Source: Bakersfield Californian Contact: September 1, 1997 1701 I Street,Bakersfield,CA,93302 (Fax 8053957499, print run 92,481) Editorial: Needle exchange funding beneficial If the Clinton administration does not lift a federal ban on funding of needle exchange programs on its own hook, Congress should move on legislation forcing it to do so. Needle exchange programs are designed to slow the spread of AIDS among intravenous drug abusers by dispensing free, sterile syringes for infected ones. Transmission of HIV the virus that causes AIDS by infected needles has long been one of the big risk factors for contracting AIDS, and is growing as a proportion of the epidemic's new population. The risk is acompound one. Shared infected needles transmit the virus directly. In addition, almost by definition intravenous drug abusers are both young and sexually active. Thus, they may contract the disease from thei rdrugtaking partners, then spread it to their sexual partners. If the risk is heightened, so would the benefit of ideas to reduce it. Another premise is that while intravenous drug abusers may be compelled by their addiction, many understand the risk of HIV infection and are willing to take steps to reduce it if the opportunity to do so is available and simple. Because a number of states including California ban needle exchange programs and because of longstanding political opposition, there has been an executive order banning federal funding for such programs. But growing experience with such programs from around the world and extensive epidemiological studies indicate the benefits. Support is growing accordingly. The proposal for funding would not force states to have such programs, it would simply ease the financial burden for those areas that wish to have them. But there is a secondary benefit. Federal law bans support for any program that could further an illegal activity. Ironically, one of the best run and effective needle exchange programs in the country is in San Francisco. Even though the activity is illegal in California, public and local government support for the program allows it to operate with tacit approval. There are activities associated with the program such as drug diversion counseling and instruction on needle emergency sterilization procedures which are perfectly legal and above board, but whose federal funding could be jeopardized by their close association with the needle exchange program. Easing of funding regulations relating to needle exchange programs would lessen the funding risk to such ancillary activities. (NOTE: For those who would like to contact their Congressman/woman about this issue, a House bill to lift a ban on funding needle exchanges has been introduced by Democrats Pelosi and Cummings. The bill number is H.R. 2212 and it has been referred to the Committee on Commerce.)