One of my brothers is a respiratory therapist and spends a significant amount of time in the ER. He swears that with Narcan as readily available as a safety-net of sorts for users, it's only making things worse by removing from of the concern of death from the equation. He says we need to cut back severely on administering Narcan, id est, let more overdose patients die.

 

I think that plays a role. However, so many people are dying from overdoses that it seems to indicate to me that the high is still worth the risk even without the safety net.

One of my brothers is a respiratory therapist and spends a significant amount of time in the ER. He swears that with Narcan as readily available as a safety-net of sorts for users, it's only making things worse by removing from of the concern of death from the equation. He says we need to cut back severely on administering Narcan, id est, let more overdose patients die.

 

I certainly don't have my ear to the ground of heroin culture, but that seems strangely rational (purely in the broadest sense of "I can increase my risk-taking because there is a safety net") on the part of the heroin addict, and addiction seems very irrational by nature. So, I'm not totally convinced Narcan is the catalyst without more evidence. I would think that if Narcan were important for junkies they'd be stealing it or otherwise acquiring it to keep with them when they binge.

I think that plays a role. However, so many people are dying from overdoses that it seems to indicate to me that the high is still worth the risk even without the safety net.

 

I have never seen ANY media ads, information, etc. that inform the populace about the risk of death with heroin. Could one say it is common sense...yes, to you and me.

 

The number is 22% of heroin addicts will die from their addiction. What I haven't found yet is the MTTD (mean-time-to-death) that quantifies how long the time period from beginning of use to death. We may be missing data since we can't ask that 22%.

That's...interesting.

 

Edit: Whoa. I could've sworn I posted this after CWB's reply. Maybe I'm under the influence... :jimlad:

I certainly don't have my ear to the ground of heroin culture, but that seems strangely rational (purely in the broadest sense of "I can increase my risk-taking because there is a safety net") on the part of the heroin addict, and addiction seems very irrational by nature. So, I'm not totally convinced Narcan is the catalyst without more evidence. I would think that if Narcan were important for junkies they'd be stealing it or otherwise acquiring it to keep with them when they binge.

 

 

I don't necessarily think Narcan is a cause, but I would still say it is a catalyst. I suggested some evidence regarding that a while back in a thread I started to discuss Narcan. Users are specifically choosing locations to take the drug that are adjacent to medical facilities in the case that they overdose...

 

 

One thing I heard recently from a friend of mine made me question whether or not we could be doing things wrong in some regard. My friend is an EMT in Northern Kentucky and filled me in on some of the goings on at the Newport Pavilion shopping center.

 

I think everyone from around NKY is aware of the fact that the Newport Pavilion is a hotbed for heroin use (and overdoses). I was never exactly sure why it was such a hotbed, apart from the fact that it's somewhat centrally located around Greater Cincinnati and has very nearby expressway access to I-75, I-71, and I-275.

 

However, I was filled in by the EMT that the additional reasons for the Newport Pavilion being so popular for heroin usage are it's proximity to an emergency room (St. Elizabeth Fort Thomas), and the fact that it is a 24/7 shopping center with a regular crowd of people there to find you, John Herion User, if you overdose.

 

He went on to inform me that he had been completely filled in about the desirable nature of the Newport Pavilion by an overdose patient whom had just had Narcan administered to him for the 5th time in 4 years. Apparently the protocol is to drive to the shopping center, back into a parking space directly across the aisle from a nice looking vehicle, leave your car running, and then put it back in drive while you hold your foot on the brake. Then, with your foot still on the brake, you shoot up. That way if you overdose, your foot will slip off the brake, your car will roll forward into the nice vehicle across the way, people will come find you after you crash, and you'll end up in the emergency road a mere 5 minutes away where the Narcan awaits you (if the EMT's haven't already administered it to you).

 

 

If this is a look into the mind of a heroin addict, then is there something we need to do differently about Narcan?

Can it be solved. Yes, in due time. Meaning it will take years when we use the correct strategy. The one big problem, as we all know, is if the addict does NOT want to stop, they won't.

 

I was a smoker for 41 years and quit in May. I quit because I wanted to quit. Not because my wife and kids wanted me to, it was because I wanted to. You could not shame me, embarrass me, or try any other thing to get me to quit. You could have made the cigarettes that looked like blackened lungs and I would not have quit. It is a waste of money to try those scare campaigns, they just did not affect me in any way. I didn't want to, so I didn't. Simple and as complicated as that.

 

Until you have been addicted to something, most will never understand because it just doesn't seem logical when you know something is bad and you still have to do it.

 

I quit because i was staying up half the night hacking. It was slowly killing me and I finally knew it. Nobody said anything, I realized it. I quit in no time once I made my mind up. Want one badly occasionally, however, I can divert my thinking and it goes away.

 

You have to replace the addiction or you have no chance to stop it. Don't know how, but that is what would seem logical and most effective to me with heroin.

 

By the way, people congratulate me for quitting. My family knew and knows not to. They are not to mention it and they don't. I know it is well intentioned. I'd rather not hear it, it is meaningless to me. If it means anything it is that I conquered something bad, overcame a weakness and I still do not think either of those. I especially did and do not think it was a weakness,

One of my brothers is a respiratory therapist and spends a significant amount of time in the ER. He swears that with Narcan as readily available as a safety-net of sorts for users, it's only making things worse by removing from of the concern of death from the equation. He says we need to cut back severely on administering Narcan, id est, let more overdose patients die.

 

If only they had not given that guy in Ft. Wright narcan the last time he had an accident, 3 innocent people may be alive today.

I don't have the answer but do know that we need to find people smarter than me and lock them in a room until they come up with solution.

If only they had not given that guy in Ft. Wright narcan the last time he had an accident, 3 innocent people may be alive today.

 

That is so true. I would be willing to bet that most Narcan saved people go on to ruin other people's lives in many ways. Very few take that second chance at life and turn themselves around. Yet, one little part of me thinks..what if it was my kid? I am 98% against Narcan, but can't get past the fact that I would want my child saved.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, some on here would rather let a human being die than give them the treatment if it were available?

I dont know why we continue to try and stop this problem, just wasting good money and time after bad.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, some on here would rather let a human being die than give them the treatment if it were available?

 

In some aspects you bet, they choose to take the drugs, suffer the consequences.

In some aspects you bet, they choose to take the drugs, suffer the consequences.

Cut from a different clothe I guess.

 

I'll grant that addicts need more than just an antidote though.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, some on here would rather let a human being die than give them the treatment if it were available?

 

In short, you betcha.

 

Survival of the Fittest. I'm a big proponent of it. Let the idiots kill themselves off.

In short, you betcha.

 

Survival of the Fittest. I'm a big proponent of it. Let the idiots kill themselves off.

I get your point.

 

Different life experience might change your perspective though.