Of course, if your objective is to keep young people from injecting illegal drugs in the first place, this may be the worst thing to do

There are always some who will inject drugs no matter what. Most will give up on drugs sooner or later, provided they live that long. Cutting down on infections of HIV, Hepatitis and all kind of other diseases is a vital step towards that goal. Conversely, the threat of disease and other risks has never prevented anyone from taking drugs.

Besides, cutting down on the number of infected people is imporatnt for the vast majority of those who don't take drugs. You can infect yourself by stepping on a discarded needle, or a drug user with a disgusting disease might get antibiotics against it, but fails to finish the therapy for lack of self discipline, creating a resistant strain of said disgusting disease.

Ralf:

Conversely, the threat of disease and other risks has never prevented anyone from taking drugs.

That sounds more like an ex catherdra statement of faith than an assertion based on evidence. What are you relying upon? Would you also say that zero-tolerance smoking policies and non-stop (questionable) studies on second hand smoke have no effect on whether teenagers will take up smoking and so we should hand out free fags to teenage smokers to make sure they don't turn to crime to fund the habit?

What is it about the modern mind that rejects on principle the notion that fear of the consequences of vice has no effect on the general level of indulgence in that vice? It is usually associated with libertarians who pride themselves on their logical acumen, but I've never heard anything so irrational in my life.

There will always be some people who like ot live on the edge more than others, but if you subsidize something, you're going to get more of it.

That sounds more like an ex catherdra statement of faith than an assertion based on evidence. What are you relying upon? Would you also say that zero-tolerance smoking policies and non-stop (questionable) studies on second hand smoke have no effect on whether teenagers will take up smoking and so we should hand out free fags to teenage smokers to make sure they don't turn to crime to fund the habit?

It isn't just important that something is dangerous. If it just happens to be dangerosu it is one thing, but if you consciously withhold clean needles to make the use of drugs more dangerous it is quite another. You'd end up making young people resentful rather than cautious.

But yes, you can make cigarettes or drugs less appealing to young people. Not by prohibition, but by sending a message that smoking or taking drugs just isn't cool. That is more or less what happened. To many young people cigarettes are now about as cool as unwashed socks, so they don't light up any more. Drugs also have become uncool to many young people today, so there is much less overall drug use.

This is the way to go, not withholding clean needles. And those that still do succumb to the temptation should have a shot at surviving until they become judicious enough to give up on the habit.

This article (and the ensuing comments) are more proof that everyone believes in Intelligent Design.

How are we withholding clean needles?

Rolf: doesn't what you're proposing seem just a little morally ambiguous? "Kids, shooting up with heroin is uncool and self-destructive and you shouldn't do it. However, if you really want to, here's some clean needles at taxpayer expense so that, while you're wrecking the lives of the people who love you, financing organized crime, and turning yourself into a useless shambling hulk by succumbing to a mindless all-consuming hunger for chemical stimulation that will eventually kill you, at least you'll be less likely to transmit HIV to all those people you have meaningless random sex with between highs."

The "harm reduction" rationale is just a rationalization; this is really about immature Baby Boomer (ex-)druggies validating their addict lifestyles out of nostalgia for that wild summer of '68 they remember so fondly.

Of course, if our objective really was reduce drug use in the US, we wouldn't be able to make nearly as much money from dealing cocaine out of South America and heroin out of Afghanistan.

Mike:

However, if you really want to, here's some clean needles at taxpayer expense so that, while you're wrecking the lives of the people who love you, financing organized crime, and turning yourself into a useless shambling hulk by succumbing to a mindless all-consuming hunger for chemical stimulation that will eventually kill you, at least you'll be less likely to transmit HIV to all those people you have meaningless random sex with between highs."

The needles wouldn't have to be paid for by tax-money. There are private intiatives who'll buy needles and distribute them to addicts provided it is legal, which it isn't in a lot of jurisdictions in America and elsewhere. The distribution of clean needles also is no incentive to start, so the program needn't increase the number of addictions. done correctly. The negative side effects you are describing then also wouldn't increase by the distribution program.

At this point the only real olution to the problem is pharmalogical: Sooner or later somebody will come up with medication that neutralizes the urge for drugs, stopping the addiction cold. Until that tine the best that we can hoep for is limitation of damage. Keeping the people alive that already are addicts until then should be part of that, I think.

At this point the only real solution to the problem is pharmalogical:

Like our marriages, our sex lives, our kids' behaviour, our career disappointments, our underperforming stock portfolios...I could go on, but I think I'll just have a stiff drink instead.

Like our marriages, our sex lives, our kids' behaviour, our career disappointments, our underperforming stock portfolios...

The difference to earlier times is that there are, or are at least seem to be, quick fixes available. You would have been hard pressed to stop them doing it, too. There also is nothing wrong with curing addiction once it becomes possible. A lot of people just aren't up to resisting the myriad temptations we are facing now.

I could go on, but I think I'll just have a stiff drink instead.

If the booze fails there still are happy pills.