Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Morning Roundup: Goodbye, Abe Edition
Judge Throws Out WTU Suit Over Teacher Layoffs
Vegetate to Close at the End of the Month
Morning Roundup: Rain Won't Go Away Edition
Notice those posters around town that say "AIDS is DC's Katrina"? Maybe they ought to say that Obama's AIDS policy is Bush's AIDS policy.
The poster features a concerned (discombobulated?) President George W. Bush staring from his window seat down at the landscape below. Presumably he's looking down at Hurricane Katrina, as far away from the devastation as his federal prevention efforts were from useful. The message of the poster is that President Obama runs the risk of doing nothing as a terrible disaster befalls the people who share a city with him.
President Obama has done a little worse than nothing to prevent the AIDS epidemic in the District. In May of this year, Obama put out a budget that continued the ban on using federal funding for needle-exchange programs. This, despite a campaign promise to overturn the ban, and notwithstanding the good sense and science behind the program.
At the time, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that Obama did not approve of the use of the budget process "to litigate divisive issues and score political points." Fair enough, though it'd be a hell of a lot easier to get clean needles and prevent HIV if he did.
AIDS czar Jeff Crowley assured Time and Obama's critics that the President was playing the long game: "The President is looking forward to working with Congress and the American people to build support for this change, and his Administration is committed to moving forward to address the federal ban on syringe exchange programs as a part of a national HIV/AIDS strategy."
Now, that's not what the White House Web site says any more (thanks, Ryan Grim). But if it's true that Obama intends to exercise the option, now would be an excellent time for that play.
Obama did nothing to get that sweet, sweet federal needle money flowing. For that we can thank the House, who voted 264-153 for the health, labor, and education bill that lifted the 21-year-old ban. And two years ago, the House lifted the extra-special restriction that prevented the District from using even local dollars to fund needle-exchange programs.
Squaresville House Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) would like to change all that, with an amendment that would prevent a needle-exchange program center from operating within 1,000 feet of anywhere a child has ever been. As you've read in the Post, that restriction would effectively regulate needle-exchange programs out of existence. Mike DeBonis says the District should start handing out needles at Nationals Park and outside congressional office buildings.
Better would be for Obama to do what he said he'd do in the first place. First—and not that he doesn't have a ton of shit to deal with already—but the Obama administration has yet to articulate a strong, central policy for preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. Circumcision promotion's all the rage . . . OK, it's just as controversial as needle exchange and does nothing to target the most at-risk populations in the U.S. (The research on circumcision promotion was conducted in Africa and largely among heterosexuals, as Dana Goldstein reports.) Which isn't to say that circumcision promotion isn't worthwhile, but what we do know is that needle-exchange programs are proven to reduce the transmission of HIV and other diseases, they don't actually encourage drug use, and they bring intravenous drug users into regular contact with friendly, helpful, drug-free neighborhood clinicians.
Once upon a time—back when he was campaigning—President Obama had his own reasons for supporting the repeal of the federal ban. There is still time for him to stand up for those reasons, and there's definitely need for it: The Senate version of the bill could wind up with the same sort of nullification amendment tacked on. Or the House amendment could survive in the final legislation.
And since an amendment-enabled bill would make the situation worse—rewinding what progress the District has made since the ban on using local funds was lifted two years ago—it's incumbent upon Obama to make a stand. For the District, for its fight against AIDS, and for the policy he's said he believes in. If he does nothing now, it's worse than politics as usual. He can't even say (like George W. Bush) that he didn't see the disaster coming.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
He made many campaign promises and I hope he is able to fulfill them.
But he has only been in office for a few months and I think his attention should rightly be focused on the major problems that are affecting every demographic--economic recovery, and healthcare reform--rather than policy that will only affect on particular demographic (whether that policy be AIDS research or gay rights or anything else he has promised).
1 in 20 people in DC are living with HIV. That's not a particular demographic. That's DC.
I'm not denying that the rate of HIV infection constitutes a serious concern, but your numbers seem a bit off to me. The rate of HIV or AIDS infection in the District is 3%, or roughly 18,000 people. That would put the infection rate at around 1 in 33 people.
The number of AIDS cases in DC is deceptive because the rate in SE DC is much much higher, regardless of whether you use the 1:20 or 1:33 statistic, than it is in all other parts of the district, where the rate is as low or lower than elsewhere in the country.
In fact, the AIDS rate in SE DC is so concentrated that epidemiologists have been able to track many of the transmissions and know that most of them occur with persons who report being in a monogamous relationship in which they do not use protection, while also reporting they occasionally participate in extracurricular relationships in which they also do not use protection. That is a demographic.
he's never early
he's always late
I agree with kken to a point. I mean, needled out AIDS victims wouldn't be the first ones that come to mind to try and save. AIDS is horrific, but I don't think many would care about saving a junkie.
for the record i am all for treating HIV/AIDS positive victims. it shouldn't mean that we should continue to support their junkie habit however. might as well treat the addiction rather than the habit itself.
we should make nick cho the HIV/AIDS czar of DC... can't kick your habit while receiving treatment? JUNKPUNCHER TIME FOR YOU.
" it shouldn't mean that we should continue to support their junkie habit however."
And needle-exchange programs shouldn't be viewed as supporting their habit. Too often, people confuse "harm reduction" with "support for negative behavior". That's not what it is. Harm reduction simply acknowledges the behavior that is occuring and seeks to diminish the societal affects of said behavior, while indirectly offering opportunities to address the root of the behavior.
In other words, addicts will continue shooting up regardless of whether clean needles are provided to them. But the risk that they continue to spread diseases is far greater if clean needles are not available.
charliegal, I might give him the benefit of the doubt if he hadn't walked back on a campaign promise. If he had done nothing at all, it would be easier to say that he hasn't gotten around to it. Instead, he appointed an AIDS czar and re-affirmed the ban on using federal funds for needle-exchange programs.
Go ahead and kick junkies when they're down, but needle-exchange prevents HIV transmission and actually curbs drug abuse on the margin. It's not like junkies only have sex with each other. Also, junkies are human beings, too!
And all the politicians makin' crazy sounds
And everybody puttin' everybody else down
And all the dead bodies piled up in mounds
Ummm, just wanted to point out a fact: Katrina and AIDS are not an equal comparison. AIDS is a preventable disease, it's a choice. If correct choices and actions are made throughout a persons life, the chances of contracting HIV are almost 0. Where as, hurricanes are unpreventable acts of nature.
That is a ridiculous poster. Dumb.
The federal and state governments could have "chosen" to respond differently to Katrina. You can't plan for the arrival of a natural disaster, but you can certainly plan for your response. Every action--or inaction--revolves around "choices".
The poster doesn't analogize the disasters. That would hardly make any sense. Rather the question concerns what efforts are being taken by the government to prevent a crisis from becoming a disaster, or as the case may be, to prevent a disaster from becoming an epidemic?
maybe... just maybe, junkies shouldn't be having unprotected sex, HIV/AIDS or not. but i guess we shouldn't expect ANY sort of restraint or personal responsibility from said junkies, eh?
With that logic, we shouldn't make birth control available because people should be able to keep their legs closed.
"junkies shouldn't be having unprotected sex, HIV/AIDS or not."
No, they shouldn't. Nor should they be shooting up with dirty needles. That's clearly risky behavior.
But that isn't the question being posed. Everyone can agree that such choices are bad choices. But what do you propose be done to stop it? Clearly, if the consequences were so dire as to be self-apparent, no one would participate in such behavior. But a significant number of people do, so clealry something else is at work.
Your response can go one of two ways: you can tsk-tsk people for the bad choices they make and allow the consequences to play out as they will, regardless of the detrimental affects to our society. Or, you can acknowledge that bad choices will ALWAYS be made, regardless of the consequences, and that steps can be taken to minimize the impact those choices have on our society, all the while making efforts to steer those choices in another, more positive, direction.
Spoken like a true adult, 14thandYou.
I live and was raised in New Orleans. It is my home. I support your cause but not your methods. Invoking the memory of my hometown's devastation in order to gain political capital isn't clever; it's vulgar.
The people behind this campaign should be ashamed of themselves.
If AIDS is DC's Katrina -- then DC is America's terminal cancer.