Hey, those smokers made their bed, now they have to lie in it...

 

You dodged that one huh.

So I'll ask you the same question I've asked others.

 

Using your "they knew the risk" reasoning do we not use life-saving procedures on drunk drivers? Fat people whose hearts stop beating? People who text while driving(hey, we've all seen the ads, right?)?

 

If people actively engage in an activity that they know could result in them being killed, then they have acknowledged the risks and decided that the "rewards" outweigh the risks.

I feel comparing heroin use to smoking cigarettes and over eating is a drastic comparison. I get the point but seems like hyperbole.

 

Heroin is a problem. Narcan being provided by Kroger is a great business move by them, but doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

 

However, it does provide the parent of an addict to be able to save their child if they found them ODing. I think we need stricter penalties on the ODer though. They shouldn't be back out on the streets. Tired of hearing about how much it affects our communities.

When's the last time EMS was called for someone that just OD'd on cigarette smoke? When's the last time someone broke into some cars so they could get money for their cigarette fix?

 

Hey, those smokers made their bed, now they have to lie in it...

 

If a man's heart stops beating because of years of smoking isn't that ODing? Body stopped functioning even though the man knew the risk of smoking.

 

If a man's heart stops beating because he weighs 3 bills and it's all fat isn't that a form of ODing? Heart just couldn't take it any longer - dude knew he shouldn't weight 3 bills yet he kept eating. Knew the risk. Weak. Didn't care.

Honesty is my strong suit.

 

And it's appreciated.

I disagree. Actively and unjustifiably killing people is inhumane. Letting people reap what they sow is not. A drug user knows they risks of their actions, and they accept those risks.[/QUOTE]

 

Rehab would be great if people went. I've seen people OD twice in one day. OD'd, got saved by EMS, taken to the hospital, checked themselves out. Went home got more heroin, OD'd AGAIN and the same process all over again.

 

The current system is a joke and that's why I'm tired of it. Literally throwing away millions and millions of tax dollars to save people that don't care enough to save themselves.

 

I have worked in the addiction field for a number of years and no other drug out there compares to the grip that this particular drug has. No other drug acts like it or has the instability that this one has.

 

Saying that those who know what they are doing is generally true, however, the grip of an addiction, any addiction, is neither rational nor sane. The problem with addiction is that those that are not addicted have no idea to explain in their head the "why would someone do this" part.

 

In order for an addict to be able to "see" through this, they have to get sober enough to "hear" and "feel" the why. I'm not making excuses, but addiction is literally a crazy place for a person to be in their life. It doesn't excuse the use, but it explains the inability to stop without intervention.

 

Irrespective of what current recidivism rates are for treatment, as a society, are we not obligated to help those that are in need, no matter how they got to where they are ? You can substitute any life condition you want here, homelessness, mental illness, family tree....it goes on and on.

 

A big part of the answer is getting better control of our borders and using whatever force necessary to stop the importation. Guess what, it's not coming on planes and very little on boats, it's coming on truck from our friends to the south and it is very lucrative for many.

 

I'm not sure about the societal acceptance of OTC Narcan, but if it saves just one life and that person gets their act together, gets sober and tries to help someone else, then how can we say it's a bad thing to have available ?

You dodged that one huh.

Not at all. If you don't know the risks with smoking at this point you are living under a rock at the bottom of the Pacific.

If a man's heart stops beating because of years of smoking isn't that ODing? Body stopped functioning even though the man knew the risk of smoking.

 

If a man's heart stops beating because he weighs 3 bills and it's all fat isn't that a form of ODing? Heart just couldn't take it any longer - dude knew he shouldn't weight 3 bills yet he kept eating. Knew the risk. Weak. Didn't care.

 

No IMO those are unhealthy lifestyles that have long term impact on ones health. Not even remotely the same as using heroin. No one is going to die from eating 3 Big Macs in one sitting.

If people actively engage in an activity that they know could result in them being killed, then they have acknowledged the risks and decided that the "rewards" outweigh the risks.

 

Gotcha.

 

How do paramedics/ER nurses/docs decide at the point of having to use life-saving measures if the person in front of them is unconscious/dying due to such activities vs something else unrelated?

 

You would seem to be applying a lot of tests for those persons who would then be wasting critical time vs doing what they do - save lives.

No IMO those are unhealthy lifestyles that have long term impact on ones health. Not even remotely the same as using heroin. No one is going to die from eating 3 Big Macs in one sitting.

 

It's not the same as heroin when it comes to time to potentially kill you but it certainly meets the common thinking we've seen here in this thread that "hey the bastard knew the risks so...."

 

I'm not sure about the societal acceptance of OTC Narcan, but if it saves just one life and that person gets their act together, gets sober and tries to help someone else, then how can we say it's a bad thing to have available ?

 

But what if it caused many more to try it for the first time because they new their buddy had some Narcan readily available, so if things went bad...no big deal?

 

I'm a little naive to how it works, but that seems like a very plausible thing to happen.

Not at all. If you don't know the risks with smoking at this point you are living under a rock at the bottom of the Pacific.

 

Then you should know the answer to my questions was never. Which means comparing smoking to heroin use is pretty dumb. Most folks would realize that unless they're living under a rock at the bottom of the Pacific.

Hell, why do we stop there?

Who here isn't getting the recommended amount of sleep? No treatment for you.

Who here isn't exercising enough? No treatment for you.

Who plans to eat sweets this weekend? No treatment for you.

 

I am the atheist in this crew? Pretty sure Jesus never told his followers to just let folks die because "they knew the risk"...

 

Pretty sure you just described implicity Obamocare....

Gotcha.

 

How do paramedics/ER nurses/docs decide at the point of having to use life-saving measures if the person in front of them is unconscious/dying due to such activities vs something else unrelated?

 

You would seem to be applying a lot of tests for those persons who would then be wasting critical time vs doing what they do - save lives.

 

I think a simple blood test could probably reveal a decent amount. Also situational awareness. By that I mean:

 

"Nurse, where was this man found"

 

"Well Dr., we pulled him of a Super 8 Motel with 4 heroin needles stuck in his arm and a belt tighened around his bicep, surrounded by remnants of a White Castles crave case and 2 empty packs of Marlboro Reds"

 

"Gotcha, on to the next one."

It's not the same as heroin when it comes to time to potentially kill you but it certainly meets the common thinking we've seen here in this thread that "hey the bastard the risks so...."

 

Agree to disagree. That's your perception of our thinking but not how I view it.