The specter of AIDS will continue to dominate the concerns of clinicians, policy-makers, and social scientists into the next century. In addition to being a biological issue, HIV disease is a political issue. As a result of this, interest groups have mobilized to restrict certain interventions aimed at stopping the spread of HIV. Among those restricted interventions is the exchange of sterile needles and syringes for "dirty" needles and syringes with injection drug users (IDUs). Increasing the availability of clean equipment by removing the laws restricting their availability, and/or by funding needle exchange programs, would appear to be a much needed and rational public health policy. However, needle exchange programs have been viewed as fostering drug addiction or enabling drug addicts, thus marginalizing it as an early stage of treatment for addicts and as a demonstrated public health intervention. There is no empirical evidence to support this conclusion. In the absence of better knowledge about how to prevent the use of illicit injection drugs and how to effectively treat IDUs, we believe that needle exchange programs (NEPs) need to be implemented for several key reasons. First, they can help slow the spread of HIV infection. Second, they can be cost-effective when compared to the higher health care costs that result without needle exchange programs. Third, they can act as a precursor to treatment, or recovery, for addicts.