Nothing here is final until 8:30 PM, but this is likely to be the 1NC

>>>>>

1NC Needle Exchange: T–Increase
  1. Increase is direct growth not removing a barrier
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 96

Increase: 1)to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment 2)to become greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality 3)to multiply by propagation 4)growth or augmentation in size, strength, quality 5)the act or process of increasing


  1. Violation: the affirmative only removes a barrier to needle exchange

  1. Standards:
  2. Limits: they're only effectually topical their interp allows removing literally any barrier this opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden
  3. Predictability: they force us to prepare by looking to their solvency by having a plan text with no resolutional basis.
  4. Topic-specific education: under their interpretation of debate, we never discuss the resolutional but instead a number of unrelated steps.

  1. T is a voter for our standards and jurisdiction.

  1. Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.

  1. FX:T is an independent voting issue for education and fairness

1NC Needle Exchange: Methadone CP

TEXT: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase opiate-assisted treatment for the rehabilitation of persons addicted to controlled substances in the United States. We’ll clarify.
Opiate-assisted addiction treatment dramatically cuts drug trafficking
Drug Policy Alliance Network, 09
(“Drug Policy Around the World: Switzerland,” http://www.drugpolicy.org/ global/drugpolicyby/ westerneurop/switzerland/) [Dan Li]



These measures mark the beginning of Switzerland’s current drug policy, based on a fourfold approach: prevention, law enforcement, treatment and harm reduction. Among other activities, the Federal Council asked for a study on heroin assisted treatment for chronic heroin addicts who had failed at other treatment programs. In 1992, the Council passed an order authorizing clinical trials involving the medical prescription of heroin, along with a strict scientific evaluation of the trials. A 1997 evaluation of the trials concluded that: heroin assisted treatment for severely dependent heroin addicts improved their physical and/or psychic health, as well as their quality of life (in terms of housing, work and other areas); participants’ illegal use of heroin and cocaine decreased; the users involved in the program committed fewer crimes (the incidence of theft and property and drug trafficking offences fell sharply).



Opiate-assisted therapy is incredibly effective at blocking the spread of AIDS
WHO 04
(WHO, July 15, “HIV/AIDS treatment and drug substitution therapy for drug users: critical element to a comprehensive response.” http://www.who.int/3by5/ news18/en/)


Dr Andrew Ball, Manager of Regional and Country Support of WHO HIV/AIDS Department said, "the WHO fully recognizes the overwhelming evidence that methadone and buprenorphine are highly effective treatments for drug dependence and prevention of HIV/AIDS. “WHO has undertaken an extensive review of the effectiveness of methadone in HIV/AIDS prevention and care. An independent expert committee is considering including methadone on the WHO Essential Drugs List ,” he added. Providing both HIV/AIDS and drug dependence treatment for drug users is a critical element of a comprehensive HIV response. Despite the fact that intravenous drug users account for an estimated 10 percent of all HIV cases worldwide, in many countries they are routinely excluded from receiving ART.



1NC Needle Exchange: States CP
TEXT: The 50 states of the United States should fully fund and enforce a comprehensive needle exchange program in the United States. We’ll clarify.
Federal action in needle exchange program destroys the entire point of needle exchange programs
Lilis, staff writer Washington Independant, 7/31/09

(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.


1NC Needle Exchange: Health Care
Polls won’t discourage Obama – pushing ensures passage regardless of resistance
Whitesides and Smith, 8/5/09
(John Whitesides and Donna Smith, writers for Reuters, “Obama vows to pass healthcare reform” http://www.reuters.com/ article/healthNews/ idUSTRE56M0HE20090805)



Despite polls showing growing public doubts about his healthcare overhaul, U.S. President Barack Obama vowed on Wednesday to get a reform bill through Congress this year even without Republicans on board. "I promise you, we will pass reform by the end of this year because the American people need it," Obama said in Wakarusa, Indiana, where he traveled to tout his economic initiatives. "We're going to have to make it happen." Obama's drive for healthcare reform, his top legislative priority, has been attacked on all sides for its $1 trillion cost and scope. Democrats have feuded over how to pay for it, and Obama's popularity has slipped as the debate dragged on. A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday found 52 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's handling of healthcare while 39 percent approve. That was a shift from 46 percent approval against 42 percent disapproval in a July 1 survey. Concerns about spending too much and adding to the deficit appeared to fuel the change, with 72 percent saying they do not believe Obama can overhaul healthcare without expanding the deficit. No Republicans have backed the healthcare proposals under consideration in Congress, and months of Senate Finance Committee negotiations with three Republican senators have not produced a deal. Obama said time was about up. "I think at some point, sometime in September, we're just going to have to make an assessment," Obama told MSNBC after his appearance in Wakarusa, saying his priority was a plan that reined in healthcare costs, improved care and regulated insurance companies. Obama wants to expand insurance coverage to most of the 46 million uninsured Americans and make it harder for insurance companies to prohibit coverage of those with pre-existing conditions. "I would prefer Republicans working with us on that because I think it's in the interest of everybody. That shouldn't be a partisan issue," he said.

Needle exchange programs is unpopular because it overturns the strategies that public health authorities had been working on and people fear it will increase drug usage.
CDC, 05

(Center for Disease Control. December 2005. “Syringe Exchange Programs” http://www.cdc.gov/idu/facts/ aed_idu_syr.pdf)



SEPs also face significant legal and regulatory restrictions. For example, 47 states have drug paraphernalia laws that establish criminal penalties for the distribution and possession of syringes. Eight states and one territory have laws that prohibit dispensing or possessing syringes without a valid medical prescription. (See the related fact sheet, State and Local Policies Regarding IDUs’ Access to Sterile Syringes.) Public health authorities in communities have employed a number of strategies to ensure the legal provision of SEP services, including declaring public health emergencies.(15) Local community opposition also can be an issue. Residents may be concerned that the programs will encourage drug use and drug traffic and increase the number of used discarded syringes in their neighborhoods. Studies have found no evidence of increases in discarded syringes around SEPs.(16) Finally, some IDUs avoid SEPs because they fear that using a program that serves IDUs will identify them as IDUs. For others, the fear of arrest, fines, and possible incarceration if caught carrying syringes to or from the SEP is a potent deterrent.(17)


1NC Needle Exchange: Health Care
Pushing controversial legislation burns political capital
Mark Seidenfeld, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, Iowa Law Review, October 1994
In addition, the propensity of congressional committees to engage in special-interest-oriented oversight might seriously undercut presidential efforts to implement regulatory reform through legislation. n198 On any proposed regulatory measure, the President could face opposition from powerful committee members whose ability to modify and kill legislation is well-documented. n199 This is not meant to deny that the President has significant power that he can use to bring aspects of his legislative agenda to fruition. The President's ability to focus media attention on an issue, his power to bestow benefits on the constituents of members of Congress who support his agenda, and his potential to deliver votes in congressional elections increase the likelihood of legislative success for particular programs. n200 Repeated use of such tactics, however, will impose economic costs on society and concomitantly consume the President's political capital. n201 At some point the price to the President for pushing legislation through Congress exceeds the benefit he derives from doing so. Thus, a President would be unwise to rely too heavily on legislative changes to implement his policy vision.

Political capital key to healthcare reform
Chiropractic Economics 7/7/09
http://www.chiroeco.com/ chiropractic/news/7360/861/ Prioritizing-healthcare- reform-components/


INDIANAPOLIS – Faced with a barrage of pressing issues, the Obama administration has placed health-care reform high on its agenda. The timing bodes well for change, according to Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., director of the Indiana University Center for Health Policy and Professionalism, associate professor of pediatrics at the IU School of Medicine and a pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children. "If the new administration wants to accomplish significant reform, they will need political capital, which they have now," says Dr. Carroll, who is a health services researcher and a Regenstrief Institute affiliated scientist. "We have a government elected with a mandate for change and health care is an area that requires reform. Moreover, with the economy in its current state, with unemployment on the rise, and with health care costs on the ascent, more and more people will not be able to afford insurance or health care. Therefore, more will be in need of reform." According to Dr. Carroll there are now more than 45 million people in America who have not had health insurance for the entire year; almost twice that number lack coverage for a portion of the year. Over the last few years, most of the newly uninsured are from the middle class. As unemployment rises, along with food, utilities and other prices, a growing number of people will be unable to afford health insurance, especially as it gets increasingly expensive.

1NC Needle Exchange: Health Care
The impact is a new Great Depression. Reform is key to signal long term fiscal solvency and prevent spiraling sell-offs of US debt
Boston Globe, 2/23/09



Budget analysts are worried that a continuing economic crisis will make it impossible to raise sufficient funds from foreign markets to finance the nation's debt. In the last four years, about three-quarters of US debt was purchased by foreign interests, most prominently by China. If other nations lose confidence that the United States will pay its debts, however, some economists fear an international financial crisis could escalate and turn into a worldwide depression. In any case, it is widely expected that debt purchasers will soon demand higher interest rates, which would translate into higher costs for US taxpayers. Obama is being urged by some analysts to start moving toward a balanced budget as soon as possible to send a signal to the world that deficit spending will abate. Yet some analysts are offering Obama conflicting advice, warning him not to repeat what they regard as the mistake of President Franklin Roosevelt, who launched the New Deal but eventually heeded calls to curtail deficit spending, only to see a new recession batter his presidency. A key player in the summit will be Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who backed out of his commitment to be Obama's commerce secretary and then voted against the stimulus bill. Despite the embarrassment caused by Gregg's about-face, the White House believes that he could be one of its most important allies in the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and tax policy. That is because Gregg is the co-sponsor of the measure that would create a bipartisan commission to put together far-reaching recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress. In an interview, Gregg said that under such a procedure, the measures could be passed within a year, as long as most of the benefit cuts and tax increases were not slated to take effect until well after the recession is over. "We need an up-or-down vote on a package that will be unquestionably bipartisan and fair," Gregg said, a reference to criticism that Obama's stimulus bill was too partisan. Asked about his hopes for the summit, he said, "It can either be very nice public relations or move the ball down the road on what is an impending fiscal tsunami." Some budget specialists are skeptical. Robert Reischauer, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, said Obama should have seized the opportunity to pair the stimulus bill with the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and the tax code. "When you are shoveling out the goodies, you have a greater probability of getting people to sign on to some fiscal diet," said Reischauer, who has been invited to the summit. He said he is worried that nothing will happen on the most difficult issues until political leaders "have a gun at our heads. The system tends to respond only in the face of unavoidable crisis." Analysts across the political spectrum agree that the current path is unsustainable. Unless there is a major budgetary change, federal spending will go from being about 20 percent of the nation's economy to 42 percent in 2050, according to the Concord Coalition. The major reason is that entitlement programs for older Americans are running short of funds. Social Security is slated to pay out more money than it receives by 2017. Obama suggested during his campaign that he might support changing the level of income at which Social Security taxes are calculated. Another frequently mentioned option is raising the retirement age. But any measure will be even more controversial than usual because so many Americans have seen their private retirement plans pummeled by the stock market collapse. Medicare, the government-run healthcare program for older Americans, is already running a deficit, which is expected to increase quickly as baby boomers retire. That is why many analysts are urging Obama to link changes in Medicare with an overhaul of the health system.

Global nuclear war
Mead, 09
(Walter Russell, the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Only Makes You Stronger”, The New Republic, February 4, 2009)



History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.


1NC Needle Exchange: The Moral Side Constraint

Government welfare and social services are coercive and morally wrong
Waldron, prof law and philosophy NYU, 86
(Jeremy Waldron, Professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University School of Law, October 1986, “Welfare and the Images of Charity” The Philosophical Quarterly. Volume 36, No. 145, pg. 463-482) mr



But Rand apart, the moral objection that must be taken most seriously is this. Charitable giving by the wealthy to the poor is not only morally permissible, it is indeed morally desirable. It is a good thing if those who have surplus wealth give it to what they regard as deserving cases. It is good not merely because generosity is a virtue and we ought to want to have as many virtues as possible: that line of thought leads in the direction of the crazy view that we should be glad there are poor people about so that we have someone to be charitable to. It is good on account of the moral force of the needs and the plight of those who are the potential recipients of our charity. It is because we care for them, and not (merely) because we care for our own moral integrity, that we ought to take note of their plight and do whatever we can to ameliorate it. Indeed, perhaps we can subject to moral criticism and moral pressure if we fail to do so. That much conceded by most all of modern opponents of state welfare provision. The mistake, they do say, is to convert moral pressure into compulsion - to force people to do what everyone agrees it would be morally desirable for them to do. Murray Rothboard's view is typical. He recognizes that charity is a good thing, but writes, " It makes all the difference in the world whether the aid is given voluntarily or is stolen by force." [I]t is hardly charity to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed this is the direct opposite of charity, which can only be an unbought, voluntary act of grace. Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the state has already taken on the task. This is another illustration of the truth that men can become more moral only through rational persuasion, not through violence, which will, in fact, have the opposite effect.4 The argument is a powerful one - the more so because, of course, the general point invoked at the end of this passage is absolutely fundamental to the entire tradition of liberal philosophy (and not merely its "new right" wing). Most liberals base their belief in toleration and civil rights in part on the irrationality and immorality of forcing people to do something merely on the ground that it is (believed to be) morally desirable. Since this is so, Rothbard and other libertarians appear to have a powerful argument against their opponents, in this tradition at any rate. The argument is that the Welfare State, with its apparatus of compulsory contribution, "poisons the springs of private charitable activity"5 just as the enforcement of a religious faith or a personal ethic or a scientific belief would, in the eyes of Locke or Kant or Mill, poison the basis of personal commitment, moral autonomy, and individual rationality. It is easy to overlook this point, and spend one's energy demonstrating that charitable giving is morally right, that everyone ought to give something to those worse off than themselves, and that those who would be the targets of coercion in a welfare state - those who would withhold charity - are morally in the wrong. But this is not necessarily in dispute. The libertarian argument is that, even if charity is morally desirable, indeed even if it is in some sense a moral duty, it is nevertheless wrong to require people by the threat of legal penalties and confiscation to give up any of their wealth for redistribution to the poor.


1NC Needle Exchange: The Moral Side Constraint

Coercion risks the worst atrocities
Browne, exec director public policy American Liberty Foundation, 95
(Harry Browne, executive director of public policy at American Liberty Foundation, editor of Liberty Magazine, financial advisor and economist, Why Government Doesn’t Work, pg 66-67)


The reformers of the Cambodian revolution claimed to be building a better world. They forced people into reeducation programs to make them better citizens. Then they used force to regulate every aspect of commercial life. Then they forced office workers and intellectuals to give up their jobs and harvest rice, to round out their education. When people resisted having their lives turned upside down, the reformers had to use more and more force. By the time they were done, they had killed a third of the country’s population, destroyed the lives of almost everyone still alive, and devastated a nation. It all began with using force for the best of intentions—to create a better world. The Soviet leaders used coercion to provide economic security and to build a “New Man”—a human being who would put his fellow man ahead of himself. At least 10 million people died to help build the New Man and the Workers’ Paradise. But human nature never changed—and the workers’ lives were always Hell, not Paradise. In the 1930s many Germans gladly traded civil liberties for the economic revival and national pride Adolf Hitler promised them. But like every other grand dream to improve society by force, it ended in a nightmare of devastation and death. Professor R.J. Rummel has calculated that 119 million people have been killed by their own governments in this century. Were these people criminals? No, they were people who simply didn’t fit into the New Order—people who preferred their own dreams to those of the reformers. Every time you allow government to use force to make society better, you move another step closer to the nightmares of Cambodia, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. We’ve already moved so far that our own government can perform with impunity the outrages described in the preceding chapters. These examples aren’t cases of government gone wrong; they are examples of government—period. They are what governments do—just as chasing cats is what dogs do. They are the natural consequence of letting government use force to bring about a drug-free nation, to tax someone else to better your life, to guarantee your economic security, to assure that no one can mistreat you or hurt your feelings, and to cover up the damage of all the failed government programs that came before.



Freedom comes before all other impacts
Petro, prof law Wake, 74

(Sylvester Petro, professor of law at Wake Forest, Spring 1974, Toledo Law Review, p. 480)


However, one may still insist on echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.” And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no importance because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenstyn, Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.


1NC Needle Exchange: Solvency
  1. Turn: Needle exchange programs increase drug use and overdosing
US States News, 06
(“SEN. RICE ON TALK OF NEEDLE EXCHANGE: ‘I HAVE JUST ABOUT HAD IT’”, 2/6/06, LEXIS)



"When we teach our children about how to use and clean needles we are subliminally sending them the message to use intravenous drugs. Funding any needle exchange program sends the 'wrong message' to children. It is a known fact that the heroin that is entering our country and hitting the streets of new Jersey is 90-99% pure. It is also becoming the drug of choice for young people. "Elected officials, women, ministers and minority leaders alike should all be as angry as I am. In fact everyone in New Jersey should be concerned about needle exchange. They should be offended by the push from many to increase drug abuse, crime and disease in mostly urban communities. "When we provide the tools for junkies to get high, we are putting our families' lives and health at risk. Areas with high drug abuse problems also see the high level of gang activity, violent crime and shootings. "Minorities have the highest infant mortality rate, the largest number of school drop outs, and the most people incarcerated. Needle exchange opens the doors for drug experimentation and addiction by our children. "Syringe exchange will accelerate the decay of our communities, and put our safety at risk. I can't understand why no one will accept the need to help improve the quality of life for minorities and others with similar problems - not add to the spread of gang related crime and disease. "Giving out needles gives the wrong message. We need to fight drug use and addiction through educating our children before they start using. We have to work with junkies to help them get clean. The Gangland Security Task Force will soon be reporting to the Legislature it's findings on the ling between drugs, gun, prisons. In particular, I hope to find out where these drugs are coming from so that we can stop them before they hit our streets. "Needle exchange will lead to an increase in IV drug use among the urban community which is already ravaged by recreational drug abuse. Needles will increase the death rate because, as the number of junkies grows, so will the number of those who die from overdosing, suicides and homicides that are linked to drug use. "State funding of needle exchange programs allows tax dollars to be used to increase the amount of drug paraphernalia in areas already overburdened with IV drug abuse. Distributing drug paraphernalia is in stark contrast to the concept of fighting the 'War on Drugs.' "As the number of drug addicted children increases, so does the number of gang related violence, and youth membership in gangs. Drug abuse is destroying our children. Needle exchange programs fail to respond to the problem of overdosing. More junkies die from overdosing than from HIV/AIDS. "One only needs to look at the failed needle exchange programs like the one in Boston, where drug use by minors increased in areas with the programs. During this time Boston became known as the 'Heroin Port' for the country. "The message that a needle exchange program sends is that there are a huge number of people, specifically women and minorities, who are expendable. Needle exchange is both racist and genocidal. The program encourages and supports drug addiction, while minority youth are being destroyed by drugs and violence. "When I was growing up, minorities were oppressed and denied educational opportunities. African Americans faced racism through segregation and unequal education. Today minorities are still oppressed.


  1. Turn: The number of needles we can provide is not nearly enough to match the demand; resulting in reuse of dirty needles
US States News, 06
(“SEN. RICE ON TALK OF NEEDLE EXCHANGE: ‘I HAVE JUST ABOUT HAD IT’”, 2/6/06, LEXIS)



Needle exchange programs focus on giving out syringes to those in the urban community as a way to perpetuate the drug abuse problem. "If we allow syringe exchange, we will be faced with a supply problem. The number of needles that could be distributed would not be anywhere near the number of injections that occur every day on out streets and, therefore, reuse of dirty syringes will occur. "Even as recently as this weekend news reports came out and said that crime has declined, but the number of guns on the streets is going up. It would be very surprising if the gangs are not the ones bringing these guns in and using them to fuel the drug war on our corners. We need to change our approach to the drug epidemic and gang activity, not just exchange some needles."


1NC Needle Exchange: Solvency

  1. Turn: Needle exchange programs symbolizes legalization of illicit drugs while encouraging death among illegal drug use
Lilis, staff writer, 7/31/09
(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.

  1. Turn: Needle exchange programs promote drug usage through official approval of drugs in the US, which eliminate national morality
Smith, Washington editor, 7/25/09
(Sylvia A. Smith, Washington editor, 7-25-2009. Souder fails to sway House from needle bill. Journal Gazette. http://www.journalgazette.net/ article/20090725/NEWS03/ 307259929/1002/LOCAL


WASHINGTON – The House rebuffed Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, Friday as he tried to preserve a ban against federal money being used for programs that give drug addicts clean syringes in exchange for used ones. Democrats said needle exchange programs can help reduce the rate of HIV and AIDS infections. Souder argued that HIV is spread mostly through sexual activity, not needles. He said free syringes encourage drug habits and that money used for needle exchanges should be used for drug treatment programs. “Are we going to eliminate the moral hazard in narcotics?” Souder said, arguing that Democrats were wrong to lift the longtime ban on needle exchange programs. Needle exchange “is not about promoting drug use,” said Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va. “It is in fact about preventing disease.” Souder said studies of whether needle exchange programs curb the spread of HIV and other diseases, “quite honestly, are mixed,” but that government-funded needle exchange programs imply an official approval of drug use. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., said the bill says exchange programs can’t operate within 1,000 feet of facilities that serve children, such as schools and parks.