{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.00932642487046632, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004145077720207254, 'mean_word_length': 5.232258064516129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The case of a needle exchange policy debate in Fresno, California

Needle exchange is one of the most effective public health interventions to prevent the transmission of infectious disease by injecting drug users. Despite the preponderance of scientific evidence, US federal funding for needle exchange programmes has been banned since 1988. This prohibition has resulted in the lack of a centralised policy on needle exchange and has given birth to a patchwork of diverse practices and regulations throughout the nation. This article focuses on how various local players interpreted the meaning of needle exchange through the debate on an unauthorised site in Fresno, California. In exploring a specific context, this study delineates the narratives used to outline competing views about needle exchange and to offer a snapshot of how the issue of widespread injecting drug use was handled in an impoverished and socially conservative region of the United States.