Image Alt


Where Are Needle Exchange Programs Legal

Needle service programs (SWPs) are also known as needle exchange programs (MS) and needle exchange programs (NEPs). While the services they provide may vary, PHC are community-based programs that provide access to sterile needles and syringes, facilitate the safe disposal of used needles, and provide and link other important services and programs that Alabama law does not legally allow PHC. In recent years, however, efforts have been made to legalize them. The Alabama Injection Associated Infectious Disease Elimination Act was introduced on April 4, 2019. The bill passed by the committee proposed pilot needle exchange programs in high-risk countries and criminal immunity to encourage participation in these programs. Alabama has the highest opioid distribution rate in the country, with 80 prescriptions per 100 residents, nearly double the national rate. In 2020, according to the latest available data, Alabama saw a 20% increase in opioid overdoses. Szalavitz M. Why Obama doesn`t fund needle exchange programs.

Hour. 16 May 2009.,8599,1898073,00.htmlAccessed January 26, 2016. Needle and syringe maintenance programs (HSPs) provide sterile injection devices and prevention and health products and services to people who inject drugs. HSPs are safe, effective and cost-effective ways to reduce HIV and HCV transmission. They can also significantly reduce the number of improperly disposed syringes. Despite the CDC`s evidence-based recommendations, approval of the SSP in the United States remains incomplete and inconsistent. Some states have laws that explicitly allow PHC, while others have a patchwork of pre-existing laws that leads to the perception that PHC is illegal. 18. Laufer FN. Cost-effectiveness of needle replacement as an HIV prevention strategy.

J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2001;28(3):273-8. Since their first appearance in Amsterdam in 1983 [11], NEPs have been a lightning rod of controversy when they have been proposed as a means of limiting disease transmission [12]. In the United States, opponents of NEP have largely focused on three main arguments for blocking their use [13]. First, they argue, federal funding for PINs would contradict law enforcement efforts in the U.S. “war on drugs” by signaling the government`s tacit approval of illicit drug use [14]. Second, they argue, federal funding for NEPs and the availability of sterile syringes could lead to an increase in drug abuse and affect public health [14]. Third, they argue, federal approval of NEPs and removal of a barrier to dangerous drug use could have a corrupting effect on children [15]. Mississippi has one of the highest opioid distribution rates in the country, with 64 prescriptions per 100 people. Currently, Mississippi law does not explicitly allow needle exchange, and syringes are classified as paraphernalia. The state does not legally prohibit the sale of needles without a prescription.

A bill introduced in 2019 and passed in committee attempted to make it illegal to sell, buy or possess needles without a written prescription. Under the administration of George W. Bush, the ban remained in effect [29]. Although Barack Obama ran for president and promised to lift NEP funding restrictions [30], his administration`s first budget request to Congress contained the following wording: “No funds authorized by this law may be used to conduct a program to distribute sterile needles or syringes for the injection of illicit drugs” [31]. Democrats in Congress rejected this language and worked with Congress and the president to suppress it.[27] As a result, the ban on NEP funding was lifted, and in 2010, the Department of Health and Social Services issued guidelines for needle exchange programs requesting federal funding [13]. Norman J, Vlahov D, Moses LE, eds. Preventing HIV transmission: The role of sterile needles and bleach. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1995.