Obama Budget Bans Federal Funding For Needle Exchange, Breaking Campaign Pledge

President Obama's budget released Thursday takes a step backward from a controversial political position he had taken during the presidential campaign.

Obama, during the primary campaign, pledged his support of needle exchange programs to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS. When he took over the White House, the administration website affirmed: "The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users."

Yet Obama's budget includes language that bans spending federal money on needle-exchange programs.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the administration isn't yet ready to lift the ban - but Obama still supports needle exchange.

"We have not removed the ban in our budget proposal because we want to work with Congress and the American public to build support for this change," he said. "We are committed to doing this as part of a National HIV/AIDS strategy and are confident that we can build support for these scientifically-based programs."

He added, "In recent years, Washington has used the budget process to litigate divisive issues and score political points. This practice, which both sides have engaged in, has limited our ability to tackle our major economic challenges. President Obama decided not to play politics as usual with this budget and while he remains committed to supporting the program he wants to address that through the normal legislative process."

The White House website no longer features the president's support of the program, however. See the before and after here.

"It's hard to imagine how removing mention of support for a proven lifesaving program from the White House website is part of a grand strategy to 'build support' for syringe exchange," said Tom Angell, a spokesman for the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Obama's budget also includes a provision known as the "Barr Amendment," which prevents the District of Columbia from implementing a medical marijuana law that voters passed in an overwhelming referendum. Obama has pledged not to use Department of Justice resources to raid medical marijuana clinics in states where it is legal.

UPDATE: The Center for Global Health Policy writes in, noting that Obama also underfunded the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, which funds a wide variety of prevention efforts, including needle exchange in Eastern Europe, where drug addiction and HIV/AIDS rates are both soaring:

Another major disappointment for global health advocates is the Obama proposal for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. Countries rely on the Fund, in particular, for funding for tuberculosis programs, and so far the Fund has also provided over $600 million for health system strengthening. The Global Fund requested $2.7 billion from the US for 2010, but the Administration is proposing only $900 million, the same level as 2009. Unless Congress goes above the Administration's proposal, the US will miss a major opportunity to use the Fund to leverage more donations from Spain, Germany, and other countries, and AIDS, TB and malaria programs will be stalled.

Ryan Grim is the author of the forthcoming book This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America

Comments

[joeyfoto]

This is 2009. How can anyone continue to call syringe exchange "controversial?" Syringe exchange is only controversial among stupid people. When candidate Obama promised America a "science based public policy," that meant that we no longer needed to have these puerile debates over the magic opinions of clueless people, rather that rational decisions would be made on the basis of data. Among scientists, there is no controversy, needle exchange saves lives by preventing the transmission of HIV, HCV and other blood-borne pathogens. Syringe exchange programs also provide entré into hard to reach and otherwise hidden communities where education and other critical services can be delivered. All this is accomplished at relatively low cost. Do the math: A sterile syringe costs seven cents, with delivery less than a quarter. How many hundreds of thousands of times may one repeat that exercise before it exceeds the lifetime cost of treating one person with HIV; then add the average of two to three people, that an HIV+ person infects before he or she learns that they're infected. Get the progression?

Syringe exchange remains controversial only among those committed to ignorance. We have allowed Gary Bauer and his fellow fools to set bigotry-based public policy for far too long. The perpetual resistance of those with baseless opinions has cost us hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars by abetting the geometric spread of preventable HIV infections. If this administration represents change, a rational national syringe exchange policy is essential.

[nmmagyar]

This disgusts me. NEEDLE EXCHANGE SAVES LIVES. PERIOD. END OF STORY. It is the only scientifically proven HIV prevention measure (please don't give me any crap about abstinence). I live in a state that has close to 90% HCV infection rates among IVDU, but fortunately pretty low HIV infection, thanks to Gary Johnson. This ban is draconian and needs to go away. BTW - Clinton is the one that started this...

[Patrick Norris]

I've read every comment on this page and many disturbed me more than the article. The fact that this program is seen by many as something for drug users and not a way to keep a disease from spreading means that people are seeing this as a drug issue.

Though the participants are drug users the benefits of stopping the spread of HIV and hep-c extend way beyond them. Play six degrees of separation for a minute.

With all of the talk of swine flu these days I think that a program that has the potential to quarantine the hazardous bodily fluids of those infected by diseases that are already epidemics would be supported by thinking individuals from both parties.

[Crash2Parties]

Waaaay too complicated, Patrick. Gotta keep it within a single degree of separation here in 'merica. As soon as things get more complex than that people either lose interest or have already formed their first level based decision. Witness the recent state bill to give transgendered men and women equal protection from housing and employment discrimination: In the media it was deceptively renamed by the religious right as "the bathroom bill", as if that was even part of the issue (it wasn't). But that scare tactic was one to which the average tv news viewer could grasp immediately and would react to. That is what American politics have become.

Keep it simple. Drug users = bad, so they don't get free stuff. See? It's so much simpler this way!

[Patrick Norris]

ahhh, so it's marketing then.

"clean blood initiative"
"infection prevention legislation"
"healthy kids bill"

just drop the needles.

Maybe they really are planning a strategy centered around the right presentation? (also might explain the removal from the WH website) I hope so.

[sfirx]

You have to make cuts somewhere and when you make those cuts someone is always going to be unhappy. You can't have reduced government spending and lower the deficit without making cuts. We are all going to have to sacrifice, including the drug users. The drug user have to make sure they are using clean needles when they do their illegal drugs.

[nmmagyar]

Sorry, but I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this one. EVERY state pays for HIV and HCV treatment and prevention. Most of that funding is Federal. Needle exchange costs a fraction of the amount of, say, a liver transplant or anti-viral drug therapy. The federal ban is based on the fact that most of society thinks that drug users are bad and deserve to die.

[Crash2Parties]

Except that making this cut costs more in the long run. It's a bad investment. It just doesn't add up to saving money once you...wait a minute. What if (adjusts tin foil hat)...what if lots of little changes like this are slipped in, here and there...and the cost to the nation's healthcare funding skyrockets?

Or, what if the number of uninsured, untreated but obviously in need people grows and they become highly visible. Might make a nice visceral visual push for socialized medicine....

[diogeron]

So much for "letting the science dictate the policy...."

[Dwight5]

The people have spoken, but the politicians still ain't lisnin'. DC voters passed medical marijuana, so why is it specifically banned? Legalizing cannabis was the #1 topic on change.gov and the #1 topic submitted at Obama's town hall meeting, but he still has his head in the sand. I understand pragmatism, but the people are strongly behind this. 52% in the latest Zogby poll vs. 37% against.
I guess he's still got to convince Congress.

IF THE PEOPLE LEAD, THE LEADERS WILL FOLLOW.

[potogold]

"A study of HIV among IDUs in New York, between 1990 and 2001, found that HIV prevalence fell from 54% to 13% following the introduction of NEPs.

According to an Australian government study, investment in needle exchange programs from 1991 to 2000 had averted 25,000 HIV infections and 21,000 hepatitis C infections."

http://www.avert.org/needle-exchange.htm

"... NEPs led to a reduction in HIV incidence among injecting drug users. Despite the possibility of confounding, our results, together with the clear theoretical mechanisms by which NEPs could reduce HIV incidence, strongly support the view that NEPs are effective."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9269214

[Crash2Parties]

Yes, but drug users don't bother to get out and vote, nor do they tend to make political contributions. And the rest of us are too stupid to connect policy with financials, the numbers are just too big and the connections are too complex...and don't forget that...hang on, have to vote for someone on American Idol...okay, now where were we? Oh, never mind, I have to go now...

[Cakey4814]

I love the fact that you can count on the trolls to come out of the gutter when Huff has an article (misleading) criticizing the POTUS. They obviously go from blog to blog until they can get their little digs in as if anything the POTUS would be to their satisfaction.

[ErikW65]

No way. I started supporting Obama in the fall of '06. The Obama Admin deserves every bit of flack they'll get from this from the Left. This is just cruel.

Imagine the people who work for social service and community health organizations, trying to prevent the spread of HIV. They must be heartbroken to know that the work they did for, and the money they donated to the Obama Campaign has been repaid with scorn.

[ErikW65]

Power corrupts.

[worldlyhick]

How is it that the medical cannabis provision approved by voters in DC is prohibited by this budget? That is concerning as well as the lack of funding for the needle exchange program.

[ErikW65]

"Obama's budget also includes a provision known as the "Barr Amendment," which prevents the District of Columbia from implementing a medical marijuana law that voters passed in an overwhelming referendum." [from above]

"Even if (DC Coucilman) Barry or another council member were to consider reforms to District drug laws, they would first have to lobby Congress to overturn the Barr Amendment, which prevents the city from decreasing penalties for marijuana use and possession. The amendment is named after former GOP Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, who blocked the city's medial marijuana initiative in 1998."

After leaving Congress in 2003, Barr modified his stance on drugs. He now supports medical marijuana. [WaPo 4.22.09]:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/04/no_plans_to_legalize_pot_barry.html?hpid=news-col-blog

Why the Obama Admin would include the Barr Amendment in it's budget is a mystery, since Bob Barr is no longer a congressman, and no longer supports listing cannabis as a Schedule 1 controlled substance.

Seems like there is a whole lot more going on policy-wise behind the scenes, that we the people are simply not privy to. Any promises made on the campaign trail are moot.

[ErikW65]

The article above says, "Obama's budget also includes a provision known as the "Barr Amendment," which prevents the District of Columbia from implementing a medical marijuana law that voters passed in an overwhelming referendum. "

From a WaPo story, 4.22.09:

"Even if (DC Councilman) Barry or another council member were to consider reforms to District drug laws, they would first have to lobby Congress to overturn the Barr Amendment, which prevents the city from decreasing penalties for marijuana use and possession. The amendment is named after former GOP Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, who blocked the city's medial marijuana initiative in 1998.
After leaving Congress in 2003, Barr modified his stance on drugs. He now supports medical marijuana."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/04/no_plans_to_legalize_pot_barry.html?hpid=news-col-blog

Why the Obama Admin would include an amendment written by a man who is no longer in congress, and who no longer supports Schedule 1 listing of cannabis as a controlled substance is a mystery. Looking at the update to this story, there must be quite a bit going on policy-wise behind the curtain that we the people are not privy to. And obviously campaign promises are moot.

[ErikW65]

Please padron the similar post. My internet explorer crashed as I posted the 1st.

[Gumby123]

This is one broken promise that will cost American lives.

[noudidnt]

So if we legalize maryjane use, taxpayers will have to subsidize more drug addicts and their habits to keep them from hurting us. Please.

[Dwight5]

Can you please tell me what legalizing cannabis has to do with subsidizing drug addicts, except maybe that the taxes raised from legalization and regulation could pay for drug education and rehabilitation programs for addictive drugs? Not to mention the money saved by not incarcerating non-violent drug users.
I suppose it never occurred to you that drug addicts would not have any reason to hurt you or anybody if they could afford their drugs, which, under the current system are artificially inflated due to their legal status?
You got any other points to make?

[naturallight]

We have money to kill afghani's, iraqi's and now pakistani's but no money to save lives. Glad i voted for Nader! My conscience is clear.

[abouttime]

Obama says he won't remove the ban on needle exchange because he wants "to work with Congress and the American public to build support for this change" despite his earlier support?
It is an executive decision. Congress has determined he has the power to so.
Hey, what is Obama afraid of? Needle exchange works to prevent AIDS - a fact!
Pragmatism has taken a dive.

[ErikW65]

If the majority of likely voters wanted to get rid of the Bill of Rights, they'd consider it.

I suppose Civil Rights could have been left up to referendum...

[David Greer]

they are being left up to referendum... one need look no further than the fact that the GLBT community is the last remaining minority without full EQUAL civil rights.

and i'm tired of being told "be patient".

[just saying]

Yeah, I don't like that he's letting support trump his earlier decisions that we used to vote for him.

[Tyler-Durden]

ugh. these comments REALLY DEMONSTRATE THE IGNORANCE OF THE POPULATION.

1. the ban already exists. Obama did not create the ban. Who do you think created the ban??

2. the budget does not yet include money for the program which Obama said he endorses. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE IT? WHO DO YOU THINK PRESSURED HIM TO LEAVE IT OUT AT THIS TIME???

3. Obama states he still endorses the program. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD WAIT AN' SEE WHAT HAPPENS LATER. IT'S BEEN 3 STINKIN' MONTHS.

3 STINKIN' MONTHS OF REPUBLICAN STONEWALLING so this guy can't get anything done.

IF YOU want to whine, whine to your repub congressmen to stop hindering progress. OTHERWISE, SHUT UP.

[rebelc]

You really need to calm down. Take a pill or something.

[WilliamProc]

I hear you, Tyler.

Patience, folks!

[ErikW65]

Go sit on a needle...

[ErikW65]

You obviously have no knowledge of heroin, or what it does to people. For you to tell others to not comment, out of ignorance, is outrageous. You should take your own advice. Then go live in a city where you ar rubbing elbows with and working with people who have gotten hooked on it. Then you'd have some perspective on the what you're commenting about.

The problem with waiting around is that every day more heroin addicts get HIV, a deadly and expensive-to-treat disease. We know how to prevent the needle-born spread of HIV, by providing free clean needle exchange. It's a simple, cost-effective thing to do. But because some people on the Right vociferously oppose needle exchange, out of a mean-spirited, "they deserve it" attitude, these spineless politicians won't act to save money and lives. Stop apologizing for this shameless cop-out!

[Tyler-Durden]

if you're talking to me, then you can s*ck it. my sister was addicted to heroin because she started dating some punk who dealt it, and got her hooked on it. now she's clean, he's in prison, and my parents are raising their baby for her and fighting for legal adoption. i know plenty about it.

i'm sorry people are getting HIV because they can't control their addiction, and hey i got little sympathy for them, because that means they aren't trying to quit. they knew the sh*t was bad before they started. same as my sister. i'll help her when she's clean and has a JOB. until then, she's on her own and has to live with the consequences of her actions.

WHAT'S FUNNY HERE IS I SUPPORT NEEDLE EXCHANGE, TO STOP THE HIV SPREAD, and my comment was to defend the fact that the program MAY STILL COME TO BE. The Prez didn't say it wasn't going to happen, it just isn't now.

AND WHY? BECAUSE REPUBS ARE FIGHTING EVERYTHING HE TRIES TO DO, so concessions are being made.

[Crash2Parties]

I am truly curious (and I suppose highly cynical): Which is more expensive for the government to treat at the current level of services provided, HIV or lifelong heroin addiction? Which is assumed to be more costly over time, assuming the programs don't get increased? What about verses cutting both budgets via maneuvers like this one? There has to be some alterior motive to not providing for needle exchange. Figure out who benefits by NOT doing doing the needle exchange, find their connection to Obama and your mystery is solved...The only argument that I can see fitting in with the administrations other actions so far is that needle exchanges are construed as legitimizing drug use, encouraging it by making it easier (as if users won't just keep using and shairing the same needle over...and over again). That is consistant with the other anti-drug/pro-law enforcement moves we've seen so far, but I can't see how fiscally it is advantageous. Are we finally seeing him act acording to some internal principles? I sure hope not....

[BDB78]

I agree. Sad though that it only took three months for the Me Me Me crowds to jump him.
Identity politics hurts us all.