Type: Analysis
Pages: 3 | Words: 687
Reading Time: 3 Minutes

This paper seeks provide a comprehensive information about Needle Exchange Programs in USA that allow injections of drug users (IDUs) and how it works in comparison with other reigns. In its scope, the paper describes the manner in which the programme is implemented with regard to the administration and the progressive agenda. In line with this, the paper projects on the government prospects in the programs and the role it has played to empower or discourage such programs.

Needle exchange program in USA is an initiative of the civil society that seeks to avail needles for users of drug injections through acceptance of the existence of such behaviors. There are numerous programs of this type that base their performance in the politically unfavorable conditions of USA. In this regard, the government of the USA banned the public sale of the needles for drug injections. This led to increased use of unsterilized needles through sharing, as opposed to the needle exchange program that works on a “one for one” needle use which in turn protects sanitation workers and children prone to encounter with the unsterilized needles. Consequently, this has led to the increased rampancy of HIV/AIDS infections as members of the public share needles during injections. As a result, certain organizations have risen to fight for the legalization of the needle exchange programs. These include the American Public Health Association (APHA), the American Medical Association and American Bar Association (ABA) among others.

Scientific research has also revealed that the provision of needles to the drugs injectors or those people dependent on the drugs through the legalization of their sales would sharply reduce the prevalence of the HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne ailments. The illegalization of the programs has resulted in the provision of federal funds for the support of such programs relatively low, thus daunting the efforts to avail disinfected syringes for injections. As a result, there has been increased needle sharing leading to increased rampancy of the infections.

Despite the acknowledgement of the effectiveness of the programs by the US secretary of health and health services, Donna Shalala in 2002, the ban on federal funding by the Congress remains intact, at the same time frustrating the efforts by the civil society mainly through Dr. Akhter of the APHA. In addition, President Bill Clinton in 2002 lamented having not supported the needle exchange program in his reign. This signifies that politics continue to take a center stage in the delivery of public services in the USA on the claim that needle exchange programs increase the drug injection behaviors. Furthermore, there is a tallied conclusion that as a result, there have emerged differences on the preference of the programs within the government. This leads to the half-legalized mode of operation of the programs where they operate as both legal and illegal programs in certain places in the USA.

On the contrary, needle programs in the Canadian state have been part of the federal government’s initiative program aimed at the diminution of HIV which was incorporated into the HIV prevention pilot program of the country in 1989. As opposed to the US federal government, the Canadian government is a legal co-funder of the programs as an initiative to fight HIV. Furthermore, contrary to the opposition of the program by the USA government, the issue of needle exchange is less charged with the Canadian politics as for the community of Canada. To mitigate the community resistance on the needle exchange in Canada, the program set was in line with other services such as the infliction of the law, drug management, edification et al.

In conclusion, despite the frustration of the effort to put up the needle exchange programs in the USA, some countries across the globe have taken advantage of these programs and have invested in them in the fight for blood-borne disease free nations. Each reign illegalized the program since 1988 to date despite the benefits of the programs. Among them include, but not limited to Canada and Australia. The programs have been tested and proven feasible for HIV reduction through research and empowerment and thus the investment by the federal governments of the respective states.

Copy-pasting equals plagiarizing!

Mind that anyone can use our samples, which may result in plagiarism. Want to maintain academic integrity? Order a tailored paper from our experts.

Get my custom paper
3 hours
the shortest deadline
original, no AI
300 words
1 page = 300 words
This is a sample essay that should not be submitted as an actual assignment
Need an essay with no plagiarism?
Grab your 15% discount
with code: writers15
Related essays
1 (888) 456 - 4855