Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
1
1AC
Contention One is Disease
Advantage One is AIDS
The ban on funding needle exchange results in the rapid spread of AIDS among at risk populations
HRC, Harms Reduction Coalition, political advocate for harms reduction strategies, February 7 20 08
(HRC Harms Reduction Coalition, political advocate for harms reduction strategies, “Letter to Congress to Lift the Federal Ban on
Needle Exchange” http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/HRC/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=22738&t=)
Since 1989, Congress has allowed the annual enacting of this ban that prohibits states and local jurisdictions
from utilizing any federal dollars for needle exchange programs.
According to data from the National Institutes on Drug Abuse, injection drug use accounts for more than onethird (36 percent) of the estimated 40,000 annual new cases of AIDS in the United States . In the African
American community the impact of the federal ban is mind-numbing as up to 42 percent of males and 51 percent
of females infected with AIDS is due to the proliferation of shared needles among infected injection drug
users. Rigorous scientific research has proven clearly that improved access to sterile syringes through needle exchange
programs reduces the transmission of HIV and Hepatitis C, without increasing drug use.
Needle exchange is widely accepted as part of the AIDS prevention landscape. Yet, the Ban on federal
funding results in too few programs, too few hours and too few services, creating a dependence on limited
private philanthropy. This political obstacle severely constrains one of the most effective strategies for
preventing HIV transmission in adults.
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
1
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
2
1AC
80% of all AIDS infections in the US are a result of sharing contaminated needles
Gafni et. al, ’97 (August, PhD from McMaster University, Canadian Journal of Public Health)
AIDS is a global epidemic. In Canada, there have been 14 677 cases and 10 735 deaths as of March 1997, of which 624
cases have been attributed to injection drug use.1 It has been estimated that cases of HIV/AIDS are underreported
by one-third to one-half, and therefore these figures are likely an underrepresentation.2 AIDS can be
acquired from injection drug use through the sharing of infected needles.3,4 The impact of this risk behaviour extends
beyond those participating in it: in the US, studies indicate that at least 40% of drug users have been in intimate
relationships with nonusers5 and that, as of 1995, 80% of HIV-positive heterosexual men and women who
never used injection drugs had become infected through sexual contact with someone who did. 6
Interviews with injection drug users indicate that a common reason for sharing needles is difficulty in obtaining
clean equipment.5,7,8 The long-term objective of a needle exchange program (NEP) is to prevent HIV infection from
needle-sharing. The immediate objective is to minimize harm by reducing needle-sharing through the provision of clean
needles. An explanation of how NEPs reduce HIV incidence is the “circulation theory”9—they decrease the
amount of time that contaminated needles are in circulation. There is no evidence that the programs increase
either initiation into injection drug use,10,11 the frequency of injecting, or prevailing levels of drug use in the
community.12 Rigorous evaluations of how effective NEPs are at reducing the incidence of HIV infection have not been
possible because of ethical issues associated with experimental methods and because of difficulty with follow-up in
observational studies. However, prevalence studies have indicated that AIDS epidemics have been avoided
in areas that do have such a program. In Sweden, for example, the HIV seroprevalence rate in 1988 in
Stockholm, which did not have an NEP, was 13%;13 while in the nearby city of Lund, which did have one, the rate was
maintained at 1% over a period of more than 3 years.14 In other studies, relatively stable HIV prevalence rates of less than
5% among injection drug users have been found in cities where NEPs were initiated while the prevalence rates were still
low.15 It is plausible that if shared needles are a source of HIV transmission, then measures to reduce this sharing
will reduce transmission.
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
2
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
3
1AC
AIDS kills 15,000 people in the United States every year
CDC, February 26 2009
(CDC, Center for Disease Control, “HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report: Cases of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and
Dependent Areas, 2007 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm)
At the end of 2007, the estimated number of persons living with AIDS in the United States and dependent
areas was 468,578. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, this included 454,747adults and adolescents,
and 889 children under age 13 years.
Totals include persons of unknown race or multiple races, persons of unknown sex, and persons of unknown state of
residence. Because totals were calculated independently of the values for the subpopulations, subpopulation values may
not equal the totals.
Deaths of Persons with AIDS
In 2007, the estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS in the United States and dependent
areas was 14,561. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, this included 14,105 adults and adolescents,
and 5 children under age 13 years.
The cumulative estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS in the United States and dependent
areas, through 2007, was 583,298. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, this included 557,902 adults and
adolescents, and 4,891 children under age 13 years.
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
3
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
4
1AC
Advantage Two is Hep C
The lack of needle exchange programs spreads Hep C which kills 10000 people every year
Jacobson, senior political editor for RH Reality, 2009
(Jodi L. Jacobson is a long-time leader in the health and development community and an advocate with extensive experience in public
health, gender equity, human rights, environment and demographic issues. She is currently Senior Political Editor for RH Reality
Check. February 7 2009 http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/07/time-lift-federal-ban-syringe-exchange-advocates-callobama-fulfill-campaign-pledge)
Syringe access programs are the most effective, evidence-based intervention for people who use drugs,
notes HRC. By intervening in the transmission of HIV and Hep C infection through outreach, groups working
on syringe exchange also are better able to engage the population of drug users who need other forms of help, including
programs aimed at recovery.
The efficacy of needle exchange programs has been proven in numerous rigorous studies. The Harm Reduction Coalition
states that:
"Seven federally funded research studies, and [a wealth of other scientific evidence] confirm that syringe access programs
are a valuable resource to prevent the spread of HIV, hepatitis C and other blood-borne diseases. Across the nation, people
who inject drugs have reversed the course of the AIDS epidemic by using sterile syringes and harm reduction practices."
Both AIDS-related illnesses and hepatitis C infections result in huge social and economic costs each
year. In an article published in 2000 in the American Journal of Public Health, researchers John B. Wong, Geraldine
McQuillan and their colleagues write:
In the United States, chronic HCV infection accounts for 8000 to 10000 related deaths annually. It has
become the leading cause of liver transplantation, accounting for 30% of all liver transplants. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) conservatively estimates expenditures devoted to HCV to be more than $600
million annually.
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
4
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
5
1AC
And HCV will kill 30,000 people annually by the year 2010
Candelaria, executive director National Hep C Institutte, November 20 06
(Kitty Candelaria
Executive Director
dc.com/cdc/GAO/FromHCVActivists.doc)
National
Hepatitis
C
Institute
November
2006
http://www.march-on-
Still today, 80% of infected citizens do not know they have [HCV] the virus.[9] Further government testimony
revealed 1 in 10 military retirees and veterans have this virus.[10] In spite of that, neither the CDC nor Veterans Affairs
has a comprehensible educational campaign underway to alert veterans who do not utilize the VA health system of their
risk and need to be tested.
Martin Friede, Ph.D., World Health Organization sworn testimony during the 2005 FDA General Hospital and Personal
Use Devices Panel, testified that mass injecting campaigns with military style needleless jet injectors are a significant risk
for transmission of Hepatitis. Latest research shows all four of the mass injectors used until 1999, tested positive for
contamination and had capability to transmit blood borne pathogens.[11] This explains why military and their families are
infected 2 to 1 over the general public.
Traced back to 1942, the HCV virus infected 78% of soldiers through blood-based vaccination for yellow fever, as
confirmed by NIH scientists.[12] In 1988, there were 242,000 HCV infections reported annually among the general public.
These high figures continued throughout the 1960's, 70's and 80's. In 1989, the new, yearly infections decreased 80% after
mandatory heating/washing of blood products and the "slow to come" enforcement of standard procedures.[13]
The National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc. (NACHC) points out approximately 30,000
cases of acute hepatitis C each year and near 85% become chronically infected. The CDC estimates
that the number of deaths from end-stage liver disease will reach 30,000 to 40,000 annually by the year
2010.[14] Sadly, 26,000 people will die this year because of HCV. To present a clearer picture, each hour of
every day, 3 people will die, and 2 will have a military background, according to congressional testimony from
Veterans Affairs and federal institutions such as NIH.
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
5
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
6
1AC
Contention Two is Inherency
Needle exchange programs are held back by the lack of federal funding
Kaiser Network , an online public health news resource, June 19 20 07
(Kaiser Network on the opinion piece by Steve Chapman, a member of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board, in the Chicago Tribune
June 19 2007 http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=45664)
Although the federal government "spends some $15 billion a year on health care and financial assistance for
AIDS patients," it "refuses to lay out one thin dime for" needle-exchange programs, Chapman writes. He
adds that although there are studies that "fail to vindicate" the programs, they are "rare and unrepresentative." In addition,
the "strong consensus" among experts is that exchange programs have "proven their value beyond dispute." Funding
bans on needle-exchange programs are "not the only impediment," according to Chapman. Scott Burris, a law
professor at Temple University, says that 23 states have laws that deter or prohibit pharmacies from selling
syringes without a prescription, Chapman writes. Some district HIV/AIDS advocates say the city is "guilty of the
same mistake," Chapman adds. While the district is "asking for help from Congress on needle exchange, it could help itself
by deregulating" over-the-counter sales of clean needles, according to Chapman. " Restrictions on the sale and
possession of injecting equipment, like the funding bans, make it harder for drug users to take basic
self-preservation measures," Chapman writes, concluding, " If you like throwing away money, preventing
addicts from getting access to sterile syringes is an excellent strategy. If you like squandering lives, it's
even better" (Chicago Tribune, 6/17).
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
6
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
7
1AC
Thus the plan: The United States federal government should and fully fund and enforce a comprehensive
needle exchange program for persons living in poverty in the United States. We reserve the right to
clarify.
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
7
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
8
1AC
Contention Three is Solvency
Needle exchange programs have been proven to prevent infection and continued drug use
CDC, Center for Disease Control, December 2005
(CDC, Center for Disease Control, “Syringe
http://www.cdc.gov/idu/facts/aed_idu_syr.pdf)
Exchange
Programs”
Report
to
Congress,
December
2005
To succeed in effectively reducing the transmission of HIV and other blood-borne infections, programs must
consider a comprehensive approach to working with IDUs. Such an approach incorporates a range of pragmatic
strategies that address both drug use and sexual risk behaviors. One of the most important of these strategies is
ensuring that IDUs who cannot or will not stop injecting drugs have access to sterile syringes. (See the
related fact sheet Access to Sterile Syringes.) This strategy supports the "one-time-only use of sterile syringes"
recommendation of several institutions and governmental bodies, including the U.S. Public Health Service.(4) What Are
Syringe Exchange Programs? It is estimated that an individual IDU injects about 1,000 times a year.(5) This adds up to
millions of injections, creating an enormous need for reliable sources of sterile syringes. Syringe exchange programs
(SEPs) provide a way for those IDUs who continue to inject to safely dispose of used syringes and to
obtain sterile syringes at no cost. (See the related fact sheets Syringe Disposal and Pharmacy Sales of Sterile
Syringes.) The first organized SEPs in the U.S. were established in the late 1980s in Tacoma, Washington; Portland,
Oregon; San Francisco; and New York City. By 2002, there were 184 programs in more than 36 states, Indian Lands and
Puerto Rico. These programs exchanged more than 24 million syringes.(6) In addition to exchanging syringes,
many SEPs provide a range of related prevention and care services that are vital to helping IDUs
reduce their risks of acquiring and transmitting blood-borne viruses as well as maintain and improve
their overall health. These services may include: • HIV/AIDS education and counseling; • condom distribution to
prevent sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs); • referrals to substance abuse
treatment and other medical and social services; • distribution of alcohol swabs to help prevent abscesses and
other bacterial infections; • on-site HIV testing and counseling and crisis intervention; • screening for tuberculosis (TB),
hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and other infections; and • primary medical services. SEPs operate in a variety of settings,
including storefronts, vans, sidewalk tables, health clinics, and places where IDUs gather. They vary in their hours of
operation, with some open for 2-hour street-based sessions several times a week, and others open continuously. They also
vary in the number of syringes allowed for exchange. Many also conduct outreach efforts in the neighborhoods where IDUs
live.(7) What Is the Public Health Impact of SEPs? SEPs have been shown to be an effective way to link some
hard-to-reach IDUs with important public health services, including TB and STD screening and treatment.
Through their referrals to substance abuse treatment, SEPs can help IDUs stop using drugs .(8) Studies
also show that SEPs do not encourage drug use among SEP participants or the recruitment of first-time
drug users. In addition, a number of studies have shown that IDUs will use sterile syringes if they can obtain
them.(9) SEPs provide IDUs with an opportunity to use sterile syringes and share less often.(10) The results of this
research, and the clear dangers of syringe sharing, led the National Institutes of Health Consensus Panel on HIV Prevention
to stated that:(11) "An impressive body of evidence suggests powerful effects from needle exchange
programs....Studies show reduction in risk behavior as high as 80%, with estimates of a 30% or greater
reduction of HIV in IDUs." Economic studies have concluded that SEPs are also cost effective. At an average cost of
$0.97 per syringe distributed, SEPs can save money in all IDU populations where the annual HIV seroincidence exceeds
2.1 per 100 person years.(12) The cost per HIV infection prevented by SEPs has been calculated at $4,000 to $12,000,
considerably less than the estimated $190,000 medical costs of treating a person infected with HIV.(13)
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
8
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
9
1AC
Needle exchange programs solve the spread of HIV.
Jarlais 2000, PhD Medicine[Don C. Des Jarlais, PhD September 2000, Vol. 90, No. 9 “Research, Politics, and Needle Exchange”
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/90/9/1392.pdf]
the positive effects of needle programs in areas where HIV
prevention among injection drug users has been very successful. There are numerous cities and entire countries
(e.g., England5 and Australia6) where HIV prevalence has remained below 5% and HIV incidence has
remained at 1 per 100 person-years at risk or less. In all of these areas, ready availability of “guaranteed
sterile” injection equipment appears to be a necessary component of successful HIV prevention.
Moss also does not consider the evidence for
(“Guaranteed sterile” refers to syringes that have been obtained directly from a completely reliable source, such as a needle
exchange or a pharmacy. “Ready availability” of sterile injection equipment has not yet been defined quantitatively, but it
must be assessed in terms of injection drug users having sterile syringes available at the time of injection.) Needle
exchange and pharmacy sales of sterile injection equipment can be considered complementary methods
of providing ready access to sterile injection equipment. Providing ready access to sterile injection
equipment should be viewed as a population level intervention. The intervention should be used by the “highrisk” groups of injection drug users and should lead to large reductions in their injection risk behaviors. These
reductions in risk behaviors should then lead to a (partial) herd immunity effect in the population,
where injection drug users who are not directly using needle exchanges or directly purchasing from
pharmacies are also protected against HIV infection. Thus, in areas where needle exchange or pharmacy sales
have been implemented on a public health scale, the rates of new HIV infections should be low among both injection drug
users who are directly participating in the interventions and those who are not directly participating in the interventions.
The evidence for the success of “ready availability” programs is best seen in the consistency of the data across different
levels of analysis—the microbial, the behavioral, and the epidemiologic. At the microbial level, syringes obtained from
pharmacies and from needle exchanges do not contain HIV. At the behavioral level, large numbers of injection drug users
obtain injection equipment from these sources and reduce their injection risk behaviors. At the epidemiologic level, both
HIV prevalence and incidence remain low.
Needle exchange programs are able to form relationships with drug users to encourage drug treatment
AA Council, Subcommittee on Harm Reduction, 1996 (AIDS Advisory Council the New York State Subcommittee on Harm
Reduction 1996 http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/aids/workgroups/aac/docs/needleexchangeprograms.pdf)
In addition, harm reduction programs offering needle exchange serve as a bridge to drug treatment.
Average monthly New York State enrollment in methadone and drug-free treatment programs in 1994 was under 54,000,
28 with programs functioning above 90% capacity. The number of drug treatment slots in the state has not changed
significantly in the past 20 years. Expansion of drug treatment capability is critical to any strategy aimed at
reducing both HIV infection and the health and social costs of injecting drug use independent of HIV. Although
waiting lists for drug treatment are often still long, many drug users are not willing to enter drug treatment
programs and many others relapse after treatment. Consistent access to sterile needles and syringes is a
public health intervention that can substantially reduce HIV risk regardless of drug treatment
availability or effectiveness. Recognizing the already costly and tragic consequences of high HIV
infection rates among injecting drug users, [and] the inadequacy of existing drug treatment facilities, and the
reality of some degree of continuing drug abuse regardless of treatment availability, public and professional support
has been building for needle deregulation and syringe exchange as HIV prevention measures.
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
9
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
10
1AC
Needle exchange programs have tremendous cost-saving capabilities
Gafni et. al, ’97 (August, PhD from McMaster University, Canadian Journal of Public Health)
our analysis we reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of NEPs and applied our findings to the situation in
Hamilton in order to determine whether the program represents an efficient use of resources. We estimate that a small,
inexpensive program such as the Van Needle Exchange Program can result in direct cost savings to a publicly
funded health care system of $1.3 million over 5 years, based on 24 cases of HIV infection prevented. In our baseline
calculation, for which we used highly conservative estimates of program coverage and effectiveness, the ratio of cost
savings to costs was 4:1. In the other calculations, this ratio was even higher. The costs of HIV-related
illness are likely even higher than the valuation we applied, because of the recent addition to treatment therapies
In
of 3TC and protease inhibitors. This will likely increase drug costs, although it may possibly reduce the number of hospital
admissions, at least in the short term. The financial costs and benefits of new treatment advances should be included in
future valuations. Not included in our estimates were the indirect costs of illness such as the loss of
human capital: that is, the future economic burden to society of lost productivity because of premature
death. Hanvelt and associates33 estimated the present value of projected future earnings, based on potential years
of life lost, for Canadian men who died of AIDS between 1987 and 1991 to be $40 billion (1990 US dollars).
And federal action is key due to federal paraphernalia laws and federal bans on needle exchange
Knol.com, online encyclopedia, July 28 2008
(Knol.com, an online encyclopedia resource, written by Lina “Legal Issues Surrounding Syringe Exchange Programs” July 28 2008
http://knol.google.com/k/lina/legal-issues-surrounding-syringe/18lnh961rb830/6#)
Once the arguments against syringe exchange programs are refuted, what remains behind the laws and policies
that persecute intravenous drug users and those who try to provide them with services is the powerful, though
unacknowledged, belief that those who use drugs are expendable, and that providing them with services is a
futile endeavor.
This attitude is clearly displayed in the United States' failure to federally fund syringe exchange
programs. Under the terms of Public Law 105-78, federal funds to support syringe exchange programs were dependent on
a determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that such programs reduce the transmissions of HIV and do
not encourage the use of illegal drugs.17 In April 1998, the Secretary of Health and Human Services made that
determination, but the restriction on federal funding was never lifted.
In the United States, 48 states and the District of Columbia have laws that restrict the possession or
distribution of "drug paraphernalia," which includes syringes for injection drug use.18 Moreover, syringe
exchange programs are also subject to federal laws that prohibit the transportation and importation of
drug paraphernalia. Many states also have laws that require a prescription to possess a syringe. In fact, some states such
as Arkansas have laws on the books that go so far as to hold needle exchanges responsible for any crimes committed by, or
treatment required by, their clients.
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
10
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
11
We end our affirmative with Contention Four: Quality Control
In every debate round Josh and I have ever been in and, very probably, every round you have ever heard, we
discover that every plan, no matter how modest the objective or noble the goal, will inevitably end in extinction.
Thus Josh and I, placing a high value on the simple truth and inherent educational value of this activity, offer
the following framework:
First is the interpretation: As policymakers the judges should evaluate only what is in the realm of probable not
what is possible, because as we all know, anything is possible. Professor Nicholas Rescher explains in his 1983
book that:
Nicholas Rescher, University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy, “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk
Evaluation and Management” 1983
A probability is a number between zero and one. Now numbers between zero and one can get to be very small indeed: As N
gets bigger, 1/N will grow very, very small. What, then, is one to do about extremely small probabilities in the rational
management of risks? On this issue there is a systemic disagreement between probabilists working in mathematics or
natural science and decision theorists who work on issues relating to human affairs. The former take the line that small
numbers are small numbers and must be taken into account as such. The latter tend to take the view that small
probabilities represent extremely remote prospects and can be written off. (De minimis non curat lex, as the
old precept has it: there is no need to bother with trifles.) When something is about as probable as it is that a
thousand fair dice when tossed a thousand times will all come up sixes, then, so it is held, we can pretty well forget about it
as worthy of concern.
The "worst possible case fixation" is one of the most damaging modes of unrealism in deliberations about
risk in real-life situations. Preoccupation about what might happen "if worst comes to worst" is
counterproductive whenever we proceed without recognizing that, often as not, these worst possible outcomes
are wildly improbable (and sometimes do not deserve to be viewed as real possibilities at all). The crux in
risk deliberations is not the issue of loss "if worst comes to worst" but the potential acceptability of this prospect within the
wider framework of the risk situation, where we may well be prepared "to take our chances," considering the possible
advantages that beckon along this route. The worst threat is certainly something to be borne in mind and taken into account,
but it is emphatically not a satisfactory index of the overall seriousness or gravity of a situation of hazard.
Second are the standards for evaluating argumentation: All arguments should be:
A. Specific to the policy at hand, in this case, federal funding for needle exchange programs
B. Predictive of the future change brought about by the implementation of that specific policy
C. Relevant to the current political, economic, and social context of the specific scenario being presented
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
11
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
12
Third: Why this matters
A. Stop conjuring bogeymen – failing to adhere to our standards creates policies based on fear rather than
reason. Council on Foreign Relations fellow Jessica Stern writes in her 1999 book that:
Jessica Stern, Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former National Security Council Member “The Ultimate Terrorists”
1999 http://www.hup.harvard.edu/features/steult/excerpt.html
Poisons have always been seen as unacceptably cruel. Livy called poisonings of enemies "secret crimes." Cicero referred to
poisoning as "an atrocity." But why do poisons evoke such dread? This question has long puzzled political scientists and
historians. One answer is that people's perceptions of risk often do not match reality: that what we dread most
is often not what actually threatens us most.
When you got up this morning, you were exposed to serious risks at nearly every stage of your progression
from bed to the office. Even lying in bed exposed you to serious hazards: 1 in 400 Americans is injured
each year while doing nothing but lying in bed or sitting in a chair--because the headboard collapses, the
frame gives way, or another such failure occurs. Your risk of suffering a lethal accident in your bathtub or shower was one
in a million.
Your breakfast increased your risk of cancer, heart attack, obesity, or malnutrition, depending on what you ate. Although
both margarine and butter appear to contribute to heart disease, a new theory suggests that low-fat diets make you fat. If
you breakfasted on grains (even organic ones), you exposed yourself to dangerous toxins: plants produce their own natural
pesticides to fight off fungi and herbivores, and many of these are more harmful than synthetic pesticide residues. Your
cereal with milk may have been contaminated by mold toxins, including the deadly aflatoxin found in peanuts, corn, and
milk. And your eggs may have contained benzene, another known carcinogen. Your cup of coffee included twentysix compounds known to be mutagenic: if coffee were synthesized in the laboratory, the FDA would
probably ban it as a cancer-causing substance.
Stern Continues…
Most people are more worried about the risks of nuclear power plants than the risks of driving to work, and more alarmed
by the prospect of terrorists with chemical weapons than by swimming in a pool. Experts tend to focus on
probabilities and outcomes, but public perception of risk seems to depend on other variables: there is little
correlation between objective risk and public dread. Examining possible reasons for this discrepancy will help us
understand why the thought of terrorists with access to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons fills us with dread.
Stern Continues…
People tend to exaggerate the likelihood of events that are easy to imagine or recall. Disasters and
catastrophes stay disproportionately rooted in the public consciousness, and evoke disproportionate
fear. A picture of a mushroom cloud probably stays long in viewers' consciousness as an image of fear.
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
12
Needle Exchange AFF
Dartmouth 2K9
13
B. It’s time to kill the bogeyman – a failure to do so creates decisional paralysis Rescher continues…
Nicholas Rescher, University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy, “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk
Evaluation and Management” 1983
The stakes are high, the potential benefits enormous. (And so are the costs - for instance cancer research and, in particular,
the multi-million dollar gamble on interferon.) But there is no turning back the clock. The processes at issue are
irreversible. Only through the shrewd deployment of science and technology can we resolve the problems that science and
technology themselves have brought upon us. America seems to have backed off from its traditional entrepreneurial spirit
and become a risk-aversive, slow investing economy whose (real-resource) support for technological and scientific
innovation has been declining for some time. In our yearning for the risk-free society we may well create a
social system that makes risk-taking innovation next to impossible. The critical thing is to have a policy that
strikes a proper balance between malfunctions and missed opportunities - a balance whose "propriety" must be geared to a
realistic appraisal of the hazards and opportunities at issue. Man is a creature [We are] condemned to live in a twilight zone
of risk and opportunity. And so we are led back to Aaron Wildavski's thesis that flight from risk is the greatest risk
of all, "because a total avoidance of risks means that society will become paralyzed, depleting its
resources in preventive action, and denying future generations opportunities and technologies needed for
improving the quality of life. By all means let us calculate our risks with painstaking care, and by all means let us
manage them with prudent conservatism. But in life as in warfare there is truth in H. H. Frost's maxim that "every mistake
in war is excusable except inactivity and refusal to take risks" (though, obviously, it is needful to discriminate between a
good risk and a bad one). The price of absolute security is absolute stultification.
C. Fairness – a failure to use our standards allows logical leaps using bad links all converging at the altar
of…extinction
D. Education – by adhering to this high standard of argumentation, we elevate the educational value of all
arguments allowing for the most real world appraisal of actions
Finally is the fact that we meet this reasonable burden. We can only ask and hope that you hold our opponents
to the same. We have no illusions that the adoption of plan will yield rediscovery of the Garden of Eden or the
establishment of world peace until the end of time. At the same time, please do not be captive to the delusion
that funding needle exchange centers would unleash the apocalypse.
Last printed 3/14/2016 4:44:00 AM
13