So the bad in your scenario outweighs an HIV epidemic fueling higher costs as tax payers foot the bill for anti retrovirals for hundreds of thousands of new infections? Even Iran of all places sees the light on this and they don't exactly have a junkie culture do they?
We spend billions on AIDS and HIV annually yet we can't even set up safe injection sites to stop a continuing epidemic in our own country? Come on now it's proven to be the cheapest and easiest way to contain the spread of HIV. Lets not even mention that the addicts who decide to get clean through a clean needle exchange center, they have staff on hand to direct them, stay clean longer than those forced into it. So right away you're not 'condoning' anything. You are treating a disease with medical supervision just as you would diabetes or cancer.
What HIV epidemic are you talking about?
I think HIV primarily affects a very small percentage of the American population. My take on the disease changed after reading a book by Tony Brown that talked about how the disease was transmitted. I created a thread (or posted in a different thread) a while back about this. According to the people he interviewed who have studied the disease, it is primarily transmitted in one of two ways: intravenous drug use and a third world health condition. I pretty much agree with his conclusion. I can bump the thread if you're interested.
The easiest and cheapest way for an IV drug user to stop spreading diseases is to stop using drugs.
I don't agree with your comparison to cancer, etc. We don't give cigarettes to cancer patients. We don't prescribe candy to a diabetic. We get them away from the things that caused/exacerbate their diseases.
