Comments on In Related News, Existence of Jail Ends Crime

Why does she make up excuses? Why not just say we'd rather them OD and die. Sometimes the only cure for a drug addiction is death.

#1 is right. I think their policy on lifelong addicts to phase them out through attrition (let them die).

Narcan in the hands of addicts could, at the very least, save a city millions in EMT and public hospital expenses.

Narcan's patent is long expired, so no major Bush donor stands to make a huge profit from its sale. Otherwise, they'd be pumping the shit into our water supply, at taxpayer expense.

What a strange day to have this post up.

Today a dear friend who was addicted to heroine died. I just got back from the hospital and I will be spending the night with her grieving mother, sister and brother. She was only nineteen...

Next up- birth control.

Narcan doesn't prevent an OD - it is at best a temporary reprieve. Narcan blocks the cell receptors, but it does not neutralize the narcotics in your system. EMS uses Narcan to stabilize an OD until they can arrive at the ER. Depending on the dose it buys you maybe 30 minutes - then you're right back where you started.

Also - the effect of Narcan on a habituated user can be pretty vicious; it can trigger some pretty serious withdrawl symptoms. The attitude that an "addict" would use it casually is simply ignorant.

What a bitch.

Not to belabor the point - but you can use the same cold calculus against motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, grounded household appliances or ERs themselves. If only everyone routinely experienced tragic loss and lived with a constant awareness of mortal threat - it's a beautiful dream.

From her bio at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/madras.html:
"She has avidly promoted the translation of scientific discoveries for the public good, by directing a NIDA-sponsored exhibit at the Museum of Science, Boston titled “Changing your Mind: Drugs in the Brain,” a CD, and two-actor play."

Perhaps her play makes addicts want to kill themselves.

I shouldn't be surprised at how stupid and clueless the ONDCP is about DRUGS!

Narcan kits may actually encourage drug abusers to keep using heroin....

Uh, the only thing that encourages drug addicts to use is THE DRUG!!!!

Whatta dumbshit.

I don't understand why this is a problem. Users take a drug knowing the risks associated with it. Why is it the government's responsibility to protect them from themselves?

This is why I like slog. Thanks for the info former EMS.

Let them die. It is a risk of unreasonable drug abuse.

Yes, the ONDCP is a Republican's dream. All 4 major leads are Bush nominations. The director and one deputy are career politicians, another deputy used to be a lawyer, and Ms. Madras actually has a PhD in Psychobiology -- guess they had to sneak someone remotely qualified into the field just to make things seem legit...

Her logic is the same as free condoms in schools encouraging teen sex.

so, chris@ 13, that 19 yr. old friend of mj's was hopeless, huh? never gonna get a clue, kick it and go on to have a family of her own and a productive life if she didn't die of an o.d. WHILE STILL A TEENAGER? plenty of people go on to do just that if they manage to outlive their idiot teenage impulses--i've met some of them.

I doubt that public health officials will ever realize that a drug users only motivation is to use more drugs. The risk of an overdose doesn't prevent anyone who takes drugs from taking more drugs.
It doesn't matter though. We are governed by people who see us as small, stupid children who cannot take care of themselves. They want to babysit and control us as much as possible. Ironically, letting drug users take drugs legally would probably make them easier to control.

I always got the feeling that the reason heroin addicts kept using heroin was because they're, you know, addicted.

I have responded to 2 overdoses, both after my EMT cert. expired.

It would've been a lot easier to save their lives if I had some narcan. They were both in cars, and I was alone, (one was twice my weight), so it was difficult to get them in a position where I could give rescue breaths, I ended up shouting at them to breath until I could get help, (it worked somewhat, but not nearly as well as narcan would've).

As soon as the Paramedics got them into the ambulance, they gave oxygen, then narcan. If I had narcan, they would not have been oxygen deprived for as long, and would've had a better chance at physical/mental recovery.

Also, one of my best friends had two of his lovers OD in his house. He awoke to find them not breathing and attempted CPR. It was not successful. If he had narcan readily available, instead of having to wait for the paramedics, they would both still be alive. (One of them was extremely addicted to Heroin, and was trying really hard to get off of it when he OD'ed.)

Narcan, Dextrose, Oxygen and an AED should be in every med kit, everywhere, especially public ones.

Simply having these available, and incorporating training on them into all basic medical trainings would greatly reduce death, and the costs associated with treating patients after they are farther gone. It would also reduce the overcrowding of ERs.

One last thing--no one wants to be an addict, (okay, almost no one, there will always be someone). With the vast majority of addicts, when they are in between the high and the crave, they are able to see what damage they are doing, and they want to stop.

In my experience, an addict trying to quit is much more likely to OD, because their tolerance isn't what they remember it being, they use the same dosage, and the body can't handle it. In that case, one more close call might just do the trick.

It's time to realize that the next Administration will have to go deep to root out all the evolution-denying America-hating Red Bushies burrowed into the woodwork of the fed agencies.

That or let our country continue on its downward slide to third-world status as the neocons want.

This is why I will not give CPR to Republicans. Seriously, if I give them CPR then they're just going to get up and go back to stuffing their fat Republican faces with bacon cheese Freedom fries, drinking HFCS laced sodas and chain smoking camels while they watch NASCAR and Fox News. If I leave them where they drop then they get to go to the emergency room where someone might say "Hey, you're a fat sack of Republican garbage. Lose some weight you disgusting fat fuck or you're going to die". Of course they might also die, which isn't a bad outcome either.

This is a familiar bit of logic, related to arguments such as how the availability of condoms actually creates sexual promiscuity. This instance certainly is more creepy than some versions. Imagine if there was instant repellent for heart attacks that would not hurt someone and that anyone could use. At the very least, public health authorities would be clamoring for its use. So this is quite heartless.

It's intriguing, though, to think abut the logic of this trope. This occurs to me because, while striking, "jail ends crime" is actually different. Rather, this trope is a specific version of the logic of unintended consequences. On some level, jail is meant to end crime, but Narcan is certainly not meant to create drug addiction, nor condoms to create the misguided liasion with Marianne. Oh, yes, but they do, says the logic. What makes this trope a special then is the very measures of prevention are accused of creating the very thing they set out to prevent.

That said, I bet we could multiple examples of this trope, probably left, right and Slog. A trope is a trope and good one will be used because sometimes any weapon will do. But knowing that it is a stock response is probably the first step in debunking instances where you see it.