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...

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...

…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…