Heroin

[scjbash]

Some of these numbers are insane.

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/h...0ff06455b.html


There are less than 400 people in Kermit, WV. One wholesaler sent one pharmacy there 5.8 million pain pills in 6 years. In 2008 they sent that pharmacy almost 6000 pills per person. There are a few other pharmacies down there so that's not everything that was prescribed.

10.2 million hydrocodone pills and 10.6 million oxycodone pills were sent to two pharmacies in Williamson, WV in ten years. Williamson's population is 2900.

There are less than 1800 people in Mt Gay. One pharmacy dispensed 3000 hydrocodone pills a day.

[RevolverRob]

I understand where you're coming from, but what happens to regular people who can't get the emergency services they need (and pay for with tax dollars) because the ambulances, cops, and EMTs are all tied up dealing with junkies?


Okie John

No more fucking Narcan.

No more fucking detox intakes.

If someone shows up OD'ing and flat-lining? Let 'em drop and call the morgue. If they come out of it? Off to the OD ward where they can get all the dope they want or quit.

Let the folks arrested for DUIs while on drugs serve as morgue aids as their community service.

Busted for narcotics possession? First offensive, community service -> morgue duty. Second offense? Community service -> Giving drugs to the addicts at the OD Ward and tending to those dying.

___

It's brutal and damaging - So let's just be brutal as fuck about it.

[Dr_Thanatos]

No more fucking Narcan.

No more fucking detox intakes.

If someone shows up OD'ing and flat-lining? Let 'em drop and call the morgue. If they come out of it? Off to the OD ward where they can get all the dope they want or quit.

Let the folks arrested for DUIs while on drugs serve as morgue aids as their community service.

Busted for narcotics possession? First offensive, community service -> morgue duty. Second offense? Community service -> Giving drugs to the addicts at the OD Ward and tending to those dying.

___

It's brutal and damaging - So let's just be brutal as fuck about it.

I get where you are coming from and I'm angry about it too, but let's think about the unintended consequences of that plan.

If we did not attempt to resuscitate overdoses, we will take our already struggling death investigation system and crush it. No room in the morgue, no ME/C coming to investigate your homicide, or babies death. No autopsies for your 30-40 year old sudden death. There are already massive shortages in the needed numbers of forensic pathologists. And toxicology turnaround times are increasing. It's already bad out there, this would destroy the current system.

And more importantly, what makes anyone think I want an addict "working" in my morgue while I'm trying to work. Working in a morgue is not punishment. If it were, then I've been a very bad person. Additionally, who's going to take care of them while they are here. We're understaffed, and would have to assign someone to babysit them. And have to clean up the mess they make when they vomit, pass out or hurt themselves. The morgue is a hazardous environment, and is inherently dangerous if you don't know how to manage in it. I don't want addicts near the needles, or more importantly the drugs that we have brought in, or find on decedents. I don't want addicts near the routine amounts of jewelry and cash that decedents are carrying. We don't let anyone without a completely clean background check, why would we let criminals in as community service.

Like I said, I get the anger and frustration. I see it more often and better than most. We had a 100% increase to our annual rate of increase this past year from OD's. I'm months behind because of it. But to attempt to use what we do as respectful and dedicated public health professionals as punishment irks me to no end. Working in a ME/C office with decedents requires respect and professionalism, neither of which the average addict has in abundance.

[RevolverRob]

I get where you are coming from and I'm angry about it too, but let's think about the unintended consequences of that plan.

<Snip>

I'm months behind because of it. But to attempt to use what we do as respectful and dedicated public health professionals as punishment irks me to no end. Working in a ME/C office with decedents requires respect and professionalism, neither of which the average addict has in abundance.

First, let me say - I meant no offense to you, or the emergency personnel or doctors doing good work. Thank you for your efforts and professionalism.

Second, in my (purely) theoretical vision of vehemence and rage, there are two morgues. One where junkies go and one where non-junkies go. It's a harsh world, but one which may eventually become a reality if things continue in like fashion. The one where non-junkies go? That's the one that gets public health professionals. The one where junkies go? It doesn't.

If we want to treat drug addiction and as a result addicts as non-productive members of our society, then we push them to the periphery and let them burn out. It won't be ethical and certainly won't be moral, but it is a fast and hard solution to a complex problem.

____


Now...if we want to solve the problem, properly, without marginalizing addicts and drug users as second-class citizens - We have to start solving the problem, properly. The first step is to start by eliminating the individuals who push the product, from the TOP -> DOWN and not from the bottom -> up (which is what the so-called war on (some) drugs does). Top-down means politicians, pharma companies, corporations, and big investors who spend billions lobbying and creating artificial need to drive demand up, go away - forever not to jail, not to some Federal Vacation Facility. They go out, get a bullet in the head, and we move on.

It means eliminating the drug trade in a fire-sale kind of way (I mean that literally and figuratively). It means investing billions of dollars into healthcare infrastructure, education, and improving quality of life and that means shifting our collective spending from violence to peace (i.e., cutting the defense budget and reallocating those funds). It'll take another 30-years, but eventually the structure will change. In the meantime we have to just keep refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of those who seek to kill our fellow citizens. And we must do that all while walking a fine line between "temporary safety and essential freedom" (Because we can swing the pendulum the other way too hard and too fast).

And frankly, my perspective is - that Americans as a cultural whole, are not currently invested in this approach. And that one of two things will happen (and one is more likely than the other). In the first scenario, the scourge of addicts are pushed further to the margins of society and ignored even more, perhaps to the point of creating the hard and fast solution I mentioned above. Or two, the populace wakes up, realizes the need for change and a rebellion begins. - Idealists think the latter will happen. Me? I think it's the former.

[scjbash]

It means investing billions of dollars into healthcare infrastructure, education, and improving quality of life and that means shifting our collective spending from violence to peace (i.e., cutting the defense budget and reallocating those funds).

I don't think throwing money at the problem is the solution. It doesn't cost money for doctors to change how they treat patients. Hell half the people on taxpayer funded narcotics would probably be better off doing yoga instead of pills, if they actually need to do anything at all.

The over-prescribing of pills has slowed somewhat but not nearly enough. It's not just pain pills either. The number of people I know who have been fed a never ending supply of xanax and paxil is stupid. The healthcare system seems to be based around dulling the symptoms instead of fixing the problem, or manning up and telling people they don't have a problem in the first place. Then after they are addicted the solution is to give them methadone or suboxone for as long as they want it. Maybe some xanax to help with the stress of being on suboxone instead of oxy. It's absurd. Changing how patients are treated would not only reduce the number of addicts but also start changing society's notion that all of our problems should be fixed with drugs, prescription or street.

I would vote to get rid of narcan, but that ain't happening. Nor are most of the other things we would like to see happen. At least not anytime soon.

[RevolverRob]

Changing how patients are treated would not only reduce the number of addicts but also start changing society's notion that all of our problems should be fixed with drugs, prescription or street.

Changing how we treat patients will require much more money than you may think. One of the reasons we're over-prescribed is that we're over booked to treat common medical problems. Partly, because we're not addressing the underlying issues of our society (e.g., obesity and a culture of insta-X). It's not just addicts that are adding to the system. Our healthcare infrastructure was taxed before Obamacare and the Individual Mandate passed. That only increased the pressure on it. We not only have issues with medical problems generating addiction, we have illegal narcotics (not counting the illegal use of RX narcotics) coming in. And a crumbling infrastructure that contributes to the general decline of our society overall.

Solving addiction isn't just about eliminating (one) of the sources. Since, as we've seen, addicts will just manufacture their own - and there will always be a blackmarket supply to meet a demand. We have to look at the demographics of the addicted and treat the underlying causes not treat the symptoms. There are a ton of cultural influences playing into drug addiction and narcotics abuse in this country. Access to prescription narcotics is one, important aspect, but not the sole one. To solve the "drug problem", will require fundamental transformations to our culture, society, and the way we value things. - I, unfortunately, believe that it is really untenable.

[OlongJohnson]

According to press released-derived reports citing the CDC, 64,070 people died from drug overdoses in 2016. Haven't seen numbers yet for 2017, but it's certainly higher.

All firearms-related deaths (including the ~60 percent suicides) and traffic fatalities put together add up to about that number each year. What I'm wondering is, when are some people with power to act going to start freaking the hell out?

(Although, I'm not really a fan of people in power freaking the hell out - it rarely does good and often goes very wrong.)