The USFG should fully fund drug treatment and HIV prevention, including syringe exchange programs.

It is very rare that I get the chance to enjoy a CX debate on this site, and I very much enjoy getting to. I hope this is a friendly debate, and without further ado, let's go!: I will refute my opponent's attacks in the order he presented them. Inherency A) So in this card my opponent states that the USFG should fund needle exchange programs to decrease the prevalance of HIV/AIDS. He also states that these programs don't encourage drug use. This creates a fallacy for a few reasons. First of all, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), in the United States around 1/5 of all new HIV infections and the vast majority of Hepatitis C infections are the result of injection drug use. This means that it hardly ever occurs in people who use needles for legal activities, at least in the U.S. According to my opponents evidence, the needles won't go towards the 1/5 that actually use drugs, thus defeating the whole purpose. So my opponent's own evidence successfully proves that the USFG services are not sufficient in solving HIV/AIDS at all because it will not help those that use drugs via injection. B) My opponent speaks of this local money, but does that even exist? My opponent needs to show some funding evidence about how much this will cost, how much the government will provide, and how the government will get it. So as of my opponent's current case, there is no funding. Without funding such a plan cannot go into effect, which wins me this debate. Harms A) I am not contesting that HIV/AIDS as it is an obvious problem. Solvency A) First of all, like I said previously, my opponent wants to increase funding to all of these things, but he has no physical evidence showing were he is getting this money from. This seems that it will take a large amount of money, and that amount of money cannot be just wished up. So this is a big problem. Secondly, My opponent states this will reduce drug use. How is this even logical? Increasing needles won't help as my opponent says they don't have anything to do with drug use. Increasing treatment will just make people more confident about drugs so this might even INCREASE drug use? Finally my opponent talks about education. Education from who? What kind of education will remove drug addiction? Does the opponent plan on educating children. [http://www.theantidrug.com...] This alredy happens with a plethora of programs, and yet drug users are just as common, so education won't help. It seems obvious that my opponent's solvency will actually solve for absolutely nothing, and perhaps may increase the amount of drug users, the opposite of the intended affect. B) Can you provide some of this evidence? Why should we take your word if you don't even show this evidence. I could say evidence shows that llamas can read faster than humans do, but this does not make it true. Provide links to these statements and back up what you are saying, else they might as well be lies. C) This is like saying it is unethical to give people guns because they can kill themselves with them. People willingly choose to drugs and people are not ignorant of the fact they are education. Doing drugs is the equivalent of suicide, and is it really the governments responsibility to stop the insane from hurting themselves, when they have so much extra on their plate? A government only has so much political capital, and we need to push this towards programs that can actual stop the use of drugs. Extra point Also, my opponent mentioned in his harms of all of these extra reason why HIV/AIDS is spread, such as sexual activities. It is customary in CX to solve your harms, yet nowhere did my opponent solve for this type of spread. So until my opponent provides evidence backing up his statements and actually solves the harms he presents, the round must go towards me. Thank you.