how addictions can impact society

1. What ethical questions are raised for needle and syringe program (NSPs)?

Numerous ethical considerations are raised through needle and syringe programs. The most pressing of which is the dilution it the enforcement of current drug laws. Through the needle and syringe programs, the intended purpose is to reduce HIV transmission, overdose deaths and other adverse circumstances related to illegal drug use. Although morally acceptable considering the alternatives, the allowance of needle and syringe programs ultimately undermine current drug laws as they are allowing detrimental behavior, albeit on a limited basis. In addition, through the dilution of existing laws, these programs send the wrong message to society in general from an ethical perspective. Many individuals, particularly those who do not conduct their own research, tend to heavily utilize social media, or watched biased news sources, can perceive these initiatives as unwelcomed development ethically. Likewise, from an ethical perspective the needle and syringe program have an opportunity cost that can inhibit the advancement of other, more positive developments. For each dollar allocated to needle and syringe programs, less capital and funds will be allocated to much more viable alternatives. This an ethical initiative as society is allocating capital to a solution that is less harmful as oppose to solutions that are much more positive in nature (Des Jarlais, 2009).

2. Do they weaken drug laws, send the wrong message or obscure the right message?

Yes, as noted above, this alternative does weaken drug laws and obscure the right message in which society would like to promote. With these programs, some individuals in society can postulate that illegal drug use will be tolerated so long as the outcomes are “less harmful” than would otherwise occur during “normal” drug use. This ultimately absolves members of society of personal responsibility as it relates to drug use. At an extreme level, those who would like to utilize drugs have a higher incentive to do so as society will provide programs by which they can continue to use drugs albeit on a much more limited basis. More alarming is that most of these programs are financed from tax payer dollars which ultimately undermines the hard work of good, tax-paying citizens. Here, individuals who decided to make the wrong decision related to drugs are essentially provided a reduced punishment for their own self-destructive behaviors. This send the wrong message, as people can make adverse life decisions and can still be aided by society for their own misdeeds. As a result, society is ultimately paying for the bad life choices of others, sending the wrong message. This is further exacerbated by the fact that many taxpayers themselves are living paycheck to paycheck with nearly 40% of Americans unable to afford an emergency $500 expense. Meanwhile, taxes they are paying are being allocated to social programs that allows for behavior that is “less harmful” than would otherwise have occurred. This has the potential to cause mixed messages for society while undermining the principles, laws and values that are the foundation of a properly functioning economy (Wodak, 2005).

3. Do they do little to eliminate the harm of drugs, detract from alternatives, and/or constitute a counsel of despair?

I disagree that they needle and syringe programs do little to eliminate the harm of drugs. For one, these programs do help eliminate a portion of the harms attributable from drugs. The research has indicated that these programs do reduce overdose related deaths that occur from excessive use of illegal substances. In addition, these programs also reduce HIV related infections and the costs bourn by society for treatment and remediation efforts. Likewise, these programs ultimately help to provide and targeted and tiered approach towards substance abuse mitigation efforts. This is beneficial to society as it allows for a much more granular approach to address the substance abuse issues that impact society as a whole (White, 2012).

4. Does this allow for a more socially just way to support individuals with substance use?

This is difficult to answer as there are conflicting views related to the concept of “socially just.” Here this concept is difficult as society is paying for and in many instances subsidizing the bad behaviors of others. In some respects, it is not socially just to allow society to subsidize the bad behavior of others. This concept of moral hazard ultimately undermines the personal responsibility that each member of society has for their own well-being. The counter argument is that “less harm” is favorable to “more harm” as it relates to substance abuse. As a result, it is socially just to achieve “less harm” even it means others who had noting to do with the substance abuse decisions of others support the initiative. Each case has a valid perspective that depends heavily on the prevailing perspectives of society.