February 12, 201610 yr If your reasoning is to save society from having to pay for bad decisions by others. Then obesity should REALLY be your main target here. Deaths caused by obesity are hovering around the 20% range in the U.S.
February 12, 201610 yr Here's my question to you all not wanting to allow a medication to be available. Why don't we just round them all the addicts up and shoot them? Wouldn't that save a lot of time? Sure. If we only could have stopped these people before they became burdens to society. Edgar Allan Poe Robin Williams Natalie Cole Judy Garland Elvis Presley Charlie Parker Sam Kinison Johnny Cash John Belushi Chris Farley Betty Ford Charles Dickens Sigmund Freud Jimi Hendrix Lenny Bruce
February 12, 201610 yr I know this is probably for a different thread, but I believe we need to quit putting millions of dollars into trying to save habitual users and trying to rehabilitate any heroin user. Put those millions into stopping the problem where it starts! In the long and short term, more lives would be saved and less money spent!
February 13, 201610 yr Smoking cigarettes CAN kill you. There is a high likelihood that it will. Obesity CAN kill you. There is a high likelihood that it will. Doing something with a risk that it can kill you is the same in all of these cases. Logically, the speed with which it can kill you shouldn't matter... If you can't comprehend the difference in what I've explained previously then there's no point in discussing this topic any further.
February 13, 201610 yr I know this is probably for a different thread, but I believe we need to quit putting millions of dollars into trying to save habitual users and trying to rehabilitate any heroin user. Put those millions into stopping the problem where it starts! In the long and short term, more lives would be saved and less money spent! Do we know where the problem starts?
February 13, 201610 yr So now we are going to have a contribution test? I can only imagine what people like you have to deal with on a regular basis. I'd argue, though, that it distorts your view. Too close. Not seeing a bigger picture IMO. Exactly what is the big picture to you Clyde? I'm a retired ff/paramedic that now works in law enforcement. I have seen it from all sides, including having family members with addiction problems. Not much I haven't seen. I'm all for Narcan being available to the general public. Addicts won't be buying it. Their family members will be. They better stock up too. Addicts will keep going until one of two things happen, they die or they get so sick of their addiction, they finally seek help. Sadly, it is the former.
February 13, 201610 yr I know this is probably for a different thread, but I believe we need to quit putting millions of dollars into trying to save habitual users and trying to rehabilitate any heroin user. Put those millions into stopping the problem where it starts! In the long and short term, more lives would be saved and less money spent!We've been doing that for 40 years now. I think we're losing... To be fair. Occasionally we've been known to support the problem at the start when it serves our cause. See: Afghanistan, Columbia, etc.
February 13, 201610 yr If you can't comprehend the difference in what I've explained previously then there's no point in discussing this topic any further. I totally comprehend the difference. I even point it out it my response. The logic is what is escaping you. The speed with which it kills you makes no difference logically. In both you are taking a risk by doing something that can lead to your death. When the people taking the risks are people you don't deem worthy of caring about then it's not worth it. However, when it's the average American...it becomes an issue.
February 13, 201610 yr 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. The paramedics will continue to save lives, same as the nurses, doctors, respiratory techs, etc. It's what they have promised to do. It doesn't mean they don't see the futility in saving those that are Hell bent on destroying themselves. The real shame is the babies that are born addicted. I've delivered a few. Makes my blood boil. The child has to suffer because Mom could have cared less about them.
February 13, 201610 yr Both sides of this argument are hilarious in this thread. As long as people are paying for the drug I habe no problem. It should be made available . But I find the analogies some are making to be quite hilarious. I feel Clyde is just bored tonight.
February 13, 201610 yr Both sides of this argument are hilarious in this thread. As long as people are paying for the drug I habe no problem. It should be made available . But I find the analogies some are making to be quite hilarious. I feel Clyde is just bored tonight. At the end of the day this is me. I really can't understand why anyone would have a problem with this.
February 13, 201610 yr I totally comprehend the difference. I even point it out it my response. The logic is what is escaping you. The speed with which it kills you makes no difference logically. In both you are taking a risk by doing something that can lead to your death. When the people taking the risks are people you don't deem worthy of caring about then it's not worth it. However, when it's the average American...it becomes an issue. I don't care if you're a doctor, nurse, priest etc. If you do heroin and need Narcan, then fine you can have it once on the house. After that, you're on your own. Is that better for you? I've heard many a paramedics say they wish it were that way because they get tired of saving the same people over and over again only to be treated like garbage. I can't say I blame them.
February 13, 201610 yr I totally comprehend the difference. I even point it out it my response. The logic is what is escaping you. The speed with which it kills you makes no difference logically. In both you are taking a risk by doing something that can lead to your death. When the people taking the risks are people you don't deem worthy of caring about then it's not worth it. However, when it's the average American...it becomes an issue. Suicide on the installment plan.
February 13, 201610 yr They were talking about Heroin around the tri state on WEBN's morning show on my way home. A guy called in and said his best friends a Police Officer in Cheviot, OH. He said that they've had to Narcan the same guy for over dosing for 6 straight weekends.
February 13, 201610 yr Do we know where the problem starts? Drug dealers. Any person selling heroin knows that there is a good chance of it killing the user. That is why some states can now charge the dealer with murder of someone od's and dies. I say kill all dealers who sell coke and heroin. I don't care about marijuana, to me it's no different than alcohol. There are plenty of hired guns that could take them all out for pennies compared to what we are spending. You keep killing them, eventually no one will want to deal in the U.S.! We can stop illegal shipments of consumables, art works, animals, auto parts and other things from coming in this country. But we can't stop the drugs from coming in? I don't buy it. Edited February 13, 201610 yr by #99 ?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.