenders as opposed to jail. These solution-oriented programs, in
our opinion, serve as a much more effective alternative to needle-exchange
programs.

Given the findings of past studies detailing the potentially harmful effects
of needle-exchange programs, our state would be remiss in ignoring the
facts. Studies clearly show addicts routinely share needles, contrary to the
primary reason for an exchange program. We also are concerned the
communities where these programs will exist may become havens for drug users
with their streets inundated with discarded needles. We also oppose this
measure because of its inherent failure to address the real issue -- ending
the destructive cycle of drug use.

We will not support, under any circumstances, any proposal for establishing
needle-exchange programs.