Governor Blocks Access to Lifesaving Drug For Heroin Addicts

[RetiredNSmilin]

Not always, a lot of the time they just get really sick...

I had a glimpse into that horrible world once in Nebraska.

My meds were late and I was really, really "dope sick". They had me on Oxycodones at the time. I cannot remember a worse time feeling as bad. It was like every cell in my body was pulsating and wanting to burst. Miraculously, I found just one pill that had gotten accidentally spilled in a drawer. That one pill made me feel better immediately. The whole experience was a life changer.

I immediately called the hotline nurse and got off that crap. They gave me Methadone for the transition. That stuff made me puke a lot, but it worked to transition me off Oxys and get on something more sane that I have been on ever since. No issues at all.

 

[VanceMack]

I have to agree as to trained medical personel.

Can you imagine shoot up buddies injecting each other with Naloxone? Forgetting they had, and doing it again?
OD on Naloxone?

NARCAN is administered by nasal inhalation/injection. Its a relatively simple process.

 

[iguanaman]

No question.

Just as with alcoholics, enabling an addict accomplishes nothing. This is an undeniable fact. Until a person can admit to their innermost self they have a problem, they will do little to nothing to seek the help they need. As you wrote, Narcan is not a help, but a deterrent to the process of reaching the bottom. Once there, there is a small but real chance addicts can then pursue the process that can reveal socially redeeming qualities they have buried by their addiction.

Dead people can be revived and rehabilitated? "Enabling" an addict to survive an overdose does not prevent him from rehabilitation, quite the opposite.

 

[faithful_servant]

So are among the "let them die" club............

Drug addition is a sickness and should be treated so................


and is not a moral punishment as you seem to think it should be.......

Is that what your mama taught you..........

shame on you


..........seeya

So if you have an overweight person, do you provide them with an emetic so that they can throw up all the food they eat wehn they think that they've eaten too much or do you try to help them to eat less/more healthy and possibly even get the help they need to understand and overcome their overeating??

 

[ocean515]

Dead people can be revived and rehabilitated? "Enabling" an addict to survive an overdose does not prevent him from rehabilitation, quite the opposite.

Dead people are the only people cured of addiction. The rest either die slow deaths, sucking the life out of society and those unfortunate enough to care about them, or they enter a life long effort to change their thinking and lifestyles so they can escape the whirlpool circling the drain. If one could identify what it takes for one to take one path over the over, addiction/alcoholism would be less difficult to treat.

Narcan doesn't change any of these realities. I believe a good argument can be made that it only prolongs the inevitable. Should it be available? Why not? To suggest however, that someone doesn't posses any socially redeeming qualities because they don't share the same attitude is pathetic.

 

[eohrnberger]

NARCAN is administered by nasal inhalation/injection. Its a relatively simple process.

How's that administered to a passed out over dosing drug abuser? OK, so still, two shoot up buddies snorting the next drug and ODing on NARCAN?

 

[VanceMack]

How's that administered to a passed out over dosing drug abuser? OK, so still, two shoot up buddies snorting the next drug and ODing on NARCAN?

Its quite simple. Foamy nostril shaped insert at the end of a needle-less syringe...similar procedure to giving a baby medicine using a syringe...just in the nose instead of the mouth. Passed out, there isnt much resistance.

Dont quote me because I'm not 100% certain, but I dont believe you can OD on NARCAN.

 

[Socrates1]

You answered your own question with the "hard working" part.

You are hard working, and they do not work at all.

Therefore you MUST pay, pay, pay and pay for those that made a conscience decision to not work at all.

That is how it works. (pardon the pun)

Is it any wonder voters hate politicians ! :shock:

 

[Socrates1]

Because Christ ask us/you to do same........... Is that good enough .........and more so than the few pennies you have in your pocket........Bye Bye

I'm sure you are NOT one of us ! :roll:

 

[iguanaman]

Dead people are the only people cured of addiction. The rest either die slow deaths, sucking the life out of society and those unfortunate enough to care about them, or they enter a life long effort to change their thinking and lifestyles so they can escape the whirlpool circling the drain. If one could identify what it takes for one to take one path over the over, addiction/alcoholism would be less difficult to treat.

Narcan doesn't change any of these realities. I believe a good argument can be made that it only prolongs the inevitable. Should it be available? Why not? To suggest however, that someone doesn't posses any socially redeeming qualities because they don't share the same attitude is pathetic.

So you would support the death penalty for all addicts? I would support imprisonment for all that would advocate that. Most addicts are cured and go on to lead productive lives.

 

[ocean515]

So you would support the death penalty for all addicts? I would support imprisonment for all that would advocate that. Most addicts are cured and go on to lead productive lives.

:doh

Your post certainly ranks among one of the most pathetic I've received since joining DP. I'm actually interested to understand the thought process, or perhaps the ideologically induced cognitive stunting, that would result in your believing my post had any suggestion of support for the death penalty for all addicts.

It seems to me you have little to no experience with addiction, and are simply knee jerking in your typical manner.

 

[iguanaman]

:doh

Your post certainly ranks among one of the most pathetic I've received since joining DP. I'm actually interested to understand the thought process, or perhaps the ideologically induced cognitive stunting, that would result in your believing my post had any suggestion of support for the death penalty for all addicts.

It seems to me you have little to no experience with addiction, and are simply knee jerking in your typical manner.

You didn't say this? " Dead people are the only people cured of addiction. The rest either die slow deaths, sucking the life out of society and those unfortunate enough to care about them, or they enter a life long effort to change their thinking and lifestyles so they can escape the whirlpool circling the drain. "
That doesn't sound like killing them is doing addicts a favor to you? That was the most heartless and cruel post I have read in all my years on DP and shows a profound lack of understanding of the causes and treatments for addiction.

 

[ocean515]

You didn't say this? " Dead people are the only people cured of addiction. The rest either die slow deaths, sucking the life out of society and those unfortunate enough to care about them, or they enter a life long effort to change their thinking and lifestyles so they can escape the whirlpool circling the drain. "
That doesn't sound like killing them is doing addicts a favor to you? That was the most heartless and cruel post I have read in all my years on DP and shows a profound lack of understanding of the causes and treatments for addiction.

No it doesn't. I don't have such a twisted mind that the words I posted would ever appear as anything this side of the universe as suggesting support for the death penalty for addicts. That you could possibly take that from what I posted is alarming, and quite revealing.

I will not get into my background, but I can assure you, I speak from a significant position of knowledge on the subject. An addict/alcoholic is never cured, not ever. The only cure is death. Unless there is a wholesale change in lifestyle and attitude, they will forever be doomed to the obsession to use/drink again. Once giving in to the obsession, and finding it impossible to free themselves from it, they are doomed.

Please consider how your mind can twist reality when perverting my words into your unique version of it.

 

[iguanaman]

No it doesn't. I don't have such a twisted mind that the words I posted would ever appear as anything this side of the universe as suggesting support for the death penalty for addicts. That you could possibly take that from what I posted is alarming, and quite revealing.

I will not get into my background, but I can assure you, I speak from a significant position of knowledge on the subject. An addict/alcoholic is never cured, not ever. The only cure is death. Unless there is a wholesale change in lifestyle and attitude, they will forever be doomed to the obsession to use/drink again. Once giving in to the obsession, and finding it impossible to free themselves from it, they are doomed.

Please consider how your mind can twist reality when perverting my words into your unique version of it.

Please do some research before making such incendiary blanket statements. Most addicts are "cured" in that they do not return to their addictions in their lifetimes. That is if they LIVE which is what this thread is about. You probably also believe that availability of guns is not a factor in suicides.

A prevailing view of substance abuse, supported by both the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Alcoholics Anonymous, is the disease model of addiction. The model attributes addiction largely to changes in brain structure and function. Because these changes make it much harder for the addict to control substance use, health experts recommend professional treatment and complete abstinence.

But some in the field point out that many if not most addicts successfully recover without professional help. A survey by Gene Heyman, a research psychologist at McLean Hospital in Massachusetts, found that between 60 to 80 percent of people who were addicted in their teens and 20s were substance-free by their 30s, and they avoided addiction in subsequent decades. Other studies on Vietnam War veterans suggest that the majority of soldiers who became addicted to narcotics overseas later stopped using them without therapy.

Can You Cure Yourself of Drug Addiction? - Scientific American

 

[ocean515]

Please do some research before making such incendiary blanket statements. Most addicts are "cured" in that they do not return to their addictions in their lifetimes. That is if they LIVE which is what this thread is about. You probably also believe that availability of guns is not a factor in suicides.

Can You Cure Yourself of Drug Addiction? - Scientific American

Please know about the topic you are debating before claiming my comments were incendiary, or uninformed. I care not what "some in the field" point out. I assure you, those some are a minority that should be ignored. An addict/alcoholic is never cured. Sorry, but that is how it works.

 

[Mr Person]

Do they have access to rehab
Is addiction classed as an illness?

What I see here is people blaming an addiction, refusing to provide medical care, and blame the addict for the addiction.

Let them die. Right?

No one here has said anything like that. What we're saying is that giving an addict a better way to be an addict is not a good thing.

Oh please. What was said on the first page is that addicts should not have access to a drug that would save their life if they overdose because of beliefs that show a profound ignorance regarding the science of addiction.

It is simply false to claim that making life-saving medication causes addicts to remain addicts. What causes them to remain addicts is (1) the degree to which they have an addictive personality, (2) the chemically addictive nature of the substance in question, (3) and many hundreds of pages of more explanation, that you can find in the available studies.

To say otherwise is to deny reality. We've had addicts for a hell of a lot longer than we've had a life-saving shot, after all. There is also no actual empirical evidence that making a potential OD cure available causes addiction rates to rise.

The only thing said that wasn't simply false was the pragmatic reality that if you withhold medication, more addicts will die. Hence, JANFU's characterization is 100% accurate, and yours 100% false. The comments on the first page are pretty much exclusively typical cold-blooded conservatism masquerading as tough love. The people making those comments would not be making them if they'd lost anyone to addiction themselves.



And you know what? A lot of these addicts are just someone's kid who made a big mistake. Many started as minors (or are still).

I just don't understand why the right decided to treat basic human decency and compassion as objects of ridicule.

 

[Mr Person]

I know I am about to wade into the dangers of punching up, but here goes:

Drug companies don't want to cure anything. If they did then they'd be out of business.

That's news to me, seeing as my father was a passionate physician who eventually went into the drug business, ultimately running the entire research department for a couple difference companies. I suppose he must have been lying to me when he described all the efforts he made to develop drugs for then-untreatable diseases.

I'll call him up right now and expose him for the hack he apparently is.

Seriously, when was the last time a drug company actually came out with a cure?

New FDA Approved Drugs for 2016 | CenterWatch

I count at least 18 in 2016 so far alone.

Something like 15 printed pages in 2014

https://www.centerwatch.com/drug-information/fda-approved-drugs/year/2014



I won't put the point as harsh as I'd like, but you really shouldn't just make things up like that. I get that the masses like to get their jollies bashing certain common targets - attorneys, drug companies, doctors, anyone who does really tough work, really - but it's ugly when false, which it usually is.

 

[Mr Person]

Just as with alcoholics, enabling an addict accomplishes nothing.

Another blatant falsehood masquerading as "tough love".



"Enabling" means, for example, making alcohol available to an alcoholic, inviting the alcoholic out for drinks and encouraging them to have another, or at the very least, doing nothing to convince them they have a problem while tolerating their boozing in their presence.

We're not talking about anything like that here.



The accurate analogy would be that preventing medication from being made available to addicts suffering from ODs = leaving an alcoholic who is lying on his back vomiting to choke to death rather than turn him to his side.

Letting people die when you could save them is not some brave "tough decision" made to fight addiction.

 

[Mr Person]

I have to agree with this. by having to go to the doctor or hospital they can get counseling on their drug issues and can be at least offered
help.

Oh, I see the source of confusion!



Just in: Doctors and hospitals cannot counsel dead people on drug issues.

 

[Helix]

at least Pence did one thing right. have to give credit where credit is due, even though i severely dislike the prick.

Governor Signs Law To Expand Access To Overdose Intervention Drug

as for Maine's governor, **** that guy if he did that.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I know I am about to wade into the dangers of punching up, but here goes:

That's news to me, seeing as my father was a passionate physician who eventually went into the drug business, ultimately running the entire research department for a couple difference companies. I suppose he must have been lying to me when he described all the efforts he made to develop drugs for then-untreatable diseases.

I'll call him up right now and expose him for the hack he apparently is.

New FDA Approved Drugs for 2016 | CenterWatch

I count at least 18 in 2016 so far alone.

Something like 15 printed pages in 2014

https://www.centerwatch.com/drug-information/fda-approved-drugs/year/2014

I won't put the point as harsh as I'd like, but you really shouldn't just make things up like that. I get that the masses like to get their jollies bashing certain common targets - attorneys, drug companies, doctors, anyone who does really tough work, really - but it's ugly when false, which it usually is.

First, I never said that the doctors don't try and cure anything. The drug companies are the ones that I'm talking about.

Second, those few drugs that I reviewed in links were treatments. Not cures. And each and every single one of them have their own side affects....some deadly.

Third I've seen drug companies disqualify a drug after trials that were too effective based on flimsy/incomplete excuses. A friend of mine had cancer and was apart of an experiment for a drug in Canada. It cured him of his cancer. That drug never saw the light of day. The reason that they gave for its "failure" was that not enough people survived the trial period. What they didn't tell you though was that half the people that died while on that trial died for reasons that had nothing to do with the drug itself. For instance one person died in a car accident caused by the other driver another died as the result of a gun shot wound. I could go on if I felt like it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Oh, I see the source of confusion!



Just in: Doctors and hospitals cannot counsel dead people on drug issues.

But they can counsel the ones that don't die. Compare that with the doctors never being able to counsel anyone because they no longer have to go in for a prescription....I think I'd rather them be able to save the ones that they can than not be able to try and save anyone at all because they think they no longer have need of the doctor. Consider it Triage.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Another blatant falsehood masquerading as "tough love".

"Enabling" means, for example, making alcohol available to an alcoholic, inviting the alcoholic out for drinks and encouraging them to have another, or at the very least, doing nothing to convince them they have a problem while tolerating their boozing in their presence.

We're not talking about anything like that here.

The accurate analogy would be that preventing medication from being made available to addicts suffering from ODs = leaving an alcoholic who is lying on his back vomiting to choke to death rather than turn him to his side.

Letting people die when you could save them is not some brave "tough decision" made to fight addiction.

By not requiring them to go get a prescription you ARE enabling them. You are giving them a reason to never have to quit using that drug. You are giving them the opportunity to die from OD'ing because someone wasn't there to recognize that they were in trouble in order to administer this drug. Someone that is OD'ing is NOT going to have the mental capacity to realize that they are OD'ing, which means that them getting this drug is entirely dependent on someone noticing that they are OD'ing.

 

[Mr Person]

First, I never said that the doctors don't try and cure anything. The drug companies are the ones that I'm talking about.

Second, those few drugs that I reviewed in links were treatments. Not cures. And each and every single one of them have their own side affects....some deadly.

Third I've seen drug companies disqualify a drug after trials that were too effective based on flimsy/incomplete excuses. A friend of mine had cancer and was apart of an experiment for a drug in Canada. It cured him of his cancer. That drug never saw the light of day. The reason that they gave for its "failure" was that not enough people survived the trial period. What they didn't tell you though was that half the people that died while on that trial died for reasons that had nothing to do with the drug itself. For instance one person died in a car accident caused by the other driver another died as the result of a gun shot wound. I could go on if I felt like it.

First, the people working in drug companies who try to make drugs to cure or treat diseases are usually doctors who left private practice to try to develop drugs to help more people than they could do individually. And from many years of discussing my father's work with him, the information I received tells me that your comment was highly unfair and simply wrong. There are indeed some companies that misbehave, but by and large they are in it to help people. And of course, they are profit-seeking ventures. We cannot rationally expect companies operating in a capitalist economy to selflessly choose to be non-profit.

Second, I'm not even sure what the distinction between curing and treating is supposed to mean in the context of your attack on drug companies in general. A bacterial infection is curable with anti-biotics, and when it isn't it's because of resistance, not some nefarious decisionmaking by greedy drug companies. Viral infections are increasingly being targeted, too. But there are tons of diseases that can only be treated. Are you alleging that they should only seek cures and ignore potential treatments that can save or vastly improve lives? Or is it a conspiratorial allegation - that drug companies are consciously choosing not to bring cures to market that they are aware of?

If so....

Drugs take tons of money to develop. Hundreds of millions easily. So not only do your statements contradict the knowledge I have obtained from my father and elsewhere in life, they just plain don't make sense. Drug companies cannot choose not to cure a disease because they would have first had to spend all that money to develop the cure, then engage in a massive conspiracy to hide hundreds of millions of expenditures from investors, news media, the FDA, etc., so nobody would find out that they had a cure but quashed it.

Third, which Canadian drug?

Fourth, have you done any research at all to attempt to determine whether the regulatory body governing drug development in the country this Canadian-owned company operated required the study to be suspended?

 

[Mr Person]

No question.

Just as with alcoholics, enabling an addict accomplishes nothing.

Another blatant falsehood masquerading as "tough love".



"Enabling" means, for example, making alcohol available to an alcoholic, inviting the alcoholic out for drinks and encouraging them to have another, or at the very least, doing nothing to convince them they have a problem while tolerating their boozing in their presence.

We're not talking about anything like that here.



The accurate analogy would be that preventing medication from being made available to addicts suffering from ODs = leaving an alcoholic who is lying on his back vomiting to choke to death rather than turn him to his side.

Letting people die when you could save them is not some brave "tough decision" made to fight addiction.

By not requiring them to go get a prescription you ARE enabling them. You are giving them a reason to never have to quit using that drug. You are giving them the opportunity to die from OD'ing because someone wasn't there to recognize that they were in trouble in order to administer this drug. Someone that is OD'ing is NOT going to have the mental capacity to realize that they are OD'ing, which means that them getting this drug is entirely dependent on someone noticing that they are OD'ing.

Well, you're saying it is, but the fact remains that refusing to make a treatment for OD available is absolutely nothing like the sort of "enabling" that is discussed in the literature regarding addiction. Given the thread of posts you respond to above, you are taking the position that the only way to avoid enabling an addict is to consciously allow them to die when you could have prevented it with a simple policy. I find that absurd, cold-hearted, and indicative of a rather profound lack of knowledge about what addiction is.

And, as I noted, it reflects a complete denial about actual history: addicts have been addicts since the dawn of time, and they have died as addicts where there was no treatment available.

I also find this last remark to be absurd because there are about 9,999 reasons to quit an addiction other than fatal overdose. It does tend to ruin one's life in just about every way imaginable.

The only thing this policy accomplishes is to ensure that overdoses are more likely to produce death than they have to be. It is exactly as I described it to be.