This is what Narcan is for.
It sounds like pharmacists in areas that have OTC Narcan, or at least available in retail stores with a prescription, are seeing very little in the way of sales, which is what we all predicted.
Do people have any idea what happens when an addict is “rescued” from their sweet, comfortable high? It’s not pretty.
Economics and human history say otherwise. Or is there a place where your shame-and-prison based model has eradicated drug use?
When there is demand for a product, and no legal supply, the result is a black market. Always.
Consider the connection between substance abuse and mental illness. “Stupid” has nothing to do with it.
People care, when the option is available, such as through needle exchanges. Going without drugs simply isn’t an option for addicts, however.
Again, purely a result of prohibition, not drug use itself.
For some people it’s a lifestyle choice, for others it’s a destructive addiction. Neither group is helped by criminalization or heaping on shame and stigma.
Clearly you have trouble conceiving of anyone being in different circumstances than yourself. Perhaps you should read more on this topic.
See above.
And yet, countries that have decriminalized drug use have seen a reduction in use and deaths. If you care about these problems, why don’t you support decriminalization?
What’s the upshot of schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder? Would you treat them with shame and prison time? Drug abuse is a medical problem that exists, and can be treated. It’s not a moral referendum on a person’s character.
No, the same really isn’t true of drug users. Let’s try to stay at least vaguely realistic, here. The vast majority of people who use illicit drugs (or alcohol, or tobacco) are not going to have a catastrophic outcome. The danger of drug use is not remotely similar to the dangers of driving the wrong direction on the freeway.
Anyway, the example is about the proper use of the word “accident,” and isn’t meant as a comment on the larger subject of drug use and addiction.
Sorry, no, but there is no such implication. People can make their own choices, but with a large enough population, you will inevitably get people who make bad choices. This isn’t a matter of free will, this is statistics. There are always going to be people who choose to use drugs, or who choose to steal, or who choose to murder, no matter what penalties or rehabilitation we offer. Recognizing that these are things we can’t just legislate out of existence does not, in anyway, conflict with the idea that the people who break the law are responsible for their own choices.
What we can do, is see how changing social policy affects the choices that people make. What’s the goal of our drug policy? Is the goal to have as few drug addicts as possible in the country? Then we ought to look to see if decriminalization and government treatment programs work better than draconian enforcement. Is the goal to limit the amount of collateral damage caused by addicts? I mean, I don’t personally care if the guy next door is sticking needles in his arm. I do care if he’s jacking my stereo to pay for his next hit. Does giving him free government heroin stop him from jacking my stereo? Is free government heroin a cheaper way to keep him from jacking my stereo then locking him up for thirty years? If the answers to both these questions are “yes,” give the fucker all the free government heroin he wants. Refusing the cheaper and more effective solution, on the grounds that, “Well, he could just choose to stop doing heroin,” is stupid. Yeah, he could choose to stop doing heroin. But no matter what we do, there’s going to be a lot of people who choose to continue doing heroin, and yelling about how it’s *their *responsibility doesn’t get me my stereo back.
Why are we wasting resources on people who are not me? These are people who have needs and desires for things that I would never have needs and desires for. The money spent on those things could be better spent on the chronic pain research for my wife or or some other cause that affects me personally. Even if someone else is helped by the money they still won’t be me or do the things I want to do and so we will probably end up spending more money on not me.
We can’t win the war on drugs, so let’s legalize or decriminalize everything.
We can’t keep people from speeding, so let’s remove speed limits.
People don’t want to go to work or school, so let’s not force them to do that.
Welfare kings and Queens want as many babies with as many people as possible, so let’s not force them to mix in some birth control and let’s give them more money for each one that pops out.
Immigrants want in our country, but don’t want to follow the procedures, so let’s let them come over pop out a baby that gets US citizenship and the family can stay.
Why have rules so different factions can do what ever they want and erode the fabric of mainstream society at the same time. Taking drugs does not benefit society. Making them legal does not benefit society. The one thing we haven’t brought up yet is the kids who are subjected to living with drug abusing parents.
Whoops, double posted.
Apropos of nothing, I think the true problem is the tendency to place humanity into two groups, “deserving” and “undeserving.”
Exacerbate this so that it is socially acceptable to place people in the “undeserving” category even when it comes to such things as rights, freedoms, dignity, health, and life, and you have morally bankrupt questions like that expressed in the OP.
So that’s my answer: We treat meth addicts, because.
… Because people aren’t “resources”
… Because the standards of decency that we hold dear in America is that every individual person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
… Because there’s nothing in the above sentence that mandates they have to do it by themselves, with no help, especially if they make mistakes
… Because I, frankly, prefer to live in a Civilization that takes care of it’s weakest members, instead of one that uses their dead bodies as stepping stones to maximize potential opportunities for the strongest
… Because.
You forgot that since only criminals won’t follow gun laws, we should just eliminate all of those too. :smack: And since you brought up kids who live with addicted parents, so many of those “accidental” shootings done by children are related to this.
But that would remove the sweet, sweet euphoria for those addicted to self-righteous moralizing and judging others. Won’t someone think of them?
So u telling me if you had a child and they were a drug addict you wouldn’t save them?There’s a fine line_______________________________ between stupid and dumb! U STUPID!
I’m genuinely surprised that so far in the discussion about drug usage, no one has mentioned the 18th Amendment (aka Prohibition with a capital “P”), which prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating beverages from 1913 to 1933. The results of that “noble experiment” strongly parallel the current state of the war on drugs.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequences/
Currently there is a problem of doctors who use their ability to prescribe otherwise illegal drugs to their paying custo-(ahem) patients for medically unnecessary reasons.
Meth labs, anyone?
… Do I need to spell this out?
Of course, according to UCBearcats and pals, the emergence of the above situation had nothing-whatsoever to do with the 18th Amendment. No, siree! It was just pure coincidence that during the same period as Prohibition lots and lots of people became stupid and started not caring anymore what they ingested. nod**nod
But, hey, it’s natural to think that people could just quit drinking and do other safer/cleaner/more productive things instead.
See? 
Oh. 
As John D. Rockefeller, Jr. said,
As for the initial OP subject, there is no way for whoever it becomes responsible to decide on who-lives-and-who-dies to know the exact circumstances of an overdosed patient (what led to the overdose? is this a first timer or a repeater? does this person have family/dependents that would rather have them alive rather than dead? would this person be able to avoid a future repeat? did the person voluntarily ingest/inject the drug? etc.).
There will inevitably be mistakes made by the determiner that would lead to the death of someone who did not deserve to die (once all the facts about the deceased are slapped into the determiner’s face at a criminal trial court). I’m against the death penalty because even a single death of an innocent person is one too much for me to accept. The same reasoning applies here.
Does anyone know, on average, how many degrees of separation between you and a family member with a drug or alcohol problem? I would suspect that if you include all the family members between you and the level of cousins, you’d have at least one person who has a drug or alcohol problem. I have two people in that set that I know of (alcoholics).
Angel-Ray,
You’re new here so I’m going to cut you some slack.
It is absolutely forbidden on the Straight Dope Message Board to insult other posters. Such actions can result in sanctions, suspension or eventually banning.
You’re not in that sort of trouble, and I welcome you to the board. But further posts like the above will not be tolerated.
Do not post insults against other posters outside The BBQ Pit.
If you need to be insulting, go post there.
[ /Moderating ]
How does making them illegal benefit society? And what else do you want to see criminalized under your “no benefit to society” rubric?
And I had to read that just before bedtime. I hate you. 
Since many people who attempt suicide will have a sudden change of heart once they’ve put the suicide mechanism into process, I do think they should be saved. It would be pretty sad to regret one’s suicide attempt, and want to live, but be denied help.
Except the thing that leads them to deliberately make themselves sick tends to be a sickness in and of itself. In the case of hard drugs, even more so (but then I also tend to believe that the people who truely lose their grip on life for drugs typically have an underlying issue the drugs are/were masking) So you help them with that, too. Because people aren’t perfect, and no man is an island entire of itself.
Beyond that, like most other people have already said, and in the words of the philosopher Eastwood, “it’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he has, and all he’s ever gonna have”. You don’t know what today’s “loser deadbeat addict/suicidal wreck” (your sentiment, not mine, albeit paraphrased) is going to be, or could become. Hell, plenty of junkies and suicidal folks have contributed to society without even overcoming those issues of theirs. As Bill Hicks would quip, if you don’t believe that, go burn all of your music.
Seems something missing in this conversation is the fact that people addicted to drugs (or anything for that matter) are still contributing members of society. They have a role and a purpose. They’re mothers, fathers, workers, gamers, etc. Your dentist might have been on opiates while filling your tooth. We save people from themselves precisely because they are a resource.
Everyone can be better people - everyone - the drug addicted, the greedy, the power-hungry, the apathetic and me.
An angry young man sings, “we can do better, because we’re not dead yet” (~Frank Turner).