Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on July 01, 2017, 08:49:58 AM
-
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/29/534916080/ohio-town-struggles-to-afford-life-saving-drug-for-opioid-overdoses?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170701
Interesting proposal and I can see the frustration that leads to making it. I have had three people this year OD in my clinics and have brought them back with Narcan. They think a medical facility is a good place to use since if they OD, they will likely be discovered and revived in time.
-
"God should be the only one who decides when somebody dies, not a councilman," he says.
One might argue that by the third time, God is sending a message.
-
Only fault I can find is one too many 2nd chances.
-
Only fault I can find is one too many 2nd chances.
I was thinking two too many.
-
I was thinking two too many.
I'm a firm believer in second chances, because sometimes people just screw up - sometimes stupendously. So the availability of Narcan is a good thing to me. Maybe I'm biased because I would never do it, but if I were saved from a deadly overdose, I would look at it as a blessed second chance and turn my life around right that second. I like to think others that would make a mistake of this magnitude would also look at it as life-changing and fix themselves.
On the other hand, I have zero patience for people like those Millcreek describes and those in the article. "Oh look! I can keep being stupid!" It's like using abortion for your monthly birth control. Drop dead already.
-
Out on Central Avenue, the city's main drag, John Blankenship is sipping an afternoon coffee. Like many people in this city, he has lost family to opioid addiction: His son died at 23 and his daughter died on her 25th birthday.
Blankenship says the city may face financial ruin, but as a taxpayer, and a father, he doesn't think letting people die should be an option.
"God should be the only one who decides when somebody dies, not a councilman," he says.
I'm sorry, but it occurs to me that Mr. Blankenship seems to have failed massively in the parenting role, and he is perhaps not the person I'm most likely to give credence to in this discussion.
-
^^^Perhaps it is because I work in healthcare, but I have seen way too many upstanding middle and upper class religious families with kids addicted to heroin to write it off as a parenting failure. I am sure that parenting issues apply in many of these cases, but by no means all of them.
-
I'm a firm believer in second chances, because sometimes people just screw up - sometimes stupendously. So the availability of Narcan is a good thing to me. Maybe I'm biased because I would never do it, but if I were saved from a deadly overdose, I would look at it as a blessed second chance and turn my life around right that second. I like to think others that would make a mistake of this magnitude would also look at it as life-changing and fix themselves.
On the other hand, I have zero patience for people like those Millcreek describes and those in the article. "Oh look! I can keep being stupid!" It's like using abortion for your monthly birth control. Drop dead already.
I'm betting that heroin isn't the first drug these people have used. Also, I doubt these ODs are their first bad experience with drugs. To me, that sounds like there have been several second chances long before they get their first chance to be saved my Narcan.
-
^^^Perhaps it is because I work in healthcare, but I have seen way too many upstanding middle and upper class religious families with kids addicted to heroin to write it off as a parenting failure. I am sure that parenting issues apply in many of these cases, but by no means all of them.
Same for when you have people that have led normal upstanding productive lives and have sibling's that are useless druggies.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
^^^Perhaps it is because I work in healthcare, but I have seen way too many upstanding middle and upper class religious families with kids addicted to heroin to write it off as a parenting failure. I am sure that parenting issues apply in many of these cases, but by no means all of them.
I say yes and no. You don't know what goes on behind closed doors and I'd say a twofer in one family may indicate that something was going on.
Mind you, not necessarily anything that could be legitimately construed as abuse or neglect, but you have to wonder what *expletive deleted*ed those two heads up so much that addiction and passive suicide was a good idea.
As far as upstanding middle and upper class, religious or not, families... IMHO, a lot of them tend to turn out either carbon copies of the parents or *expletive deleted*ck ups with very few in between. And, for the record, both the carbon copies and the *expletive deleted*ck ups are messed up in the head, just in different ways.
-
What's a dose of narcan cost?
-
What's a dose of narcan cost?
Injectable? 2005, it was $0.92. Couple years ago, $15. Now $30 ish.
The EpiPen like version, Evzio, was $287.50 in 2014. $375 in 2015. $1,875 in 2016. $2,250 in 2017.
Nasal spray version is $63, but regularly discounted to mid $30's.
A person might need multiple doses. I'd certainly mandate that townships switch to injectable over the easier and much quicker nasal spray version unless you could negotiate a really good price. Govt regs on injecting drugs is a pain, but for small towns, still cheaper to get every bloody EMS, fire fighter and cop certified than to use the EpiPen version two or three times.
Pfizer has said priced their narcan "responsibly" with "sensitivity to the need for the product" and "the investments necessary to produce high-quality generic drugs as well as ensure appropriate distribution through licensed medical professionals." In other words, feds mandated it so they jacked up the pricing to celebrate their lobbyists' success.
-
^^^Much of the imported heroin is now being cut with Fentanyl or Carfentanil, which significantly increases the potency, makes an accidental overdose more likely, and may require multiple doses of Narcan to reverse. We sell a kit of two doses of nasal Narcan in our pharmacies for around $ 150.
-
^^^Much of the imported heroin is now being cut with Fentanyl or Carfentanil, which significantly increases the potency, makes an accidental overdose more likely, and may require multiple doses of Narcan to reverse. We sell a kit of two doses of nasal Narcan in our pharmacies for around $ 150.
They get super annoyed when you save them from dying and kill their high with "too much" Narcon. Experienced EMS personnel know to just give them enough to not die, and let the hospital folks deal with redosing a patient who gets very upset. After the tenth or twentieth OD case says you owe them X dollars for completely reversing $X worth of heroin and gets combative when you laugh, you're going to give up and go along.
-
And then this happens:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/forsyth-county/warning-fentanyl-resistant-to-narcan-appears-in-georgia/542727515
-
Unless I'm not remembering correctly, you could legally buy Fentanyl precursors from China in industrial quantities and get them bulk shipped to the US until quite recently. China is starting to crack down, but still. When China makes the precursors in hundred liter vats, and the stuff is 50 times stronger than morphine, no wonder drug dealers are using it to fluff up their street drugs.
-
I don't understand why people would repeatedly knowingly enter the realm of ODing. I can see how it would happen on accident but is there something I'm missing? I assume you go unconscious at some point and then the fun ends.
Is there something I'm missing? I've never touched a high dose of an opiate, just regular dose prescription pills used appropriately.
-
I think that drug problems are not something you "get". Addiction is like a computer bug or something for the brain so it makes sense that it doesn't make sense.
-
Is there something I'm missing? I've never touched a high dose of an opiate, just regular dose prescription pills used appropriately.
Especially for opiates, zahc has a point. The drugs kind of short-circuit the brain to the point that people will prioritize the drug over survival.
That said, many of these addicts were created by our own medical system. It would probably be far cheaper to simply give them high quality drugs of known purity than to deal with the consequences we're seeing now.
With a supply assured, they're far more willing to look at detoxing and such.
As for the prices of the drugs, we need to back off on various federal mandates. Encourage negotiation like what other countries do.
Its things like this that are driving heath care costs through the roof.
-
I don't understand why people would repeatedly knowingly enter the realm of ODing. I can see how it would happen on accident but is there something I'm missing? I assume you go unconscious at some point and then the fun ends.
Is there something I'm missing? I've never touched a high dose of an opiate, just regular dose prescription pills used appropriately.
Fentanyl and more generally purity levels.
End users have little to no way or inclination of thoroughly testing their drugs before using. The amount of actual drug vs misc filler greatly varies. So the effective amount of heroin can vary greatly. Fentanyl is potent stuff. Super condensed.
Think your pills. You have a bottle of pills. Imagine the pills are at random strength/dosage. You 'need' to take one everyday. How likely would you be to OD if a couple of the pills randomly had 20x the dosage but looked the same? And you don't want to learn enough to test the pills or pay for testing for purity.
Huge number of these folks were on oxy or other prescription drugs. Quite a few got addicted off the real stuff, prescribed by a doctor. The pill mills are getting cracked down on. It's easier and cheaper to score heroin than legal drugs. Unethical drug dealers are cutting the heroin with far cheaper fentanyl, at uneven and unstandardized dosage levels. Which kills people quickly.
-
Unless I'm not remembering correctly, you could legally buy Fentanyl precursors from China in industrial quantities and get them bulk shipped to the US until quite recently. China is starting to crack down, but still. When China makes the precursors in hundred liter vats, and the stuff is 50 times stronger than morphine, no wonder drug dealers are using it to fluff up their street drugs.
The chemists are creating fentanyl analogs quicker than they can be outlawed. Your state or Federal law has a list of specific fentanyl compounds that are illegal, but the manufacturing chemists can add an acetyl group here or a butyl group there and voila, it is a different chemical compound that is not illegal.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/underground-labs-china-are-devising-potent-new-opiates-faster-authorities-can-respond
-
Wanna sell a little pot and get caught? As Cheech and Chong said...."Bailiff, wack his pee pee." Get caught selling Heroin or any big time hard drug and get convicted? Death penalty after the gavel comes down. Not long ago we hung horse thieves. Sell *expletive deleted*it that kills people, you need to go.
-
Wanna sell a little pot and get caught? As Cheech and Chong said...."Bailiff, wack his pee pee." Get caught selling Heroin or any big time hard drug and get convicted? Death penalty after the gavel comes down. Not long ago we hung horse thieves. Sell *expletive deleted*it that kills people, you need to go.
Supply and demand, you'll run out of rope before you run out of people willing to risk said rope for the money.
-
Fentanyl and more generally purity levels.
End users have little to no way or inclination of thoroughly testing their drugs before using. The amount of actual drug vs misc filler greatly varies. So the effective amount of heroin can vary greatly. Fentanyl is potent stuff. Super condensed.
Think your pills. You have a bottle of pills. Imagine the pills are at random strength/dosage. You 'need' to take one everyday. How likely would you be to OD if a couple of the pills randomly had 20x the dosage but looked the same? And you don't want to learn enough to test the pills or pay for testing for purity.
Huge number of these folks were on oxy or other prescription drugs. Quite a few got addicted off the real stuff, prescribed by a doctor. The pill mills are getting cracked down on. It's easier and cheaper to score heroin than legal drugs. Unethical drug dealers are cutting the heroin with far cheaper fentanyl, at uneven and unstandardized dosage levels. Which kills people quickly.
All things I know but now it makes sense. If an addict isn't sure of what they're getting they're possibly going to OD so they put themselves in a safe place (hospital) before they go through with it hoping to get revived.
-
Wanna sell a little pot and get caught? As Cheech and Chong said...."Bailiff, wack his pee pee." Get caught selling Heroin or any big time hard drug and get convicted? Death penalty after the gavel comes down. Not long ago we hung horse thieves. Sell *expletive deleted*it that kills people, you need to go.
Eh, the same argument was/is/could be made for alcohol, which kills people, and the prohibition of both leads to the same race for higher potency to make smuggling easier. Even with alcohol being legal you see it in younger kids that are in the 17-20 year old group. Hard to hide two cases of beer but way easier to stuff a single half gallon of vodka somewhere. Way easier to get into overdosing too. Good luck killing yourself with Bud Light. Hell, good luck getting semi-drunk off that stuff! :)
With the opiates we've gone from opium to morphine to codeine to heroin to oxycontin to vicodin to methadone to fentanyl. There's probably a lot of steps I missed in the progression but the general idea is there. We nixed the Bud Light of the opiate groups and now we've got people ODing on the seriously heavy stuff that shouldn't be used for recreation at all.
The death penalty won't fix the problem. Most of the problem is coming from legit doctors prescribing legit pain medicine. You're fighting human nature here the whole way. It's an addiction/abuse problem that will never end because opiates are so damned good at their job. Mitigating the abuse and deaths are really all we can do.
-
The death penalty won't fix the problem. Most of the problem is coming from legit doctors prescribing legit pain medicine. You're fighting human nature here the whole way.
I only have the layman's perspective, but from what I've read and seen in the news and various articles, this certainly seems to be a big part of the problem. Doctors are getting people addicted because opiates are an easy path for both doctor and patient for things like chronic pain.
I've read some pretty interesting stuff (I think Millcreek may have even posted some here) that seemed to be backed by results, when doctors and patients take the harder path of lifestyle changes, dietary changes, and exercise. They are all non-medicinal treatments that require some work by the doctor and a lot of work and will power for the long haul by the patient, but seemed to provide better results in the long run than opiates.
-
I can say that the pendulum is swinging the other way in healthcare, and providers are generally going to be much more cautious in prescribing opiates, and especially for cases of chronic pain and for pain complaints without objective findings to support them.
Based upon reports I have read from local law enforcement and the county health district, the majority of the younger (under age 40) heroin users here started off with heroin, and not prescription pain meds. The Feds and the state licensing boards are really looking hard at prescription pain med prescribing, which further reduces the enthusiasm of the providers to write the scripts for them.
-
Wanna sell a little pot and get caught? As Cheech and Chong said...."Bailiff, wack his pee pee." Get caught selling Heroin or any big time hard drug and get convicted? Death penalty after the gavel comes down. Not long ago we hung horse thieves. Sell *expletive deleted*it that kills people, you need to go.
That will get a lot of cops killed.
People change their behavior based on incentives and if there is a chance of escaping a 100% chance of a death penalty by killing your way out of an arrest even if your chances of success are only 1% then a lot of, if not all, dealers are going to choose that option.
There's got to be people working on a way to "turn off" addictions through some sort of therapy. Eventually they'll hit the solution and discussions like this will be a thing of the past.
-
Is it even worth pointing out that it's only a matter of time before a GMO yeast strain that produces high quality opiates from sugar and water gets out of a lab and into the general public's hands?
-
I'm sorry, but it occurs to me that Mr. Blankenship seems to have failed massively in the parenting role, and he is perhaps not the person I'm most likely to give credence to in this discussion.
I'm thinking he's at least as much a failure in his appeal to religion; if God wants someone to live or die today, He doesn't need the city's interference either way.
-
Is it even worth pointing out that it's only a matter of time before a GMO yeast strain that produces high quality opiates from sugar and water gets out of a lab and into the general public's hands?
If it wasn't for the drug war, we could provide a year's supply of opioids to an addict for like $200. The stuff is seriously that cheap.
England controlled the heroin market for a while by simply prescribing the stuff to addicts. Get addicted? Go see the doctor, get a script, and the dealer can't make any money. Broke dealers can't hand out enough free samples to generate new addicts then get enough money before they go to the doctor to break even. Result is very few new addicts. This was before methadone and such were developed, mind you.
-
Wanna sell a little pot and get caught? As Cheech and Chong said...."Bailiff, wack his pee pee." Get caught selling Heroin or any big time hard drug and get convicted? Death penalty after the gavel comes down. Not long ago we hung horse thieves. Sell *expletive deleted*it that kills people, you need to go.
We already did so. Prohibition. US government directly murdered at least ten thousand people intentionally by poisoning industrial alcohol supplies while not telling anyone about it. We are doing so already. We're killing folks in drug organizations all day long. Sometimes users are well. We just aren't dumb enough to put it in writing. It didn't work. It's not working. It's hideously expensive.
So, it's an idea that has a very long established track record of failure with high expense. Oh, and gutting the fourth amendment like a fish in the process.
The process of "ignore demand, attack suppliers" ignores the fact that people are willing to make a gamble for vast sums of money.
All things I know but now it makes sense. If an addict isn't sure of what they're getting they're possibly going to OD so they put themselves in a safe place (hospital) before they go through with it hoping to get revived.
A point that slipped my mind that BBC reminded me. The various formulations of fentanyl, carfentanil, etc WILDLY vary. The lowest end is 50x strength of morphine. Apparently 'average' is 600x strength of morphine. Some of the formulations of the stuff is up to 10,000x the strength of morphine and was generally used for incapacitating elephants for surgery.
Why carry 10,000 kilos of heroin that can easily be tested with a cheap field kit by any cop when you can carry one kilo of stuff that may not even be illegal and would take a very experienced lab to figure out?
Apparently same issue has occurred for prescription->heroin->fentanyl has occurred with synthetic cannabinoids. Head shops started selling synthetic cannabinoids because of weed being illegal. People flocked to it, because hey, stores are safer, cheaper and more reliable than drug dealers. Amounts were generally even and made by people with some clue what they were doing. "Spice" is the term used for a while before the government cracked down on it. So now you have all kinds of synthetic cannabinoids.
It's nearly impossible to OD on weed because your body will let you know unless you've rigged up some automated delivery system Basically, you'll start puking too much to consume more. The new synthetic cannabinoids generally avoid that. By accident or intention, not sure. Maybe "happy accident". Like fentanyl, they can change around some of the composition to avoid drug laws and are harder to identify in the field. The strength and effects are wildly variable between batches. Hence, more people die.
Hospitals and rehab places are finding it VERY hard to keep up with the changing drug formulations.
-
I would prefer to see Narcan given on an ability to pay basis. No insurance or ability to pay up front? Sayonara. Stupidity is supposed to hurt.
-
If someone is repeatedly killing themselves, don't you at some point rule them mentally incompetent, and institutionalize them? Not that that's a cheap solution, either, of course.
-
I would prefer to see Narcan given on an ability to pay basis. No insurance or ability to pay up front? Sayonara. Stupidity is supposed to hurt.
Last time I saw Narcan given (and I believe this to be somewhat typical of the scenario) the recipient was unconscious and turning grey. Not a whole lot of time to check for insurance cards or bank account balances.
-
Last time I saw Narcan given (and I believe this to be somewhat typical of the scenario) the recipient was unconscious and turning grey. Not a whole lot of time to check for insurance cards or bank account balances.
I dom't see a problem here.
-
I would prefer to see Narcan given on an ability to pay basis. No insurance or ability to pay up front? Sayonara. Stupidity is supposed to hurt.
Gonna ask cops to pay up when they're unconscious on the ground? I think people underestimate the strength of something that can be up to 10,000 times more powerful than morphine and able to soak through the skin.
Most folks with fentanyl OD cannot speak or move. Whether they have insurance or not, you wouldn't be able to tell.
-
So it seems like the whole, "legalize drugs, and all the stoners will kill themselves - problem solved" rhetoric turns out to be wrong?
-
So it seems like the whole, "legalize drugs, and all the stoners will kill themselves - problem solved" rhetoric turns out to be wrong?
Well, you have to find the people ODing in time to use the Narcan, so I would assume plenty of druggies would still die, especially from what I've read in this thread regarding the potencies of the new drugs. Because even if you legalized heroin, it sounds like there would still be a very viable black market for the more potent stuff, probably at a cheaper price than a "govt sanctioned" drug house.
I'm actually curious how this is all playing out in the Netherlands right now and how their per capita drug OD numbers compare to our current numbers.
-
So it seems like the whole, "legalize drugs, and all the stoners will kill themselves - problem solved" rhetoric turns out to be wrong?
"Legalize drugs, let them buy their house brand pound bag of morphine at the drug store."
-
I dom't see a problem here.
I don't either. Guy dies. Problem, if any, solved
-
I'm actually curious how this is all playing out in the Netherlands right now and how their per capita drug OD numbers compare to our current numbers.
My first thought is that under a legal market most would be less likely to kill themselves because they would be able to control dosing. Consistent quality and purity means that if they OD, it is because they used more. Not got some that was doped to be more powerful than they were used to.
In which case, much more their own fault.
-
My first thought is that under a legal market most would be less likely to kill themselves because they would be able to control dosing. Consistent quality and purity means that if they OD, it is because they used more. Not got some that was doped to be more powerful than they were used to.
In which case, much more their own fault.
And where do they get the money to buy the "House" brand ??
-
I dom't see a problem here.
Fair enough, but in that case you might as well not issue Narcan at all.
Gonna ask cops to pay up when they're unconscious on the ground?
Cops tend to have city, county, or federal health insurance as well as be covered for on the job injuries. Plus if it came down to it you could just dock his pay.
-
The sheriff of the county that the town (from OP) is located in, doesn't permit his deputies to carry Narcan.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/07/06/butler-county-sheriff-rick-jones-my-deputies-wont-use-narcan/457229001/ (http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/07/06/butler-county-sheriff-rick-jones-my-deputies-wont-use-narcan/457229001/)
-
Forgot to mention, our local K9 handlers carry an extra dose of Narcan specifically for the dogs. Cheap insurance for an expensive investment.
-
^^^So all that sheriff is doing is shifting the burden to Fire/EMS. I liked how his excuse was the people revived are often violent and never happy to see the police. I thought dealing with often violent and unhappy people is mentioned somewhere in the law enforcement job description. My 93 pound nurses do this all the time, and I simply must send this article to them for a good laugh.
-
^^^So all that sheriff is doing is shifting the burden to Fire/EMS. I liked how his excuse was the people revived are often violent and never happy to see the police. I thought dealing with often violent and unhappy people is mentioned somewhere in the law enforcement job description. My 93 pound nurses do this all the time, and I simply must send this article to them for a good laugh.
That is his public-side reasoning. On the private side, he is saying "screw those druggies, let them die" at least that is my interpretation.
-
And where do they get the money to buy the "House" brand ??
To buy legal dope?
Where do they get the money for anything?
Under legalization the drugs can be stupidly cheap. Lacking prohibition, excessive taxes and controls to raise the price, the cost could be as low as a couple hundred a year. Without sin taxes, no more than a couple thousand. Plenty spend more on smokes and drinks.
The trick is to get them into treatment before they ruin their lives, health or financial.
-
To buy legal dope?
Where do they get the money for anything?
Under legalization the drugs can be stupidly cheap. Lacking prohibition, excessive taxes and controls to raise the price, the cost could be as low as a couple hundred a year. Without sin taxes, no more than a couple thousand. Plenty spend more on smokes and drinks.
The trick is to get them into treatment before they ruin their lives, health or financial.
How about not doing it in the first place ?? That seems to be the most cost effective alternative for all involved. Sorry, I think you should be free to ingest whatever you wish. However, you then own it and it's not society's job or responsibility to save you from your poor decision making...
[waves at Microbalrog =D =D =D =D]
-
waves at Microbalrog =D =D =D =D
Yeah, dead sisters are SO FUNNY! =D =D =D =D
-
Yeah, dead sisters are SO FUNNY! =D =D =D =D
??
Druggie relative?
-
??
Druggie relative?
A rage quit...http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=47571.msg970695#msg970695 (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=47571.msg970695#msg970695)
-
A rage quit...http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=47571.msg970695#msg970695 (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=47571.msg970695#msg970695)
Uhh.. Hail Satan?
WTF.
-
Uhh.. Hail Satan?
WTF.
The devil's hail. It comes from a hell of a thunderstorm.
-
He correctly pointed out that if there were no drug war, the odds would be much better of his parents having seen his sister as a human being and helped her.
It would sure be nice if our policy on drugs was not a moral one but somewhat medicine based. Most of this crap about letting junkies die flows from the belief that it's morally wrong for people to be stoned. Bizarre. Totally bizarre.
-
He correctly pointed out that if there were no drug war, the odds would be much better of his parents having seen his sister as a human being and helped her.
It would sure be nice if our policy on drugs was not a moral one but somewhat medicine based. Most of this crap about letting junkies die flows from the belief that it's morally wrong for people to be stoned. Bizarre. Totally bizarre.
Hey, wow. I agree with De Delby.
-
He correctly pointed out that if there were no drug war, the odds would be much better of his parents having seen his sister as a human being and helped her.
It would sure be nice if our policy on drugs was not a moral one but somewhat medicine based. Most of this crap about letting junkies die flows from the belief that it's morally wrong for people to be stoned. Bizarre. Totally bizarre.
It also treats being an addict as a moral failing, rather than a medical issue.
-
Most of this crap about letting junkies die flows from the belief that it's morally wrong for people to be stoned. Bizarre. Totally bizarre.
Why is it bizarre for that to be seen as a moral failing, especially when it has risk of harm to oneself, or others? If you don't agree with that view, that's one thing, but why do you call it bizarre?
It also treats being an addict as a moral failing, rather than a medical issue.
It can't be both?
-
Most of this crap about letting junkies die flows from the belief that it's morally wrong for people to be stoned. Bizarre. Totally bizarre.
Speaking for myself, I don't have any objection to someone who gets drunk, stoned, high, or whatever. My objection is about people who get high and then need others to rescue them. Or demand someone saves them. Or, when the stoner does get saved, he goes on a rampage against the people who saved his worthless life.
You want to get high on whatever chemical concoction that can be dreamed up? Go ahead. I won't try to stop you, but I sure as *expletive deleted*it won't lift a finger to help you either.
-
For consistency, should a person be resuscitated after a cardiac arrest if he is found to have high cholesterol from poor diet choices? Pretty much the same decision process but at a much slower pace.
Public policy makers all have a right to an opinion about the constituency's morality and lifestyle choice. That opinion shouldn't get entangled in the resulting policy.
What we support today, as it meets our values, may become problematic when a different ideological clique is in a position to make policy that conflicts with ours.
-
Why is it bizarre for that to be seen as a moral failing, especially when it has risk of harm to oneself, or others? If you don't agree with that view, that's one thing, but why do you call it bizarre?
It can't be both?
No. Calling it both is equivalent to calling schizophrenia or Alzheimer's a moral failing. The whole medical issue with addiction is that it short circuits choice, and it's hard to imagine a moral issue about which people have no choice.
-
Speaking for myself, I don't have any objection to someone who gets drunk, stoned, high, or whatever. My objection is about people who get high and then need others to rescue them. Or demand someone saves them. Or, when the stoner does get saved, he goes on a rampage against the people who saved his worthless life.
You want to get high on whatever chemical concoction that can be dreamed up? Go ahead. I won't try to stop you, but I sure as *expletive deleted*it won't lift a finger to help you either.
Do you feel the same way about mountain or wilderness rescues? "You choose to go out hunting, f you if you sprain your ankle and can't get out."
I doubt that you do. And there's my point: moralising about being high is the cause of this. There's no swell of people clamouring for those in other recreational pursuits to be left to die.
-
The devil's hail. It comes from a hell of a thunderstorm.
:laugh:
Obligatory "damn you autocorrect", but I didn't think past quoting the rage guy.
-
No. Calling it both is equivalent to calling schizophrenia or Alzheimer's a moral failing. The whole medical issue with addiction is that it short circuits choice, and it's hard to imagine a moral issue about which people have no choice.
Just to clarify, if a person uses drugs recreationally, and becomes addicted, you think they're morally equivalent to an Alzheimer's patient? Or are you talking, I hope, about people that became addicted to their prescription pain medication?
And to clarify from your earlier post, if I said that getting high is a moral failing, you wouldn't find that bizarre? It's just if I were talking about the resulting addiction as a moral failing?
For my own part, I see no reason to believe there is a great gulf fixed between the moral and the medical. A person can incur medical issues from their choices. For example, a firefighter that saves a child from a burning building, but suffers lasting complications from the fumes of the meth lab that started the fire. It's not a stretch to say that his heroism contributed to his medical problems, is it? Flip it around, and it can make sense to say that an addiction is both medical, and the result of a moral failing, yes? Or why not?
-
Do you feel the same way about mountain or wilderness rescues? "You choose to go out hunting, f you if you sprain your ankle and can't get out."
I doubt that you do. And there's my point: moralising about being high is the cause of this. There's no swell of people clamouring for those in other recreational pursuits to be left to die.
Actually, I do think the same way about wilderness rescues. Both are choices made by the individual that have high risks if something goes wrong. The difference is that a person going off into the wilderness usually takes reasonable precautions with risks. The risks are known and can be mitigated while still enjoying the hike or whatever. A reasonable amateur hiker won't try climbing Everest, but a reasonable well trained hiker could tackle Everest.
On the other hand, a drug user may know the risks, and may know how to mitigate them to an extent, but there is no way the druggie will be able to tell how potent the drug is. He can't tell how dangerous the hike is before he ingests the drug. His favorite dealer may say this batch of heroin is like a walk in a meadow, but it turns out that batch is like jumping off Everest. A reasonable person wouldn't do that.
-
Why should a drug addict get something for free that will save their life when a cancer patient has to pay for their drugs to stay alive?
-
I hope that those who view getting high as a moral failing also eat healthy food and avoid alcohol.
because anyone who believed that, and ate cheeseburgers or drank beer is a complete hypocrite.
Anyways. It's already been covered above. the war on drugs is a complete failure. It's created way more problems than it's solved.
-
Actually, I do think the same way about wilderness rescues. Both are choices made by the individual that have high risks if something goes wrong. The difference is that a person going off into the wilderness usually takes reasonable precautions with risks. The risks are known and can be mitigated while still enjoying the hike or whatever. A reasonable amateur hiker won't try climbing Everest, but a reasonable well trained hiker could tackle Everest.
On the other hand, a drug user may know the risks, and may know how to mitigate them to an extent, but there is no way the druggie will be able to tell how potent the drug is. He can't tell how dangerous the hike is before he ingests the drug. His favorite dealer may say this batch of heroin is like a walk in a meadow, but it turns out that batch is like jumping off Everest. A reasonable person wouldn't do that.
So just to be clear, you oppose public funding for wilderness rescue?? Or you think that's okay because those are "smart" risks whereas drug use is not a smart risk?
-
Why should a drug addict get something for free that will save their life when a cancer patient has to pay for their drugs to stay alive?
This is moralising. Obviously cancer patients who collapse on the street get treatment if available.
The controversy here is that we'd do the same thing for people who collapse from drugs. The only possible basis for saying we shouldn't is moralising about drugs.
-
I hope that those who view getting high as a moral failing also eat healthy food and avoid alcohol.
because anyone who believed that, and ate cheeseburgers or drank beer is a complete hypocrite.
Anyways. It's already been covered above. the war on drugs is a complete failure. It's created way more problems than it's solved.
I was unaware that moral disapproval of recreational drug use was incompatible with having compassion for those who partake, or with diverting the community's resources to them.
I was further unaware that moral disapproval is inseparable from wanting to ban vice.
-
So just to be clear, you oppose public funding for wilderness rescue?? Or you think that's okay because those are "smart" risks whereas drug use is not a smart risk?
I oppose the public funding. The individual should pay for the services that saved him.
-
Also, one may as well point out that the Bible criticizes drunkenness in both the Old and New-fangled Testaments. Which I think can be safely extrapolated to drug abuse, generally.
Which doesn't mean anyone has to believe it. I'm just sayin...
-
This is moralising. Obviously cancer patients who collapse on the street get treatment if available.
The controversy here is that we'd do the same thing for people who collapse from drugs. The only possible basis for saying we shouldn't is moralising about drugs.
What about the druggies that get free methadone?
-
What about the druggies that get free methadone?
Totally different to what we're talking about here and comes with its own upsides and downsides.
-
I oppose the public funding. The individual should pay for the services that saved him.
So if we find money in the wallets of ODing junkies we can give them narcan? Should you start carrying a cashiers check in a clearly visible place for wilderness rescue?
-
Also, one may as well point out that the Bible criticizes drunkenness in both the Old and New-fangled Testaments. Which I think can be safely extrapolated to drug abuse, generally.
Which doesn't mean anyone has to believe it. I'm just sayin...
This. It's why this is even a debate despite the huge economic costs and cost to personal freedoms.
Biblical views on drugs have visited a biblical scale plague on America.
-
Of course, if substances of known purity and strength were readily available from trusted sources... would this even be a debate?
The law is worse than the problem it purports to solve
Much like DUI problems in counties with blue laws. But hey at least they're driving to the next county to do their drinking! Keeps the dui death stats on the other side of the county line
-
This. It's why this is even a debate despite the huge economic costs and cost to personal freedoms.
Biblical views on drugs have visited a biblical scale plague on America.
Ah, Chicken Little has found the problem! :laugh: It's the Bible's detailed policy proposals on illicit drugs!
And the rest of us have found the new SJW trigger: stoned-shaming!
-
Of course, if substances of known purity and strength were readily available from trusted sources... would this even be a debate?
The law is worse than the problem it purports to solve
Much like DUI problems in counties with blue laws. But hey at least they're driving to the next county to do their drinking! Keeps the dui death stats on the other side of the county line
^^^^This.
-
Of course, if substances of known purity and strength were readily available from trusted sources... would this even be a debate?
It would certainly be harder to accidentally or unknowingly overdose. Which, given that most addicts don't want to die, knowing overdose don't happen much. While there are lots of accidental prescription overdoses, the rise we're seeing from former pill poppers switching to heroin is troubling. Heroin is cheap, affordable, but not as much quality control and potency is often unknown due to fentanyl.
It's the Bible's detailed policy proposals on illicit drugs!
Over time, I've found that 'biblical views' rarely have as much to do with the words in the Bible as they do about the views people claim come from the Bible. A lot of Bible thumpers don't seem to actually read the book they're beating on.
-
So if we find money in the wallets of ODing junkies we can give them narcan? Should you start carrying a cashiers check in a clearly visible place for wilderness rescue?
No. Let them die. No loss to society from either group.
If the hikers want to think ahead and pay for a rescue insurance policy, then they will get rescued.
It all boils down to personal responsibility. Who is responsible for saving the life of the hiker, or druggie, or helmetless motorcycle rider? The individual and no one else. If the individual wants to risk his life doing stupid stuff, and hasn't planned ahead for negative outcomes, then he can save his own ass. The first responders are off the hook.
And the courts agree with me. No cop or doctor or EMT or individual is required by law to perform a life saving service.
I will throw a bone out to normal people doing normal, reasonable things.
-
No. Let them die. No loss to society from either group.
If the hikers want to think ahead and pay for a rescue insurance policy, then they will get rescued.
It all boils down to personal responsibility. Who is responsible for saving the life of the hiker, or druggie, or helmetless motorcycle rider? The individual and no one else. If the individual wants to risk his life doing stupid stuff, and hasn't planned ahead for negative outcomes, then he can save his own ass. The first responders are off the hook.
And the courts agree with me. No cop or doctor or EMT or individual is required by law to perform a life saving service.
I will throw a bone out to normal people doing normal, reasonable things.
You're deliberately missing the point there. It's one thing to say we should be required to find and save people. Another thing indeed to say "knowing they're there, should we refuse help when we'd ordinarily give it just because the cause of the illness is a drug?".
Again, the basis of this view that drugs are an unreasonable risk is fundamentally biblical/moral. It's about judging users.
Me, I don't see why being intoxicated is cause for a person to be treated badly.
-
This. It's why this is even a debate despite the huge economic costs and cost to personal freedoms.
Biblical views on drugs have visited a biblical scale plague on America.
"Biblical views" -- how so?
-
Again, the basis of this view that drugs are an unreasonable risk is fundamentally biblical/moral. It's about judging users.
Certain drugs are an unreasonable risk. It has nothing to do with religion or morals. Yes, I do judge others as do you and everyone else. Stupid people who play stupid games with themselves should not be saved at the risk and expense of others.
Other drugs are reasonably safe. Marijuana is safe in that a user probably will not die from using it nor will the user require help from another person. A person can OD and die with alcohol, but the chances are slim. Other drugs and activites have varying degrees of risk. The most risk, when talking about drug use, comes from using high potency drugs with unknown ingredients in unknown doses, such as heroin, meth, PCP, etc. The people who use those drugs are taking an unreasonable risk with their health and safety, yet they expect someone else to save them. They know the risk, yet they choose to take the drug anyway. In that case, I say let them save themselves.
-
Of course, if substances of known purity and strength were readily available from trusted sources... would this even be a debate?
If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.
-
A lot of Bible thumpers don't seem to actually read the book they're beating on.
So, they're like non-Christian lawyers that live in Australia?
You're deliberately missing the point there. It's one thing to say we should be required to find and save people. Another thing indeed to say "knowing they're there, should we refuse help when we'd ordinarily give it just because the cause of the illness is a drug?".
Again, the basis of this view that drugs are an unreasonable risk is fundamentally biblical/moral. It's about judging users.
That verse about refusing to help people with moral problems is one of my very favorite in the entire Bible. It's almost as good as the verse about asset forfeiture, and repealing the fourth amendment.
Ah, being a Christian. We're terrible people for trying to help babies not get killed, and then we're terrible people when libertarians don't want to help druggies. It's terribly fun!
-
If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.
Yes, especially if the drug was cheaper or easier to get. Damn those free market ideas!
-
If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.
Hence the rampant unstoppable Force that is the high proof alcohol underworld, selling jars of Uber high proof on the street corners.
Make it as easy as hitting the store for a pack of smokes or a six pack and very, very few folks are likely to bother unless you burden it with stupidly high taxes. And even then most are going to go for the legal know source.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
There is plenty of black market sales for the under 21 crowd.
-
If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.
That assumes that stronger things are available from untrustworthy sources. It would be quite possible to sell undiluted fentanyl under a legalization scheme, though I think I'd require a class or really hefty waiver first.
It also disregards the prevalence of popping pills diverted from our legal pharmaceutical system before the latest crackdown.
As lupinus mentions, this just isn't born out in the real world unless we put stupid levels of taxes on it.
There is plenty of black market sales for the under 21 crowd.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, there's no organized gangs out there shipping alcohol across the country, even smuggling it across borders, distilling it down in Mexico using lead pipes and spiking it with methanol and battery acid to 'give it a bit more kick', right?
We're talking more about the occasional clerk who'll sell without ID to teens that he knows, homeless drunks that will split the 'take' with a teenager willing to fund a couple bottles of something, 21 year olds wanting to be 'cool' with the teenage crowd, etc... The product they're selling is identical to the legal stuff, just diverted.
It's when the black market people get into manufacturing that you get the horrors of non-existent quality control.
-
There is plenty of black market sales for the under 21 crowd.
Sure, but it's relatively small. And it's not exactly prone to violence, funding gangs, etc. Same can be said for moonshine. It's small potato's and mainly a way to make some side cash at best.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.
Maybe, but unless prices are extremely high on the legal market I doubt it. In a theoretical "all the dopes is legal" scenario I think folk would be plenty content with uncut opium or uncut heroin or uncut cocaine or uncut whatever their drug of choice is. They might use more to get a more powerful high, but we're talking about some pretty potent drugs already. Unless someone comes out with a drug that lasts longer or is significantly cheaper than what is available on the open market or just gives a "better" high, I don't think people would prefer un-trustworthy sources just because something is theoretically more potent.
-
There will be some small percentage of users looking for the better high with stronger drugs. However, I think that should be a small percentage. For stuff like marijuana, those people would be growing their own. I am not sure how easy that would be when it comes to other drugs.
-
Maybe, but unless prices are extremely high on the legal market I doubt it. In a theoretical "all the dopes is legal" scenario I think folk would be plenty content with uncut opium or uncut heroin or uncut cocaine or uncut whatever their drug of choice is. They might use more to get a more powerful high, but we're talking about some pretty potent drugs already. Unless someone comes out with a drug that lasts longer or is significantly cheaper than what is available on the open market or just gives a "better" high, I don't think people would prefer un-trustworthy sources just because something is theoretically more potent.
Hell, under a 'completely legal' scenario, couldn't they be switching because somebody came out with something safer, with a "cleaner" high?
Though I'll note that I don't consider "legal" the same as "unregulated". Truth in advertising rules, container markings, ingredient lists, etc...
And yeah, 'uncut' traditional drugs would be a tough line to beat.
There will be some small percentage of users looking for the better high with stronger drugs. However, I think that should be a small percentage. For stuff like marijuana, those people would be growing their own. I am not sure how easy that would be when it comes to other drugs.
I tend to think that 'growing your own' will tend to remain a hobby for relatively few users. Growing your own will be for the same reasons people have their own crops and such. Many don't have the space or time. Same as how despite it being $40 to start brewing your own beer, most don't bother.
-
If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.
yeah, it's hard to get stronger than pure, uncut cocaine or heroin. The fentanyl problem has nothing to do with demand and everything to do with cutting the difficult to smuggle product with a dangerous, but easier one. The high doesn't get any better, it just becomes easier to die.
But, you have a point. after all, the 200 proof moonshine epidemic is really tearing America apart.
-
You can barely even find mason jars and crockery jugs these days!
-
But, you have a point. after all, the 200 proof moonshine epidemic is really tearing America apart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everclear_(alcohol)
Ethanol cannot be concentrated by ordinary distillation to greater than approximately 96% by weight because at that concentration, the vapor has the same ratio of water to alcohol as the liquid, a phenomenon known as azeotropy.[10] The highest concentration of ethanol generally available for human consumption is 190 proof (95% alcohol by volume), which is about 92.4% ethanol by weight.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everclear_(alcohol)
ok, 190 proof then.
Point stands. It's not the strength that's killing people, it's the inconsistency
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uEMOeDZsA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uEMOeDZsA)
-
If Winston marijuana cigarettes were available for a few dollars at the corner store, would that many people be looking for harder drugs? I am sure there would be a few, but I don't know how many. I guess at some point, a lot of young adults are going to try whatever is legal and some illegal stuff.
-
No. Let them die. No loss to society from either group.
If the hikers want to think ahead and pay for a rescue insurance policy, then they will get rescued.
It all boils down to personal responsibility. Who is responsible for saving the life of the hiker, or druggie, or helmetless motorcycle rider? The individual and no one else. If the individual wants to risk his life doing stupid stuff, and hasn't planned ahead for negative outcomes, then he can save his own ass. The first responders are off the hook.
And the courts agree with me. No cop or doctor or EMT or individual is required by law to perform a life saving service.
I will throw a bone out to normal people doing normal, reasonable things.
Normal reasonable people occasionally act stupid. Including every damn one of us here. (some more often than others) And we all have moral failings. Mine are probably different than yours. Of course getting high is a moral failing! So what. I'm not sure exactly what my point is, but we shouldn't be making public policy based on that.
On a side note, what kind of Bible thumps the best? I'm thinkin' a large-print King James or NASB study bible with a soft leather binding. It would be kinda like a blackjack. Whap!
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everclear_(alcohol)
You can get it to 200 proof, it just takes more work - specifically, using a molecular sieve or such. The most common is that you dump in calcium oxide, which absorbs the last of the water, not the alcohol. Filter out the solid granules, you have 200 proof(or close enough)...
That said, alcohol that pure is hydroscopic as all hell. Pop the cork and soon enough it'll absorb enough water from the air that it'll be back down to 90-95% pure.
;/
-
^^^Back when I was homebrewing, I used Everclear to swab the fittings of my equipment to sanitize them. I had to go to Oregon to buy a bottle since it was not sold in Washington at the time.
-
^^^Back when I was homebrewing, I used Everclear to swab the fittings of my equipment to sanitize them. I had to go to Oregon to buy a bottle since it was not sold in Washington at the time.
Well, Washington is the buckle of the Bible Belt.
-
Well, Washington is the buckle of the Bible Belt.
Actually it kinda is. Their liquor laws suck for a Western state. I think even Utah is better.
-
Actually it kinda is. Their liquor laws suck for a Western state. I think even Utah is better.
Do they have government-run liquor stores like Oregon?
-
http://www.wcti12.com/news/irresistible/people-intentionally-od-to-be-revived-at-narcan-parties/599532474
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
http://www.wcti12.com/news/irresistible/people-intentionally-od-to-be-revived-at-narcan-parties/599532474
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
All the comments are calling BS. It's not in my AO, so I've no clue whom to believe.
-
^^^I call shenanigans on the Narcan story. Having administered it several times, the patient in no way experiences a 'rush'. In fact, they are usually angry, because you have just immediately reversed the opiate effects, thus ending the high, and the patient does not like this.
-
Well, I'm definitely not buying MillCreek's version of events.
-
Since Fistful wants to be a "Doubting Thomas"*, I suggest we inject him with a lethal dose of Heroin and then administer the Narcan and he can report his findings here.
Sounds like a plan ??
*- Yes, yes. I know where the term comes from....
-
I'd just like to clarify that, when Thomas doubted, they didn't crucify him, so he could see first-hand if resurrection was possible.
-
I'd just like to clarify that, when Thomas doubted, they didn't crucify him, so he could see first-hand if resurrection was possible.
Perhaps that was corrected in the Heliand version of the Gospels.
-
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/08/541626627/first-responders-spending-more-on-overdose-reversal-drug
It is a great day to own stock in the naloxone manufacturers.
-
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/08/541626627/first-responders-spending-more-on-overdose-reversal-drug
It is a great day to own stock in the naloxone manufacturers.
Interestingly, several stocks are involved in Narcon. Some are up, some are down over the last year or so.
https://www.equities.com/news/naloxone-stocks-who-s-really-winning-the-battle-against-the-opioid-epidemic
-
I'd just like to clarify that, when Thomas doubted, they didn't crucify him, so he could see first-hand if resurrection was possible.
Details, details....
-
The sooner society starts accepting addiction as a mental health issue, the sooner effective steps to stem it can be taken. Using force, punishment and de-humanization or dereliction is not the way to go about it. We should have learned this by now.
-
We have learned that but the justice-incarceration complex makes way too much money off the drug war to just give it up.
-
The sooner society starts accepting addiction as a mental health issue, the sooner effective steps to stem it can be taken. Using force, punishment and de-humanization or dereliction is not the way to go about it. We should have learned this by now.
This. And we could let the addicts destroy themselves instead of forcing help on them.