Posted on 07/14/2017 5:31:02 AM PDT by from occupied ga
So you would agree with Charlie Gards hospital and the judges that say his care has no real benefit. Herr Mengele would be proud. To stand around and watch someone die, if I could prevent it, is the darkest and deepest pit a soul could choose to walk in.
That's what it really boils down to. We have to decide how best to use our dollars, and keeping alive people who immediately go back out and do it again is... counter-productive.
Oh good, there's our answer. We'll let God deal with the addicts. They can call the local church instead of 911.
People are looking at this article from two different POV’s.
1. A common street addict. Some punk using opoids just to get high. The consensus is - they deserve little to no mercy.
2. A loved one dealing with excruciating pain. Through no fault of their own, they were prescribed legal narcotics that lead to their addiction. They deserve all the kindness and mercy in the world.
Then there are the “eff ‘em. Legalize all drugs and let ‘em die” crowd. These people are the sickest of all.
I am a big fan of opioids for terminal disease. If you have cancer and less than six months to live, I don't care if you get addicted. Opioids are used far too little in that situation. Drug them up until the pain is gone if that's what the patient wants.
For all other applications though, I am very skeptical of opioids. I went through three months of severe pain that was poorly treated rather than take opioids. I took that pretty little pill one time and loved it way too much - I was not going to spend months on something that strong and pleasurable.
I feel sorry for those who get addicted. I also blame physicians who are reckless with those drugs (except in terminal illness). We know opioids are addictive, and we know many people are weak. It's irresponsible to put so many people into that situation.
The biggest problem DEA will face with that is powder that rubbed off during shipment, you don’t want to inhale it. And you need to watch out for “secondary touching”, ie what you do with your hands after you get some on them, get some on your fingers and pick your nose or rub your eyes so it gets to a mucus membrane that can be bad. But it’s not like some falls on your arm and you keel over.
I’m from the Southwest Ohio area (where Middletown is located). The article has a harsh edge to it, but in reality, Middletown is a depressed rust belt town with a lower middle and lower class population and a shrinking tax base. It has plenty of unhealthy residents who are not opioid addicts that already stress the very limited resources of their EMTs. Reality is they must limit, prioritize and strategically allocate their resources. Who gets treated first - the obese chain smoking disabled senior citizen or the white trash loser on his third overdose?
Didn’t go in through his hands. He probably touched his eyes. Don’t touch your eyes when you’ve got weird stuff on your hands.
“Legalize all drugs. Follow the highly successful Portuguese model. Societal costs have plummeted and drug use is down.
Please look real hard at what the Portuguese have done to help so many.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, I agree with you! The War on Drugs is a failure - except for enriching the pockets of drug cartels, politicians, big pharma and lots of doctors and “addiction” centers.
Since we’ve been waging this false “war” - there are more drug addicts than ever.
(spit)
Read the second story, that went in through the skin on his hand.
No it didn’t.
What happens if some terrorist decides to build a bomb with stuff that can kill in just a couple of grains?
Your posting history indicates you typically think rationally, so I'll give you the cliff notes reason why: it's just business.
When you're placed in a position of management - either directly or virtually as an informed conservative involved in politics - you need to deal with facts on the ground.
One primary fact is that it's necessary to have an IQ of at least 95 to be able to function as a productive citizen in some form or capacity. Those below that threshold simply do not have the cognitive ability to either govern themselves or deal with any level of (economic ie self support) complexity.
So, what do they do? They turn to the classic vices: alcohol, drugs, promiscuous sex, gambling, etc. Dysfunctional behavior begins early - typically by age 13. Are there entities that prey on these kinds of people? Yes, that goes without saying. Are there organizations that promise to reform, redeem and/or train these people - to no avail of course. Again, yes.
Society is then faced with two choices: prohibition or maintenance. Note that there isn't a solution - it simply exists. In other words, money will be spent either on a criminal justice system in a futile attempt to prevent usage, or it will be spent on a blend of CJS and social programs to ameliorate the after effects.
Now place yourself in a management position: what choice(s) do you make given these fundamentals? Would it surprise you that it would look just like we have today, a blend of each? This is the role & responsibility of those who deal with facts, not wishes or dogmatic positions.
Will never ever that stuff again.
“Green, without thinking, brushed it off with his bare hand. Within minutes, he fell to the floor.” It took 4 doses of Narcan to keep this officer from dying.
Good post, very interesting and there is a lot to think about. My nephew is one of those addicts and his own mother prefers that he be in jail than free since he has had a couple of near death ODs.
Read “Naked Lunch” by William S Burroughs sometime. He lays out in joyous detail the beauty of opiate addicts. That’s one of the side effects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.