NationStates Jolt Archive

Needle Sharing Prevention

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity


Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

OBSERVING the continued health risk posed by injecting drug use (IDU), as reported by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in its June 25, 2004 report titled, "World Drug Report 2004";

AWARE that it is common for injecting drug users to share their needles, in a practice that is commonly referred to as "needle sharing";

TAKING NOTE of the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) report "2004 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic", dated July 6, 2004;

CALLING ATTENTION to the fact that the UNAIDS report states that the "HIV epidemic remains largely concentrated among injecting drug users, men who have sex with men, sex workers, clients of sex workers, and their immediate sexual partners";

BEARING IN MIND that the UNAIDS report also found that in many regions of the world that 60% of injecting drug users are infected with HIV;

ALSO AWARE that due to the illegal status of most injecting drugs in many nations, that injecting drug users, like many other people living with HIV/AIDS and high risk groups, are less able to participate in prevention and treatment programs;

CONCERNED by the UNAIDS estimate that "AIDS is intensifying chronic food shortages in many countries where large numbers of people are already undernourished" due in part to the fact that people living with HIV/AIDS account for large portions of the agricultural work force;

ACKNOWLEGDING that while the best prevention and treatment programs are tailor designed to the individual cultures and societies to which they seek to help, that the scope of the AIDS Epidemic is global in nature;

NOTING the success of reducing HIV/AIDS (as well as other diseases such as Hepatitis B and C) through domestic, local, and non-governmental based needle and syringe exchange programs; [1], [2]

OBSERVING reports that needle and syringe exchange programs do not increase IDU, but instead have resulted in decreases in the number of injections per day; [3]

1. AFFIRMS the basic human right for all people, including injection drug users, to equal access to HIV/AIDS based prevention and treatment programs;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to review existing free needle and syringe exchange programs and to consider adopting trial or study level needle and syringe exchange programs tailor suited to the cultural and society in which the program will be applied;

3.STRESSES that for IDU HIV/AIDS prevention programs to be successful, that the individuals that organize or participate in these programs shall not be subject to arrest or harassment, nor shall participation in these programs imply drug use;

4. COMMENDS existing national, local, and non-governmental needle and syringe exchange programs; and

5. REQUESTS that existing needle sharing prevention programs share the findings of their studies with other national, local, and non-governmental organizations interested in developing their own needle and syringe exchange programs.


NOTES:

[1] Australian National Council on AIDS, Hepatitis C, and Related Diseases for a real-world example.

[2] "Seattle and King County Needle Exchange Program" is another real-world example that these programs are cost effective and save money and lives.

[3] 1998 University of California San Francisco study titled: "Does HIV Needle Exchange Work?"

Needle Sharing Prevention

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity



For starters, let me say that do not be fooled. This resolution is designed to improve basic human welfare. And thus the category in this case speaks for itself. This is a classic example of real world social justice, and when you read the activating (numbered clauses) of the resolution, you'll see why I classified this resolution as "mild" instead of "strong".

Most UN nations create "strong" proposals. I think this is often unwise. I'm a strong supporter of taking existing programs and research that are working on local scales (Needle Exchange Programs save money and lives ... this has been proven and YET to be disproven -- and I'll show you this later), and encourage the proliferation of these successful programs.

My nation's model of a strong UN, is a UN that respects sovereignty and encourages and promotes basic human rights, basic international security, and basic sustainable development. Forcing people to change never works, but encouraging them to adopt solutions that have been proven to work does.

I do not want to fool you into thinking that any action domestic or international will change the world over night. It won't happen. But Needle Exchange Programs are a way to save money by applying resources in a different way:

Prevention instead of Treatment.

Pevention is so effective the the savings in reduced Treatment programs can completely offset the small cost of the prevention programs.

This is a long practiced and proven medical profession technique and I ask that you view NEPs this way.

Thank you,
10kMichael
UN Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Analysis: Statement of Problem (Part 2)

Typically a resolution preamble contains two parts (often intermingled): a statement of the problem and a background into current actions / solutions. I'll discuss the background into possible courses of actions in Part 3, instead I'd like to first impress upon this body that this is indeed a global problem and fitting of your time (i.e. that international standing exists).


OBSERVING the continued health risk posed by injecting drug use (IDU), as reported by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in its June 25, 2004 report titled, "World Drug Report 2004";

First, when I quote a report or conference, you can always easily find that reference by using google.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/world_drug_report.html

This page is obviously a HTML preview of the report itself. Though government reports are often lengthy, as we all know, the executive summary is always worth a glance. Executive summaries are designed for quick reads.

Here I?ll direct your attention to Chapter 1.3, which directly relates to the topic at hand: Injecting Drug Use and HIV/AIDS. The important note in this report is the level of IDU = 13 million. NOTE: That is based on real world populations, not the inflated planet NationStates -- but I'd argue that NationStates will have the same percentage of IDU.

The next perambulatory clause:

AWARE that it is common for injecting drug users to share their needles, in a practice that is commonly referred to as "needle sharing";

Is nothing more than a common definition.

The next two clauses deal with the connection between IDU (needle sharing) and HIV/AIDS:


TAKING NOTE of the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) report "2004 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic", dated July 6, 2004;

CALLING ATTENTION to the fact that the UNAIDS report states that the "HIV epidemic remains largely concentrated among injecting drug users, men who have sex with men, sex workers, clients of sex workers, and their immediate sexual partners";

http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/report.html

Now when you visit the UNAIDS report, you?ll notice that IDU is only a portion of the HIV/AIDS transmission problem. Other problems exist. They are important too, but we can only discuss one problem at a time, so this resolution is focusing just on IDU.

BEARING IN MIND that the UNAIDS report also found that in many regions of the world that 60% of injecting drug users are infected with HIV;

The following is taken from the UNAIDS report and references Latin America. In other parts of the world, the adult prevalence is spread more through sexual transmission. Again, this is an issue tackling another day, but clearly there is a serious risk for ...


ALSO AWARE that due to the illegal status of most injecting drugs in many nations, that injecting drug users, like many other people living with HIV/AIDS and high risk groups, are less able to participate in prevention and treatment programs;

A group of people whom have (and the reports will confirm this) less access to prevention and treatment programs.

Even if you feel that these people shouldn't be entitled to equal access to care programs, by reducing the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate among high risk populations, the spread of the virus to lower risk populations can be better controlled. Why is this important? Because high risk groups can and do interact with other risk groups. The classic example would be the sexual partner of a injecting drug user. Providing access to clean needles to the user will help also protect his / her partner.

The real concern, and why this is not just a domestic issue is demonstrated by:


CONCERNED by the UNAIDS estimate that "AIDS is intensifying chronic food shortages in many countries where large numbers of people are already undernourished" due in part to the fact that people living with HIV/AIDS account for large portions of the agricultural work force;

Consider this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_hiv_aid_adu_pre_rat

You can go and select your own countries of choice to see what the adult prevalence rate is, but bear in mind that as the above quote from the same UNAIDS report stated, HIV/AIDS carriers are working individuals. They contribute to the global economy, well ... at least for as long as they can. Typically they account for large portions of the agricultural work force, and considering that the nations that are typically hit heaviest by HIV/AIDS infection rates, are primarily agrarian based economies, their inability to feed their own nations and produce surpluses in food and wealth will roll over into other economies.

From a humanitarian point of view, this is a critical issue. From an economic point of view this is equally important.

Now what I didn't do was point out that since IDU is often illegal by nature, it is harder to control its spread from country to country. A traveler is not about to announce that he / she is an injecting drug user when visiting another society, but their addiction and medical condition will travel with them. Even if the primary vector in an agrarian society is through sexual transmission, other societies that are based on other sectors will tend to have higher transmission through IDU, and thus I'd like to submit that focusing on IDU and HIV/AIDS prevention is in the international communities best interest.

10kMichael
UN Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Analysis: Proposed Solution (Part 3)

First, I'll preface this by admitting that this is only one possible solution. Furthermore, Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs) may not work in all communities. This is something that will simply have to be tried on an individual basis in different communities, and with that in mind the scales of these programs should start off small.


NOTING the success of reducing HIV/AIDS (as well as other diseases such as Hepatitis B and C) through domestic, local, and non-governmental based needle and syringe exchange programs; [1], [2]

OBSERVING reports that needle and syringe exchange programs do not increase IDU, but instead have resulted in decreases in the number of injections per day; [3]


Since this is perhaps the part that is most likely to be confusing to some individuals, I've listed a few quick references at the bottom of the resolution. My government has spent some time reading research papers form around the world, and has yet to find any scientific evidence indicating that NEPs increase the number of injections / users. In fact, we found numerous examples that NEPs are both cost effective (i.e. money spent on prevention more than accounts for money saved by not having to treat patients) and that NEPs interestingly have resulted in some reported decreases in the number of injections per user per day.

UCSF study:
http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/NEPrev.html

Other studies:
http://www.hivpositive.com/f-HIVyou/2-Prevention/needletext.html
http://www.thebody.com/aac/brochures/needle_exchange.html


The point that should really have your nations jumping on the band wagon is that multiple studies are showing that not only do NEPs reduce the HIV prevalence in the IDU population, but they also result in decreases in IDU. The following explains why:

That the physician-patient interaction is based on the acknowledgement of injecting behaviors engenders trust and seems to open the door for discussion of a whole host of injecting-related activities, including commercial sex, participation in the underground economy, violence, and abuse. The participants seem to be open and honest about their drug use.

They understand that physicians are trying to help them in a non-judgmental way and are quite appreciative of the efforts. Participants are extremely willing to participate in health care including hepatitis B vaccination; testing for hepatitis, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases; and follow up.

Taken From:
http://www.thebody.com/atn/364/syringe.html

So the logical question is, do these programs work in many different cultures? My answer is maybe. Iran is willing to test run the programs:

http://www.thebody.com/cdc/news_updates_archive/2003/aug12_03/iran_syringes.html

Believe me. I've looked and looked, and would be happy to find additional papers. I've yet to find any papers showing that NEPs either increase drug use or that NEPs are not successful in saving lives through prevention.

As always, if you feel differently, please point us proof that justifies your position.

Good job! Excellent proposal and excellent work!

I'm voting against.

If you've got money to blow on heroin its up to you to buy clean needles.

Personal responsibility even applies to junkies.

I'm voting against.

If you've got money to blow on heroin its up to you to buy clean needles.

Personal responsibility even applies to junkies.

You speak from total ignorance then. The needle exchange programs are proven to save money ... prevention reduces treatment costs, saving societies money. The proof is above, please read the links.

National finacial responsibility applies even to the most closed minded governments.

If you disagree, please provide some facts. Otherwise you are basically making uninformed decisions, and this is always dangerous.

I didn't say they didn't work.

I am against giving away government 'freebies' from taxation.

I believe that you should be able to walk into a supermarket and buy 100 packs of needles and your heroin right there.

To be utterly facetious you could call it 'McSmack'.

As I said before your own health is your own personal responsibility, if some people don't care thats their own fault.

I didn't say they didn't work.

I am against giving away government 'freebies' from taxation.

I believe that you should be able to walk into a supermarket and buy 100 packs of needles and your heroin right there.



*blink*

I really just wanted to make sure that it was perfectly clear that you are basing your arguments on ignorance and social prejudices, and don't have any facts to back your knee-jerk reaction up.

FACTS (references above):

- NEPs actually reduce drug use.
- NEPs actually save governments money.

Ironically you are giving away freebies, in the form of treatment to individuals that wouldn't need to come into clinics if you could stop the addiction before it is too far along.

Cave Canem urge their UN colleagues to endorse the resolution currently before them.

This is a common sense policy with excellent cost benefit returns. Objections on the grounds of money wasting simply do not hold water in the light of the expense of prevention vs that of long term care.

Epidemics lead to poverty, which leads to crime, which leads to either large scale civil unrest if unchecked or massive expenditure on domestic policing.

Even setting aside the humanitarian reasons for endorsement (which have been detailed above and do not need to be repeated), this is a sound economic proposal and one which we have no hesitation in commending.

If you make one policy decision today make it this - support the resolution.

Cave Canem Council

Drug use is a choice.

You are responsible for your choice to use drugs and your method of injection.

The only people that aren't responsible for their addiction, and possible infection with AIDS/HIV are crack babies and the like.

Legalisation and taxation of narcotics would bring in more revenue than the government exchange of clean for dirty needles, and be more beneficial to society as a whole.

Drug use is a choice.

You are responsible for your choice to use drugs and your method of injection.

The only people that aren't responsible for their addiction, and possible infection with AIDS/HIV are crack babies and the like.

Legalisation and taxation of narcotics would bring in more revenue than the government exchange of clean for dirty needles, and be more beneficial to society as a whole.

This is where we may disagree ...

First, health care is a basic human right. As Cave Canem pointed out, it is in a socities better interest to provide this service and have some equality in order to reduce tensions and crime rates. A healthy and happy work force is a productive one.

In the case of some African nations, their economy is crippled due to the fact that the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate exceeds 10% of the adult population. In a few countries it reaches 30%!

It is in societies best interest to prevent addiction. And legalization, might bring in additional revenues and it may change drug use ... I certainly have seen evidence pointing both directions with respect to legalization, but NEPs have a clearly demonstrated track record of saving lives and spice melange (i.e. money).

Furthermore, drug treatment programs are by no means mutually exclusive. This resolution is only *one* plan to address the spread of HIV/AIDS. If you'd go back and read the UNAIDS report released this month, you'll see that HIV/AIDS continues to spread.

While you say the only victims of addiction are crack babies, you are forgetting that the focus of NEPs is to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS. Reducing injecting drug use (IDU) is a benefit ... there is no evidence contracting this fact. But it is in our collective interest to reduce HIV/AIDS.

HIV/AIDS spreads through several vectors: (1) sexual transmission (not addressed here), (2) needle sharing, (3) blood transfusions (already addressed in a previous NationStates UN resolution). All of these are fluid based transmissions.

By reducing the risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS for high risk IDU populations, we also are protecting not only their sexual partners, but we are also protecting the future sexual partners and children of the partners. It is like a chain, and each HIV/AIDS vector that we can break through education and prevention helps to improve the economies of countries that are effectively unable to feed themselves.

To be sure, if you read the material at the top of this thread, the reason NEPs reduce drug use is that by having physicians issue the needles, drug users are coming into contact with the medical professionals and are actually begining to trust them. They are more receptive to sound medical advice, and listen to the doctors.

The programs work!

As for the idea of legalization as a means of reducing addictions (which is what you've suggested above), I'd be eager to read reports that support and/or contradict this assertion. If I find that there is overwhelming evidence supporting your opinion that legalization is another means of reducing addiction, I will pursue this in a future UN resolution.

I don't see why i should spend money on people who are stupid enough to need that resolution. It is their own fault and mabe their stupidness will be removed from the gene pool due to these illness that wipe out the weak, leaving the strong stronger for it.

I don't see why i should spend money on people who are stupid enough to need that resolution. It is their own fault and mabe their stupidness will be removed from the gene pool due to these illness that wipe out the weak, leaving the strong stronger for it.

First and foremost, let me address the fact that being an addict and being stupid are two completely different things. Some people are born with "addiction genes" that are passed down through generations of family with history of addiction. I'll thank you for keeping your judgements to yourself. People aren't 'stupid' or 'weak' -- people have problems. Until you've lived the life of an addict and spent 20 years with a needle in your arm, you can keep your ignorant judgements to yourself.

Secondly, they will never "wipe themselves out" because by sharing needles disease will only grow more and more. And remember, it is not only those people sharing needles that will become infected, but eventually the children they have as well. If you can't think of this resolution as a prevention method for addicts, then think of it as a prevention method to keep their children from being born disease-ridden.

People aren't 'stupid' or 'weak' -- people have problems. Until you've lived the life of an addict and spent 20 years with a needle in your arm, you can keep your ignorant judgements to yourself.


*clapping*

Thank you for your reply.

You couldn't be more correct.

Here is the thing I'm sure most of us are aware of: if you don't know somebody with HIV/AIDS, you will soon enough. The virus is wide spread, and current international and domestic measures being taken to slow its spread through all sectors of our popluations are not working effectively enough. We need to be creative and stay ahead of this.

The point in prevention programs is two-fold:

(1) Humans are entitled to basic medical treatment, and the decision to withhold the most basic treatment should not be made on moralistic / prejudiced judgements.

(2) By targeting high-risk groups, you spend more money more effectively by slowing the spread into other segments of the population.

I'm dismayed by how many people continue to believe that HIV/AIDS effects only drug users and homosexuals. It doesn't. Not by a long shot.

But by accepting our social obligation to these populations, we not only help them, but we save everybody as well.

I can never be in favor of anything that enables drug users. As it appears to reduce the number of infections, that doesn't note how people would have easier access to tools to use the same drugs that we are fighting against. This just gives them an easy way out.

Me and my 6 votes are against this resolution.

Regardless of if there are needles available or not, drug use is going to happen. It's like denying that underage drinking exists. It happens. At the very least, people can be safer about it. Besides, my understanding is that many of the needle-trade in places offer support and counseling as well.

Perhaps we can amend the resolution and include counseling and NA programs in the needle-trade in facilities.

I can never be in favor of anything that enables drug users. As it appears to reduce the number of infections, that doesn't note how people would have easier access to tools to use the same drugs that we are fighting against. This just gives them an easy way out.

Me and my 6 votes are against this resolution.


Let me explain this in a way that will seem rude, but is how you suggest we treat addicts ...

REPLY 1: Insult and Ignore.

You are an idiot. Your opinion that by refusing to exchange needles you are helping addicts is in complete denial. Only a complete moron or a 12-year kid would advocate such a stupid position.



REPLY 2: Baby Steps.

Consider this, by allowing addicts to exchange needles at medical clinics, not only are they getting access to something they were reluctant to deal with before, but studies have consistently shown that these addicts are also picking up condoms and other saftey devices *and* that as they get to know the doctors that they actually listen to the doctors and reduce their use.

Basically the point of NEPs is to find a lure to bring addicts a step closer to being responsible and productive citizens. It is a way to help them, and NEPs work because they aren't designed to insult addicts.




OK, now that I've just embarassed you in front of this entire assembly ... which of my two above statements made you *less* hostile towards me? Shall I call you an idiot again? Or shall I politely point out that you reall should get off your preconcieved notions of how the real world operates and read the reports?

Seriously? Which technique is more likely to work? Are you a complete moron (REPLY 1) or just not listening (REPLY 2)?


Directed at anybody who is tempted to vote no:

People ... use your brains for a minute. I know some of you are programmed by your family and friends to think in a certain way, but guess what ... if they were right in their opinions, you'll be able to find the facts to defend your views. You are obviously at a computer and have access to the internet. USE IT. Don't just sit there and spit out senseless garbage when others have posted real facts, go to google and read these things. Find your own facts, because if you can't back your opinion up by fact ... they chances are you don't know what the heck you are talking about and it makes you look like a 12-year old kid to the rest of us. Is that what you really want us thinking about you?

They are stupid for accepting the needle in the first place, even if it is their genes hopefully these deseases will wipe those genes out of society so we don't have to deal with scum like they are. And yes i myself is addicted to alcahol and if i was stupid enough to put a needle in my arm i wouldn't expect or want any better treatment, if their children die because of their mistakes it is their parents fault and not the state. With any luck they will die before they pass on the genes, in both cases.

Besides, my understanding is that many of the needle-trade in places offer support and counseling as well.

Perhaps we can amend the resolution and include counseling and NA programs in the needle-trade in facilities.

I think the resolution already implies this is the case. It says that countries need to explore the idea of adopting needle exchange programs, and you are completely correct: most programs are designed around the support and counseling programs first ... the actual needle exchange is just a way to bring people in.

The basic idea is really no different than free sex clinics. Basically many large urban centers offer free clinics where people can get tested for STDs. Though the test is the draw from coming in, the staff is there really to provide the other services.

Usually people come in for the basic service: a test or a needle. As they return more and more often, they begin to trust the staff more and begin to ask questions. Eventually they even start to listen to the staff ...

A fact worth repeating: Iran has started up NEPs! Iran of all places! It is easy to visualize New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Amsterdam, London, Berlin, Frankfurt, Sydney, and many other major population centers starting these programs, but for clinics to appear in Iran! Wow!

I was going to point out to Mikitivity that we need to be diplomatic.
But then I read your post Psychotia.

Spelled A-L-C-O-H-O-L
What kind of drunk are you that you can't spell your drug of choice?

I already mentioned that your wish/theory/whatever is overly idealistic. It will not wipe itself out because needles will continually transmit disease and they WILL have babies. You can't just hope that they won't. They WILL. And last time I checked it IS the responsibility of the state to ensure the wellbeing of their people -- especially that of children.

There IS a reason that CPS exists.
Wouldn't you help a kid who was being beaten to death by his/her father?
This is the same concept.

Please spell check in the future.
It's hard to take fellow diplomats seriously when posts are littered with errors.

I was going to point out to Mikitivity that we need to be diplomatic.
But then I read your post Psychotia.


Believe it or not, but I've been trying to avoid invoking "Godwin" to this entire discussion, so your point is well taken. ;)

But it still is so tempting to make the reference anyways, because sometimes I honestly have a hard time telling if these UN representatives are advocating their personal beliefs or their governments policy.

{OOC: In other words, I'm guessing that these players aren't interested in playing the diplomacy game nor do they need to be treated with kid gloves. This is an important real-world issue, and they should be exposed to it.

"Like I always say, you can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word."}

Spelled A-L-C-O-H-O-L
What kind of drunk are you that you can't spell your drug of choice?


Perhaps because i was drunk? Think before you post, also it's impolite to correct peoples spelling on the internet, you do not know if it is their first language or not. And it is Pyscotia not Psychotia, please read before you post.

This has been a very informative thread. The report and corresponding backup data is exceptional. Thank you for the hard work. We've learnt a lot.

My region will vote in favor of this resolution.

Ambassador Ceeps
Ambassador to the United Nations
Utopists Endeavor

Kitsune Island has voted against the resolution. Why?

Why is it considered sensible to waste money to provide fresh needles to drug addicts? It's the government itself aiding and abetting a criminal action. Drug use has been found time and time again to cause detrimental effects besides the simple risk of cross-infection with mild to severe diseases such as HIV/AIDS. Why not avoid the social problems associated with taking your childrens' school money to get your high by having the government supervise the growing, processing, and free marketing of drugs? Who needs to ever worry about needing to pay for something they may very well become addicted to for the rest of their lives?

If more people seem to feel that drug use is thusly a "safe" thing to do because of this resolution -- "Well, the needles are clean, the stuff feels good; how bad could it get?" -- perhaps despite the supposed proof of some studies the drug use will go up, as will the social and economic problems that go along with it. How long have "clean needle" laws been in effect in other areas? How long have we had to study them? Clearly several more years will be needed to better understand the long-term effects of such policies; just a couple decades may be taken as an example of how "clean needle" laws improve general health and wellbeing and decrease drug use, but what of the years after these studies are concluded, when the rising popularity or the converse sinking attraction to drug use are factored in? In our opinion, it is much too early to tell, and we do not want to leap into a resolution without sure evidence that public good will come of the resolution in not only 5, 10, or 20 years, but 50 or 100 and beyond. We would much rather spend the hard-taxed money of the people where it has been proven to be more effective -- drug rehabilitation and dissuasion campaigns to try to turn away those considering picking up an expensive, long-term, and overly-detrimental habit.

WELL DONE!

Being a relatively new member of the U.N. this is only my second resolution to vote, on, but I was truly amazed at the extensive research that went into it. I will urge my fellow members in Dementia to support this cost saving and humanitarian resolution, and might I add that it is for certain now that the South African Health Minsister is also a Nationstates player. Now we just have to decide whether she is Pyscotia or KarnovII!

Down with Manto! :sniper:

I'm voting against.

If you've got money to blow on heroin its up to you to buy clean needles.

Personal responsibility even applies to junkies.

Have to agree here. If we promote providing clean needles, it encourages the action. and who has to pay for those clean needles? the tax payers who arent wasting their time on drugs.

Have to agree here. If we promote providing clean needles, it encourages the action. and who has to pay for those clean needles? the tax payers who arent wasting their time on drugs.

Can you show any proof of this assumption of yours? Because I've provided several links to reports verifying that the opposite is the case ... that needle exchange programs *decrease* use.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that nations / individuals that refuse to spend 15-minutes looking for the proof to back their opinions are just making up their opinions and don't have a clue about what they are talking about. Prove me wrong.

You speak from total ignorance then. The needle exchange programs are proven to save money ... prevention reduces treatment costs, saving societies money. The proof is above, please read the links.

National finacial responsibility applies even to the most closed minded governments.

If you disagree, please provide some facts. Otherwise you are basically making uninformed decisions, and this is always dangerous.

Here is a crazy idea. why not, instead of promoting so called prevention programs that give people the means to engage in the problematic action, we propose prevention programs that keep the drug users from being able to use to begin with?

Can you show any proof of this assumption of yours? Because I've provided several links to reports verifying that the opposite is the case ... that needle exchange programs *decrease* use.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that nations / individuals that refuse to spend 15-minutes looking for the proof to back their opinions are just making up their opinions and don't have a clue about what they are talking about. Prove me wrong.

Its called common sense. You give people clean needles. They are going to use drugs with those needles.

See you are trying to treat the symptoms of the problem not the actual problem itself.

Also if your position is so strong, why are you relying on the "Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid" argument?

We appreciate the resolution and its presentation here (though we would wish for a little less name calling and harshness; I don’t care much for talking to anyone brandishing a 2x4).

We believe that the recommendations in the resolution would indeed be likely cost and life saving, and even though it may seem counter-intuitive to some, we expect to support it.


However we do have a question about the passage which reads:

CALLING ATTENTION to the fact that the UNAIDS report states that the "HIV epidemic remains largely concentrated among injecting drug users, men who have sex with men, sex workers, clients of sex workers, and their immediate sexual partners".

We cannot find this passage in the “2004 Report on the global AIDS epidemic” (July 2004), or the executive summary of the report, and are not sure if it truly characterizes the nature of the global AIDS pandemic.


Could you provide the source of this passage?

(We are working from the report at: http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_html/GAR2004_00_en.htm
and the executive summary at http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_html/ExecSummary_en/ExecSumm_00_en.htm)

Many thanks,
The Primeval Watershed of Living Rivers

Kitsune Island has voted against the resolution.

How long have "clean needle" laws been in effect in other areas? How long have we had to study them? Clearly several more years will be needed to better understand the long-term effects of such policies; just a couple decades may be taken as an example of how "clean needle" laws improve general health and wellbeing and decrease drug use, but what of the years after these studies are concluded, when the rising popularity or the converse sinking attraction to drug use are factored in?


If you would have read the reports, you'd have seen that NEPs have been in operation in different studies since the mid-1990s, and that the basic idea really began to gain acceptance in the medical community in the early-1990s.

The studies that I linked were typically 5-year studies, and all of them are showing decreases in use and HIV/AIDS prevalance in IDU populations.

Let's not turn this into a "they did drugs, so they should die" argument. That really is a terrible thing for a *diplomat* representing an entire society to advocate (OOC: You'd never in the real world hear a diplomat openly brag about kiling off populations ... though in NationStates you do often enough ... but NationStates also includes many underage players.)

The idea that anything needs to be studied for 50 to 100 years is honestly complete B.S. We make weather forecasts (remember before I became my nation's UN Ambassador I was the Chair on Physics and Sciences and an expert in areas like water quality forecasting) based on precipitation time series that maybe are 75 years long, but also include processes such as climate change -- in stochastics we call this a non-stationary time-series ... which is a fancy way of saying "it sucks".

50 or 100 years from now, it is possible that injecting drugs may give way for the poly drugs that are now on the market. (FYI: those following this, a poly drug is just government talk for drugs that are hybrids ... and to be honest, most of what you are going to buy on the street is cut with something else ... even things like purple weed is much more than just hash.)

We don't know the medical impacts of any of these drugs, let alone injecting drugs. But we do no for certain that HIV/AIDS prevalence in parts of the world for injecting drug users was upwards of 60% (Latin American). Eastern Europe and Asia have high prevalence rates in IDU populations as well, whereas in Africa HIV/AIDS is a bit more of a problem related to sexual transmision (homo and hetro sexual relations alike). <-- Again the UN reports well document the global HIV/AIDS situation.

In any event, 5-years is most certainly a long enough time to measure both the HIV/AIDS impact, because bear in mind ... HIV/AIDS patients live IIRC 30 to 35 years *less* than the normal populations in *Western European* and North American nations where they have equal access to treatement programs, in Africa there life expectency is far less.

The point being, the virus spreads quickly.

Who here knows people whom have died of HIV/AIDS?

*hand raised*

I certainly do. I've worked with them. Nice people. I wouldn't wish it on anybody (even though some of the NationStates trolls and hatemongers really should be forced to feel the pain associated with it for a day or two).

As for the studies that NEPs reduce use, that is common sense. It is documented, but the reason is simple: when you go over and over again to a resteraunt, you eventually make friends with the resteraunt staff. I know that at the resteraunts I frequent, they *already* know what I'm going to order before I talk ... I am that frequent.

An addict will start off the same. And as they interact with the medical staff, the staff will politely offer counciling services and other medical services.

I've said this before, and I've yet to see opponents to anything but ignore the facts and make up there own (notice they can't prove their opinions): NEPs are not just about giving out needles, they are about slowing the spread of HIV, they are about reducing addiction, they are about making a connection with people that you've already seen are second class citizens that a few individuals in this forum have expressed contempt for. And why? This have an illness, and that makes them our problem. But I'll remind you all that these people *are* humans and in need of our help ... not our pity and not our hatred.

I'm voting for this. I urge everyone else to as well.

We believe that the recommendations in the resolution would indeed be likely cost and life saving, and even though it may seem counter-intuitive to some, we expect to support it.


However we do have a question about the passage which reads:

CALLING ATTENTION to the fact that the UNAIDS report states that the "HIV epidemic remains largely concentrated among injecting drug users, men who have sex with men, sex workers, clients of sex workers, and their immediate sexual partners".

We cannot find this passage in the ?2004 Report on the global AIDS epidemic? (July 2004), or the executive summary of the report, and are not sure if it truly characterizes the nature of the global AIDS pandemic.


Could you provide the source of this passage?

(We are working from the report at: http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_html/GAR2004_00_en.htm
and the executive summary at http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_html/ExecSummary_en/ExecSumm_00_en.htm)

Many thanks,
The Primeval Watershed of Living Rivers


=) I'm glad you took the time to look through the report:

http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_html/ExecSummary_en/ExecSumm_en_01.htm#TopOfPage

Go to the Global Overview. The exact quote used in the resolution came from page 5 of the executive summary, under the Asia subheading, 2nd paragraph, but please don't stop there. Read what the other regions in the world are facing as well. If you look at Latin America, the problem moves more and more to IDU, whereas in Africa this is less the case.

So to answer your question, it was a phrase I copied from one section, but I feel it does capture the part of the global problem that I felt we could address in a single resolution.

I would love to also pursue a future resolution (co-author ... it is somebody else's turn to get flooded with both supportive and negative telegrams) addressing the other common vector: sexual transmission. In particular, this will be of interest to the African nations.

My fear is, take out the word addicts that the hate mongers are bouncing around in this thread, and replace it with homosexuals or third world.

I've said this many times: it is easy in NationStates to write a resolution to save the trees. We do it every few months. It is easy to save bunny rabbits and pretty butterflies. Few people give a darn about drug addicts let alone other socities where they feel their sexual practices are flat out wrong. I don't agree with this at all. The African economy is important. And while I think this resolution will *help*, I think this assembly needs to also prepare for the battle to address the parts of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that aren't included in this report.

But be assured that when you begin to look at other UN reports and international statistics (I find the Worldfactbook is great for this ... HIV/AIDS is such a big ticket issue that the CIA lists prevalence rates for all countries), you'll see that IDU is still a considerable vector for HIV transmission. My personal concern is that injecting drug users also tend to move around more, due to the illicit nature of their addiction ... hence part of the justification for international action.

I'm not asking for blue helmets to run down and stab people with clean needles. In fact, the resolution is a "mild" strength, because frankly NEPs save money. The hardest part with NEPs actually is in protecting the medical workers (also addressed in the resolution, but thus far we are still stuck on the moralistic battle about trying to save the lives of people that are not favoured by their own governments).
And do not worry. I usually only swing my 2x4 when I notice that people are asking the same bloody question without doing their homework first. It gets a bit annoying to think that these "nations" vote.

10kMichael
p.s. wow! Your question was great ... are you sure you didn't find the quote on your own and just didn't want to test me a bit? ;) In any event, good question!

The Conglomerates of Payus would strongly ask that all nations of the UN vote no on this issue.

While we fully sympathize with all those who suffer from the terrible disease of HIV/AIDS, it is irresponsible of the UN to use it's power to legislate things that are not of national security. The aid to these poor people is a national business, not an international concern.

So we must ask the UN to vote no on Resolution: Needle Sharing Prevention.

As I believe we said we would in your presentation of the initial proposal, Mattikistan has already given a positive vote to this resolution. It complies with the very foundation of our society, and we commend you for creating it.

Bachilloni will vote for this resolution. We appreciate the exhaustive work done by Mikitivity. We think needle providing is a good way to prevent HIV diffusion and we hope other Italy UN members will support the resolution.

The Most Serene Republic of Bachilloni
UN Ambassador

I don't see why i should spend money on people who are stupid enough to need that resolution. It is their own fault and mabe their stupidness will be removed from the gene pool due to these illness that wipe out the weak, leaving the strong stronger for it.

This vitriolic post, logical desert thought it is, raises an interesting argument in favour of free speech.

I'm sure there are those who feel that this kind of hate-filled ill-informed diatribe should not be permitted in a diplomatic dispute, empty as it is of any argument worth the name. Cave Canem feels this is a perfect example of just why these views must be allowed to be aired, for they do have a contribution to make to this debate, although probably one that our friend Pyscotia would be appalled at (if she/he had the intellect to grasp them).

Despite being a post campaigning (I use the word in its loosest possible sense) against the proposal, it is clear that anyone as yet unconvinced as to which way to vote could not be swayed by such an unintelligible rant. In fact, for delegates seeking to vote for or against the proposal based on arguments presented for each side, I would say that posts like this do a huge favour to the side they opposed. Who after all would wish to cast their vote for the side of an argument which boasts this kind of vacuous support?

Take a bow Pyscotia - who said the art of rhetoric was dead?

Prepared for the house by Cave Canem Council

While we fully sympathize with all those who suffer from the terrible disease of HIV/AIDS, it is irresponsible of the UN to use it's power to legislate things that are not of national security.

Tobias McLeod, Weegie ambassador to the UN, steps up to the floor.

"AIDS affects millions of people throughout this world. It is a pandemic, a scourge on the world. It does not stop at borders. It does not stay within national boundaries. It is an international issue, affecting every country in this world, and as such, any proposal that tries to limit the effect of this terrible disease is undoubtedly laudable, and any as well written and reseacrched as this one should pass without a doubt. We support our friends in Mikitivity, and urge all members of the UN to vote Yes on this resolution."

ILoveLucy main arguements with this is not with the fact that needle exchange programs work (they do), but with yet another overly long resolution (I guess so people can work in enough CAPITALIZED words in EVERY other sentence...) that is full of loop-holes.

If you want to make a resolution that requires all UN members to allow needle-exchange programs within their borders, then do so...that takes all of two-three sentences. As written, any nation that finds needle usage against their 'culture' (and that would be most) can opt out. Since needle user's aren't usually major political powers in any nation, you're right back at the whim of whatever hostile majority may be in power.

This resolution is toothless, and in the war against HIV, toothless is worse than doing nothing, because it allows governments to cover their inaction with a blanket of "feel-good" words.

The addition of CAPITALS and excessive wording does not make a good resolution.

This resolution is toothless, and in the war against HIV, toothless is worse than doing nothing, because it allows governments to cover their inaction with a blanket of "feel-good" words.

The addition of CAPITALS and excessive wording does not make a good resolution.


Visit the UN web page and look at existing UN resolutions.

The argument that "toothless" = bad is something I'd except from a dictator who believes in forcing his / her will on others. The United Nations is about cooperation, and you can't cooperate by saying:

"Ugh! Me dink AIDS bad! All NaTions shall share neEElds!"

You think I'm kidding? Look at some of the prior resolutions and current proposals.

The reason for the length isn't just based on the fact that *is* how resolutions look (I'm positive you've never looked a UN resolution before based on your rant), but it is because most NationStates don't visit this forum. A good resolution documents the problem and leaves enough clues where a nation can do what Living Rivers did and start his / her own research.

I'd much rather somebody vote no based on an informed opinion, than the clueless ignorant voting that I liken to nations run by 15-year olds. And I would classify ignorance of UN resolutions as in that same clueless category.

You your brain and think about it.

Cave Canem, it is the way of the world that the strong survive and the weak wither and die away. People who are stupid enough to inject themselves with addictive drugs are weak and a scourge on society with the acts they do to feed their habit and shouldn't be encouraged, but should be shown as a example to everyone thinking of going down that road. Showing that road leads to certain death is a much better deterant than to say you can go down that road and we will clear up the mess you turn yourself into. They make their own beds let them lie in it.

Its called common sense. You give people clean needles. They are going to use drugs with those needles.

See you are trying to treat the symptoms of the problem not the actual problem itself.

Also if your position is so strong, why are you relying on the "Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid" argument?
‘Common sense’ is not proof. Give one little cite to back up ‘common sense’ and maybe you will start to persuade the rational voters.

Giordano,
UN Representative,
The Black New World.

Most UN nations create "strong" proposals. I think this is often unwise. I'm a strong supporter of taking existing programs and research that are working on local scales (Needle Exchange Programs save money and lives ... this has been proven and YET to be disproven -- and I'll show you this later), and encourage the proliferation of these successful programs.

My nation's model of a strong UN, is a UN that respects sovereignty and encourages and promotes basic human rights, basic international security, and basic sustainable development. Forcing people to change never works, but encouraging them to adopt solutions that have been proven to work does.

We believe Mikivity has pre-empted the 'toothless' critisism in the post above. This seems adequate response to the objection raised by IloveLucy.

Cave Canem Council

The great nation of Tottobacco has one other resolution. Using these facts by informing the people about the danger could be great preventation against both HIV/AIDS and the using of drugs.

If my vote was cast on "yes" I would encourage the using of drugs among my people. Drugs are bad in every way and must be stopped.

This is a step to help drug-users keep using drugs, instead we should unite against them, the fight for human rights are not always the best way. There are many times other paths which could be much better.
In this question. There is a better path. Therefore will the vote of Tottobacco be cast against.

If my vote was cast on "yes" I would encourage the using of drugs among my people. Drugs are bad in every way and must be stopped.

This is a step to help drug-users keep using drugs, instead we should unite against them, the fight for human rights are not always the best way. There are many times other paths which could be much better.
In this question. There is a better path. Therefore will the vote of Tottobacco be cast against.

Did you read the resolution? Didn't think so. Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs) actually result in decreases in use.

Ironically your voting in ignorance is actually what is promoting continued drug use.

As for your statement "There is a better path", care to enlighten the rest of the world? Or are you just saying that to sound "diplomatic"?

Did you read the resolution? Didn't think so. Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs) actually result in decreases in use.

Ironically your voting in ignorance is actually what is promoting continued drug use.

As for your statement "There is a better path", care to enlighten the rest of the world? Or are you just saying that to sound "diplomatic"?

You said it yourself, the studies conducted were mostly 5 year studies performed in the 90's. That is not enough time to determine whether drug use changed. There are many other factors that will cause use to go up and down over a very short time and there is no real to prove that needle exchange was the cause of the decrease. Until there is hard proof that indeed NEP's do work this should be an internal affair to each country, not a UN resolution. Even then, whether it belongs before the UN is questionable.

Booger burger will be voting "no" on this issue because it does not put forth any solution to the real problem, the usage of injectable drugs. Further more I cannot vote for any proposal put forth by somebody who continually puts down and insults any country who voices their opinion that does not reflect that of the proposers.

You said it yourself, the studies conducted were mostly 5 year studies performed in the 90's.

Further more I cannot vote for any proposal put forth by somebody who continually puts down and insults any country who voices their opinion that does not reflect that of the proposers.

First, the 5-year studies I believe had control subjects. IIRC, the decreases are reported *only* for patients in the clinics.

I'm sorry that you feel that I'm putting down and insulting everybody. Honestly I feel bad about this as well. But surely you can look up and see that I have done a lot of research and I'm watching many people just make up facts!!!

That really is unsettling! :(

With that said, I'll consider that perhaps I just need to allow people to lie as much as they like and will stick to basing my arguments in facts.


To answer the repeated question about the studies linking NEPs to increased drug use, I'd like to quote the following:


Needle Exchange Programs Do Not Encourage Substance Abuse
Literally hundreds of studies of NEPs have been conducted and summarized in a series of eight federally funded reports over the last ten years -- and each of the eight reports has concluded that NEPs can reduce the number of new HIV infections and do not appear to lead to increased drug use among injecting drug users or society as a whole. In a study of a needle exchange program in San Francisco, the results indicated that the program did not encourage increased drug use. Over a five-year period, there was no significant increase in new or young injecting drug users or an increase in drug use by current users. Surprisingly, frequency of injection among the study participants decreased from two injections per day to less than one, and the rate of new drug users decreased from three percent to one percent. A similar study of a needle exchange program in Baltimore indicated NEPs that are closely linked and integrated with drug treatment programs have high levels of retention for substance abuse treatment. The study showed that needle exchange programs assist injecting drug users in abstaining from drug use if the NEP is linked to needed services and drug treatment facilities.


SOURCE: http://www.thebody.com/aac/brochures/needle_exchange.html

I hate posting copies from the reports, because I'd rather nations read the entire documents ... but when faced with people making claims that I know are not based in fact, I really feel I have little option.

Are the studies supporting NEPs valid? I think so ...


Does needle exchange reduce the number of HIV infections?

Yes. Scientific study after scientific study has shown that needle exchange reduces the number of new HIV infections. Six federally funded reports conducted independently by: the National Commission on AIDS in 1991, the General Accounting Office in 1993, the University of California in 1993, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1993, the National Academy of Sciences it 1995, and the Office of Technology Assessment in 1995 are among those scientific studies. Studies show that needle exchange programs can reduce HIV infections by at least one-third and reduce risk behavior by as much as 80%.

Does needle exchange increase drug use?

No. Scientific study after scientific study has shown that needle exchange does not increase drug use when conducted with referrals to both drug treatment and HIV medical care and support services. The same six federally funded reports (listed above) found that needle exchange programs do not increase drug use and that needle exchange programs do reduce new HIV infections.


SOURCE: http://www.islandcounty.net/health/NEP_FAQ.htm

We have voted for it. It is a great resolution.

OK, I feel like I'm border line spamming here ... but believe me, I want to show that there is a TON of work done about NEPs.

The following is the abstract of a real study. Not a blog, not a report. A medical study. Tell me if you think this is "wrong".


Needle exchange and injection drug use frequency: a randomized clinical trial.

Fisher DG, Fenaughty AM, Cagle HH, Wells RS.

IVDU Project, Psychology Department, University of Alaska-Anchorage, Anchorage, AK, USA. dfisher@csulb.edu

Despite a lack of evidence that needle exchange programs (NEPs) cause an increase in injection drug use, there are still concerns over fostering increased injection behavior with NEPs. The design was a randomized controlled trial conducted from May 1997 to June 2000 comparing injection drug users (IDUs) who are randomly assigned to have access to an NEP versus training in how to purchase needles and syringes (NS) at pharmacies. Of 653 IDUs recruited into the study, 600 were randomized: 426 were followed-up at 6 months, and 369 were followed-up at 12 months. Four hundred ninety were followed up at least once. There was no difference in the number of injections over time between the NEP and the Pharmacy Sales arms of the study or in the percentage of positive urine test results over time between the NEP and the Pharmacy Sales arms of the study for morphine and amphetamine. The decrease in the presence of cocaine was marginally greater between the arms of the study. The results do not support the hypothesis of NEPs causing an increase in injection drug use. This clinical trial provides the strongest evidence to date that needle exchanges do not produce this negative effect.


SOURCE:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12794555&dopt=Abstract

I really think the advocates against this proposal really need to start providing facts, because I don't know about the rest of you, but that seems like a perfectly well thought out study there.

There are plenty of others where that came from.

Visit the UN web page and look at existing UN resolutions.

The argument that "toothless" = bad is something I'd except from a dictator who believes in forcing his / her will on others. The United Nations is about cooperation, and you can't cooperate by saying:

"Ugh! Me dink AIDS bad! All NaTions shall share neEElds!"

You think I'm kidding? Look at some of the prior resolutions and current proposals.

The reason for the length isn't just based on the fact that *is* how resolutions look (I'm positive you've never looked a UN resolution before based on your rant), but it is because most NationStates don't visit this forum. A good resolution documents the problem and leaves enough clues where a nation can do what Living Rivers did and start his / her own research.

I'd much rather somebody vote no based on an informed opinion, than the clueless ignorant voting that I liken to nations run by 15-year olds. And I would classify ignorance of UN resolutions as in that same clueless category.

You your brain and think about it.


First, that wasn't a rant, and in fact I do read a lot of the resolutions. You seem to have a problem with anyone questioning you here. You're objective is good, but my objections remain...there are too many loopholes in this, and I still think it's possible to craft a resolution that's more to the point. Simply saying "everyone else does it this way" doesn't make it right. I've seen many of the previous resolutions and the proposals, and usually walk away shaking my head. I still maintain that the same information could be presented in a much shorter and clearer form.

Before you start again dismissing anyone who questions you, I'll let you know I'm far from being some 15 year old, nor am I in any shpae of form a dictator.. I'm also a member of the Region of Gay, so we have more than a passing reference to the subject matter. I'll also point out that in our own forums where we discuss resolutions (yes...we actually take the time to do so), your resolution is being questioned by the majority of member's responding.

My brain and I thank you.

I voted for The Resolution, I hate Drugs and like to see all of them gone!

We believe Mikivity has pre-empted the 'toothless' critisism in the post above. This seems adequate response to the objection raised by IloveLucy.

Cave Canem Council

Sorry...when reading this resolution it does nothing. It makes a strong statement that needle exchange programs work, and encourages other nations to put them into effect.

Period.

You could make the same pitch using a postcard.

It does absolutely nothing for the citizens of any nation that wishes to ignore the problem. Another 'feel-good' resolution, similar to real-life ones where the politicians get to proudly say "See? See the pretty resolution we made? Aren't we great for doing this?" And the next day it's forgotten.

If this were worded that as a part of the fundamental right for access to treatment and provention needle exchange programs would be put into place we would support it. Make it mean something.

May I pose a question my colleague has asked me? it follows:

"Why shouldn't we let needle-sharing continue, let those that use the shared needles die, let more governments bear a financial burden, and perhaps ease the population stress on the earth?"

Bear in mind, I quote and these views do not necessarily represent the views of my organization. lol

Fellow members and delegates of the United Nations:

The Federation of Nachoburrito is against this resolution.

In theory, this resolution would be better served by being split into two separate resolutions: One to consider the matter of government sponsored needle exchange and one to consider the matter of infectious disease education, prevention and treatment.

I am sure that the members of this august body would not be opposed to some level of ID education, prevention and treatment in the interests of improving the lives of our citizens. I, for one, support such measures.

What I am opposed to is the encouragement of ILLEGAL behavior. If you hand a heroin addict a needle, it is almost as good as tying the rubber tubing around their arm for them. The point is to prevent the illegal drug user from needing the needle in the first place. You don't buy an alcoholic a drink unless you expect them to get drunk. The same principle applies.

Prevention, education, rehabilitation would serve the common good more than providing addicts clean tools to encourage their illegal activities. Even with free needles, who is to say that they will take the proper precautions when using them?

While drug abuse is a serious problem, supporting their habit shouldn't be the responsibility of government.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. April
Federation of Nachoburrito

Slippery slope fallacy. Just because one thing happens, does not mean it will automatically lead to another.

If this were worded that as a part of the fundamental right for access to treatment and provention needle exchange programs would be put into place we would support it. Make it mean something.

I disagree, it does mean something. And it is basically saying that prevention programs are a fundamental right.

The UN *can't* just walk in and start issuing orders to individual nations. [OOC: Visit the real UN if you don't believe me and look at their resolutions. None of them force nations to do things ... to do so would send nations leaving the UN in droves. It happened before with the League of Nations, and the UN learned from that mistake. I'll be happy to talk about this more if you like. And yes yes yes ... NationStates is not the real UN ... but if you wanted a "daily issue" even the NS UN is not really the place to take over the world.]

Example: in late Jan. and Feb. a bunch of well meaning and poorly written proposals about euthanasia and prostitution were written. The nation of Joccia implemented the resolutions by declaring that prostitution was a mental illness and then put to sleep all the prostitutes using UN resolutions as the justification.

Technically they followed the resolutions to the letter of the law. But the point was, you can't really force nations to follow UN resolutions. All UN resolutions are pointless, or better stated they are a statement of opinion. They basically say, "Hey, this is a good idea, maybe we should look into it." The intended audience are the legislatures and citizens of all the countries of the world.

While I would love to see something well written with "teeth" be passed by this assembly, to force nations against their will will only discourage them from remaining in the UN. This very opinion was stated by a UN Observer in the current space proposal.

May I pose a question my colleague has asked me? it follows:

"Why shouldn't we let needle-sharing continue, let those that use the shared needles die, let more governments bear a financial burden, and perhaps ease the population stress on the earth?"

Bear in mind, I quote and these views do not necessarily represent the views of my organization. lol

Erm ...
I'd say that it is important to remember that these are people with families and have jobs. Extending prevention programs to these people is ultimately a humanitarian goal.

I disagree, it does mean something. And it is basically saying that prevention programs are a fundamental right.

The UN *can't* just walk in and start issuing orders to individual nations. [OOC: Visit the real UN if you don't believe me and look at their resolutions. None of them force nations to do things ... to do so would send nations leaving the UN in droves. It happened before with the League of Nations, and the UN learned from that mistake. I'll be happy to talk about this more if you like. And yes yes yes ... NationStates is not the real UN ... but if you wanted a "daily issue" even the NS UN is not really the place to take over the world.]

Example: in late Jan. and Feb. a bunch of well meaning and poorly written proposals about euthanasia and prostitution were written. The nation of Joccia implemented the resolutions by declaring that prostitution was a mental illness and then put to sleep all the prostitutes using UN resolutions as the justification.

Technically they followed the resolutions to the letter of the law. But the point was, you can't really force nations to follow UN resolutions. All UN resolutions are pointless, or better stated they are a statement of opinion. They basically say, "Hey, this is a good idea, maybe we should look into it." The intended audience are the legislatures and citizens of all the countries of the world.

While I would love to see something well written with "teeth" be passed by this assembly, to force nations against their will will only discourage them from remaining in the UN. This very opinion was stated by a UN Observer in the current space proposal.

Overall I understand what your saying, my concern would be that the phrase in the resolution "2. ENCOURAGES all nations to review existing free needle and syringe exchange programs and to consider adopting trial or study level needle and syringe exchange programs tailor suited to the cultural and society in which the program will be applied;" would be used as an out for any nation that has cultural or societal objections.

What I'm feeling is that the resolution seems to say "this is a program you need to put inplace as it's a fundamental human right...unless you decide it isn't".

I do understand the danger's in framing something that makes too strong of demands, but on the other hand we face the danger of resolutions being bland, without any hint of controvercy or backbone. I think a number of nations would find that just as objectionable.

Overall I understand what your saying, my concern would be that the phrase in the resolution "2. ENCOURAGES all nations to review existing free needle and syringe exchange programs and to consider adopting trial or study level needle and syringe exchange programs tailor suited to the cultural and society in which the program will be applied;" would be used as an out for any nation that has cultural or societal objections.

What I'm feeling is that the resolution seems to say "this is a program you need to put inplace as it's a fundamental human right...unless you decide it isn't".

I do understand the danger's in framing something that makes too strong of demands, but on the other hand we face the danger of resolutions being bland, without any hint of controvercy or backbone. I think a number of nations would find that just as objectionable.

Several thoughts there ...

First, while scanning many of the NationStates countries, I didn't want to alarm the "hostile" states (you can kinda tell when a nation is hostile based on its flag and motto, though not with certainity, it hopefully is enough to just suggest that these nations exist). I needed around 140 endorsements, and HIV/AIDS protection for somebody like a drug user is a hard fight to fight.

Basically, the resolution is a slight compromise to the middle.

Second, I don't actually believe that a country with low injecting drug use, would really benefit. Furthermore, I don't think rural countries have the resources to clone or copy existing NEPs.

So I actually did want an opt out for countries that feel like the goal is good, but the prevention technique is better suited towards urban centers.

Right now, most NEPs remain creatures of local governments. (In the US, the Federal Govt will not fund these programs, even though the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) has come forward several times confirming that it believes that NEPs reduce HIV/AIDS and are worthwile. Sad, but true. There are reasons for this, some good, some bad, but I do not believe the fact that NEPs are run by American County Governments means they are bad. If anything this is why I adopted a regional / local approach.)

(I was thrilled when I saw the reference that Iran has set up a trial NEP! I would never have guessed that.)

If you are looking for the backbone of this proposal, it comes here:


1. AFFIRMS the basic human right for all people, including injection drug users, to equal access to HIV/AIDS based prevention and treatment programs;

Basically it says, "Drug users are people too! Stop ignoring them!"

Notice I didn't use RECOMMENDS or URGES. This clause is a strong clause, and is the "Social" statement. There is nothing "feel good" about this. Because if we ever create a UN Commisioner for Human Rights (UNCHR), I'm sure that office will take affirmations like that to be included in their mission statement.

My government would certainly protest nations that would ignore this affirmation. In fact, I would say that the reason the debate isn't focused on HIV/AIDS (which it should be), is that clause right there.

I'm in a no win situation. If I make the resolution too strong, I can't get endorsements and votes. If I make it too weak, I loose the support of the governments that likely already have NEPs in place.

I *need* your support. Or better stated, I would rather *have* your support, because I think when you tear apart most of the words, your government and mine probably share many of the same points of view (even if currently my government is considered "without laws"). ;)

Reading the posts in this forum, I am stunned at what passes for "logic" when arguing against this resolution.

Mikitivity has provided countless studies that clearly indicate that NEPs reduce drug usage and contribute to stopping the spread of HIV.

The opposing argument seems to be that if you give someone a needle, they will use more drugs. Get real people! We are talking about a needle 'exchange' program, not a needle 'handout' program. So the focus is on people who are already injecting. Are the opponents of this resolution really saying that if a heroin addict has only one dirty needle they'll say "Oops, only got this dirty needle, I'd better stop injecting"? Rubbish! They'll continue to use that dirty needle, possibly sharing it with friends. Conversely, if they have the opportunity to exchange that dirty needle for a clean, uninfected one, will it increase their drug usage? They're already addicted...

This resolution addresses the problem of people who are already using drugs. If no one in your nation in injecting, then there is no need for a needle exchange program. This resolution doesn't mandate that these nations start handing out needles to non-users.

Getting back to my main point, none of the people who have argued that NEPs increase drug usage have provided any evidence to support their hypothesis other than "it makes sense to me so it must be true". As I said earlier, Mikitivity has provided ample evidence to the contrary.

A few arguments have been raised that the studies supporting Mikitivity's resolution haven't been long enough to prove their point, or that the decrease in injected drug use may have occured for another reason. If one of you could provide any evidence that the studies in question are flawed, I'd love to see it. In the meantime, a decrease in drug use over a 5 year period is sufficient time to save many lives giving the rate of new HIV infections. If the situation changes in 50 years, then the UN can reassess to suit the social, political and cultural climate at that time.

The Serence Republic of Tonca has voted in support of this resolution and urges all other nations to seriously consider the evidence for both sides of this argument before coming to a "logical" conclusion.

Erm ...
I'd say that it is important to remember that these are people with families and have jobs. Extending prevention programs to these people is ultimately a humanitarian goal.

Now my colleague says this:

"People that use needles to take drugs shouldn't have families --- aren't they transmitting drug-usage genes to potential offspring when they have intercourse with their spouses? And their jobs are being wasted on them (they are voluntarily killing themselves) --- shouldn't others have their jobs?"

Again, these are not of The Human Universe, my colleague is using my account.

Now my colleague says this:

"People that use needles to take drugs shouldn't have families --- aren't they transmitting drug-usage genes to potential offspring when they have intercourse with their spouses? And their jobs are being wasted on them (they are voluntarily killing themselves) --- shouldn't others have their jobs?"

Again, these are not of The Human Universe, my colleague is using my account.

I'm leaving the disclaimers in. :)

In my reply to ILoveLucy, I pointed out that what part of this resolution does is affirms that drug users are people too and should have access to prevention and treatment programs. I'm afraid that if your colleague disagrees with that opinion (and that is an opinion -- though I think it the humane opinion), then his / her nation needs to consider who does it really want to help and how? If they don't want to protect drug users, but still want to protect their families, I'm going to guess that this is still the best way. It certainly has been proven to work for injecting drug users. And it makes sense that if they are safe, their families will be safer. But there are so many of other solutions and I don't want to stand in the way of those too.

I *need* your support. Or better stated, I would rather *have* your support, because I think when you tear apart most of the words, your government and mine probably share many of the same points of view (even if currently my government is considered "without laws"). ;)

I agree with that point totally, and hope I didn't give the impression that I'm against needle exchange programs because I'm certainly not, my concerns were addressed towards the construction of the resolution itself. I very much appreciate your responding to my concerns here and explaining some of the background...that helps me to understand the thought process behind this.

I'll make sure to pass on your comments to our regional discussion forums as I would like them to hear your words as well.

Thanks again.

After due consideration I have decided to vote against this resolution.

If the drug is illegal, for the state to support it in anyway would be hypocritical.

Either legallize it and require needles to be provided as part of the sale or keep it illegal and punish those who illegally distribute or use it most harshly.

After due consideration I have decided to vote against this resolution.

If the drug is illegal, for the state to support it in anyway would be hypocritical.

Either legallize it and require needles to be provided as part of the sale or keep it illegal and punish those who illegally distribute or use it most harshly.

This is based of course on the assumption (usually correct IMHO) that injecting drugs (heroin) are illegal. The are without a doubt nasty, although there also are legal forms of morphine in many of our governments (used for medical purposes).

First, being a morphine base, it is possible that some users develop their addictions due to unfortunate circumstances. I'd argue that governments have a social responsibility to these people and harsh punishments are not what I'd call humane.

Second, needle exchanges are there to trade needles, not just hand out needles. The governments aren't supporting the habit, at least not directly. But one could argue that by not simply bar coding and tracking citizens that a government then allows for its citizens to be unruly? Is this also "supporting" potential crime?

I would say that by outlawing exchange programs, governments are directly encouraging needle sharing instead of discouraging it. I would call that a policy in poor taste.

Finally, consider this: you are an EMT / first responder. You arrive to the scene of an attempted suicide. The individual ingested rat poison. They tried to take their life. No, they attempted murder. Do you refuse treatment? Is this human not to be treated with respect? What would you do?

In the case of suicides, the first step is to provide medical assistance and stablize the individual. Counciling comes next. It is not easy, but just as governments have to potentially stand by and tolerate (not support, but tolerate) destructive behavior, governments have an advantage: they have time on their side.

I'd ask that you at least consider my analogy towards suicide prevention. Even suicide hotlines are basically government services created to prevent troubled individuals from taking their lives.

[OOC: the EMT story is *real*. My best friend responded to a call only to find that the person who tried to eat rat poison was her IIRC freshman chemistry lab partner! She was in shock. Second, I'll add that I very much believe in prevention programs and every year send a portion of my pay check to the local county suicide prevention hot-line. I completely trust and believe that local problems are best dealt with by local solutions. Naturally I also am a strong opponent of NEPs, and again completely trust my local county government and doctors to deal with this serious issue. I do understand that roleplaying means sometimes we will do things we don't believe in ... and I can respect that. However, I add this for those of you that are trying to basically run a nation according to your personal ideals, in order to put a bit of a human touch into this issue.]

The esteemed Ambassador from Confederated City States of Mikitivity has done a superb job of presenting his case. The Confederate Domains of Leynier endorses this proposal even though we object to certain passages of the proposal.

Equal access to HIV/AIDS based prevention and treatment programs is most assuredly NOT a basic human right. It is presumptious in the extreme to make such a broadbased statement that other cultures may not embrace.

Additionally, we object to the wording that injecting drug users are "less able to participate in prevention and treatment programs." They are perfectly capable to participate, but would have had to accept responsibility for their actions and possible criminal prosecution. Still, it was THEIR choice not to participate.

However, as stated, Leynier endorses this proposal simply because the reports make it clear it can be an effective facet of a comprehensive anti-drug policy encompassing interdiction, harsh sentencing guidelines, and forced treatment. Of course, to be effective, we shall introduce legislation prohibiting law enforcement agencies from staking out NEP centers.

The People's Republic of Miko Mono has voted against the proposal and urges other U.N. members to do the same. We view this as merely an attempt by capitalist and imperialist nations to spread their weakening decadence to other countries.

This so-called resolution, like so many intorduced and approved by this once-august body, is nothing more than an attempt to infringe on the soverignity of independant states. If some countries want to hasten their own internal decay by condoning such activities as described in this proposal, that is their concern. We refused, however, to support and approve of such coruption, and VEHEMENTLY oppose being FORCED to do so.

I'm leaving the disclaimers in. :)

In my reply to ILoveLucy, I pointed out that what part of this resolution does is affirms that drug users are people too and should have access to prevention and treatment programs. I'm afraid that if your colleague disagrees with that opinion (and that is an opinion -- though I think it the humane opinion), then his / her nation needs to consider who does it really want to help and how? If they don't want to protect drug users, but still want to protect their families, I'm going to guess that this is still the best way. It certainly has been proven to work for injecting drug users. And it makes sense that if they are safe, their families will be safer. But there are so many of other solutions and I don't want to stand in the way of those too.

Sigh. It's my friend again:

"You didn't answer my questions, sir. Are not drug addicts BASICALLY (not specifically, but basically) a detriment to society? And would not there deaths contribute to a DECREASE in the number of detriments in society?

I call on all the humans out there to rethink the resolution carefully --- tear it apart, analyze, find its roots, and destroy this Abomination. The rest of you --- get out of the spice trance."



And of course, the usual disclaimer, blah blah blah

Sigh. It's my friend again:

"You didn't answer my questions, sir. Are not drug addicts BASICALLY (not specifically, but basically) a detriment to society? And would not there deaths contribute to a DECREASE in the number of detriments in society?"

And of course, the usual disclaimer, blah blah blah

Drug addicts are a product of our society, and thus are a social problem. The question is: do you believe in just destroying problems (which generates more violence and problems) or finding perhaps a more humane way to deal with the problem?

The UN has already established that cruel punishments are frowned upon and that there are basic human rights. This resolution is an extension of that belief.

[QUOTE=The Human Universe]Are not drug addicts BASICALLY (not specifically, but basically) a detriment to society? And would not there deaths contribute to a DECREASE in the number of detriments in society?/QUOTE]

This is one of those cases where the substitution of just one word shows that the argument being deployed is unsound.

Let's consider a few other things that are detrimental to society, say, homelessness, child labour and poverty. Few people would argue that these do not have a detrimental effect on society - and yet I think most would find the consequences of the argument above unpalatable if applied to these other cases.

Unless our friend The Human Universe is also prepared to endorse the destruction of the homeless, the poor and children who find themselves working in sweat shops, then this argument is rebutted.

Cave Canem Council

Cave Canem thats like comparing a murderer with self defence. One had the choice the others didn't. So there is your arguement rebutted.

Hey don't push this on me! Remember the DISCLAIMER.

I'll tell my friend Mikitivity's and Cave's responses and I'll post his own response ASAP.

just wanted to say thanks for putting forth effort, research, and intelligence into this proposal.

we have voted for, and will gladly help you in the fight against ignorance on such matters in the future.

Cave Canem thats like comparing a murderer with self defence. One had the choice the others didn't. So there is your arguement rebutted.

Well it would be, Pyscotia, were we all to accept that drug use is in no way a product of the users environment, and judging from the way this vote is presently running this is simply not the case.

With thanks as ever for your comments.

UN Delegate for Cave Canem

Well it would be, Pyscotia, were we all to accept that drug use is in no way a product of the users environment, and judging from the way this vote is presently running this is simply not the case.


My friend:

"Of course drug use isn't a 'product of the users environment'!! Do drugs just grow and float around a drug addict and they fly into his/her body?? The person voluntarily ingests/inhales/takes the recreational drug, voluntarily harming themselves and voluntarily providing a potential threat to society because of misconduct and violence. It doesn't matter if the person's life circumstances "construct" a "fertile" environment for drug-use. The person still voluntarily takes the drug, voluntarily committing an act that is internationally-recognized as NEGATIVE and HARMFUL. This is extremely apparent, but you and many others don't see that. Pyscotia is quite correct --- you can't make that comparison between drug addicts and child labor/poverty because the latter are not voluntarily in their circumstances.

You talk about refuting arguments and such, considering this to be some kind of thrust/parry, circular process of life. You are all wrong. This is a straight-line journey consisting of life processes. Survival is the name of the game; life is the prize. None of you ever take the realistic approach to this, always sticking to your idealistic notions of Utopia and love.

Wake up. Look around you. And fear it all, because you don't know what to do."



Allright, for God's sakes, PLEASE REMEMBER THE HUMAN UNIVERSE'S DISCLAIMER.

The UN has already established that cruel punishments are frowned upon and that there are basic human rights. This resolution is an extension of that belief.

My friend:

"This isn't punishment. Punishment? Is staying status quo punishment? Is letting the drug addicts continue to do what they like punishment?"



I'm getting tired of this legal stuff....disclaimer disclaim disclaim

My friend:

"This isn't punishment. Punishment? Is staying status quo punishment? Is letting the drug addicts continue to do what they like punishment?"

I'm getting tired of this legal stuff....disclaimer disclaim disclaim

I honestly have no idea what you mean by "staying status quo punishment".

[EDIT: OK, I understand what your friend meant above ... please ignore my comment, it just took me a second read to figure it out. My apologies.]

Suicide prevention ... HIV prevention .. public education ... etc, they are driven by the same basic idea: governments exist to protect their citizens and enhance the quality of life. Prevention programs are a common place standard in 21st century medicine. And they are often funded by both private and public (i.e. government) funds. Governments do this because of a social contract. [Google may have some interesting political science papers on social contracts, I'll *now* see if I can find a few well written ones.]

This idea has been repeated in many UN resolutions. In fact, nearly all of them that are about human rights and/or social justice.

First, I've noticed that there are two primary objections to the current resolution:

1) The idea that needle exchanges will increase injecting drug use. This idea has no basis in fact, while I've shown above ample evidence to show that needle exchange programs actually may decrease injecting drug use.

2) The notion that drug users should simply be left to die. While I've again pointed out that by preventing HIV/AIDS spreading into high risk groups like injecting drug users, governments are protecting all citizens, I'm convinced that the arguments for promoting needle sharing are misplaced … and I've already called attention to Jean Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" (1762).

As many of you will recall, Rousseau was a political philosopher who is often been considered a father of the French Revolution as well as being regarded as a world wide father of democracy (and admittedly socialism), through his "The Social Contract". He argued that government should secure freedom, equality, and justice for all, even at times if that meant attacking private property (which is wrote created inequalities and disrespect) and … gasp … majority will.

Info about Rousseau:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau


Basically Rousseau's political ideas gave way to what we often call "social welfare". The implementation and justification of social welfare is often called "social justice", which is why our UN has a social justice category (and also why this resolution is so categorized).

Make no mistake, social justice and social welfare are not just something that exists in socialist or liberal societies, but I'm going to argue that any democracy has a "social contract" in just the same manner Rousseau did 200 years ago.

For more on social justice:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/social%20justice

And now from Rousseau's "The Social Contract" …


The family then may be called the first model of political societies: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. The whole difference is that, in the family, the love of the father for his children repays him for the care he takes of them, while, in the State, the pleasure of commanding takes the place of the love which the chief cannot have for the peoples under him.

Source:
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm

I'm not going to continue to quote Rousseau, but rather extend his first political model. As we all know, in a dysfunctional family, the "father" is unable to care for his "children". In a sense, he has broken his social contract. In the case of a child that has chosen to remain in the family structure, perhaps a teen, what incentive is there to remain in the family when a father has broken their social contract?

I'd argue none. But what if that social contract wasn't directly broken? What if instead of the father not providing food for the child, the father instead did not provide food for the child's mother or perhaps sibling? While the social contract between the father and another family member was broken, was it to the other child?

I'd argue it has been indirectly broken. In fact, I'd say that the father has demonstrated that for some reason he may break that same contract with the child who at this point is free to leave. What incentive is there for the elder child to remain?

The same basic political model applies to modern governments, and Rousseau's social contract is a two-way street. People must participate in their governments, but governments have a social obligation to their citizens.

Consider the following poem, taken from a German priest, Martin Niemöller, who openly opposed the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s:


First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

While individuals may not feel they have an obligation to provide basic medical care to drug addicts, Rousseau and I argue that they do. The key is basic. And the reason is that as a citizen you have a social obligation to your government, your family, and your family in turn has a social obligation to the rest of the family. This means if your brother is ill you help him out. If your sister can't do something, you help her out. And in turn, they will help you.

The reality is, while drug addicts are less productive members of society, there still is a social obligation to care for them, on two levels: (1) they may have once been an active member of society and thus contributed perhaps to your well being, and (2) they may again become active members of your society. Your government breaking a basic human social contract with one person, is a signal to others that your government may continue to break the contracts towards others.

This is the classic justification for social justice / social welfare. To extend this further, the decision of where basic human rights or the social contract exists are often outlined in democratic governments in a constitution, most of which may references to the existence of some form of social welfare.

This should at least answer the question of why my government feels it is important to attempt to prevent HIV/AIDS spreading to under represented populations.

I am supporting this resolution. ITD has seen a 15% increase of drug related deaths over the past 8 years.

WELL DONE!

Being a relatively new member of the U.N. this is only my second resolution to vote, on, but I was truly amazed at the extensive research that went into it. I will urge my fellow members in Dementia to support this cost saving and humanitarian resolution, and might I add that it is for certain now that the South African Health Minsister is also a Nationstates player. Now we just have to decide whether she is Pyscotia or KarnovII!

Down with Manto! :sniper:

Hear hear.
(especially the Manto part)

While we had a discussion with Mikitivity about the make-up of this resolution, his basic premise, that needle exchange programs work and are an important instrument in the fight against HIV is fully supported by us.

What concerns us is the simplistic approuch some members take when they argue that drug users deserve no help and should be left to "reap what they sow". Being ignored is the countless relationships involved, usually with innocents.

Think needle users have no sexual contact with others? WRONG! Think that any sexual contact they DO have is ONLY with other needle users? WRONG! Think that any possible children from these relationships are immune to HIV and other afflictions? WRONG! Think that these partners and offspring (who did NOTHING wrong) aren't a huge cost to your individual governments and societies? WRONG! Think this entire problem is going to go away just because you don't want to be somehow seen as 'encouraging' them? WRONG!

Please, like they really need YOU to encourage them to inject drugs? Get real!

I think that type of statement shows that the member making it has little or no understanding of addiction in the first place, and has no foundation to build their argument on.

While we had a discussion with Mikitivity about the make-up of this resolution, his basic premise, that needle exchange programs work and are an important instrument in the fight against HIV is fully supported by us.

Cave Canem believes that the distinction made by the representative in the post above between engagement in constructive argument and the automatic gainsaying of an opponents opinion is a crucial one.

Furthermore we have utmost respect for those who are able to see value in the main thrust of an argument whilst disagreeing with items in the detail, or indeed the other way round.

Our faith in the institution of the UN is always bolstered when representatives show their calibre in this way.

UN Delegate for Cave Canem

I have mixed feelings about this resolution, but in general I support the resolution as written and I encoruage all deligates to do the same.

I don't think needles will encourage drug use. Drugs will encourage drug use, and those who want to promote the distribution of harmful drugs for personal profit will come up with whatever delivery system they can get away with to promote those harmful drugs.

I am concerned about a possible poliferaiton of used needles. Whether used on purpose or by accident a used needle is dangerous. While needle distribution can eliminate the reuse on purpose, it needs to be designed so that the used needles are disposed of properly. Hospitals go through massive procedures to keep used needles from hurting people. I would hate to have a nation pass needle distribution regulations only to have fatalities among sanitation engineers.

I am also concerned that we are treating an effect and not a cause. The cause is the mosty illegal sale and use of mostly illegal harmful substances that are administered by injection. The effect is the sharing of needles because of the shortage of needles. We need to strongly address the cause both in terms of supply and demand. Most of this process must be done on the individual nation state level, according to the philosophy of each nation state, but until we do, this resolution will only minimize the problems of the effect, it will not eliminate it completely. Still to minimize the problem is better than to do nothing, so I encourage everyone to vote for this resolution as a necessary first step.

My friend:

"Of course drug use isn't a 'product of the users environment'!! Do drugs just grow and float around a drug addict and they fly into his/her body?? The person voluntarily ingests/inhales/takes the recreational drug, voluntarily harming themselves and voluntarily providing a potential threat to society because of misconduct and violence. It doesn't matter if the person's life circumstances "construct" a "fertile" environment for drug-use. The person still voluntarily takes the drug, voluntarily committing an act that is internationally-recognized as NEGATIVE and HARMFUL. This is extremely apparent, but you and many others don't see that. Pyscotia is quite correct --- you can't make that comparison between drug addicts and child labor/poverty because the latter are not voluntarily in their circumstances.

You talk about refuting arguments and such, considering this to be some kind of thrust/parry, circular process of life. You are all wrong. This is a straight-line journey consisting of life processes. Survival is the name of the game; life is the prize. None of you ever take the realistic approach to this, always sticking to your idealistic notions of Utopia and love.

Wake up. Look around you. And fear it all, because you don't know what to do."



DISCLAIMER.

Hey its Universe's friend, I dont know if Cave saw this so I'm posting it again.

Hey its Universe's friend, I dont know if Cave saw this so I'm posting it again.

The thing is you can call our approach unrealistic, but I've provided ample evidence to show these programs work, and I've cited classic arguements and text in favour of social justice programs ... in response to what is basically another, "Just let the freakin people die, what do I care!"

I've given you the self-motivated reasons, via Rousseau's "Social Contract". That is the basis of democratic governance and the very real world reason why governments exist at all.

Several other nations have posted similar arguments in support of Rousseau's theory (they just haven't cited the famous Swiss-French philosopher, but their conclusions are the same and equally valid).

P.S. I'm glad you are posting here now, and that you have taken an interest in discussing the basic idea of welfare! I just wanted to add this.

I am concerned about a possible poliferaiton of used needles.

I am also concerned that we are treating an effect and not a cause.

Thank you for your very thoughtful and intelligent comments.

First, needle exchanges work as an exchange, 1:1, so the needles are easy to get, but there is no real increase in the circulation of needles.

Second, since the needles are being exchanged more frequently instead of being thrown away: (1) the number of discarded needles that the rest of the population (not hospitals) comes in contact with is down (and medical workers are where we want needles to end up), and (2) the time a needle is circulated and exposed to "tainted" blood is decreased, thus the risk of spreading HIV is also down for the needles that *are* still out there.

Third, as you pointed out, we are attempting to prevent the spread of a virus, that is moved largely because it is "illegal". In my posts about social contracts, I am basically saying that by making these drugs completely illegal that our governments have accidently broken our social contracts with these people. NEPs are a bridge. The relationship and trust established by clinic works has many benefical secondary impacts.

I do not feel NEPs alone will erradicate HIV/AIDS. Nothing I'm proposing here should be to the exclusion of HIV/AIDS research or treatment funds. The fact that prevention will reduce treatment costs (shown in all of the studies) means that while I'm suggesting nations direct efforts into prevention from treatment, the level of care should not decrease at all!

I would *love* for a well spoken nation to tackle the other majors issues not addressed here: (1) addiction itself, and (2) HIV/AIDS in other high risk groups.

Addiction and dealing with it, is something that there obviously is not an international will to deal with yet, evidenced by some of the negative comments we've see encouraging nations to kill all drug users. Immature attitudes? I certainly think so. Unrealistic attitudes? I think so. Short-sighted? Completely.

As for the question related to the spread of HIV/AIDS via sexual transmission, I'd like to work with anybody interested in addressing that other issue. The UN just finished a conference in Thailand on HIV/AIDS and I'm hoping that they will have some ideas we can adopt into a resolution.

The bottom line is I can only provide answers to problems with which I'm well versed in. I do feel that way with NEPs and hard drugs. I don't yet feel that way regarding the other issues and honestly am looking for a UN leader to tackle this problem and help me start that research. :)

I've given you the self-motivated reasons, via Rousseau's "Social Contract". That is the basis of democratic governance and the very real world reason why governments exist at all.

Oh dear. Now I know why so many are misled, as you are. You believe in Rousseau's blabber?? Oh my. I suppose you also indulge in John Locke's theories and Voltaire's propositions of society and government's role. No no no, my friend. You must See.

I suggest you find a copy of Englishman Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan." It is a superb read that will enlighten you to what the government should be like. I also recommend Machiavelli's "The Prince" --- which I'm sure you've heard, but don't get it wrong now, it has some wonderfully truthful concepts. You'll find these much more fulfilling notions of "the basis of democratic governance."

Quite frankly, the government exists only because there are too many crazy people out there and the strong must control and guide the weak. Please do not think the government and the people are on the same level, for if it were, our society would be known to outsiders as "anarchy."

Order must be maintained.

I'd like to talk more but it's 2 in the morning here.

I think you are all beating a dead horse... or this :headbang:

The resolution is all but passed: 10,400+ FOR ; 2200+ AGAINST ... and the final vote day is tomorrow (PST).

I'd say it's already been decided.

Congratulations on a fine resolution that has passed, and a super job done by submitter Mikitivity ;)

...

While the resolution is all but passed, the Confederacy of South Puyallup disagrees with it. :gundge:

The South Puyallup Department of Health and Human Services will first have to publish its 2,500 page regulatory guide regarding needle exchange programs, eligible participants, and other guidelines before enacting this resolution.

While the resolution is all but passed, the Confederacy of South Puyallup disagrees with it. :gundge:

The South Puyallup Department of Health and Human Services will first have to publish its 2,500 page regulatory guide regarding needle exchange programs, eligible participants, and other guidelines before enacting this resolution.

There's a sale on ink cartridges at Office Depot... if that'll help ;)

...

Oh dear. Now I know why so many are misled, as you are. You believe in Rousseau's blabber??

You know, if you want to discredit some of the political philosophers that have defined the role of modern day democracies, you really should probably go ahead and explain why you feel Rousseau's theories are wrong. Instead you just resort to name calling ... and that my friend is the sign of a very weak argument.

Besides, I was using Rousseua's analogy of the first political establishment ... the single family. It is a good model, and my point about social contracts remains the same.

Historically when Germany was divided, it was the oppressive regime in the East that had all the defections and the liberal government in the West to which Germans fled. If you've never visited Berlin or Leipzig, please take the time to visit any of the cold war exhibits there. But I bring up the case of the divided Germany as an example of a society which practiced a social contract vs. the same culture, but a different society in which a social contract was broken.

[OOC: Nations states is kinda broken with regard to many issues ... population growth rates are not dynamic, and our daily issues should honestly reward centrists governments with higher growth rates, and penalize both extremes. The tax rates in socialist nations would drive some away, and the complete lack of freedoms and basic health care in the ultra conservative nations would have a similar effect. I'm going to say that the reason immigrants come to the United States is in part related to the fact that there is *some* promise that basic health care will be provided. While I'm aware that there are plenty of xenophobes in the world, and some intelligent ones, my point is your simple immigrant understands what a social contract is, and moves around the world to chase after it. In reality it is about having a higher standard of living. And a society that throws away anybody that it can not immediately put to work, has never had a high standard of living.]

The People's Republic of Miko Mono would like to propose that those countries that so strongly support this so-called resolution, which our Politburo maintains is nothing more than attempt to weaken other countries by encouraging social decay, be open to accepting the drug addicts as "refugees" from those countries that are against this resolution.

If the resolution supporters are against this suggestion, and the influx of drug addicts INTO their so-called liberal societies, then the Miko Mono Politburo suggests this indicates their real intentions....

My apologies Ladies and Gentlemen for joining the debate late, but matters at home and a spite of illness have kept me from my duties here. As we stated when this resolution was going through the proposal phase, the Telidian government fully support this brave health initiative and applaud the delegation from Mikitivity in tabling this resolution. I am impressed by the amount of research undertaken by their delegation and feel they set an example to all future proposal authors.

It has always been my government’s policy not to discriminate against any individual on grounds of social standing especially when it comes to matters of health. This as explained before is one of the reasons why Telidia has taken a rather progressive attitude to recreational drug use in order to minimise the societal influence when it comes to taking substances that would lead to the sharing of needles. It is our hope that these policies will ultimately serve to make the problem much more visible and thus easier to treat both in terms of medical help, but also education. In time we hope that by allowing our society to ‘grow up’ instead of treating them like children these harmful substances with obvious long-term health benefits and the risk of HIV/AIDS will ultimately be regarded by citizens as foolish. We have long felt that the state’s in role in these matters is to guide, not to impose it’s will.

I urge all members to vote for this worthy resolution and humble request those members who have voted against to try and look beyond any prejudices that exist within our societies. Every one of our citizens have right to be given a chance and it is our collective responsibility to stop the spread of pandemic that has no understanding borders, social standing or personal wealth.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

The People's Republic of Miko Mono would like to propose that those countries that so strongly support this so-called resolution, which our Politburo maintains is nothing more than attempt to weaken other countries by encouraging social decay, be open to accepting the drug addicts as "refugees" from those countries that are against this resolution.

If the resolution supporters are against this suggestion, and the influx of drug addicts INTO their so-called liberal societies, then the Miko Mono Politburo suggests this indicates their real intentions....

Most all of our (i.e. the open socities) *already* are accepting political refugees and some economic refugees. The point shouldn't be to shift focus away from the fact that socities that refuse to provide basic medical care for people who:

1) may have once been productive members of their society, or
2) may once again be productive members of their society.


It should be for the international community to remind the nations that are breaking their social contract, that they have a moral responsibility to their own citizens. I'd be very curious to hear your response on the poem I posted in "A Case for Social Justice, Part II".

Most all of our (i.e. the open socities) *already* are accepting political refugees and some economic refugees. The point shouldn't be to shift focus away from the fact that socities that refuse to provide basic medical care for people who:

1) may have once been productive members of their society, or
2) may once again be productive members of their society.


It should be for the international community to remind the nations that are breaking their social contract, that they have a moral responsibility to their own citizens.....

The arrogance displayed by the imperialist Mikitivity nation is shocking. The People's Republic of Miko Mono and likeminded nations have no need for the so-called international community, a canard conviently trotted out by those nations seeking to dominate others, to inform us of any "moral responsibilities" we may have!

Declarations such as these should make it clear once for all the designs of some countries to infringe and usurpt that national soverignity of us all! Each country should have say over its citizenry! The Miko Mono Politburo has no need for others to explain to us how to conduct our affairs, and should colonialist attitudes should be FOUGHT BY ALL!

The arrogance displayed by the imperialist Mikitivity nation is shocking. The People's Republic of Miko Mono and likeminded nations have no need for the so-called international community, a canard conviently trotted out by those nations seeking to dominate others, to inform us of any "moral responsibilities" we may have!

Declarations such as these should make it clear once for all the designs of some countries to infringe and usurpt that national soverignity of us all! Each country should have say over its citizenry! The Miko Mono Politburo has no need for others to explain to us how to conduct our affairs, and should colonialist attitudes should be FOUGHT BY ALL!

*yawn*

This is the second thread that you've said nearly the exact same thing in less than 24 hours. And both times your attack on me and my nation had nothing to do with the subjects at hand.

Could you either please stop stalking me in the NationStates forums or actually engage in a factual debate?

Really. It has gotten old already, and I'd rather people have substantive discussions.

Oh dear. Now I know why so many are misled, as you are. You believe in Rousseau's blabber?? Oh my. I suppose you also indulge in John Locke's theories and Voltaire's propositions of society and government's role. No no no, my friend. You must See.

I suggest you find a copy of Englishman Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan." It is a superb read that will enlighten you to what the government should be like. I also recommend Machiavelli's "The Prince" --- which I'm sure you've heard, but don't get it wrong now, it has some wonderfully truthful concepts. You'll find these much more fulfilling notions of "the basis of democratic governance."

Quite frankly, the government exists only because there are too many crazy people out there and the strong must control and guide the weak. Please do not think the government and the people are on the same level, for if it were, our society would be known to outsiders as "anarchy."

Order must be maintained.

I'd like to talk more but it's 2 in the morning here.

Please, sir, cite ONE SINGLE INSTANCE where I called you a specific name.

You know, if you want to discredit some of the political philosophers that have defined the role of modern day democracies, you really should probably go ahead and explain why you feel Rousseau's theories are wrong. Instead you just resort to name calling ... and that my friend is the sign of a very weak argument....

May I also ask why you continue to ignore the well-meaning advice and examples I give you while you continue with your idealistic liberal rhetoric?

"Refugees" from East Germany. Hmm. They fled not because of their displeasure with the East German political system but because of their horrible economic circumstances (I can't blame them, poor fellows, having to deal with those communists).

Now please don't spin it and quote me as calling you a communist baboon.

May I also ask why you continue to ignore the well-meaning advice and examples I give you while you continue with your idealistic liberal rhetoric?

"Refugees" from East Germany. Hmm. They fled not because of their displeasure with the East German political system but because of their horrible economic circumstances (I can't blame them, poor fellows, having to deal with those communists).

Now please don't spin it and quote me as calling you a communist baboon.

The GDR political and economic system were one and the same. The GDR was a police state, or have you truely never heard of the Stasi???

http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/p/po/police_state.html
http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wikipedia/s/st/stasi.html

In particular read the last bit of this last link:

http://www.sovietski.com/Star/stasi.html


The operations of the Stasi, the uniforms they wore and the geographical situation of East and West Berlin made them the perfect ever-present “bad guys” of many Cold War spy novels. However, their portrayal in print was only a shadow of their true and far-reaching influence.

In 1990, when West and East Germany were reunited, the Stasi was dissolved. Many sought retribution for the pain, suffering and even loss of life caused by the East German secret police through the court system. However, a final decision by the unified German court in 1995 stated that former Stasi officials could not be prosecuted for taking part in or conducting Cold War espionage against the West.


The Stasi routinely would detain East German citizens. They kept "body scents" of anybody they detained, so that their dogs could track them down later.

I'm sorry, but the Stasi and the fact that the government would support this, are a large part of what brought the East German economy down. Not medical programs or schools, but the fact that the country was so busy designing the text book police state.

I really have ZERO respect for anybody trying to spin the GDR as anything but.


[OOC: Dude, I travel to Leipzig Germany every year. The east germanys lived under horrible oppressions and all but a few welcomed reunification with the west with open arms. There are a few hold outs, but even in the United States, you still will find cross burners in the South as well -- this doesn't make Southern Americans racists, and the presence of a few old guard GDR doesn't mean East Germans approved of what the GDR did.

The reason I've not replied to your questions is frankly you've not really put fourth what I'd consider a strong argument. You basically said Rousseau was a twit. That was your entire argument. You didn't defend your views or attempt to explain why, but you dropped a few other nations. That is really a very poor way to debate anything.

If you have points to make, make them. Don't use puppets or "friends", just make them. And if you want people to think you know what you are talking about, you have to do more than drop names. Explain why certain political ideas are valid and important. I've used several examples, and while you can cry that I'm ignoring your political philosophers, you've yet to illustrate why a society that breaks a social contract is a good thing.

Finally, when I saw your other post in response to my remarks towards Miko Mono, I started to wonder why a player who has been asking questions on the behalf of a friend would so suddenly get upset when I replied to Miko Mono's new habit of name calling and stalking me around. Is Miko Mono your puppet? If not, then you shouldn't worry about my remarks. If Miko Mono *is* your puppet, then you might want to remember which hand is in which nation ... personally I find the use of puppets as a very weak way to "debate" much less play NationStates.]

Frankly, I see this resolution as in no way different to providing designated drivers for consumers of alcohol, or putting filters on cigarettes.

Tobacco is acknowledged to be extraordinarily harmful (as well as extraordinarily addictive) but is tolerated by most governments. Most governments don't think that just because smokers, somewhere along the line, made a choice to smoke, that things shouldn't be done - like requiring cigarettes to be filtered - to reduce the harm done by cigarette abuse.

Mik's legislation is humanitarianism, plain and simple.

The reason I've not replied to your questions is frankly you've not really put fourth what I'd consider a strong argument. You basically said Rousseau was a twit. That was your entire argument. You didn't defend your views or attempt to explain why, but you dropped a few other nations. That is really a very poor way to debate anything.

If you have points to make, make them. Don't use puppets or "friends", just make them. And if you want people to think you know what you are talking about, you have to do more than drop names. Explain why certain political ideas are valid and important. I've used several examples, and while you can cry that I'm ignoring your political philosophers, you've yet to illustrate why a society that breaks a social contract is a good thing.

Finally, when I saw your other post in response to my remarks towards Miko Mono, I started to wonder why a player who has been asking questions on the behalf of a friend would so suddenly get upset when I replied to Miko Mono's new habit of name calling and stalking me around. Is Miko Mono your puppet? If not, then you shouldn't worry about my remarks. If Miko Mono *is* your puppet, then you might want to remember which hand is in which nation ... personally I find the use of puppets as a very weak way to "debate" much less play NationStates.]

Look my friend, you keep wanting me to provide substantial evidence, facts, figures, real-life examples, liberal rhetoric to support my outrageous claims. You say I don't put forth any argument whatsoever. I resort to just name-calling and nonsensical slander, yes? I'm a warmongering, antisocial, crazed lunatic Nazi, is that what you think? I refuse to engage in a meaningful, thought-out, organized discussion?

Well, I apologize for busting your bubble, but THERE IS NO DEBATE. THE TRUTH IS TOO CLEAR. Why in hell would you argue the existence of atoms? Well, I don't want to argue anymore. You go ahead with more liberally intellectual discussion. I don't have the time/energy/will/patience to dig up some spinned analysis to liberally discuss this. Call me lazy, go ahead, I am. I'm not happy about it, but I am. I quit Debate Team because (1) I couldn't stand arguing the stance for which I'm personally against and (2) I can't stand looking up and researching for some drawn-out, meaningless, back-and-forth liberal conversing.

So yes, I'm lazy and an idiot, if you like. You win, sir. You win the debate, oKay? Happy? I forfeit (if you can do that in debates). And your resolution passed anyway, so are you doubly content now?

Allright, sry if i offended/annoyed/disgusted you or anyone else with my bawling. But I'm just so tired of it all. You and I are different humans, with different values and beliefs. Thats the bottom line --- well at least one of them. We'll disagree, and we will always disagree. On your side are hundreds of millions of people, and ditto for my side. Strife and conflict exist in our midst, and its there to stay. Forever. So...... what the heck? Who cares?

Finally, I have no idea who Miko Mono is but from what I hear of him he's a national sovereignty supporter. thats all i know about him, okay?

And I hope you know this isn't the actual leader of The Human Universe. I know my friend's password and I'm on his sn.

Take care kid.

i