Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 84, Issue 3, pp 423–435 | Cite as

The Impact of Legalizing Syringe Exchange Programs on Arrests Among Injection Drug Users in California

  • Alexis N. Martinez
  • Ricky N. Bluthenthal
  • Jennifer Lorvick
  • Rachel Anderson
  • Neil Flynn
  • Alex H. Kral


Legislation passed in 2000 allowed syringe exchange programs (SEPs) in California to operate legally if local jurisdictions declare a local HIV public health emergency. Nonetheless, even in locales where SEPs are legal, the possession of drug paraphernalia, including syringes, remained illegal. The objective of this paper is to examine the association between the legal status of SEPs and individual arrest or citation for drug paraphernalia among injection drug users (IDUs) in California from 2001 to 2003. Using data from three annual cross-sections (2001-03) of IDUs attending 24 SEPs in 16 California counties (N = 1,578), we found that overall, 14% of IDUs in our sample reported arrest or citation for paraphernalia in the 6 months before the interview. Further analysis found that 17% of IDUs attending a legal SEP (defined at the county level) reported arrest or citation for drug paraphernalia compared to 10% of IDUs attending an illegal SEP (p = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of arrest or citation for drug paraphernalia was 1.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2, 2.3] for IDUs attending legal SEPs compared to IDUs attending illegal SEPs, after controlling for race/ethnicity, age, homelessness, illegal income, injection of amphetamines, years of injection drug use, frequency of SEP use, and number of needles received at last visit. IDUs attending SEPs with legal status may be more visible to police, and hence, more subject to arrest or citation for paraphernalia. These findings suggest that legislative efforts to decriminalize the operation of SEPs without concurrent decriminalization of syringe possession may result in higher odds of arrest among SEP clients, with potentially deleterious implications for the health and well-being of IDUs. More comprehensive approaches to removing barriers to accessing sterile syringes are needed if our public health goals for reducing new HIV/HCV infections are to be obtained.


Law enforcement HIV Arrests Injection drug use Syringe exchange programs Policy 



The authors would like to thank the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the California Syringe Exchange Program Study (Grant# R06/CCR918667) and the National Institute of Drug Abuse (Grant #DA14210). We also thank project coordinators Mary-Lou Gilbert and Andrea Scott, the syringe exchange programs and their clients that participated in this study.


  1. 1.
    Macalino GE, Hou JC, Kumar MS, Taylor LE, Sumantera IG, Rich JD. Hepatitis C infection and incarcerated populations. Int J Drug Policy. 2004;15(2):103–114, 2004/4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curry AD, Latkin CA. Gender differences in street economy and social network correlates of arrest among heroin injectors in Baltimore, Maryland. J Urban Health. 2003;80(3):482–493, Sep.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rotily M, Delorme C, Galinier A, Escaffre N, Moatti JP. HIV risk behavior in prison and factors related to reincarceration among injecting drug users. Presse Med. 2000;29(28):1549–1556, Sep 30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clear TR, Rose DR, Ryder JA. Incarceration and the community: The problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime Delinq. 2001;47(3):335–351, Jul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Estebanez P, Zunzunegui MV, Aguilar MD, Russell N, Cifuentes I, Hankins C. The role of prisons in the HIV epidemic among female injecting drug users. Aids Care-Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of Aids/Hiv. 2002;14(1):95–104, Feb.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strathdee SA, Patrick DM, Archibald CP, et al. Social determinants predict needle-sharing behaviour among injection drug users in Vancouver, Canada. Addiction. 1997;92(10):1339–1347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McClelland GM, Teplin LA, Abram KM, Jacobs N. HIV and AIDS risk behaviors among female jail detainees: implications for public health policy. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(5):818–825, May.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Jones J, Schechter MT, Tyndall MW. The impact of a police presence on access to needle exchange programs. Jaids-J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;34(1):116–118, Sep 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wood E, Spittal PM, Small W, et al. Displacement of Canada’s largest public illicit drug market in response to a police crackdown. Can Med Assoc J. 2004;170(10):1551–1556, May 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wood E, Tyndall MW, Spittal P, et al. Impact of supply-side policies for control of illicit drugs in the face of the AIDS and overdose epidemics: investigation of a massive heroin seizure. Can Med Assoc J. 2003;168:165–169.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Case P, Meehan T, Jones TS. Arrests and incarceration of injection drug users for syringe possession in Massachusetts: implications for HIV prevention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Human Retrovirol. 1998;18:S71–S75, Jul.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galea S, Vlahov D. Social determinants and the health of drug users: socioeconomic status, homelessness, and incarceration. Public Health Rep. 2002;117(3):S135–S145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choopanya K, Des Jarlais DC, Vanichseni S, et al. Incarceration and risk for HIV infection among injection drug users in Bangkok. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;29(1):86–94, Jan 1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beyrer C, Jittiwutikarn J, Teokul W, et al. Drug use, increasing incarceration rates, and prison-associated HIV risks in Thailand. AIDS Behav. 2003;7(2):153–161, Jun.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bluthenthal RN, Kral AH, Lorvick J, Watters JK. Impact of law enforcement on syringe exchange programs: a look at Oakland and San Francisco. Med Anthropol. 1997; 18(1):61–83, Dec.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis CG, Burris S, Kraut-Becher J, Lynch KG, Metzger DS. Effects of an intensive street-level police intervention on syringe exchange program use in Philadelphia, Pa. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:233–236, February.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bluthenthal RN, Lorvick J, Kral AH, Erringer EA, Kahn JG. Collateral damage in the war on drugs: HIV risk behaviors among injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 1999;10:25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bluthenthal RN, Kral AH, Erringer EA, Edlin BR. Drug paraphernalia laws and injection-related infectious disease risk among drug injectors. J Drug Issues. 1999;29(1):1–16, Win.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grund JPC, Heckathorn DD, Broadhead RS, Anthony DL. In Eastern Connecticut, Idus purchase syringes from pharmacies but don’t carry syringes. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Human Retrovirol. 1995;10(1):104–105, Sep 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buavirat A, Sacks R, Chiamwongpaet S. HIV risk behaviors during incarceration among intravenous-drug users in Bangkok, Thailand: A qualitative approach. AIDS Public Policy J. 2002;17(3):77–89, Fal.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hammett TM, Harmon P, Rhodes W. The burden of infectious disease among inmates of and releases from US correctional facilities, 1997. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(11):1789–1794, Nov.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Friedman SR, Kottiri BJ, Neaigus A, Curtis R, Vermund SH, Des Jarlais DC. Network-related mechanisms may help explain long-term HIV-1 seroprevalence levels that remain high but do not approach population-group saturation. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152:913–922.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rhodes T, Mikhailova L, Sarang A, et al. Situational factors influencing drug injecting, risk reduction and syringe exchange in Togliatti City, Russian Federation: A qualitative study of micro risk environment. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(1):39–54, Jul.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levi R, Appel J. Collateral Consequences: Denial Of Basic Social Services Based Upon Drug Use. San Francisco: Drug Policy Alliance; 2003, June.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davies S, Tanner J. The long arm of the law: Effects of labeling on employment. Sociol Q. 2003;44(3):385–404, Sum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nagin D, Waldfogel J. The effect of conviction on income through the life cycle. Int Rev Law Econ. 1998;18(1):25–40, Mar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bushway SD. The impact of an arrest on the job stability of young white American men. J Res Crime Delinq. 1998;35(4):454–479, Nov.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kerley KR, Copes H. The effects of criminal justice contact on employment stability for white-collar and street-level offenders. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2004;48(1):65–84, Feb.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Blankenship KM, Koester S. Criminal law, policing policy, and HIV risk in female street sex workers and injection drug users. J Law Med Ethics. 2002;30(4):548–559, Win.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Needle Exchange Authorization Law in California; 2000.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bluthenthal RN, Heinzerling K, Anderson R, Flynn N, Kral AH. Legalization of Syringe Exchange Programs in California: Mixed Results From a Local Approach to HIV Prevention. Am J Public Health. 2005 (in press).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Collins C, Summers T. Syringe Exchange and AB 136: The Dynamics of Local Consideration in Six California Communities. Menlo Park: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2002.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prashad U, Collins B, et al. Crime in California. Criminal Justice Statistics Center Report Series. Sacramento, California Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis; 2003:1–7.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Anderson RL, Clancy L, Flynn N, Kral AH, Bluthenthal RN. Delivering syringe exchange services through “Satellite Exchangers”: Sacramento area needle exchange, USA. Int J Drug Policy. 2003;14:461–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bluthenthal RN, Malik MR, Grau LE, Singer M, Marshall P, Heimer R. Sterile syringe access conditions and variations in HIV risk among drug injectors in three cities. Addiction. 2004;99(9):1136–1146, Sep.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Backes G. Counties authorizing SB1159. In: Martinez AN, ed. Drug Policy Alliance; 2005.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Burris S, Blankenship KM, Donoghoe M, et al. Addressing the “risk environment” for injection drug users: the mysterious case of the missing cop. Milbank Q. 2004;82(1):125–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Beletsky L, Macalino GE, Burris S. Attitudes of police officers towards syringe access, occupational needle-sticks, and drug use: a qualitative study of one city police department in the United States. Int J Drug Policy. 2005;16(4):267–274, Aug.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cooper H, Moore L, Gruskin S, Krieger N. Characterizing perceived police violence: implications for public health. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(7):1109–1118, Jul.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weatherby N, Needle RH, Cesari H. Validity of self-reported drug use among injection drug users recruited through street outreach. Eval Plann. 1994;17:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Watters JK, Needle R, Brown BS, Weatherby N, Booth R, Williams M. The self-reporting of cocaine use. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2375–2376, November 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexis N. Martinez
    • 1
  • Ricky N. Bluthenthal
  • Jennifer Lorvick
  • Rachel Anderson
  • Neil Flynn
  • Alex H. Kral
  1. 1.Center for AIDS Prevention StudiesUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations