Needle Exchange and Harm Reduction

Needle exchange programmes are one of the main harm reduction measures that aim to curb the spread of blood-borne viruses such as HIV and Hepatitis C among injecting drug users (IDUs). With an estimated 1 in 5 injecting drug users worldwide infected with HIV and 30 percent of HIV infections outside sub-Saharan Africa resulting from injecting drug use, such programmes are key to bringing the global epidemic under control.1 2

Harm reduction programmes aim to reduce the negative consequences of drug use, by reducing the harm self-inflicted by the user through unsafe practices and the harm inflicted upon society.3 The provision of needle exchanges and other harm reduction measures, however, is generally poor, and opposition to them is impairing the fight against HIV.

back to top Needle exchange and HIV

Advocates of harm reduction argue that HIV transmission through blood can be effectively averted through needle exchanges as they empower IDUs to protect themselves and others from HIV.4 Studies have found that through offering an accessible alternative to needle sharing, HIV transmission within IDU communities can be brought under control.5 6 However, this form of harm reduction can be controversial and the scale of implementation varies between countries.

How does a needle exchange operate?

Needle exchange schemes provide access to sterile syringes and other injecting equipment such as swabs and sterile water to reduce the risk of IDUs coming into contact with other users' blood. Needle exchange programmes that offer safe syringe access may be run by NGOs, hospitals or medical facilities, and local or national governments. Needles may be provided at drop-in centres, outreach points or from vans that service different points within a city or area. In some places, vending machines are used to distribute needles, functioning as a 24-hour service when other sites are shut.

You need to install Adobe Flash player to view AVERT's videos. Click on the logo below to install Flash player.

A video about a harm reduction facility in America.

Sometimes a needle exchange may only distribute the same number of syringes that they receive from a user, whereas others may require a lower return rate or not require any return at all. Some needle exchange programmes may provide a high number of sterile syringes to a single user so they in turn can distribute them among IDU populations not accessing such programmes.7

As well as providing clean needles, a needle exchange scheme can also act as a gateway through which users learn about safe injection practices and equipment disposal, safer sex education, access to other prevention services such as substitution therapy, and referral to treatment. The World Health Organisation says that without such complementary measures, needle exchange programmes will not control HIV infection among injecting drug users.8

The UK’s medical advisory body recommends that needles are provided in different sizes, and are distributed in a quantity that meets need rather than being limited arbitrarily.9

Where do needle exchanges exist?

Many countries that report injecting drug use and HIV among their injecting populations do not have needle/syringe exchanges.10 Globally, only 82 countries have needle exchange programmes.11 Moreover, it is evident that although countries report having NSP sites, injecting drug users are still not accessing enough needles/syringes. For example, in Germany there are 250 needle/syringe exchanges, yet injecting drug users only receive an average of 2 needles/syringes each, per year. It is recommended that in order for needle exchanges to prevent HIV transmission and to make an impact on the HIV epidemic a distribution rate of 200 needle/syringes per IDU, per year is needed.12 13 So far this target has only been met by three low- and middle-income countries - Bangladesh, India and Slovakia.14

Low numbers of NSP sites and low distribution rates can be due to a variety of reasons; for example, the lack of resources, public and/or political opposition to harm reduction, as well as laws which criminalise harm reduction.15

A mobile needle exchange in Berkeley, California A mobile needle exchange in Berkeley, California

Overall, Western European countries and Australia are the leaders in harm reduction, and some of the highest distribution levels in the world are among these countries. In 2009, Australia distributed an average of 213 needles/syringes per IDU, per year.16 However, many countries are failing to deliver an adequate harm reduction service.

As of March 2009, only 184 needle exchange programmes existed in 36 US states, plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico.17 For over two decades, the US government forbade funding for such services, but in 2009 the federal funding ban was lifted. This should lead to needle exchange services becoming far more widespread throughout the United States of America. Currently, the needle/syringe rate is 22 per IDU, per year - far below the recommended rate and one of the lowest in the world.18

Throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia, a promising scale up of harm reduction services has occurred in recent years in many countries, notably Ukraine (which increased the number of NSPs by nearly a thousand to 1,323 between 2008 and 2010).19 A study focusing on 14 European countries, including Estonia, Slovakia and Belgium, found a 33 percent increase in the number of syringes distributed by needle and syringe programmes between 2003 and 2007.20 However, distribution levels remain low across this region.

Despite an average of one in six IDUs in Asia living with HIV,21 most Asian countries have a long way to go before the needle exchange services which exist make an impact on their HIV epidemics. Whilst some countries have many NSPs, in several cases they are only reaching a very low percentage of the country’s injecting drug users, who receive very few clean needles/syringes per year.22 Despite increasing the number of NSPs from 92 in 2006 to 901 in 2010, syringe distribution in China remains very low, at an average of 32 needles/ syringes per IDU, per year.23 24

Apart from a few notable exceptions needle exchanges across Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East are largely non-existent or where they exist inadequate. Brazil, Mauritius and Iran are some of the countries which have the most advanced NSPs throughout these regions, although the number of syringes they distribute is low.25

Evidence of the effectiveness of needle exchanges

There is clear evidence that needle exchange programmes have reduced HIV transmission rates among injecting drug users in areas where they have been established. One of the most definitive studies of needle exchange programmes was carried out in 1997, focusing on 81 cities worldwide. It found that HIV infection rates increased by 5.9 percent per year in the 52 cities without needle exchange programmes, and decreased by 5.8 percent per year in the 29 cities that did provide them.26

“While NSPs (needle and syringe programmes) can help reduce the harm caused to people who inject drugs, the consequent reduction in the prevalence of blood-borne viruses benefits wider society.”27

England and Wales National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

A study of HIV among IDUs in New York between 1990 and 2001, found that HIV prevalence fell from 54 percent to 13 percent following the introduction of needle exchange programmes.28

According to an Australian government study, investment in needle exchange programmes from 1991 to 2000 averted 25,000 HIV infections and 21,000 hepatitis C infections.29 A later Australian study examining the impact of needle exchanges in the following decade revealed they had prevented 32,000 HIV infections and almost 100,000 hepatitis C infections. Furthermore, it is believed the needle exchanges led to healthcare cost savings of over AU$1 billon, equating to a five-fold return on investment for every dollar spent.30

The effectiveness of needle exchanges in preventing needle reuse and the potential transmission of HIV has been reflected in a Canadian report.31 The study found that between 2008 and 2009, needle sharing increased from 10 to 23 percent following the closure of Victoria's only fixed needle exchange. On the other hand needle sharing among those studied in Vancouver, which has a number of needle exchanges, remained at less than 11 percent.

The World Health Organization (WHO) released a report in 2004 that reviewed the effectiveness of needle exchange programmes in many countries, and examined whether they promoted or prolonged illicit drug use. The results produced convincing evidence that needle exchange programmes significantly reduce HIV infection, and no evidence that they encourage drug use.32

A case study: Needle exchanges in the United States of America

There has been a long-standing opposition to needle exchanges in the United States of America, with a ban on federal funding for them being in place for more than twenty years. This funding ban was overturned in 2009 but while in place denied needle exchanges a crucial source of funding. Unfortunately, the lifting of the ban was short lived, and in 2012, a ban on federal-funding for needle exchanges was reinstated. Needle exchange coverage is therefore very poor compared to many other countries of similar economic development.

When the ban was lifted in December 2009, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi labelled it "a big victory for science and for public health."33 One needle exchange advocate claimed:

"Hundreds of thousands of Americans will not get HIV/AIDS or hepatitis C, thanks to Congress repealing the federal syringe funding ban."34
Needle exchange supplies in Washington state, USA Needle exchange supplies in Washington state, USA

However, the repeal was not lifted without a fight, in an indication of how strong the opposition is to needle exchanges.

At one stage, the repeal contained a clause restricting federally-funded needle exchanges to locations at least 1,000 feet away from schools, parks, playgrounds, youth centres and similar areas where children congregate.35 This clause would have severely limited the areas where needle exchanges could operate, and underlined conservative opposition to them. Some needle exchange advocates used a map of Chicago to highlight the fact that the amendment would make nearly all parts of the city off limits, and that a city cemetery would be one of the few areas where a federally-funded needle exchange could operate.36

A similar restriction would have applied to all needle exchanges in the capital, Washington DC, whose spending is authorised separately from the rest of the country. The author of the DC amendment, Rep Jack Kingston, believed the mere presence of a needle exchange within proximity of a school would in some way encourage drug use:

“There’s a mixed signal when we're telling kids stay off drugs, but in some cases 200 feet away, we're allowing people to exchange needles.”37

In response to Rep Kingston's amendment, Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, said:

“It does not result in an increase in drug abuse, and it does decrease the incidence of HIV. The idea that kids are going to walk out of school and start using drugs because clean needles are available is ridiculous.”38

A Washington Post editorial was scathing of the Congressman's attempt to hamper needle exchange operations in the USA capital:

"In a city that is in the grips of a harrowing AIDS epidemic, Mr. Kingston's move was unconscionable."39

As USA specific research shows, needle and syringe exchanges are key to addressing HIV and AIDS sustainably in the United States of America. A USA-based study found that expanding syringe exchange programmes (SEPs) in the United States of America would avert hundreds of infections and save three times the amount of investment needed to implement the programmes. For example, 5 percent SEP coverage would require US$19 million in investment, but would save US$66 million in treatment costs, and prevent 169 infections.40 In light of such evidence, the failure of the United States of America government to invest in needle and syringe exchanges remains inconceivable.

back to top Other examples of harm reduction

Like needle exchanges, other harm reduction measures exist to minimise the harmful consequences associated with drug use. The provision of these programmes is often hindered by laws which prohibit carrying drug paraphernalia and the fear of discrimination brought by the association with such programmes.41

Maintenance therapy. Maintenance therapy, or opioid substitution treatment, involves the provision of drugs such as methadone or buprenorphine, in pill or liquid form, to drug users as a way of minimising risks associated with injecting. These programmes aim to curb needle sharing, the use of contaminated street drugs, overdoses, and crimes associated with funding drug addiction. Methadone or buprenorphine substitution therapy exists in just over 70 countries worldwide.42

Former injecting drug user takes methadone treatment at health centre Former injecting drug user takes methadone treatment

Drug substitution treatment has proven effective in rehabilitating and stabilising IDUs, and in reducing HIV infection rates.43 44 For example, researchers from the University of Philadelphia monitored 152 injecting users receiving methadone maintenance treatment and 103 injecting users on no treatment over a period of 18 months, all of whom were HIV negative at the beginning of the study. The results showed that over the 18 months, only 3.5 percent of those receiving methadone became infected with HIV, in contrast to 22 percent not on treatment.45

A report by WHO in March 2005 reviewed many global studies and concluded that substitution treatment is a ‘critical component’ of HIV prevention policy, significantly reducing opioid dependency and HIV infection rates.46 In addition, studies have also found a decline in crime rates and commercial sex work when IDUs no longer have to find ways to fund their expensive addictions.47 48

Several studies have shown that prescribing injectable opiates – including heroin – can help heroin addicts who have failed on traditional maintenance therapy. The Randomised Injectable Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT), which took place in three UK cities, targeted the 5 percent of addicts who were not benefiting from existing treatments and were continuing to inject street heroin despite receiving oral methadone. Individuals in all three groups – those receiving injectable heroin, injectable methadone, or oral methadone – decreased their consumption of street heroin, with the biggest decrease among those receiving injectable heroin. Programmes such as these would be beneficial for HIV prevention among ‘problem’ drug users as reducing their use of street heroin also reduces the likelihood of using contaminated needles. This was in addition to a substantial reduction in crime.49

The risk of HIV infection through the use of methamphetamine ('crystal meth') is high, yet substitution treatment for meth addiction does not currently exist. As well as the HIV risk associated with injecting meth, one effect of the drug is a high sex drive, which can lead to an increase in sexual partners and riskier sexual behaviour. In the United States of America the use of meth by men who have sex with men (MSM) is 20 times higher than in the general population and is believed to be a major cause of new HIV infections among MSM.50 If substitution treatment was made available to meth users the risks associated with this drug could be substantially reduced.51

Protesting against the closing of a safe injection site in Vancouver outside the 2006 International AIDS Conference in Toronto Protest against safe injection site closure

Despite evidence of the effectiveness and need for opioid substitution therapy 88 countries and territories which report injecting drug use do not have opioid substitution therapy in place, including 50 countries which also report HIV among injecting drug users.52

Safer injection facilities (SIFs). These provide an environment where drug users can inject in a safer manner and under medical supervision. Like needle exchange programmes they may offer drug education and referral for treatment. They also aim to reduce public disorder issues and risks associated with injection drug use such as large congregations of injectors in public places and litter, particularly syringes. Such facilities exist in only eight countries including Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, Australia and Canada.53

After Frankfurt introduced SIFs in the early 1990s, cases of HIV among IDUs declined, as did overdose cases in the city which dropped dramatically from 147 in 1991 to 22 in 1997.54 55 This decline can be attributed to the city’s overall harm reduction approach, though overdose cases dropped steeply in the year following the introduction of SIFs.56 Furthermore, IDUs who overdose in safer injection facilities are 10 times less likely to require hospitalisation.57 Research of Vancouver's Insite, North America’s first SIF, found that there was no association between the facility and the rate of drug trafficking or other crimes linked to drug use.58 59 Moreover, in the two year period following the opening of Insite, the fatal overdose rate declined by 35 percent in the surrounding area.60

The Insite facility had faced pressure by Canada’s Conservative government, and was threatened with closure under drug trafficking and possession laws. However, a 2008 ruling allowed it to remain open.61 In the judge’s opinion, Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act violated individuals' constitutional rights:

“It denies the addict access to a health care facility where the risk of morbidity associated with infectious disease is diminished, if not eliminated… While there is nothing to be said in favour of the injection of controlled substances that leads to addiction, there is much to be said against denying addicts health care services that will ameliorate the effects of their condition.”62

Safer crack smoking resources. Like needle exchange programmes they distribute clean crack-smoking implements in order to curb the risks associated with sharing of equipment.

These have not been implemented on as wide a scale as needle exchange programmes but have shown to be effective in cutting behaviours associated with HIV transmission. An Ottowan needle exchange that also began providing sterile crack-smoking equipment, such as glass stems and rubber mouthpieces, found the proportion of participants sharing implements every time decreased from 37 percent six months prior to implementation, to 12 percent 6 months after.63

Pharmacy sale of syringes. Non-prescription over-the-counter sale of syringes is another way to allow drug users access to sterile needles. In the US, some states have amended drug paraphernalia laws to exclude syringes. Pharmacies that provide clean injecting equipment may also offer similar secondary services as needle exchanges such as providing information and referrals. In Australia, pharmacy-based needle and syringe programmes account for 15% of all syringes used for injecting drugs.64

An examination of the 96 largest metropolitan areas in the United States of America found both the proportion of IDUs living with, and becoming infected with, HIV, was lower in the 60 areas that permitted the purchase of syringes without prescription compared to the 36 metropolitan areas that did not allow this.65

Supplying tin foil to deter injecting. One method of helping habitual drug users avoid the harms of injecting is supplying tin foil to encourage smoking of drugs instead. Heroin can be boiled on a piece of foil and then its vapours inhaled. Some countries such as Holland and Spain supply foil through their needle exchanges. In England, however, it is illegal to do so, though it is believed that around 100 of the known 1300 needle exchanges break the law and supply foil.66 An Early Day Motion in the British Parliament aims to overturn section 9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act which restricts the supply of tin foil.67 68

Again, while no one would claim that smoking heroin is a healthy activity, for people who are addicted to the drug and normally inject, smoking can be a preferable option:

"Smoking drugs is by no means safe, but is a great deal safer than injecting drugs – which is particularly associated with overdose, blood-borne viruses, drug-related litter, greater dependency, abscesses and vein damage." - Jamie Bridge, International Harm Reduction Association69

Safe needle disposal. Various disposal methods exist so contaminated needles are unable to injure another person. These include, drop-off points located in buildings such as police departments, clinics, community organisations or medical waste facilities; mail-back programmes where used needles are sent in a special container to a collection site; residential pick-up services; and in-home disposal services that safely destroy the needle.70 Programmes that offer safer syringe disposal may well be part of a general needle exchange service.

Disposing of a needle in a sharps box Disposing of a needle in a sharps box

Community-based outreach programmes. These work with injecting drug users to distribute clean equipment, promote condom use and provide information about prevention and rehabilitation. Injecting communities are often secretive and distrustful of authorities. Outreach programmes focus on accessing these hidden groups, opening an important route to providing support. In some cases, former IDUs are recruited and trained as peer-outreach workers. Some IDUs are likely to be involved in sex work to fund their expensive addiction, so provision of sexual health information and condom promotion play key roles in preventing HIV transmission through other routes. Involving communities in the development of harm reduction programmes can help to ensure that policies around harm reduction are suitable for local context and meet the needs of IDUs.71

A report from the WHO reviewed data from over 40 studies on outreach prevention methods and concluded that these significantly reduce high-risk behaviour in IDUs and are successful in directing them to rehabilitation services.72

In 2006, UNAIDS published a report that reviewed several ‘high coverage’ prevention programmes (50 percent of local IDU population accessing more than one prevention initiative) in transitional and developing countries. The inclusion of harm reduction measures was one of the key factors in achieving high coverage.73

A case study: Harm reduction in Russia

Given that the Russian AIDS epidemic is being driven by injecting drug use, harm reduction measures like needle exchanges and substitution therapy are crucial. However, HIV prevention for drug users is largely inaccessible with opioid substitution therapy being illegal and needle exchange coverage hugely inadequate.74 It is estimated that in 2008 just 7 percent of Russian injecting drug users were accessing needle exchanges.75 This is reflected across the wider Eastern Europe and Central Asia region, which Russia dominates, and it is no coincidence that this is the only large part of the world where HIV prevalence is increasing.

Russia’s leading figures in psychiatry and addiction have rejected opioid substitution as an effective way of dealing with the harms of drug use. In an official memorandum they wrote:

“The effective way to solve the problem of drug addiction treatment is an intensive search for and introduction of new methods and means that focus on complete cessation of drugs use by patients with addiction, their socialization into a new life style free from drugs, but not on exchanging from one drug to another.”76

In 2009, Global Fund prevention programmes were almost cut after the organisation, under its strict guidelines, deemed the country too wealthy to continue to receive funding. The Russian government chose not to step in, instead saying it would focus on broader health promotion. Given Russia's stance, the Global Fund felt it had no option but to extend funding for prevention efforts directed at vulnerable groups until 2011.77 An editorial in The Lancet outlined the difficulties of providing prevention services for drug users and stressed the need for harm reduction initiatives in the country:

“In Russia, the opposition to harm reduction programmes has meant that needle exchange is mostly run by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The government has repeatedly refused to allow methadone substitution to be offered to people who inject drug, despite many international calls to support this evidence-based intervention…We urge the Russian Government to continue to fund effective and science-driven harm reduction programmes, in addition to its general health promotion efforts.”78

Read more about drug use and HIV prevention in Russia.

back to top The controversy of harm reduction

Harm reduction measures are supported and implemented by NGOs, health authorities, governments and multilateral organisations worldwide. However, such methods for dealing with the harms of drugs have been surrounded by controversy since the mid 1980s when needle exchanges and substitution treatments were first introduced in Western Europe. Drugs policy is often discussed in a very moralistic way, with many politicians adopting stances that do not take into account scientific evidence. Because of the impact of drug abuse on society, and perhaps the mind-altering nature of drugs, legislators want to show they are "tough on drugs", even if their policies contribute to the damage they claim to be against.

Some countries have strategies that involve forcing drug users to abstain or have treatment. Currently there are up to several hundred thousand people who use drugs who are detained in order to undergo treatment, of whom very few have access to maintenance therapy.79 The WHO maintains that drug detention centres are not effective at preventing drug use and that they can undermine effective harm reduction programmes and increase HIV risk.80

Advocates of needle exchanges and other harm reduction measures point to the evidence that such programmes reduce the incidence of HIV infection and do not encourage drug use.81 Furthermore, they say having abstinence as the only goal worth pursuing is unrealistic, and as long as people continue to take drugs, they should be encouraged to do so in the least harmful way possible. It is argued that the benefits of harm reduction transcend beyond the drug user into society, not only by reducing death, crime and HIV infection but through supporting education.82 83 This is recognised by the England and Wales National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence who state that "While NSPs (needle and syringe programmes) can help reduce the harm caused to people who inject drugs, the consequent reduction in the prevalence of blood-borne viruses benefits wider society".84 Moreover, studies show that harm reduction measures can also result in financial savings, for example for every $1 spent on methadone treatment, at least $5 is saved through alleviating public spending in sectors such as healthcare or prisons.85 86

"Harm reduction recognises that containment and reduction of drug-related harms is a more feasible option than efforts to eliminate drug use entirely… [it] does not focus on abstinence: although harm reduction supports those who seek to moderate or reduce their drug use, it neither excludes nor presumes a treatment goal of abstinence.”UK Harm Reduction Alliance.87
Needle exchange services symbol UK needle exchange services symbol

The arguments against harm reduction range from moderate to extreme. Some believe that needle exchange services are a waste of money and only promote injecting drug use, when the message should be abstinence from drugs.88 Opioid substitution treatment is a difficult concept for many to accept; critics argue that this prolongs drug addiction or provides users with drugs to sell on the street to fund further drug use. Although outreach work is the most accepted form of harm reduction, some believe its activities, such as teaching safer injecting methods, is a waste of resources. There is also strong opposition to safe injection rooms and heroin prescription for problem IDUs, often the most contentious forms of harm reduction.

In 2004, Republican Congressman, Mark Souder, then chairman of the US Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, criticised harm reduction supporters:

"Advocates of this position hold that dangerous behaviors, such as drug abuse, should be accepted by society and those who choose such lifestyles - or become trapped in them - should be enabled to continue these behaviors in a less harmful manner."89

In response the president of the International Harm Reduction Association summarised the debate over needle exchange programmes and other harm reduction measures as one which “divides participants into those who base their judgements on data from those who base their judgements on other considerations than data”.90

The controversy surrounding harm reduction exists at the highest levels of global decision making. Harm reduction is supported by many United Nations bodies including the General Assembly, UNAIDS, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, and the World Health Organization. However, the 2009 Political Declaration of the UN Commission on Narcotics Drugs, which outlines international cooperation on drug strategy for the next ten years, does not refer to it at all.91 This omission was encouraged by several states including the United States of America and Russia as well as Sweden, Italy and Japan. Even the Vatican weighed into the debate, criticising harm reduction, to which one group in favour responded:

“By making a statement against harm reduction, the Vatican has indicated that its moral objection to drug use is more important than its commitment to the sanctity of life.”92

back to top The future of needle exchanges and harm reduction

It is also argued that countries must significantly scale up harm reduction services for IDUs if benefits are to be population-wide.93 However, despite notable progress by some countries to improve their harm reduction services, barriers remain, and the future of HIV prevention for injecting drug users in many countries remains uncertain.

Even in countries that have increased access to sterile needles and other harm reduction methods, progress is often insufficient, and in many parts of the world authorities refuse to implement or sufficiently support such programmes for political or moralistic reasons.94

In 2010 a report claimed that in low and middle income countries prevention of the HIV epidemic among injecting drug users is failing due to funding shortfalls for HIV-related harm reduction programmes.95 The report found spending in 2007 totalled $12.80 per injector, far less than the estimated average need of $256 per injector per year in 2010.96

While this situation exists, it seems inevitable that the spread of HIV among drug users will continue to outpace attempts to control it. As Michel Sidibé, Executive Director of UNAIDS identified:

"The vicious cycle of secrecy, social exclusion, drug use, criminalization and HIV spread must be broken."97
Nominet Winner 2012

References back to top

  1. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  2. International Harm Reduction Association (2010, 26th April) 'Media Release - Global Report: 3 cents a day is not enough to prevent injecting drug use fuelling HIV/AIDS epidemics in Eastern Europe and Asia'
  3. Harm Reduction Coalition (Accessed 2010, 16th April) 'Principles of Harm Reduction'
  4. UNAIDS (2010, 10th March) 'Call for urgent action to improve coverage of HIV services for injecting drug users'
  5. UNAIDS (2009, 20th April) 'International Harm Reduction conference opens in Bangkok'
  6. WHO (2004, 13th July) 'Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programming in reducing HIV/AIDS among IDUs'
  7. World Health Organisation (2004), ‘Policy Brief: Provision of Sterile Injecting Equipment to Reduce HIV Transmission’
  8. World Health Organization (2004), ‘Policy Brief: Provision of Sterile Injecting Equipment to Reduce HIV Transmission’
  9. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009, February), ‘Needle and syringe programmes: providing people who inject drugs with injecting equipment’
  10. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  11. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  12. WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF (2011) ‚'Global HIV/AIDS Response: Epidemic update and health sector progress towards Universal Access 2011'
  13. WHO/UNODC/UNAIDS (2008, January) 'Technical Guide For Countries To Set Targets For Universal Access To HIV Prevention, Treatment And Care For Injecting Drug Users (IDU's)'
  14. WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF (2011) ‚'Global HIV/AIDS Response: Epidemic update and health sector progress towards Universal Access 2011'
  15. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  16. Mathers, B et al. (2010, 1st March) 'HIV prevention, treatment and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage' The Lancet 375
  17. CDC (2010, 19th November) 'MMWR: Syringe Exchange Programs'
  18. Mathers, B (2010) ‘HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage' The Lancet 375
  19. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  20. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2010) 'Trends in injecting drug use in Europe'
  21. WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF (2011) ‚'Global HIV/AIDS Response: Epidemic update and health sector progress towards Universal Access 2011'
  22. Mathers, B et al. (2010, 1st March) 'HIV prevention, treatment and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage' The Lancet 375
  23. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  24. Mathers, B et al. (2010, 1st March) 'HIV prevention, treatment and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage'
  25. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  26. Hurley S.F., et al (1997, 21st June), ‘Effectiveness of needle-exchange programmes for prevention of HIV infection’, The Lancet; 349(9068)
  27. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009, February), ‘Needle and syringe programmes: Guidance'
  28. Jarlais D., et al (2005, 19th October), ‘Reductions in hepatitis C virus and HIV infections among injecting drug users in New York City, 1990 – 2001’, AIDS 2005 19(3)
  29. Australian National Council on Drugs (2006, 13th November), ‘Australia commemorates 20 years of needle syringe programs’
  30. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2009), 'Return on investment 2: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of needle and syringe programs in Australia 2009'
  31. Ivsins, A et al.'Drug Use Trends in Victoria and Vancouver, and changes in injection drug use after the closure of Victoria’s fixed site needle exchange' (CARBC Statistical Bulletin). Victoria, British Columbia: University of Victoria
  32. World Health Organisation (2004), ‘Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programming in reducing HIV/AIDS among injecting drug users’
  33. San Francisco Chronicle (2009, 18th December), 'U.S. repeals funding ban for needle exchanges'
  34. San Francisco Chronicle (2009, 18th December), 'U.S. repeals funding ban for needle exchanges'
  35. The Washington Post (2009, 25th July), ‘House Bill Lifts Ban On Needle Exchanges’
  36. StoptheDrugWar.org (2009, 10th October), '1000 feet from everywhere'
  37. NPR (2009, 10th October), ‘Needle exchanges face a fight in Congress’
  38. Michael Gerson, Washington Post (2009, 5th August), ‘Helping America's Least Wanted’
  39. The Washington Post (2009, 12th December), 'At Last, Power for D.C.'
  40. Nguyen, TQ et. al (2012) 'Increasing investment in syringe exchange is cost-saving HIV prevention: modeling hypothetical syringe coverage levels in the United States' XIX International AIDS Conference July 22-27 Washington DC USA, Oral Abstract MOAE0204
  41. UNAIDS (2009, 20th April) 'International Harm Reduction conference opens in Bangkok'
  42. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  43. Keen J., et al (2003, June), ‘Does methadone maintenance treatment based on the new national guidelines work in a primary care setting?’, British Journal of General Practice 53(491)
  44. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2010) 'Trends in injecting drug use in Europe'
  45. Metzger D.S., et al (1993, 6th September), ‘HIV seroconversion among intravenous drug users in and out-of-treatment: an 18-month prospective follow up’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 6(9)
  46. World Health Organization (2005, March), ‘Effectiveness of drug dependence treatment in preventing HIV among injecting drug users’
  47. Rothbard A., et al (1999, June), ‘Revisiting the effectiveness of methadone treatment on crime reductions in the 1990s’, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 16(4)
  48. Gossop M., et al (2005, 1st September), ‘Reductions in criminal convictions after addiction treatment: 5-year follow up’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 79(3)
  49. Action Against Addiction (2009, September), ‘Untreatable or just hard to treat?
  50. Das M et al (2010, 24th April) 'Feasibility and acceptability of a phase II randomized pharmacologic intervention for methamphetamine dependence in high-risk men who have sex with men', AIDS 24:7
  51. Das M et al (2010, 24th April) 'Feasibility and acceptability of a phase II randomized pharmacologic intervention for methamphetamine dependence in high-risk men who have sex with men', AIDS 24:7
  52. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  53. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  54. Marion Nickolai (1997, 12th August), ‘Evolution of Frankfurt’s approach to the drug problem’, Euro-Methwork Newsletter 12
  55. Thomas Kerr, (2000, November), ‘Safe Injection Facilities Proposal for a Vancouver Pilot Project’, Harm Reduction Action Society
  56. Thomas Kerr, (2000, November), ‘Safe Injection Facilities Proposal for a Vancouver Pilot Project’, Harm Reduction Action Society
  57. Böllinger L., Stöver H and Fietzek L, ‘Injection rooms: Places where intravenous drug use is tolerated’, cited in Broadhead R.S. et al (2002), ‘Safer injection facilities in North America: Their place in public policy and health initiatives’ [PDF]
  58. Wood et al (2006, 8th May), ‘Impact of a medically supervised safer injecting facility on drug dealing and other drug-related crime’, Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 1(13)
  59. The New York Times (2011, 7th February) 'An H.I.V Strategy Invites Addicts In'
  60. Marshall, Brandon D L. (2011, April) 'Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America's first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study' The Lancet 377(9775)
  61. Vancouver Sun (2008, 27th May), ‘Insite can remain open: Judge’
  62. The Honourable Mr. Justice Pitfield (2008), ‘Reasons for Judgement’
  63. Leonard L.E, et al (2006), 'I inject less as I have easier access to pipes: frequency of injecting declines, frequency of sharing crack-smoking materials declines as needle exchange distributes safer crack-smoking tools' XVI International AIDS Conference.
  64. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2009), 'Return on investment 2: evaluating the cost-effectiveness of needle and syringe programs in Australia 2009'
  65. Dr Friedman S. (2004, 12th May), letter to Elias A Zerhouni, MD, Director, National Institutes of Health
  66. The Observer (2009, 20th September), 'UK addicts may be given free foil for "safer" heroin smoking'
  67. Release website, 'Drug paraphernalia', accessed 6th November, 2009
  68. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (2010, 10th November) 'Consideration of the use of foil, as an intervention, to reduce the harms of injecting heroin'
  69. The Observer (2009, 20th September), 'UK addicts may be given free foil for "safer" heroin smoking'
  70. Coalition for Safe Community Needle Disposal, 'Types of sharps disposal program' Accessed 05/2011
  71. WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF (2011) ‚'Global HIV/AIDS Response: Epidemic update and health sector progress towards Universal Access 2011'
  72. World Health Organisation (2004), ‘Effectiveness of Community-Based Outreach in Preventing HIV/AIDS among Injecting Drug Users’
  73. UNAIDS (2006), ‘High Coverage Sites: HIV prevention among Injecting Drug Users in Transitional and Developing Countries’ [PDF]
  74. Human Rights Watch (2012, February) 'Russia: Government Shuts HIV-Prevention Group’s Website'
  75. Mathers, B et al. (2010, 1st March) 'HIV prevention, treatment and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage'
  76. In Elovich R. and Drucker E. (2008), ‘On drug treatment and social control: Russian narcology's great leap backwards’, Harm Reduction Journal 2008, 5:23
  77. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (2009, 13th November), 'Global Fund to provide $24 million of new funding to fight HIV/AIDS in Russia'
  78. The Lancet (2009, 10th October), ‘The future of harm reduction programmes in Russia’, 374(9697)
  79. WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF (2011) ‚'Global HIV/AIDS Response: Epidemic update and health sector progress towards Universal Access 2011'
  80. WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF (2011) ‚'Global HIV/AIDS Response: Epidemic update and health sector progress towards Universal Access 2011'
  81. UNAIDS (2010, 10th March) 'Pragmatism vs. Punishment: The case for harm reduction'
  82. BBC NEWS (2004, 8th April) 'I get my heroin on the NHS'
  83. The Scotsman (2010, 6th April) 'Methadone is key to effective drug treatment'
  84. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009, February), ‘Needle and syringe programmes: Guidance'
  85. Drug Policy Alliance (2010) 'Methadone Maintenance Treatment' Accessed 2010, 27th April
  86. The Scotsman (2010, 6th April) 'Methadone is key to effective drug treatment'
  87. UK Harm Reduction Alliance website, 'Harm reduction defined', accessed 22nd September 2008
  88. The Times (2010, 6th April) 'Drug experts back methadone treatment'
  89. Souder, Mark E (2004, 27th April), letter to Elias A Zerhouni, MD, Director, National Institutes of Health
  90. Dr Wodak, Alex (2004, April 28th), letter to Elias A Zerhouni, MD, Director, National Institutes of Health
  91. United Nations, ‘Political Declaration’
  92. The Guardian (2009, 27th February), ‘Vatican’s stance on UN drugs policy “risks lives”’
  93. The Lancet (2010, 20th March) 'HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage' 375 (9719)
  94. IHRA (2010) ‘Global State of Harm Reduction 2010’
  95. International Harm Reduction Association (2010, 26th April) 'Global Report: 3 cents a day is not enough to prevent injecting drug use fuelling HIV/AIDS epidemics in Eastern Europe and Asia'
  96. International Harm Reduction Association (2010, 26th April) 'Global Report: 3 cents a day is not enough to prevent injecting drug use fuelling HIV/AIDS epidemics in Eastern Europe and Asia'
  97. UNAIDS (2010, 10th March) 'Pragmatism vs. Punishment: The case for harm reduction'