Getting rid of Idaho needle exchange is a knee-jerk reaction. What’s really going on? | Opinion

One of the most common but frustrating political trends involves legislators who pass sweeping laws in response to some troubling incident in the news — a reactive approach that places emotion over careful analysis. We see headline-driven proposals on both sides of the political aisle and on a wide array of issues (think gun control or crime policy), but they rarely lead to thoughtful and principled policymaking.

The latest example, here in Idaho, comes from Rep. John Vander Woude, R-Nampa, who is taking aim at the state’s “safer syringe programs” after the Idaho Statesman reported on last month’s police raid of a now-shuttered organization that provided needle exchanges, HIV testing and overdose-reversal medication to drug users. Police say they seized drug paraphernalia at the Boise and Caldwell offices of the Idaho Harm Reduction Project.

The details of the raid remain sketchy, but we fear that Vander Woude’s response, which aims “ to do away with the state’s needle exchange programs entirely,” will derail an effort with proven success at helping reduce drug use and addiction-related harms. Whatever happened at the group’s offices should be dealt with through proper law-enforcement and judicial channels, not by overreacting to one incident involving one privately run organization.

Idaho authorized this program in 2019 at the urging of sanitation workers who were concerned about needle-stick risks involved in cleaning up dirty syringes discarded by drug users. Public health advocates also supported the idea. House Bill 617 would totally repeal that measure rather than first analyze how the program is working or look at ways to address any persistent problems at how it is run. The House passed the repeal bill this week.

The bill language claims that “needle exchanges have demonstrated little evidence they are conduits for substance abuse treatment” and “there is little evidence that needle exchanges have reduced the number of needle stick injuries in Idaho’s communities.”

Yet by most accounts, the program is working as well as can be expected. As the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare explains on its website, “Individuals who access a safer syringe program are taking steps to reduce harms associated with substance use by using sterile syringes, getting health exams and connecting to substance use disorder treatment providers.”

In its latest report, the department estimates that, statewide, the programs averted 116 hepatitis C and 35 HIV infections. It notes that the centers’ naloxone distribution averted 628 overdose deaths. And while it’s admittedly hard to gather exact state data about needle-stick injuries, eight safer-syringe programs collected nearly 600,000 used syringes from 1,630 participants.

That’s a lot of needles not lying around in playgrounds and alleys.

Nationwide, the National Association of Counties cites Centers for Disease Control statistics showing that “participants in syringe exchange programs are five times more likely to enter drug treatment programs” and are “3.5 times more likely to stop injecting drugs.” That reinforces that these programs don’t promote drug use, while acknowledging the sad reality of addiction and attempting to minimize the harms caused to users and community members.

Idaho’s program is funded entirely with federal money, so shutting it down won’t help the state’s taxpayers. In fact, it may cost them since the high price of infectious disease, wound infections and other health complications are often born by Medicaid. Although it’s hard to measure the exact healthcare and law-enforcement savings, rural Scott County, Indiana’s syringe program is estimated to have saved taxpayers more than $120 million.

We still don’t know exactly what transpired at Idaho Harm Reduction Project’s offices, and it might take months to ferret out. Instead of ditching a sensible statewide program based on one still-unclear incident, the Legislature should calm down, catch its breath and legislate based on facts rather than headline-driven emotion.