Heroin deaths surpass gun homicides

[hoosierdoc]

I must be an optimist but surely somewhere in the world someone has figure out a solution to his problem, I can't make myself believe there are just some people nothing will work on.

I'm not saying everyone is hopeless, but I am saying most I've seen don't really want treatment. Or at least not until they burn their lives down and it sucks so badly they really have to choose whether to get better or die

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not saying everyone is hopeless, but I am saying most I've seen don't really want treatment. Or at least not until they burn their lives down and it sucks so badly they really have to choose whether to get better or die

Isn't it pretty much that way with most of our frailties? Whether it's drugs, alcohol, gambling, food, etc., it seems until we reach a point to where we're ready to do what's really required, to make the needed lifestyle changes for long lasting effect, nothing much will work.

 

[gamecrimez]

Have to disagree with a lot of you, being a former addict myself I held a full time job, took care of my kids did all the day to day activities & not a single person could tell or knew I was an addict. I also know other addicts & yes some are way worse off than others but most don't use to get "high" its to dull there pain physical & mental. Needle exchange programs are great at reducing the spread of disease but most your addicts know you can go to walmart or walgreens & get a pack of 10 for less than $4. The problem is they use there money to get the stuff @ $50 a bag & don't have the extra cash to purchase new rigs so they tend to use them to the point they are unusable. People think of addicts as worthless scum but you be surprised of the actual users are im talking people of every walks of life. Its not just the poor or low life's its every color race religion profession. As another poster said get rid of the dealers well a new one will pop up & take over that cash cow. Best would be to legalize & regulate than the dealer goes out of business & you have a quality product. It takes a lot of will power especially the 1st couple weeks its hell but it can be overcome im living proof. My best friend died of an OD yet I still used he left behind a new born daughter. He was a great guy with a lot of problems he used to offset his problems he used so much his heart eventually gave out. Im glad I was able to kick the habit but I don't look down at those that use I feel bad for them & often wonder what they have been thru in their lives that have brought them to this point.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks Bill I will add that IC to my file.

Do you use the nasal or the auto injector version and how do you meter the dose to get them breathing but not conscious.

Every time I've used Narcan, it's either been a prefilled syringe or a vial from which I've had to draw up the med myself.

(my prefills don't have the white cone, called a MAD (mucosal atomization device) on them, but we do have it available. They're nice if you don't want to take a chance on having sharp objects within reach of people whose mental state is unpredictable.)

As for how you "meter" it, I'd slow-push a little (maybe as much as a half a mL,) watch their breathing, push a bit more if needed. As long as air goes in and out and blood goes round and round, we're good. Any variation on that is a Bad Thing (tm). Bad Things mean lots more work to do. Waking them up means even more. And a fight.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[steveh_131]

A huge number of the opiate addicts were created with perfectly legal prescribed opiates. I don't know how further legalizing it is going to lead to fewer ODs.

You may not know how it does, but it does according to the stats in Portugal.

I didn't speak against legalization. I'm not in favor of all of the "free" **** provided to those who decide to live a life full of bad decisions. Why do I continuously have to pay the consequences for the **** decisions of others?

Legalize all of it for all I care. Bring back debtor's prison while you're at it. If someone wants to flush their life down the ****ter with heroin then ask for treatment? Fine. Once you're all better you can work off the cost of your treatment in a labor camp. Plenty of road work and other infrastructure needs to be rebuilt.

I agree with every bit of this. Liberty and individual responsibility.

II say exterminate dealers with extreme prejudice. That may sound harsh, but I have seen what it does to a family first hand. My cousin OD'd on heroin last year, she died. She was 55 years old. It shocked me, as I knew she smoked weed, but never knew she did anything else. To top that off, her son has OD'd twice, once before she died and once after. He is brain mush now. He would have been better off to die, sad to say, but yeah. This crap seems to be easy to get and cheap. Start terminating the up line, and eventually you will find the head of the hydra.

Executing drug dealers? You're insane. You gonna execute liquor store owners, too? You sound exactly like the grieving mothers of victims of 'gun violence'. The only person responsible for your grown woman cousin's OD is your grown woman cousin.

Sometimes you hurt. Sometimes it's your body, sometimes it's your soul. Drugs make the pain subside. Same as alcohol, for some people. A huge portion of the population can and does use narcotics responsibly and properly. I've had several Vicodin prescriptions that expired before I even finished them off. But they sure did make life a lot easier for the short periods when I needed them. Now they're nearly impossible to get.

If someone is in short-term or chronic pain, who are YOU to tell them they should be forced to endure every moment of it? Why, because someone, somewhere might get hooked on it? Because you, in your infinite wisdom, get to decide who should suffer and who shouldn't?

In a free society, hydrocodone should be on the shelf in Walmart next to the Advil. Unfortunately, we are ruled by nanny statists like you.

 

[bwframe]

Spouse and I both refuse to take anything that is addictive in nature. There are alternatives.

I'm attempting drug free. Not opposed to must use to keep me alive, but I'll have to think it over very hard.

I watched both of my parents struggle a lot in later years juggling narcotics that when prescribed were "the fix." They were stuck with the fix for the rest of their lives. My father had to have his wife smuggle the oxy in to recovery rooms after surgery, because the recovery staff/protocol couldn't get him the fix before he went into withdraw.

Dad was told in later years that it would be impossible for him to get off of the oxy. He was too frail to live through the withdraw.

 

[frenchiectfd2203]

Had to look up Narcan. Do officers carry it or is it EMT only?

We do not carry narcan because we felt we were enablers carrying it. I have administered it a dozen times but I am not a firm believer in it. We have narcaned the same person twice in one week... yeah..

To further elaborate. We do not carry this because we're not allowed to by higher powers and local protocol. But we do feel like enablers when we interact with a known overdose and pushing narcan into them so that they can once again feel like they can push the boundaries because in fact they know we have access to this magical drug that might not always work.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Indianapolis officials using more naloxone as number of overdoses continues to increase | Fox 59

 

[Roland of Gilead]

We do not carry narcan because we felt we were enablers carrying it. I have administered it a dozen times but I am not a firm believer in it. We have narcaned the same person twice in one week... yeah..

Why even go on overdose calls if you're not going to try to help?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

We do not carry narcan because we felt we were enablers carrying it. I have administered it a dozen times but I am not a firm believer in it. We have narcaned the same person twice in one week... yeah..

If you are EMS/fire its your job to save lives. Doesn't matter if you agree with the lifestyle choices of your patients. If you can't come to grips with that, you should probably find another line of work.

 

[Fargo]

You may not know how it does, but it does according to the stats in Portugal.

.

Well, if your graph was about ODs, as was my post, you might have a point. If you do some research on Portugal's program, the vast majority of it is focused around preventing HIV and Hep C via taxpayer funded needle exchanges.

The main project they do to avoid ODs is to tax their people to pay for tens of thousands of them to be on methadone. Seems awfully nanny statey to me.

 

[2A_Tom]

I am deeply saddened by much I have learned in this thread.

 

[steveh_131]

Well, if your graph was about ODs, as was my post, you might have a point. If you do some research on Portugal's program, the vast majority of it is focused around preventing HIV and Hep C via taxpayer funded needle exchanges.

The main project they do to avoid ODs is to tax their people to pay for tens of thousands of them to be on methadone. Seems awfully nanny statey to me.

Source for this? According to this report, it's been a wildly successful program and methadone doesn't seem to be a big problem: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

 

[Fargo]

Source for this? According to this report, it's been a wildly successful program and methadone doesn't seem to be a big problem: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

See the graph on page thirteen. State funded methadone has exploded since 2000.


https://www.coe.int/T/DG3/Pompidou/Source/Files/Nicosie_Mai09/Presentations/JosePadua.pdf

Page 4 of your Cato Institute study acknowledges that decriminalization has not led to reduced use.

See this is for the ongoing needle exchange program. Start at page 208.

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_33997_EN_Insight3.pdf

This database also has way more info:

EMCDDA | Stats bulletin 2015

Portugal basically reduced mortality by having the taxpayers pay for both drugs and needles for its addicts, without a significant reduction in drug use. I am unclear how that is somehow not nanny statesque.

 

[churchmouse]

Portugal basically reduced mortality by having the taxpayers pay for both drugs and needles for its addicts, without a significant reduction in drug use. I am unclear how that is somehow not nanny statesque.

So if we were to follow this magic formula it would mean most likely an increase in drug use or at least a straight line from what is being used now and we (taxpayers) would be burdened with it.
Yeah, lets do that. What a great ****ing idea.

 

[Fargo]

So if we were to follow this magic formula it would mean most likely an increase in drug use or at least a straight line from what is being used now and we (taxpayers) would be burdened with it.
Yeah, lets do that. What a great ****ing idea.

We have a really different society from Portugal and the roots of our opiate problem are in many ways different from theirs. I am fairly confident that decriminalization would lead to increased use here. You can bandaid that with socialized methadone/syringes etc, maybe even to the point where fewer die, but at the end of the day you still have a society of addicts being taxpayer funded.

 

[steveh_131]

See the graph on page thirteen. State funded methadone has exploded since 2000.

Methadone costs next to nothing. I see no reason that it needs to be state funded in order to achieve the same result. I also see nothing on page 13 suggesting that it is all state funded. And to say that it exploded is not quite accurate - I think it's safe to say that many heroin users transitioned to it, based on that graph. Those are people who are no longer funding drug lords and drug dealers and knocking over liquor stores to feed their habit. I call that a win.

Page 4 of your Cato Institute study acknowledges that decriminalization has not led to reduced use.

I have never argued that decriminalization would result in reduce drug use. It does result in less crime, both violent and drug related. It results in less people dying of overdoses. It results in fewer people in jail - and the monumental cost of keeping them there.

Portugal basically reduced mortality by having the taxpayers pay for both drugs and needles for its addicts, without a significant reduction in drug use. I am unclear how that is somehow not nanny statesque.

The drugs and needles, in a truly free market, would cost very little compared to what these people are currently paying on the black market. Remove the regulations and let people do what they want.

I'm not advocating the government funded portion of their program, nor is it at all necessary to achieve comparable results.

You're completely skipping over the most important part of what happened there. The key thing we should be paying attention to in Portugal is this: Drug use did not increase.

This is the key point of the prohibitionists: If we decriminalize drugs, drug abuse will skyrocket. Well, it doesn't. It didn't when we repealed alcohol prohibition. It didn't when Portugal decriminalized drugs. And it won't happen here. Shoot, if what you're saying is true, people have state funded access to drugs in Portugal now - and overall abuse STILL didn't increase?

 

[2A_Tom]

So, who do you suggest pay for it?

 

[Fargo]

Methadone costs next to nothing. I see no reason that it needs to be state funded in order to achieve the same result. I also see nothing on page 13 suggesting that it is all state funded. And to say that it exploded is not quite accurate - I think it's safe to say that many heroin users transitioned to it, based on that graph. Those are people who are no longer funding drug lords and drug dealers and knocking over liquor stores to feed their habit. I call that a win.

Read page 208 on. As I recall they were at 85 million euros BEFORE the spike. Call it whatever you want, it is socialist nanny state bandaiding.

I have never argued that decriminalization would result in reduce drug use. It does result in less crime, both violent and drug related. It results in less people dying of overdoses. It results in fewer people in jail - and the monumental cost of keeping them there.



The drugs and needles, in a truly free market, would cost very little compared to what these people are currently paying on the black market. Remove the regulations and let people do what they want.

You do understand that Portugal does not have a drug free market, right? It is still illegal and criminal to sell drugs. The only thing they changed was you can't go to prison for simple possession. They most certainly are not selling heroin or opiates next to the Advil. Stop pretending that decriminalizing simple possession is somehow the same as making drugs legal and free-market.

In reality, letting the people "do what they want" is simply enabling them to overdose and or get HIV. Portugal spends a huge number of tax dollars trying to band aid this.

I'm not advocating the government funded portion of their program, nor is it at all necessary to achieve comparable results.

Then why are the Portuguese doing it?

You're completely skipping over the most important part of what happened there. The key thing we should be paying attention to in Portugal is this: Drug use did not increase.

You are completely skipping over that they didn't legalize heroin, they just said you couldn't go to prison for simple possession. It's still illegal, and there are still consequences. They also pay an unholy amount of money to put a Band-Aid over the problem. Once again they are not selling heroin next to the Tylenol.

This is the key point of the prohibitionists: If we decriminalize drugs, drug abuse will skyrocket. Well, it doesn't. It didn't when we repealed alcohol prohibition. It didn't when Portugal decriminalized drugs. And it won't happen here. Shoot, if what you're saying is true, people have state funded access to drugs in Portugal now - and overall abuse STILL didn't increase?

For the umpteenth time, their mortality rates decreased because they actively enabled safer drug use by paying for drugs and syringes with tax dollars. Just because they decriminalized simple possession at the same time doesn't mean that is why mortality rates plummeted. In fact I don't see any evidence it had anything to do with it. Plus, once again Portugal didn't do anything like what you propose with selling it on the shelves at the supermarket. Also they have a very different society and set of societal problems and norms and we do.

 

[Jludo]

We have a really different society from Portugal and the roots of our opiate problem are in many ways different from theirs. I am fairly confident that decriminalization would lead to increased use here. You can bandaid that with socialized methadone/syringes etc, maybe even to the point where fewer die, but at the end of the day you still have a society of addicts being taxpayer funded.

Forsee any plausible scenario in which tax payers aren't on the hook?