That's my town, so I can give a little insight (actualy, a lot of it). I also know Dan peronsally, live in this town, and also served on the same City Council.

Frankly, it sad that we are making national news again, and not just for being the subject of the best-seller "Hillbilly Elegy."

Very sad state of affairs here. Numbers are accurate. No one saw the number of actual number of ODs in this town increasing so much, as well as the amount needed to revive. The number of ODs has nearly tripled (I'll try to get a more accurate figure shortly).

The number of doses needed to revise those who are OD'ing is going up too--it's not one blast anymore, it is multiple doses. So those two together account for the cost increase.

I would rather not comment on the issue of "let them die becuase they did it to themselves," becuase it likely wouldn't be the prevailing view here.

Think of it this way: the same argument can be said for the smoker, or the person who is overweight.

Everyone KNOWS if you smoke you will get lung cancer, or likely have a heart attack. Should we stop sending EMS to them in times of crisis? They clearly they did it voluntarily, knowing the risks, which is no different than the person who ODs.

What about a person who is overweight?: heart Attack? diabetic coma? We all know being overweight increases the risk of heart attack and diabetes. Yet many of us voluntarily engage in the behavior that causes it (overeating, not enough exercise). Should we not send EMS when an overweight person suffers a heart attack? When a person goes into a diabetic coma? C'mon, you should have not had that last donut!

Obviously, like the junkies, these too are people who could have helped themselves, but refused to do so. I don't see a lot of people arguing that we should just let them die too.

It is too slippery a slope to start down this path and say we should not administer needed medial care to a person because we don't like what they did.

I hate it too, but ignoring medical emergenices is not the answer, in my opinion.

I wish I knew the answer, like making sure it never enters your community, or if it is there, to make sure no one uses it. But how to do that is the $64,000 question.

Smoking and obesity take decades to kill you. How quickly can a person overdose? In less time than it takes you to floss and brush your teeth.

Apples and oranges

I have a friend in the EMS business. One of their biggest issues is a fuel budget, obviously it was much worse a few years ago with higher prices. So sending taxi's out, repeatedly, for recidivism (Repeat O-ffender), eats into the budget.

There is no easy answer. But something needs to be done.

A parent who is dealing with this said, "all it takes is that one friend", and then someone's life, as well as their family and friends, turns to shit. The downward spiral...

Not to mention the associated crime that goes with it to support their habits.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
Narcan is dirt cheap.

Is it really dirt cheap, or is it subsidized like everything else nowadays by government grants and other taxes?

Gov't doesn't have anything to do with it in the capacity I'm talking about. There are only a handful of major pharmaceutical distributors that EMS agencies and hospitals use. When I pulled quotes a few years ago at my old police agency, which was going to start carrying naloxone, I think it was something like $4 or less a pop. Opposed to some drugs on an ambulance that are $40-$100 a pop. The atomizer (funny cone thing to stick in their nose) was actually more than the drug.

And that was the pre-dosed syringe. I'd expect viles/ampules to be even cheaper. Those are what the clinics give away in my state (subsidized by the gov't).

If anyone has more up to date pricing, let us know. I'm talking about EMS/Hospital pricing, not what one would pay if they walked into a pharmacy and asked for a nasal kit or the fancy auto-injector.

This article is from last September. Seems prices have doubled in just past year or so.

Narcan Prices Are Skyrocketing and Cities Are Begging for Help to Buy It

The answer is simple. Those who think that routine OD'ing is the same thing as smoking or obesity should have to pay for it.

So simple a caveman can do it. If you can't see that part of society is feeding the "epidemic" by treating those who voluntarily use dope as "victims". Intoxication is a voluntary state. OD is the side effect of this voluntary state.

Yeah, this is the part where the same sad people will come into this thread and lecture us on why Johnny can't quit. Tell us how ignorant we are. That's cool. You guys pay for it. Every bit of it. As a matter of fact, you guys respond AND pay for it. Take some of the strain off of EMS if you are so worried about little Johnny. A better idea is we should pass a law requiring you guys to pay for it. And when OD's pick up, they can just take more and more of your money. Simple enough. When you pick up your driver's license, you can just sign a form, and check a box that you think that this is societies problem. And they can pull the money out of your account monthly. Problem solved.

When we stop treating these people like poor, poor victims, and hold them responsible for their actions, we might actually get somewhere. Until then, you guys are just encouraging this type of behavior.

Simple answer. The people that care why Johnny can't quit can pay for this mess. The rest who want accountability should be absolved from it. Let's see how fast that changes some people's tunes once its not other peoples money paying for it.

Everybody that supports the "victims" says that they want to be free, yet they don't appear to have the stomach for the nasty consequences of being free. They seem to hang on emotion often saying stuff like "I hope this never hits your family" and whatnot. Emotion is all they have. But, they should be free to be emotional about all of this. They should also pay for every bit of it instead of saying "dang, there's just no easy answers". Yeah, the answer is simple. You pay for it.

In the "War on Drugs" this nation is getting it's ass kicked soundly.

Need new strategy. We have to quit raising dependent kids. They turn into dependent adults who cannot and will not handle life with that crutch. Many years ago, people used their religion as a crutch...which is what they are supposed to do. Now, more and more people are not religious at all. This is NOT to imply that you will be a drug addict if you are not religious. It is just saying most people need a crutch. All of us need an outlet.
Drugs have never been my thing. I hate taking any prescription drugs and only do so when there is no healthy alternative.

its not the cost of Narcon that is the issue

thats the cheapest part

cost of the vehicle wear and tear, gas or diesel

cost of the crew being dispatched

the risk of the trip to deal with a wannabe suicide

I think the three strikes is a wonderful idea - as long as you keep 'saving' these people they will live another day to buy more heroin to have an OD later that day

if they die off, the demand for drugs will decrease, the supply will go away and you might even catch a dealer or two

We can't solve everyone's problems

quote:

Originally posted by Aquabird:
In the "War on Drugs" this nation is getting it's ass kicked soundly.

Need new strategy...

The war on drugs is one of the biggest money makers of all time.

Methadone, Narcan, rehab, treatment centers, privatized prisons to house all those convicted of drug crimes, grant money to study every aspect of the issue...the list goes on and on and in the end you are talking tens upon tens of billions of dollars in revenue. All of it taxed. All of it going into big and powerful pockets.

Tens upon tens of billions of dollars at stake. If anyone thinks Big Politics and Big Business and especially Big Pharma is going to let anything threaten that .gov subsidized, bloated, cash cow-think again. The "war on drugs" is a fucking joke and if a few of the little people get caught in the middle and get hurt, or killed, so what. It's just business.

It's para's forum, and I love being here and discussing the issues intelligently and rationally (all of them). So I disagree with para only extremely respectfully. (And trying to express my desire to stay here).

I really believe this is not apples and oranges. Dan's position is that if you repeatedly do something that you know will kill you, we are not paying for it any more. That is exactly what is a smoker is doing (or those who are overweight are doing).

(I meet both of thoese categories, by the way, so I am singling them out just because they are so common; not because I am judging.)

I am not a bleeding heart: life-long Republican. I am just looking at this from what I believe is a logical standpoint. These people do harm to themselves; but many others do as well.

Do I want to pay for it? Heck no! Do I believe it is fair to single them out over smokers and those who are obese? No. They (we) ALL are acting contrary to society's best interests, and are voluntarily acting against their own health, and costing everyone more money, time, and resources in the long run.

Mandatory, incarcerated long-term rehab for sure, at a minimum.

TAllen,
Minor point:
Smoking and obesity happen to be legal.
I have not heard of any smoking fat people trying to steal or rob to in order for another smoke or doughnut.
How many of these strung out losers have robbed or even killed to support their habits? I would hazard a guess that in Middletown it is at least a few. And I would also guess that your public service people have been reviving them.
Money issues aside, just how smart is it to keep reviving people who would rob or steal from you? Or maybe kill you?

Shit's got expensive. I got those quotes in 2013 or 2014.

I suppose demand has risen since then...

This whole debate is ridiculous, that proposed law is going nowhere. Being a paramedic in Los Angeles County and dealing with this more often than 99% of the members here leaves me with no kind feeling or sympathy towards heroin addicts. That being said, its not my place or my job to leave these people to their fate. I signed up to save lives, not judge their inherent value on this planet.

If you are ignorant enough to think this is a good idea, then tell me, where should it stop? Should we let drunk drivers die in their vehicles after an accident? Might seem like justice to some of you but in practicality its nonsense.

By the way I love pushing Narcan... one of the few satisfactions I get from running on the same dope addict at 3am is fucking up his high. Im not against coming up with creative ways of making them actually pay for the treatment they receive, but witholding care is not a viable option. You know what creates the biggest burden on EMS in my local area? Ill be honest with you guys, 90% of the calls we get are for absolute bullshit that didnt require an ER visit much less a 911 call or an ambulance transport. That podunk town in Ohio would save more money if they could find away to refer those types if patients to other facilities vs witholding a relativly cheap drug that isnt used as often as that article claims.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: medic451,

quote:

Middletown is considering whether people with addiction should only be given two strikes before they’re out of chances at Narcan. ...

“We’ve got to do what we’ve got to do to maintain our financial security and this is just costing us too much money,” Picard said.

How do they know who it is when they get the call? Are they going to roll out the police, fire truck and paramedics, get there, find out it's a "frequent flier," say "You again? No Narcan for you!" and turn around and leave? If cost is the issue, isn't that where the greater cost is?

Exactly, this city councilman is an idiot. Not only will this "proposal" never end up as a written law or policy, no medical director in their right mind would make it an official practice. One wrongful death lawsuit would negate any cost saving measures this policy had in mind. Its not practical, its not logical, and its not legal.

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn0WdJx-Wkw

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:
If you are ignorant enough...

Pardon me?

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:
This whole debate is ridiculous, that proposed law is going nowhere. Being a paramedic in Los Angeles County and dealing with this more often than 99% of the members here leaves me with no kind feeling or sympathy towards heroin addicts. That being said, its not my place or my job to leave these people to their fate. I signed up to save lives, not judge their inherent value on this planet.

If you are ignorant enough to think this is a good idea, then tell me, where should it stop? Should we let drunk drivers die in their vehicles after an accident? Might seem like justice to some of you but in practicality its nonsense.

By the way I love pushing Narcan... one of the few satisfactions I get from running on the same dope addict at 3am is fucking up his high. Im not against coming up with creative ways of making them actually pay for the treatment they receive, but witholding care is not a viable option. You know what creates the biggest burden on EMS in my local area? Ill be honest with you guys, 90% of the calls we get are for absolute bullshit that didnt require an ER visit much less a 911 call or an ambulance transport. That podunk town in Ohio would save more money if they could find away to refer those types if patients to other facilities vs witholding a relativly cheap drug that isnt used as often as that article claims.

medic451, 99% of the members here probably do feel sympathy towards addicts and especially their families, but we are also grounded in reality. We see that someone who continually uses what precious little resources we have is eventually going to put such a monopoly on those resources that nobody else is able to use them. Let's say that a precinct has 2 fire trucks, 2 ambulances, and 3 patrol cars to cover 100 square miles. One afternoon, the dispatcher gets a call for a house fire, a possible drowning at a lake, a ladder fall victim with possible neck fractures, and an OD (who has done this several times before). How can you decide which to send your limited resources to? This is the reality of many places in the United States. We have very limited funding, especially in rural areas with little to no business to carry the tax burden, often relying on the good will of volunteers for Fire and EMS.

Now, jljones has made a good point while I was typing. You aren't saving a life....you are temporarily extending the inevitable. These people would likely already be dead if not for the Narcan that they know will be there to save them.

Doctors don't give someone who smokes a new lung if they continue the habit that got them into the position in the first place. Heart transplants are reserved for those that no longer live an unhealthy lifestyle, so those that say smokers and heart attack patients are the same as heroin addicts are absolutely wrong, at least in my eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:
Exactly, this city councilman is an idiot. Not only will this "proposal" never end up as a written law or policy, no medical director in their right mind would make it an official practice. One wrongful death lawsuit would negate any cost saving measures this policy had in mind. Its not practical, its not logical, and its not legal.

I think he knows it's not a practical solution. It would never fly from myriad perspectives. My guess then, would be he's trying to raise public awareness and get it being talked about once again. It's the only thing that proposing such a law might accomplish.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
All the Narcan in the world is not going to stop this. I can't be the only person to see where this is going. In two or three years, the level of these deaths that officials are now calling an 'epidemic' will seem like nothing compared to when this nonsense hits its stride.

Just watch


I say let them kill themselves. The world is overflowing with people and we would benefit by the planet having fewer of these fools who will kill themselves for nothing more than a high. If they want so badly to escape the pain of existence, let them go.

This needs to be chiseled in stone and placed in every town square.

ETA: Yes, this directly affects my family. I grew up with the cousin that's a piece of shit junkie. He's burned every bridge and pissed away the entire family's patience and goodwill. The sooner he's gone the better for us and society as a whole.