Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
San Francisco Needle Exchange loses funding
The San Francisco Needle Exchange, the only exchange in the Haight-Ashbury which primarily serves young homeless IDU, lost its funding this past week. The SFDPH Aids Office has chosen to stop funding this program, a decision that is extremely socially irresponsible. We are asking for community support in a mass letter writing campaign to the board of supervisors and Aids Office.
On Friday, April 8th, we were informed that the San Francisco Needle Exchange would no longer recieve SFDPH AIDS Office funding (this is the only funding for SFNE and administative funding for HAYOT, the homeless youth drop-in that shares staff and a building with SFNE).
It is surely obvious to you how sociallly irresponsible this decision is. SFNE began in 1997 as an underground exchange and it only became legal 3 years ago when we began to recieve city funds. It has and continues to be the only Needle Exchange for the homeless youth and housed IDU of the Haight and also partners with the Women's Community Clinic and Mission Neighborhood Resource Center to have a women's exchange in the Mission. We have been recognized by our clients, neighbors, collaborators, and even local police as providing a vital service. We strive to deliver culturally competant services, including clean needles, harm reduction education, overdose prevention, HIV testing, medical services, drug treatment referrals, food and hygiene supplies, overall support, and more.
We are asking you to show your support by writing our district supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, Tom Ammiano and send copies of these letters to our center manager Mary, Jimmy Loyce, and Steven Tierney.
This particular needle exchange is vital not only to the clients it serves, most of whom are homeless and marginally housed youth who are unlikely to visit other exchanges, but also to the community as a whole.
Please see the sample letter at the end of this article. Use that letter, or create your own. Sign it, date it, and send it to the addresses below. We intend to personally deliver them to the parties involved with funding in the coming week, so time is of the essence.
Lastly, please spread the word to EVERYONE YOU KNOW who you think would be supportive of this effort.
The addresses for all those people are:
1. Ross Mirkarimi 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Rm
244 SF CA 94102-4689 or Ross.Mirkarimi [at] sfgov.org
2. Tom Ammiano (same mailing address as above) or
Tom.Ammiano [at] sfgov.org
3.Mr. Jimmy Loyce 25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 500 SF CA
94102-6033 or Jimmy.Loyce [at] sfdph.org
4. Steven Tierney (same mailing address as Jimmy
Loyce) or Steven.Tierney [at] sfdph.org
5. Mary Howe (SFNE and HAYOT manager) 1696 Haight Street SF CA 94117 or sfne666 [at] yahoo.com
Here is a sample letter:
To Whom it May Concern;
I am writing to express my outrage at the Department of Public Health AIDS Offices’s decision to defund the San Francisco Needle Exchange program.
San Francisco Needle Exchange is one of the oldest and most successful needle exchange programs in the city. On a budget of $100,000.00 a year, this program does far more than just dispense free and clean needles. It also provides food, clothing, medical care, psychological services, HIV testing, social service and detox referrals, and free classes on wound care and overdose prevention for hundreds of clients a year. Most importantly, it is a life-line to it’s mostly homeless and marginally housed clients. Often, the two staff members and numerous volunteers at the Needle Exchange provide the only meaningful interaction that these clients have with any city agency. As a result, the Needle Exchange is often the place where clients begin their road to recovery from drug addiction.
Since 1997, San Francisco Needle Exchange has been one of the most solid safety nets for our most vulnerable populations, and one of the cheapest. But it provides more than just a safety net for its clients. It also provides a crucial role in the city’s public health network, reducing the incidences of HIV and Hepatitis C.
Please reconsider your decision to cut funding for this extremely important and cost effective program.
Sincerely,
It is surely obvious to you how sociallly irresponsible this decision is. SFNE began in 1997 as an underground exchange and it only became legal 3 years ago when we began to recieve city funds. It has and continues to be the only Needle Exchange for the homeless youth and housed IDU of the Haight and also partners with the Women's Community Clinic and Mission Neighborhood Resource Center to have a women's exchange in the Mission. We have been recognized by our clients, neighbors, collaborators, and even local police as providing a vital service. We strive to deliver culturally competant services, including clean needles, harm reduction education, overdose prevention, HIV testing, medical services, drug treatment referrals, food and hygiene supplies, overall support, and more.
We are asking you to show your support by writing our district supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, Tom Ammiano and send copies of these letters to our center manager Mary, Jimmy Loyce, and Steven Tierney.
This particular needle exchange is vital not only to the clients it serves, most of whom are homeless and marginally housed youth who are unlikely to visit other exchanges, but also to the community as a whole.
Please see the sample letter at the end of this article. Use that letter, or create your own. Sign it, date it, and send it to the addresses below. We intend to personally deliver them to the parties involved with funding in the coming week, so time is of the essence.
Lastly, please spread the word to EVERYONE YOU KNOW who you think would be supportive of this effort.
The addresses for all those people are:
1. Ross Mirkarimi 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Rm
244 SF CA 94102-4689 or Ross.Mirkarimi [at] sfgov.org
2. Tom Ammiano (same mailing address as above) or
Tom.Ammiano [at] sfgov.org
3.Mr. Jimmy Loyce 25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 500 SF CA
94102-6033 or Jimmy.Loyce [at] sfdph.org
4. Steven Tierney (same mailing address as Jimmy
Loyce) or Steven.Tierney [at] sfdph.org
5. Mary Howe (SFNE and HAYOT manager) 1696 Haight Street SF CA 94117 or sfne666 [at] yahoo.com
Here is a sample letter:
To Whom it May Concern;
I am writing to express my outrage at the Department of Public Health AIDS Offices’s decision to defund the San Francisco Needle Exchange program.
San Francisco Needle Exchange is one of the oldest and most successful needle exchange programs in the city. On a budget of $100,000.00 a year, this program does far more than just dispense free and clean needles. It also provides food, clothing, medical care, psychological services, HIV testing, social service and detox referrals, and free classes on wound care and overdose prevention for hundreds of clients a year. Most importantly, it is a life-line to it’s mostly homeless and marginally housed clients. Often, the two staff members and numerous volunteers at the Needle Exchange provide the only meaningful interaction that these clients have with any city agency. As a result, the Needle Exchange is often the place where clients begin their road to recovery from drug addiction.
Since 1997, San Francisco Needle Exchange has been one of the most solid safety nets for our most vulnerable populations, and one of the cheapest. But it provides more than just a safety net for its clients. It also provides a crucial role in the city’s public health network, reducing the incidences of HIV and Hepatitis C.
Please reconsider your decision to cut funding for this extremely important and cost effective program.
Sincerely,
For more information:
http://www.sfne.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
These programs are nothing but enablers of drug use. They should all be dropped. You think you are doing any of these addicts a favor? If you don't want to get the disease, then don't use the damn needle. SF General spends over $40,000,000 a year treating heroin addicts with their wound clinics, ERs, followups, drugs. etc. That's money that should be going toward helping those who want help, not free fucking needles. Sorry, but you don't have the support of the public on this one.
It is shocking to read a, "...only the strong survive", type of comment posted on IndyBay, especially regarding an illness. Addiciton is a physical illness. To blame an addict for being an addict is like blaming someone for being poor who is born into poverty. We all have genes that react differently to substances. Therefore, unless you are an addict, it is practically imposible to imagine what it must feel like to be addicted to a substance.
Your point of highlighting how much money SF General spends on physical wounds is a perfect example of why there needs to be more needle exchanges and why more outreach needs to be done to educate people on the safety-benefits of using clean syringes. No one would choose to use a used syringe if they were educated on the safety of clean syringes as well as having clean syringes available within their communities.
Needle Exchanges have only become legal in SF three-years ago. The SFNE has been tremendously successful in outreaching and educating substance users on the benefits of using clean syringes. However, three-years is only the start. There is still signifigant work to be done. SFNE must be refunded to decrease the number of users seen at SF General and to increase safety among substance users.
Your point of highlighting how much money SF General spends on physical wounds is a perfect example of why there needs to be more needle exchanges and why more outreach needs to be done to educate people on the safety-benefits of using clean syringes. No one would choose to use a used syringe if they were educated on the safety of clean syringes as well as having clean syringes available within their communities.
Needle Exchanges have only become legal in SF three-years ago. The SFNE has been tremendously successful in outreaching and educating substance users on the benefits of using clean syringes. However, three-years is only the start. There is still signifigant work to be done. SFNE must be refunded to decrease the number of users seen at SF General and to increase safety among substance users.
I agree that needle exchanges are actually at the front lines of preventative health services. I also think that if there were more exchanges and better access to street level medical care, then public hospitals would be less taxed.
I don't know that I believe that needle drug use is a disease. That seems pretty judgemental and patronising way to treat users. As if, one drug delivery system is worse than another.
Providing access to clean safe needle distribution seems like a no brainer for harm reduction and to prevent the spread of hiv and other blood born illnesses. Also having fully funded accessable rehab programs seems like a great way to break the cycle of addiction.
I don't know that I believe that needle drug use is a disease. That seems pretty judgemental and patronising way to treat users. As if, one drug delivery system is worse than another.
Providing access to clean safe needle distribution seems like a no brainer for harm reduction and to prevent the spread of hiv and other blood born illnesses. Also having fully funded accessable rehab programs seems like a great way to break the cycle of addiction.
public health, contrary to some notions, actually is for the whole public, rather than just the sub-working class. If you took tuberculosis for example, (my parents between them had polio, TB, measles, scarlet fever and mumps), really poor people who you don't care about would be the first to catch the disease, but it wouldn't remain confined amongst them. If there were no public health attempts to contain it, there would be outbreaks among worthy people, because as soon as a child caught it from a family member, it could spread in the forced close contact of an elementary school. Even if you don't care about the people at SF general, it's just basic to contain infectious diseases.
To Steve- I am astonished at your the fact that you believe you represent the voice of the public. Sitting here at SFNE, I am pouring over the hundreds of letters we have received from members of the community, service providers, neighbors, some from other states. Many neighbors and even police in this area, originally very critical of our presence, have acknowledged our role in keeping the area free of used syringes and helping people. Someone as conservative and judgemental as you might like to know that our conservative governor just signed a syringe access bill, in effect helping a small bit to cut down on the spread of infectious diseases.
To wish such ill-will on needle users is dispicable, and shows your lack of understanding or knowedge of people. I know many people who, thanks to programs like SFNE that provided good health information and safety supplies, have stopped using and carry on with their life, often without having caught diseases like HIV or Hepatitis C. That's not even the point though. At whatever phase someone is at in their drug use, they are people with hopes, dreams, desires, and needs. Healthcare and harm reduction information are basic rights. Steve, one day you will likely find that someone you care about (if you do care about people) such as a family member, friend, or coworker is dealing with drug use- maybe even needles. Maybe only then will you understand that helping people to stay healthy while they make choices and live their life, perhaps one day stopping their use, is an important service.
As far as the voice of the public goes, we may be living in a period of draconian politics and religious dogma, but I am sure that here in SF at least you do not represent us.
To wish such ill-will on needle users is dispicable, and shows your lack of understanding or knowedge of people. I know many people who, thanks to programs like SFNE that provided good health information and safety supplies, have stopped using and carry on with their life, often without having caught diseases like HIV or Hepatitis C. That's not even the point though. At whatever phase someone is at in their drug use, they are people with hopes, dreams, desires, and needs. Healthcare and harm reduction information are basic rights. Steve, one day you will likely find that someone you care about (if you do care about people) such as a family member, friend, or coworker is dealing with drug use- maybe even needles. Maybe only then will you understand that helping people to stay healthy while they make choices and live their life, perhaps one day stopping their use, is an important service.
As far as the voice of the public goes, we may be living in a period of draconian politics and religious dogma, but I am sure that here in SF at least you do not represent us.
if ordinary people like us take up the slack. So who should we make our checks out to, and where should we send them?
there is a little known process called rehab! try it some time!
If you would like to make a tax-deductable donation to the SFNE, please mail your support to:
SFNE
c/o Mary Howe
1696 Haight Street
SF, CA 94117
Checks can be made out to: SFNE
Thanks for all of your love and support! We will fight the cuts to HIV/AIDS funding until the end!
SFNE
c/o Mary Howe
1696 Haight Street
SF, CA 94117
Checks can be made out to: SFNE
Thanks for all of your love and support! We will fight the cuts to HIV/AIDS funding until the end!
After reading all of the submitted comments regarding the possible closing of the SFNE, I feel that there is a need for clarification as to why the City has chosen to end funding for SFNE. The SF Dept. of Public Health has decided to reduce HIV/AIDS Prevention Services by over $2,000,000. The funding cuts to SFNE are an affect of the City cutting HIV/AIDS Prevention Services. The defunding has nothing to do with whether substance users should receive free services. The Dept. of Public Health is not only reducing access to clean syringes, the Dept. is also cutting peer advocacy services, HIV-testing and youth prevention programs. The City has decided that Prevention Services are not a viable type of service.
Therefore, the discussion should reflect the City's philosophical shifts in service provision. Do you feel that SF should cut HIV/AIDS Prevention Services? The SFNE is just one of many services that will no longer receive funding for HIV Prevention.
Rise Up and Reclaim the Services That We Have Fought For Over the Past 20-Years!!!
Therefore, the discussion should reflect the City's philosophical shifts in service provision. Do you feel that SF should cut HIV/AIDS Prevention Services? The SFNE is just one of many services that will no longer receive funding for HIV Prevention.
Rise Up and Reclaim the Services That We Have Fought For Over the Past 20-Years!!!
Thanks for replying to Steve--this is an individual who seems to come to Indybay simply to make inflammatory comments. He is incapable of engaging in a coherent, evidence based argument, especially on this one. But, of course, Steve, you are always welcome to try. So far, all I see is opinion based rhetoric that doesn't match reality, whereas the studies re: needle exchange support the fact that it is beneficial, in terms of disease transmission , educating active I.D.U's, providing basic preventative care (when feasible) and reducing emergency room visits, ect. This is not only effective in reducing the human costs of drug use/abuse/dependency, but the monetary costs as well.
Ad hominem attacks are irrelevant. I still stand by my point. It is unacceptable to use taypayers' funds to enable drug addiction. Those funds should be used for treatment for those people who desire to exit addiction. That's tough love and I stand by it.
No more coffee at City Hall.
The problem is, is that evidence and research shows us that the treatments that tradtionally fall under the 'tough love' umbrella have lower success rates. The fact is, depending on which numbers you look at, that roughly 80% of the people who would qualify as addicts/alcoholics(per DSM IV criteria) are NOT completely abstinent from mind-altering drugs (including alcohol) at any given time. Given this data, we have to treat it from a public health/harm reduction model. This means that we need to shift the focus from simply Stopping--which is easier said than done, especially for those with co-occuring mental/medical disorders--to how can we reduce the harm addicts do to themselves and their community---in terms of criminality, health, fiscally, ect. Tough love rarely stops an addict from using and is not an effective, evidence-based treatment, whereas needle exchange programs--especially ones that offer comprehensive services--are effective in reducing disease transmission--thus costing the addict less in terms of self-destructive potential, and the community in terms of monetary/public health costs.
If he has one that doesn't involve a blind-fear-based "I'm sticking to my beliefs, right or wrong" stance. Please refer to above comment--Bill
SB 1159, a public health demonstration project which will allow pharmacies to sell needles OTC without a prescription, took effect in January and the City passed an implementation ordinance shortly after.
Now that IDUs can buy needles OTC, then the rationale for needle exchange weakens. Perhaps the City could reprogram needle exchange moneys saved (in addition to the $100K at SFNE there is $631K at SF AIDS Foundation) first to treatment and second to a voucher program that low income people can use at pharmacies.
It is time to declare victory and move on.
Now that IDUs can buy needles OTC, then the rationale for needle exchange weakens. Perhaps the City could reprogram needle exchange moneys saved (in addition to the $100K at SFNE there is $631K at SF AIDS Foundation) first to treatment and second to a voucher program that low income people can use at pharmacies.
It is time to declare victory and move on.
I agree that sb1159 is great and a large victory for public health. I also think that a voucher program would be good. BUT, there are some problems with equating selling needles at a pharmacy with the services that a needle exchange offers. Pharmacies do not accept drop-offs of large amounts of biohazardous waste. Would this end up, then, in the streets as it often was before accessable needle exchanges? Most exchanges also offer many educational services, most importantly overdose prevention/narcan training and vein/wound care. SFNE offers HIV testing and has a doctor or nurse at every site, offering care for basic ailments, triage, and information. You will surely argue that these services are available at other places- true. But, having health care at site increases the chances that someone will be seen BEFORE their health concern gets worse and merits hospitalization. Many users still dread visiting doctors and hospitals because they have been mistreated by health care providers in the past. Needle exchanges are dynamic environments which empower users to speak up, interact, ask questions, and become informed on topics that may save their lives. Replacing such a service with a cold sterile pharmacy (many of which still refuse to give people biohazard containers even though they are legally obligated to) is not a viable solution.
Thanks Sarah--again--for educating/informing folks---I'm still waiting for Steve's reply to my last post???Or did he have a change of heart?
there are syringes that are one-time use only. these cost $0.10 more than typical U-100 rigs. city hall is exploring restricting those sold by pharmacies to that type of safer syringe.
from what i've seen of needle exchange, the clientele spans the income spectrum. so many will now have new options. does it make sense to fund a program at the level required when, say, 2/3 of clients now have other options where they won't have to stand in line outdoors, exposed where the cops can see them amass with other idus?
i'd like to see statistics on the number of interventions that needle exchange conducts. what are we paying per contact? given the artificially imposed yet very real scarcity of resources at public health, these questions are valid.
apparently, there is talk about putting a 1/4 cent sales tax before the voters to fund the dept of public health. odds of that passing are slim to none as prop j failed last year 58/42. corporate san francisco goes relatively untaxed and now the hacks in the unions want to tax working san franciscans rather than look for efficiencies such as might be present here.
when on indybay, do as the anarchists do, which is to empower individuals to take control of their own lives by giving them information and letting them make their own choices.
from what i've seen of needle exchange, the clientele spans the income spectrum. so many will now have new options. does it make sense to fund a program at the level required when, say, 2/3 of clients now have other options where they won't have to stand in line outdoors, exposed where the cops can see them amass with other idus?
i'd like to see statistics on the number of interventions that needle exchange conducts. what are we paying per contact? given the artificially imposed yet very real scarcity of resources at public health, these questions are valid.
apparently, there is talk about putting a 1/4 cent sales tax before the voters to fund the dept of public health. odds of that passing are slim to none as prop j failed last year 58/42. corporate san francisco goes relatively untaxed and now the hacks in the unions want to tax working san franciscans rather than look for efficiencies such as might be present here.
when on indybay, do as the anarchists do, which is to empower individuals to take control of their own lives by giving them information and letting them make their own choices.
From my understanding of the bill, it only applies to 'reistered pharmacies' so what that will look like is unpredictable now, but one thing is for sure, many of the people working needle exhange don't get paid at all and it has its' place even with the new law.--------Hey Where's Steve who thinks needle exchange is just 'Enabling'?---I was really looking forward to an intelligent debate, but I guess that may not be possible with this guy.
it was ronald reagan's aids commission that recommended in 1987 that 'barriers to access to clean needles be lowered.'
quentin kopp repeatedly thwarted efforts to create needle exchange and remove prescription requirements for needles while he was in the state senate.
democrab gray davis repeatedly vetoed sb 1159's predecessors.
republican arnold schwarzenegger finally signed sb 1159 last year.
lowered barriers to clean needles enables injection drug use as much as head shops carrying bongs and pipes enables pot smoking.
the question now, given that the situation has changed, is how do we allocate scarce resources in a time of fiscal austerity.
my bet is that more people quit using injection drugs on their own steam than are intervened on by professionals.
also, as a gay man in my 40s who used to shoot speed decades ago, i've spoken with my brothers in their 50's and 60's and taken as a whole, none of us see any marked increase in the number of gay men who use methamphetamine over the past few decades.
perhaps there is funding by the drug war against meth and that creates an advertising blitz which fuels the hysteria. but on the ground, to quote david byrne, same as it ever was, same as it ever was. every gay man i know who shot speed quit under their own power.
show me the numbers that demonstrate that limited time and place access needle exchange is more effective at lowering barriers to clean needles than decentralized pharmacies, some of which are 24/7. also show me the numbers of interventions and that demonstrate that interventions at needle exchange are successful.
and if the dph is going to cut drug treatment radically, then where will the intervened be dispatched to for treatment? my contention is that needle exchange moneys, especially to the sf aids foundation, should be diverted to treatment on demand.
quentin kopp repeatedly thwarted efforts to create needle exchange and remove prescription requirements for needles while he was in the state senate.
democrab gray davis repeatedly vetoed sb 1159's predecessors.
republican arnold schwarzenegger finally signed sb 1159 last year.
lowered barriers to clean needles enables injection drug use as much as head shops carrying bongs and pipes enables pot smoking.
the question now, given that the situation has changed, is how do we allocate scarce resources in a time of fiscal austerity.
my bet is that more people quit using injection drugs on their own steam than are intervened on by professionals.
also, as a gay man in my 40s who used to shoot speed decades ago, i've spoken with my brothers in their 50's and 60's and taken as a whole, none of us see any marked increase in the number of gay men who use methamphetamine over the past few decades.
perhaps there is funding by the drug war against meth and that creates an advertising blitz which fuels the hysteria. but on the ground, to quote david byrne, same as it ever was, same as it ever was. every gay man i know who shot speed quit under their own power.
show me the numbers that demonstrate that limited time and place access needle exchange is more effective at lowering barriers to clean needles than decentralized pharmacies, some of which are 24/7. also show me the numbers of interventions and that demonstrate that interventions at needle exchange are successful.
and if the dph is going to cut drug treatment radically, then where will the intervened be dispatched to for treatment? my contention is that needle exchange moneys, especially to the sf aids foundation, should be diverted to treatment on demand.
You made some good points, and as a certified addiction treatment specialist and an ex poly-substance abuser (I.D.U.) included, I can confrim that a great many IDU's quit in a way that could be called "on their own". But, that is a murky term, as it could be argued that many people have multiple interventions that motivate them to change their substance use behavior before they make a conscious decision to stop. ( I am putting interventions in the broad context for this discussion to mean various consequences of addiction--i.e. conflict/pleas from family, partners and friends--varying degrees of legal trouble, employment trouble, financial trouble, medical/psychological health problems, ect.) What we know is that some of the important factors that increase the liklehood that someone will get clean and maintain long-term abstinence are 1. Social/family support systems 2. stable mental health 3. Education/employment history
Folks who started using younger, or for whatever reason had little or no family structure or have additional struggles with mental health, lack of socialization, extensive incarceration--usu. as a direct result of drug prohibition--lack of employment history ect. have significant (not insumountable) barriers to getting clean--while people with more stability in these areas tend to do better--in treatment, after treatment and without treatment. What we also know is that part of treatment has to cosist of treating people who are actively using and are not ready/motivated to stop. One component of this public health/harm reduction approach is needle exchange and while the new pharmacy bill will help some, who may not benefit from needle exchange and associated services as much to purchase their syringes at a participating pharmacy, there are many others who will still benefit from the needle exhcange---and it is just one more point of contact to educate and plant the seeds to engage someone down the line
Folks who started using younger, or for whatever reason had little or no family structure or have additional struggles with mental health, lack of socialization, extensive incarceration--usu. as a direct result of drug prohibition--lack of employment history ect. have significant (not insumountable) barriers to getting clean--while people with more stability in these areas tend to do better--in treatment, after treatment and without treatment. What we also know is that part of treatment has to cosist of treating people who are actively using and are not ready/motivated to stop. One component of this public health/harm reduction approach is needle exchange and while the new pharmacy bill will help some, who may not benefit from needle exchange and associated services as much to purchase their syringes at a participating pharmacy, there are many others who will still benefit from the needle exhcange---and it is just one more point of contact to educate and plant the seeds to engage someone down the line
my call is that sb1159 will help more people than needle exchange ever could, given that there are many more outlets that are open much longer than there are needle exchange sites.
and the cold, harsh reality is that with newsom and katz threatening to cut treatment at sfgh, all intervention at needle exchange will be for nought if there are no treatment slots for those who accept interventions.
i'd still like to see any statistics on interventions at needle exchange, the number of them, how many were taken and the success rate of those that were.
also, how do other enlightened jurisdictions handle this? in europe, for instance, there are no prescription requirements and, i assume, no needle exchange.
the worst thing we can do is to fund a nonprofit to provide a service and keep funding that nonprofit once the circumstances have changed that impact on their mission. city funding should be mission based, not a jobs creation and maintenance program.
and the cold, harsh reality is that with newsom and katz threatening to cut treatment at sfgh, all intervention at needle exchange will be for nought if there are no treatment slots for those who accept interventions.
i'd still like to see any statistics on interventions at needle exchange, the number of them, how many were taken and the success rate of those that were.
also, how do other enlightened jurisdictions handle this? in europe, for instance, there are no prescription requirements and, i assume, no needle exchange.
the worst thing we can do is to fund a nonprofit to provide a service and keep funding that nonprofit once the circumstances have changed that impact on their mission. city funding should be mission based, not a jobs creation and maintenance program.
I would have to do some research to data on effectiveness of needle exchange in terms of additional services they offer (outside of the actual needle exchange itself). I would guess research has been done on this, but do not know for sure and won't be able to check until I'm back at work on Monday, but it's a valid concern---If enough pharmacies participate, there may be an argument for less needle exchange outreach, but still not an ellimination of the program---once again, much of the SFNE activity is comprised of unpaid volunteers--and I know that there are many 'low-bottom' IDU's in this city, who would use syringes over and over (more often than they already do) if they had to go pruchase them rather than simply trading them in.
my understanding was that all walgreens pharmacies are participating in the demonstration project. if rite aid is as well, then coverage would be near total.
if the only syringes available w/o prescription were retractable needle rigs, then the reuse problem would be obviated. restrict supply of u100's, remove needle exchange and the only option would be for the user to drop a bank breaking $0.45 in order to get which ever monkey is on their back off.
somehow, i think they'll manage.
if the only syringes available w/o prescription were retractable needle rigs, then the reuse problem would be obviated. restrict supply of u100's, remove needle exchange and the only option would be for the user to drop a bank breaking $0.45 in order to get which ever monkey is on their back off.
somehow, i think they'll manage.
That's if they restrict the typical syringe of choice--also of choice for diabetics--, that is if they force people to purchase the retractable ones, AND if they choose to sell them as singles rather than by the 10 pack. Once again, it would certainly provide some relief and is a good idea, but I don't believe it would be a justification for ellimination of needle exchange programs in S.F.---But I still would like to do some checking on Monday on research done here--and abroad--on effectiveness of other services provided at needle exchange programs---which would significantly impact most folks thoughts, I'm sure, on the importance of continued funding for SFNE
**** still stand by my point. It is unacceptable to use taypayers' funds to enable drug addiction. Those funds should be used for treatment for those people who desire to exit addiction. That's tough love and I stand by it. ****
Instead of blindly standing by an opinion that is not evidenced based, maybe you should do some research.---
Instead of blindly standing by an opinion that is not evidenced based, maybe you should do some research.---
Still doing hit and runs, won't engage in any real discussion, too scared to have to employ anything that remotely resembles sound argumentation or even back up his childish commentary with sources/facts.----Still waiting to finish the needle exchange debate---I'm sure you'll run and hid, as usual.
Steve:" still stand by my point. It is unacceptable to use taypayers' funds to enable drug addiction. Those funds should be used for treatment for those people who desire to exit addiction. That's tough love and I stand by it. "
my comment:"The problem is, is that evidence and research shows us that the treatments that tradtionally fall under the 'tough love' umbrella have lower success rates. The fact is, depending on which numbers you look at, that roughly 80% of the people who would qualify as addicts/alcoholics(per DSM IV criteria) are NOT completely abstinent from mind-altering drugs (including alcohol) at any given time. Given this data, we have to treat it from a public health/harm reduction model. This means that we need to shift the focus from simply Stopping--which is easier said than done, especially for those with co-occuring mental/medical disorders--to how can we reduce the harm addicts do to themselves and their community---in terms of criminality, health, fiscally, ect. Tough love rarely stops an addict from using and is not an effective, evidence-based treatment, whereas needle exchange programs--especially ones that offer comprehensive services--are effective in reducing disease transmission--thus costing the addict less in terms of self-destructive potential, and the community in terms of monetary/public health costs.
Let's finish now---you simply "stood by your point"---and never responded to my rebuttal--I am a Certified Addictions Treatment Specialist and I'm very confident that this is just one of the glaring examples of time syou've posted crap, and have no real idea what you're talking about
my comment:"The problem is, is that evidence and research shows us that the treatments that tradtionally fall under the 'tough love' umbrella have lower success rates. The fact is, depending on which numbers you look at, that roughly 80% of the people who would qualify as addicts/alcoholics(per DSM IV criteria) are NOT completely abstinent from mind-altering drugs (including alcohol) at any given time. Given this data, we have to treat it from a public health/harm reduction model. This means that we need to shift the focus from simply Stopping--which is easier said than done, especially for those with co-occuring mental/medical disorders--to how can we reduce the harm addicts do to themselves and their community---in terms of criminality, health, fiscally, ect. Tough love rarely stops an addict from using and is not an effective, evidence-based treatment, whereas needle exchange programs--especially ones that offer comprehensive services--are effective in reducing disease transmission--thus costing the addict less in terms of self-destructive potential, and the community in terms of monetary/public health costs.
Let's finish now---you simply "stood by your point"---and never responded to my rebuttal--I am a Certified Addictions Treatment Specialist and I'm very confident that this is just one of the glaring examples of time syou've posted crap, and have no real idea what you're talking about
to finsihg an arguement, rather than running---
Steve:" still stand by my point. It is unacceptable to use taypayers' funds to enable drug addiction. Those funds should be used for treatment for those people who desire to exit addiction. That's tough love and I stand by it. "
my comment:"The problem is, is that evidence and research shows us that the treatments that tradtionally fall under the 'tough love' umbrella have lower success rates. The fact is, depending on which numbers you look at, that roughly 80% of the people who would qualify as addicts/alcoholics(per DSM IV criteria) are NOT completely abstinent from mind-altering drugs (including alcohol) at any given time. Given this data, we have to treat it from a public health/harm reduction model. This means that we need to shift the focus from simply Stopping--which is easier said than done, especially for those with co-occuring mental/medical disorders--to how can we reduce the harm addicts do to themselves and their community---in terms of criminality, health, fiscally, ect. Tough love rarely stops an addict from using and is not an effective, evidence-based treatment, whereas needle exchange programs--especially ones that offer comprehensive services--are effective in reducing disease transmission--thus costing the addict less in terms of self-destructive potential, and the community in terms of monetary/public health costs.
Let's finish now---you simply "stood by your point"---and never responded to my rebuttal--I am a Certified Addictions Treatment Specialist and I'm very confident that this is just one of the glaring examples of times you've posted crap, and have no real idea what you're talking about
Steve:" still stand by my point. It is unacceptable to use taypayers' funds to enable drug addiction. Those funds should be used for treatment for those people who desire to exit addiction. That's tough love and I stand by it. "
my comment:"The problem is, is that evidence and research shows us that the treatments that tradtionally fall under the 'tough love' umbrella have lower success rates. The fact is, depending on which numbers you look at, that roughly 80% of the people who would qualify as addicts/alcoholics(per DSM IV criteria) are NOT completely abstinent from mind-altering drugs (including alcohol) at any given time. Given this data, we have to treat it from a public health/harm reduction model. This means that we need to shift the focus from simply Stopping--which is easier said than done, especially for those with co-occuring mental/medical disorders--to how can we reduce the harm addicts do to themselves and their community---in terms of criminality, health, fiscally, ect. Tough love rarely stops an addict from using and is not an effective, evidence-based treatment, whereas needle exchange programs--especially ones that offer comprehensive services--are effective in reducing disease transmission--thus costing the addict less in terms of self-destructive potential, and the community in terms of monetary/public health costs.
Let's finish now---you simply "stood by your point"---and never responded to my rebuttal--I am a Certified Addictions Treatment Specialist and I'm very confident that this is just one of the glaring examples of times you've posted crap, and have no real idea what you're talking about
if you can
where's Steve? Running away from any real debate as usual
What a strange site
Why is Steve being pestered so vigorously? Maybe the guy badgering him should consider cooling it for a while.
Is that he regularly posts inflammatory comments on this site, hit and run style, so I want to keep this right there for him---because he'll be back, and I'm looking forward to seeing if he rises to the challenge, or runs again
it seems to be the game here to Pick on one or two persons who say what they feel. a crule and childish practice.
It's when someone repeatedly comes on and makes antagonistic comments, but is then unwilling to engage in something that at least resembles a reasonable exchange, then they should be taken to task. Or maybe consider shutting the fuck up.
Care to finish an argument---or still just posting comments and running?
Steve:" still stand by my point. It is unacceptable to use taypayers' funds to enable drug addiction. Those funds should be used for treatment for those people who desire to exit addiction. That's tough love and I stand by it. "
my comment:"The problem is, is that evidence and research shows us that the treatments that tradtionally fall under the 'tough love' umbrella have lower success rates. The fact is, depending on which numbers you look at, that roughly 80% of the people who would qualify as addicts/alcoholics(per DSM IV criteria) are NOT completely abstinent from mind-altering drugs (including alcohol) at any given time. Given this data, we have to treat it from a public health/harm reduction model. This means that we need to shift the focus from simply Stopping--which is easier said than done, especially for those with co-occuring mental/medical disorders--to how can we reduce the harm addicts do to themselves and their community---in terms of criminality, health, fiscally, ect. Tough love rarely stops an addict from using and is not an effective, evidence-based treatment, whereas needle exchange programs--especially ones that offer comprehensive services--are effective in reducing disease transmission--thus costing the addict less in terms of self-destructive potential, and the community in terms of monetary/public health costs.
Let's finish now---you simply "stood by your point"---and never responded to my rebuttal--I am a Certified Addictions Treatment Specialist and I'm very confident that this is just one of the glaring examples of times you've posted crap, and have no real idea what you're talking about
Steve:" still stand by my point. It is unacceptable to use taypayers' funds to enable drug addiction. Those funds should be used for treatment for those people who desire to exit addiction. That's tough love and I stand by it. "
my comment:"The problem is, is that evidence and research shows us that the treatments that tradtionally fall under the 'tough love' umbrella have lower success rates. The fact is, depending on which numbers you look at, that roughly 80% of the people who would qualify as addicts/alcoholics(per DSM IV criteria) are NOT completely abstinent from mind-altering drugs (including alcohol) at any given time. Given this data, we have to treat it from a public health/harm reduction model. This means that we need to shift the focus from simply Stopping--which is easier said than done, especially for those with co-occuring mental/medical disorders--to how can we reduce the harm addicts do to themselves and their community---in terms of criminality, health, fiscally, ect. Tough love rarely stops an addict from using and is not an effective, evidence-based treatment, whereas needle exchange programs--especially ones that offer comprehensive services--are effective in reducing disease transmission--thus costing the addict less in terms of self-destructive potential, and the community in terms of monetary/public health costs.
Let's finish now---you simply "stood by your point"---and never responded to my rebuttal--I am a Certified Addictions Treatment Specialist and I'm very confident that this is just one of the glaring examples of times you've posted crap, and have no real idea what you're talking about
to finish the debate--or just doing hit and runs again?
Typical Republican, can't back up his fear based ideology and sarcastic comments with a coherent argument---always running
Care to finish an argument---or still just posting comments and running?
Steve:" still stand by my point. It is unacceptable to use taypayers' funds to enable drug addiction. Those funds should be used for treatment for those people who desire to exit addiction. That's tough love and I stand by it. "
my comment:"The problem is, is that evidence and research shows us that the treatments that tradtionally fall under the 'tough love' umbrella have lower success rates. The fact is, depending on which numbers you look at, that roughly 80% of the people who would qualify as addicts/alcoholics(per DSM IV criteria) are NOT completely abstinent from mind-altering drugs (including alcohol) at any given time. Given this data, we have to treat it from a public health/harm reduction model. This means that we need to shift the focus from simply Stopping--which is easier said than done, especially for those with co-occuring mental/medical disorders--to how can we reduce the harm addicts do to themselves and their community---in terms of criminality, health, fiscally, ect. Tough love rarely stops an addict from using and is not an effective, evidence-based treatment, whereas needle exchange programs--especially ones that offer comprehensive services--are effective in reducing disease transmission--thus costing the addict less in terms of self-destructive potential, and the community in terms of monetary/public health costs.
Let's finish now---you simply "stood by your point"---and never responded to my rebuttal--I am a Certified Addictions Treatment Specialist and I'm very confident that this is just one of the glaring examples of times you've posted crap, and have no real idea what you're talking about
Care to finish an argument---or still just posting comments and running?
Steve:" still stand by my point. It is unacceptable to use taypayers' funds to enable drug addiction. Those funds should be used for treatment for those people who desire to exit addiction. That's tough love and I stand by it. "
my comment:"The problem is, is that evidence and research shows us that the treatments that tradtionally fall under the 'tough love' umbrella have lower success rates. The fact is, depending on which numbers you look at, that roughly 80% of the people who would qualify as addicts/alcoholics(per DSM IV criteria) are NOT completely abstinent from mind-altering drugs (including alcohol) at any given time. Given this data, we have to treat it from a public health/harm reduction model. This means that we need to shift the focus from simply Stopping--which is easier said than done, especially for those with co-occuring mental/medical disorders--to how can we reduce the harm addicts do to themselves and their community---in terms of criminality, health, fiscally, ect. Tough love rarely stops an addict from using and is not an effective, evidence-based treatment, whereas needle exchange programs--especially ones that offer comprehensive services--are effective in reducing disease transmission--thus costing the addict less in terms of self-destructive potential, and the community in terms of monetary/public health costs.
Let's finish now---you simply "stood by your point"---and never responded to my rebuttal--I am a Certified Addictions Treatment Specialist and I'm very confident that this is just one of the glaring examples of times you've posted crap, and have no real idea what you're talking about
incapable of truly engaging
Incapable of truly engaging in coherent debate---hit and run coward.
Posting and running--as usual
let me know if you ever want to finish this one---see above posts for a refresher course---I'm sure you'll ignor this debate, as you ignore anything that would require meaningful discourse, rather than "I'm blindly sticking to my beliefs even in the face of facts"
incapbale of meaningful engagement---runs from the facts
Care to finish Steve?----or will you run again?
Care to finish Steve?----or will you run again?
Injection drug use (IDU) is currently the single largest factor contributing to the spread of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States.1 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that one third of all cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) are caused by IDU.2 Transmission to other family members through heterosexual and perinatal contact, and the impact of addiction on the family, makes this a family disease. In addition to HIV infection, injection drug users (IDUs) face many health risks, including viral and bacterial infections (e.g., hepatitis, tuberculosis, endocarditis, abscesses), overdoses, violence, and suicide. Many IDUs have complex medical, social, and psychiatric problems and face tremendous difficulties in accessing the appropriate service
------------------------------------
jillcatrina
kansas drug rehab
For more information:
http://www.addictionlink.org/drug-rehab-ce...
This is not at all fair to stop a funding which is for a good cause and it should be quickly re started.
----
ragavendra
arkansas drug rehab
----
ragavendra
arkansas drug rehab
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$180.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network