With regards to the letter Won't drug addicts share their free needles too? , I totally disagree with the writer's reactionary assertion that free needles and condoms will encourage addicts to continue taking drugs.

It is this same faulty reasoning that has prevented many developing countries from effectively tackling a global menace. I would strongly recommend the writer to read up about the only developing country that has effectively managed to not only to arrest the HIV infection rate among its populace but also reduce it.

That country is Thailand. The method? Distribution of free condoms. In the Netherlands, needles are given freely to addicts. The result? New infections are down. It must be realised that long-term drug addicts have a low success rate of ever kicking their addiction permanently. Why not accept that fact and deal with it instead of being the proverbial 'katak di bawah tempurung'.

And why does the Health Ministry have to monitor the use of the free condoms? They're free and everyone knows that they're freely available. Why would anyone pay a cent to someone trying to sell free condoms when they know they can get them for free?

Our current policy to tackle drug abuse has proven to be a dismal failure. It has not reduced drug- taking nor arrested the spread of HIV amongst the populace. Isolating confirmed HIV/Aids patients (as suggested by the writer) is not an option as others can bring it into the country unknowingly.

This is the 21st century. With budget air travel and more tourists crossing borders, quarantine is not an option. Only an unemotional, educated and rational response taking into account human behaviour will ever stand a chance of working against the spread of HIV/Aids.

If the writer is worried about taxpayer paying for the free needles and condoms, then he should consider the time-bomb ticking for taxpayers with regards to the healthcare costs for those affected. Not to mention the drag on economic growth which will follow a HIV explosion in the country.

The economic devastation in sub-Saharan Africa is an example. One in four there are infected. One out of three mothers are infected and carrying babies without access to the expensive drugs needed to reduce mother-to-baby infection.

The mothers are infected not because they used drugs but because their partners did without access to clean needles. The GDP growth for these countries has been reduced by two to three percent. We're talking of billions of dollars lost. Compare that to the cost of providing free needles and condoms.

Shall we talk about taxpayers' costs further?