Loveland Corruption – Bigger than Camp Hope

October 12, 2025

Loveland Corruption – Bigger than Camp Hope

From Erin Black:

I am writing to express my support for the continuation of the Safe Needle Exchange Programs, also known as Syringe Services Programs (SSPs), within our community. As this issue comes under consideration, I believe it’s crucial to consider both the pros and cons, backed by research and evidence, to make an informed decision. Many on our current city council disapprove and are trying to block agencies from providing these services in Loveland.

Pros:

Gateway to Care and Treatment: SSPs offer a valuable gateway for individuals struggling with addiction to access healthcare services, including addiction treatment, counseling, and support. This not only improves their overall health but also increases the likelihood of successful recovery.
Transition to Long-Term Rehabilitation: These programs create an opportunity for individuals to transition into long-term rehabilitation facilities by connecting them with healthcare professionals and resources. This can be a crucial step towards breaking the cycle of addiction.
Protection of Public and First Responders: SSPs play a pivotal role in safeguarding the health of our community and first responders. By reducing the sharing of contaminated needles, they help prevent accidental needlestick injuries and potential exposure to infectious diseases.
Public Safety: Addressing the needs of individuals with substance use disorders through SSPs is a public safety issue. By providing a structured environment for needle exchange, we can better regulate and manage the disposal of used syringes, reducing the risk of discarded needles in public spaces.
Reduction in New Infectious Diseases: SSPs have consistently demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing the transmission of infectious diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C. By providing sterile syringes, these programs significantly lower the risk of contamination and infection among injection drug users.

Cons:

Perceived Promotion of Drug Use: Critics argue that SSPs may be seen as promoting drug use and acceptance by providing clean needles. However, research indicates that these programs do not increase drug consumption; rather, they focus on harm reduction and public health.
Taxpayer Dollars: Some may express concerns about the allocation of taxpayer dollars to fund SSPs. Money is available now and the next 18 years allocated from the big pharma Opioid Abatement Settlement to the county and to Loveland, specifically. The Regional Opioid Council approves how these funds are allocated. There would be no tax dollar expenditure necessary to fund SSPs in Loveland. Essentially, a SSPs location in Loveland would be a satellite office of the Northern Colorado Aids Project (NCAP) SSPs in Fort Collins.
Safety Concerns: Opponents may argue that SSPs create an unsafe environment as individuals with addiction come and go. However, SSPs often operate under strict guidelines and provide resources for proper disposal, minimizing potential hazards.

In conclusion, the evidence-based approach of SSPs is consistent with best practices in public health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other reputable institutions have conducted extensive research, demonstrating that participants in SSPs are more likely to enter drug treatment programs without increasing drug consumption. It is essential to provide individuals with access to sterile syringes, vaccines, and testing as part of a comprehensive strategy to address the complex issue of substance use disorders.

As some on council voice their opposition, to SSPs, I urge you to carefully weigh the pros and cons while keeping the health and safety of our residents at the forefront of your considerations. By supporting evidence-based harm reduction programs, we can take a significant step toward improving public health and safety in our community. Links below for informational purposes.

https://coloradohealthnetwork.org/prevention-health-education/access-point