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

For a brief roadmap, I'll go AC-NC. 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." My opponent states that according to my evidence the needles we give out do not go to that 1/5. But since he doesn't further explain how my evidence says this, we assume he means because I give needles out to everyone and don't target just the 1/5. But the 1/5 will be those who come to take the needles, so they don't transmit HIV. Also, it's better to adress the IDU(injecting drug users) that haven't gotten the disease yet because my whole case is about drug PREVENTION. I'm preventing those who don't already have it, while stopping the spread of those who do. 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." Paola Barahona, May 18, 2009, "In his 2010 budget, President Obama failed to deliver on his commitment to end the ban on federal funding of needle exchange services -- an action he promised to take before and after the election and one that would help protect the health and save the lives of tens of thousands of injection drug users -- in the U.S. and around the world. Every year since 1988, Congress has tucked the ban into the Labor HHS appropriations bill with a provision stating that "no funds appropriated in this Act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug." These words have meant that communities across the U.S. are limited in how they can fight HIV among some of their most vulnerable residents." This card says that we have a ban on funding, that should be lifted so we can fund. The funding would come from organizations and local and federal places. Harms: "I am not contesting that HIV/AIDS as it is an obvious problem." Since he agrees its a problem, and does not offer a counter-plan, then that itself should be a reason to vote me, because I'm at least doing something. 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." To clarify this for my opponent and make it "logical" in his eyes, by having NEP's, we give out free needles that can prevent the share of HIV from dirty needles. Satistics show that people will accept needles, and while their possibly accept drug rehabilitation. B) Eric Blumenson, Fall 2002 Three other particularly thorough and prominent studies have each demonstrated how effective a treatment approach can be. These are the Treatment Outcomes Prospective Study ("TOPS"), a National Institute of Drug Abuse project based on interviews of almost 10,000 drug addicts between 1979 and 1981; a second NIDA study of similar scope conducted from 1991-1993, called the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study ("DATOS"); and a study of 1,799 users in treatment as of 1998 undertaken by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) entitled the Services Research Outcomes Study ("SROS"). Despite the wide variety of treatment modalities involved, each study found a dramatic decline in drug use after treatment. TOPS reported that heroin use among participants had declined 60% one year after the completion of treatment, and 70% two years after treatment. Cocaine use similarly declined, 35% one year after treatment and 56% two years after treatment. The subsequent DATOS study found a 69% reduction in weekly heroin use after outpatient methadone treatment and a 48% reduction in weekly cocaine use after treatment. The DATOS study also showed that treatment is more successful in reducing drug dependency if it involves in-patient placement and/or a prolonged course of treatment. The SROS study, which interviewed drug users five years after completing treatment, reported a 45% drop in cocaine use, a 14% drop in heroin use, and a 21% decrease in any drug use following treatment. C) I don't see a link to this argument and the debate. HIV being such a widespread pandemic, we have to tackle it steps at a time. Right now we worry about IDU's seeing as that's the biggest problem. That's my solvency. I'm solving for drug injection use.