If there are images in this attachment, they will not be displayed. Download the original attachment
States CP

The 50 states and all relevant territories should fully fund and enforce a comprehensive needle exchange program within the United States for persons living in poverty in the United States as long as the programs do not occur within 200 ft radius of areas where children generally gather.

States CP

Federal action in needle exchange program destroys the entire point of NEP.
Lilis, staff writer, 7-31-2009. Mikes Lilis, staff writer, 7-31-2009. Congress Looks to Two decade ban on needle exchange funds. http://washingtonindependent. com/53339/congress-looks-to- lift-two-decade-ban-on- federal-needle-exchange-funds

When the House of Representatives last week passed legislation lifting a 21-year-old prohibition on federal funding for needle exchange programs, some ban critics cheered the move as a long step toward curbing the spread of blood-borne diseases like HIV. Yet the proposal moving through Congress, according to many health and human rights advocates, has been diluted to the point that it won’t help the same urban areas most afflicted by those illnesses. “It’s too restrictive,” said Allan Clear, executive director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, an advocacy group. “You couldn’t open a program in Washington, D.C. — or most any urban area — with these restrictions.” That’s because the House bill, while repealing the ban on federal money for needle exchanges, also prohibits such programs from operating within 1,000 feet of schools, daycare centers and other areas where children are likely to congregate. The sponsor of the 1,000-foot stipulation, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), included the restriction, not because he supports it, but to appease conservative critics who might have killed the entire provision otherwise. Yet needle exchange supporters argue that the geographic restraints are so expansive that they’ll neuter most benefits that would come with allowing federal funding of clean-needle programs. “As a practical matter, you won’t be able to have needle exchange in the city,” said Rebecca Schleifer, advocate for the health and human rights division at Human Rights Watch. “There are schools and daycare centers everywhere.” The restrictions, she added, make the bill “meaningless as a practical matter, even if it’s important as a symbolic matter.” The debate over needle exchange programs cuts largely along party lines, with Democrats touting the health benefits associated with providing access to clean syringes and Republicans blasting the thought of the taxpayers abetting illegal drug use. On the House floor before last week’s vote, Obey cited “overwhelming evidence that we can help stop the spread of AIDS by allowing needle exchange programs.” Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) countered with the argument that drug users are “dependent on a lifestyle that only leads to destruction, and … I personally don’t want to be part of that destruction.” A long list of public health organizations — including the National Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization and the American Public Health Association — have sided with Obey. A 2004 WHO report, for example, found that the evidence to support the effectiveness of needle exchange programs to reduce the spread of HIV “must be regarded as overwhelming.” On the campaign trail, President Obama had run on a platform of repealing the ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs, which has been in effect since 1988. But since taking the White House, the signals from Obama have been more mixed. The administration, for example, fought a United Nations resolution endorsing “harm reduction” measures, including needle exchange, as a way to mitigate the damaging health effects associated with illegal drug use. The U.S. representative to the U.N. said at the time that the administration supports needle exchange, but not some of the other programs falling under harm reduction’s umbrella, including safe injection facilities. Yet when the White House unveiled its 2010 budget blueprint a few weeks later, the ban on federal needle exchange funding remained. The White House did not return a call for comment. House Democrats picked up the issue where the administration didn’t, with Obey trumpeting his repeal of the funding ban as part of the funding bill for the Labor and Health and Human Services Departments. But to ensure that the repeal survived the process, Obey watered it down. Aside from schools and daycare centers, the bill also prohibits needle exchanges within 1,000 feet of universities, pools, parks, video arcades “or an event sponsored by any such entity.” “In an urban environment, that really is a restriction on almost anywhere,” said William McColl, political director for AIDS Action. If the bill is enacted as it stands, he added, “it would preclude the use of needle exchange in the areas that need it most.” The proposal, which doesn’t earmark any funding for needle exchange programs, passed the House last Friday by a vote of __264 to 153__. The Senate’s version of the Labor-HHS funding bill, which passed the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday, retains the needle-funding ban. Needle exchange supporters on and off Capitol Hill are hoping to remove the geographic restrictions when the two chambers meet to hash out the differences between the two bills — a process that won’t arrive until September, at the earliest.

Off case

A) Increase is direct growth not removing a barrier
Merriam Webster Online
http://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/increase
transitive verb1: to make greater : augment
B) Violation: the aff removes federal ban on needle exchange program to be eligible for federal spending.
C) Standards
1. Limits- Thousands of barriers for social service projects- key to check explosion of topic

2. Topic specific education- we don’t learn about implementation of social services. Debates just becomes focused upon regulations in the government.

3. Ground- Don’t get links to funding disad- only way to engage in an econ debate.

Healthcare 1nc with this uniqueness card
Associated Press 8/4
(Associated Press, n American news agency. The AP is a cooperative owned by its contributing newspapers, radio and television stations in the United States, which both contribute stories to the AP and use material written by its staff journalist 8/4/09) http://www.google.com/ hostednews/ap/article/ ALeqM5hqsLQvKIDJyBRLnfbA0U0KgG fqrAD99S7H700
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says his party's caucus has "absolute unity" on the need to pass health care reform this year. The Nevadan, joined by other lawmakers, spoke to reporters Tuesday afternoon on a White House driveway after Senate Democrats met over lunch with President Barack Obama. Reid said Democrats wants to produce a bipartisan bill "if there's any way humanly possible." Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said, "The American people want us to work together." Reid and Baucus, a Montana Democrat, expressed confidence that health care legislation would get done by year's end. Extending health insurance to the uncovered and reining in costs are key Obama priorities.

Econ disad (generic 1nc)

Biopower K (generic 1nc)

Coercion K (generic 1nc)

1NC Disease Frontline

1. No extinction---AIDS can’t spread that much
George Caldwell, PhD in Biology and Political Science, 2003
(http://www.foundation.bw/ TheEndOfTheWorld.htm)
Disease could wipe out mankind. It is clear that HIV/AIDS will not accomplish thisit is not even having a significant impact on slowing the population explosion in Africa, where prevalence rates reach over thirty percent in some countries. But a real killer plague could certainly wipe out mankind. The interesting thing about plagues, however, is that they never seem to kill everyone – historically, the mortality rate is never 100 per cent (from disease alone). Based on historical evidence, it would appear that, while plagues may certainly reduce human population, they are not likely to wipe it out entirely. This notwithstanding, the gross intermingling of human beings and other species that accompanies globalization nevertheless increases the likelihood of global diseases to high levels.
Andrew Rice, The Nation, 6-11-07 (“An African Solution,” Vol. 284 Issue 23, p25-31, 5p, Ebsco)
For all our worrying, the “HIV rate in the United States never exceeded one percent,” Helen Epstein writes in her new book, The Invisible Cure. “At first, some UN officials predicted that HIV would spread rapidly in the general population of Asia and eastern Europe, but the virus has been present in these regions for decades and such extensive spread has never occurred.” Sub-Saharan Africa is a different story. In some countries there, well over 30 percent of adults younger than 50 are thought to be infected with HIV. To appreciate the scale of the epidemiological disaster, consider this: Hear disease, the leading cause of death in the United States, killed some 650,000 Americans in 2004. If AIDS had hit this country as hard as it has Zimbabwe or Botswana, 3–4 million Americans would be dying of AIDS every year.
3. Gafni outdated – solving for needle sharing won’t curb AIDS spread – needle sharing is only responsible for 35% of AIDS occurrences – that’s their HRC 8.
4. Inherent disease weaknesses and modern medicine make pandemics impossible
Malcolm Gladwell ‘95 New York bureau chief of The Washington Post, New Republic, July 17, 1995
This is what is wrong with the Andromeda Strain argument. Every infectious agent that has ever plagued humanity has had to adopt a specific strategy, but every strategy carries a corresponding cost, and this makes human counterattack possible. Malaria is vicious and deadly, but it relies on mosquitoes to spread from one human to the next, which means that draining swamps and putting up mosquito netting can all but halt endemic malaria. Smallpox is extraordinarily durable, remaining infectious in the environment for years, but its very durability, its essential rigidity, is what makes it one of the easiest microbes to create a vaccine against. aids is almost invariably lethal because its attacks the body at its point of great vulnerability, that is, the immune system, but the fact that it targets blood cells is what makes it so relatively uninfectious.
I could go on, but the point is obvious. Any microbe capable of wiping us all out would have to be everything at once: as contagious as flu, as durable as the cold, as lethal as Ebola, as stealthy as HIV and so doggedly resistant to mutation that it would stay deadly over the course of a long epidemic. But viruses are not, well, superhuman. They cannot do everything at once. It is one of the ironies of the analysis of alarmists such as Preston that they are all too willing to point out the limitations of human beings, but they neglect to point out the limitations of microscopic life forms.
If there are any conclusions to be drawn about disease, they are actually the opposite of what is imagined in books such as The Hot Zone and The Coming Plague. It is true that the effect of the dramatic demographic and social changes in the world over the past few decades is to create new opportunities for disease. But they are likely to create not homogeneous patterns of disease, as humans experienced in the past, so much as heterogeneous patterns of disease. People are traveling more and living in different combinations. Gene pools that were once distinct are mixing through intermarriage. Adults who once would have died in middle age are now living into their 80s. Children with particular genetic configurations who once died at birth or in infancy are now living longer lives. If you talk to demographers, they will tell you that what they anticipate is increasing clusters of new and odd diseases moving into these new genetic and demographic niches. Rare diseases will be

1NC Disease Frontline

showing up in greater numbers. Entirely unknown diseases will emerge for the first time. But the same diversity that created them within those population subgroups will keep them there. Laurie Garrett's book is mistitled. We are not facing "the coming plague." We are facing "the coming outbreaks."

5. No Impact- Diseases can’t cause extinction, they are limited by the target population
John Schwartz Washington Post “Battling an Outbreak Of Hype”, 1/19/1997, Lexis
Little wonder, then, that Ryan really begins to cook as he draws sweeping scientific conclusions toward the end of the book. He writes that "viruses, so often thought to be nothing more than parasites, play a much wider role" in nature's grand plan. He takes on the vexing issue of why viruses that coexist in relative harmony with their natural hosts emerge to attack humans with such lethal force. Because a bug that wipes out its target population will become extinct itself, it's sound evolutionary strategy to reach an accommodation instead, and to "co-evolve" with the host over time. Ultimately, the bugs aren't out to kill us, Ryan explains: They just want to move in, like microscopic Kato Kaelins.
New hosts for the virus haven't had time to reach this accommodation, and so the initial encounters tend to be tragic. Yet once adapted, the viral guests aren't mere freeloaders: Ryan suggests that they become part of the host's armamentarium against turf invaders.
Because we are the invaders of so many remote corners of the Earth, we run into these "unwitting knights of nature. . . . Although not primarily designed to attack humanity, human exploitation and invasion of every ecological sphere has directed that aggression our way." Ryan ends with a call for better monitoring of and response to emerging diseases -- and, just to make sure we get the message, conjures up a hypothetical "virus X," a true doomsday bug as lethal as Ebola Zaire but with the airborne transmission abilities of measles. Brrrrrrrrrrr.
Regis, on the other hand, steadfastly refuses to fret, and takes on the increasingly popular apocalyptic notion that emerging diseases are somehow "Gaia's revenge" on humanity for overdevelopment. He scorns Preston's idea that "in a sense, the earth is mounting an immune response against the human species" and Garrett's notion that "the microbes were winning."
Many more Americans have been killed by lightning than the 700 Ebola deaths worldwide, yet "nobody spoke of lightning as 'the revenge of the thunderclouds,' even though there was abundant talk of Ebola as 'the revenge of the rain forest'," Regis sneers. This proliferation of new viral threats is an "illusion," Regis says. What's new are the tools of detection. "The better the CDC got at identifying the pathogens that caused age-old but hitherto unrecognized diseases, the more it looked as if scads of trailblazing new microbes were out there amassing themselves for attack, gathering their forces, and preparing to bring us 'the coming plague'."

Terror Frontline

1. No impact—Al Qaeda has no coherent infrastructure.
John Mueller, professor of political science at Ohio State University, New Perspectives Quarterly Summer 08, “The US Terrorist Threat Is Overblown” __http://www.digitalnpq.org/ archive/2008_summer/18_ mueller.html__ [ev]
First, there is a cluster left over from the struggles in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s. Currently they are huddled around, and hiding out with, Osama bin Laden somewhere in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. This band, concludes Sageman, probably consists of a few dozen individuals. Joining them in the area is the second group: perhaps 100 fighters left over from Al-Qaeda's golden days in Afghanistan in the 1990s. These key portions of the enemy forces would total, then, less than 150 actual people. They may operate something resembling "training camps," but these appear to be quite minor affairs. They also assist with the Taliban's far larger and very troublesome insurgency in Afghanistan. Beyond this tiny band, concludes Sageman, the third group consists of thousands of sympathizers and would-be jihadists spread around the globe who mainly connect in Internet chat rooms, engage in radicalizing conversations and variously dare each other actually to do something. All of these rather hapless—perhaps even pathetic—people should, of course, be considered to be potentially dangerous. From time to time, they may be able to coalesce enough to carry out acts of terrorist violence, and policing efforts to stop them before they can do so are certainly justified. But the notion that they present an existential threat to just about anybody seems at least as fanciful as some of their schemes, and any notion that these characters could come up with nuclear weapons seems farfetched in the extreme.

2. Terrorists won’t use bioweapons- several warrants
Dr. Hillel Cohen et. all, Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 2002 **__http://www. thedoctorwillseeyounow.c__****__om/ articles/other/biotb_13/index. shtml__**
Other authors are more conservative about terrorists' capabilities to produce and employ biological agents. Mengel, for example, emphasizes that the resources required would be "somewhat greater than those for chemical agents," as would be "the extent of the facility and the accompanying cost" (1976: 455-6)__11__. In his view: "The type of knowledge needed probably is beyond a biologist, necessitating the employment of both a microbiologist and a pathologist....overcoming the problem of the deterioration of the biological agent once it has been released requires extensive skills, even beyond those available to microbiologists and pathologists" (1976: 455-6)__12__. Mengel believes that the task would likely be beyond the capabilities of any single individual:
It would take a highly trained individual with experience in microbiology, pathology, aerosol physics, aerobiology, and even meteorology to make a reasonable attempt at manufacture and employment of a biological agent. Thus, although it is possible for one individual to undertake this type of technology, it is highly unlikely that this will occur. A larger group of at least three to five members with a full range of capabilities, including training, tactics, technical knowledge, resources, and operational experience, is considered the optimal number required to perpetrate an act using biological technologies. (1976: 456)__13__
Mengel's views are apparently shared by Root-Bernstein, who writes: "It takes unusual learning to employ bioterrorism. Time, place, and opportunity must coincide. So far, terrorist organizations have apparently lacked the sophisticated knowledge and training to plan and carry out biological terrorism. People with advanced degrees in microbiology, medicine, pharmacology, and agricultural science seem to be rare if not nonexistent among the membership of identified terrorist groups" (1991: 50)__14__.

3. Terrorists don’t want to use nukes—big operations are too risky.
JENKINS 06 (Brian, senior advisor to the president of the RAND Corporation, “Unconquerable Nation: Knowing our Enemy, Strengthening Ourselves,” __http://www.rand.org/pubs/ monographs/2006/RAND_MG454.pdf__ )
Showmanship in carrying out spectacular attacks demonstrates prowess. Operations therefore must be successful. It is not necessary that the attackers survive—martyrdom demonstrates their commitment and adds to the enemy’s alarm—but the operation must not be seen to fail. Ambitious operations must be weighed against risks of failure, since failure brings humiliation to the attackers and embarrasses the enterprise. Even more seriously, jihadists believe that God’s will is expressed in success and failure. To succeed is to have God’s support. Failure signals God’s disapproval. As a consequence, jihadist planners are conservative. Typical of terrorist planning, the suitability of the operation comes first, feasibility second. Considerations for operational feasibility include access to relevant information, the accessibility of the target, the level of security, the availability of reliable people, physical requirements, complexity, and costs. Old playbooks predominate. Catastrophic attacks with unconventional weapons remain jihadist ambitions, but determined fighters with conventional explosives remain the most reliable weapons. Multiple attacks increase death and destruction, but operations with too many moving parts risk failure. Jihadist planners continue to think big but execute conservatively.
Terror Frontline

4. Terrorism inevitable – U.S. too wide and open to safeguard.
Ivan Eland, Independent Institute Senior Fellow, 2003, Mediterranean Quarterly, Bush’s Wars and the State of Civil Liberties, Volume 14 Issue 4
The adoption by the United States of a foreign policy with fewer military interventions cannot be emphasized enough. There is no one perfect solution to terrorism, but this proposed policy change would go a long way toward reducing anti-American attacks. Improvements in intelligence and homeland security can go only so far. 22 The United States is the largest truly open society in the world and has many lucrative targets for terrorists to attack—for example, hundreds of skyscrapers and thousands of shopping malls and sports stadiums. Without a change in U.S. foreign policy, effectively safeguarding such a massive landmass, with thousands of miles [End Page 174] of borders, against all terrorist attacks would effectively require a police state. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is currently heading down that road. Long ago, former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis best summed up the current state of American liberty: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." 23

Solvency Frontline

1. Limited health savings – Candian demonstration only saved $1.3 million – the $ 40 billion their Gafni card claims to solve is context of lost productivity.

2. NEP symbolizes legalization of illicit drugs while encouraging death among IDU.
Lilis, staff writer, 7-31-2009. Mikes Lilis, staff writer, 7-31-2009. Congress Looks to Two decade ban on needle exchange funds. http://washingtonindependent. com/53339/congress-looks-to- lift-two-decade-ban-on- federal-needle-exchange-funds

In the eyes of needle exchange opponents, the longer the wait the better. David Evans, special advisor to the Drug Free America Foundation, argued that federal funding for needle exchange programs would “set the tone” that illegal drug use is OK. Furthermore, Evans said, drug users are much more likely to die from something like overdose than they are to die of HIV/AIDS “Giving people needles is not going to address the overdose problem,” Evans said. “It’s just going to encourage it, frankly.”

Evans cited __a 2001 study__ which found that needle users in Baltimore were more likely to contract HIV from sexual activity than from dirty needles. The argument over needle exchange on Capitol Hill, he added, “is really a debate on the studies.”

Health and human rights advocates are hopeful that the Obama administration will put its weight behind lifting the needle-funding ban. As some indication that it’s leaning in that direction, the White House nominated former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske to be the country’s point-man on drug policy. Despite his law-enforcement background, Kerlikowske has a long history of treating drug addiction as an illness to be treated rather than a crime to be punished. Indeed, in a written response to lawmakers during his confirmation process, Kerlikowske trumpeted the virtues of needle exchange programs to fight needle-borne illnesses.