It's free. Or at least the machine isn't charging for it. So I predict the machine will be empty most of the time anyway. If it's free some people will take it all regardless of their actual need, because they see no reason not to. A version of tragedy of the commons.
Who's ultimately paying for the medication and restocking, I wonder?
If it's "free" some people will take it all regardless of their actual need, because they see the possibility of profit at no expense to themselves, by making the "free" item unavailable and then selling it at a fraction of the normal cost.
Or they'll take it all because it's there and "free", just like how (I hear) sanitary napkin and tampon dispensers in public ladies' restrooms are ALWAYS empty even if they were JUST restocked.
The humanitarian side of me accepts that having Narcan around is good to save a poor wretch from certain death should they OD in the grip of addiction. (I'm an ex-smoker.)
The Conservative side of me tends to why bother?
As a society, we need to do better at helping those who want to break free, do so.
And leaving those who DON'T want to break free alone with the consequences of their choices and actions.
Does that sound callous? Maybe, but I would argue, as a society we need more natural consequences and fewer busybodies dedicated to preventing said natural consequences. You can't ultimately save someone who doesn't want to be saved. (Every psychiatrist and therapist out there would agree with that one; they've been saying it for decades -- a person cannot change unless they WANT to change.)
"Your life will be saved and your addiction kicked, whether you want it or not," sounds a bit too close for comfort to "You will surrender your guns, whether you want to or not."
Not sure how I feel about it in vending machines and an unmonitored giveaway.
However, I've been on pain meds for 20 years (6 spine surgeries to date). VA prescribes and keeps me current with Narcan just in case, which makes sense to me. I figure there is a .001% chance I'd ever need it, but then I have fire extinguishers in my home, too. The key to having Narcan in the home is having someone ELSE knowing where it is and how to administer it. Like CPR, knowing oneself is of little value.
Best carry more than one dose as that sometimes (often?) isn't enough from what I see in stories. Also an issue with it is how it works. The recipient is immediately brought down from their high but still have the craving and may go right back out and hit the opioid again.
I recall seeing the story of a police officer bagging fentanyl for evidence, and had a bad reaction to the trace amounts on the wrapping. It took two doses of Narcan to save his life.
It turns out, he's just exceptionally sensitive to the stuff and found out the hard way. Luckily, they had two Narcan vials available (I believe he and his partner each carried one, and she had to use both on him).
I checked on it. It happened in Newberg, OR, in March of 2023. The Newberg-Dundee Police Department declined to identify the officer. They initially didn't disclose what drugs he was exposed to, but later said it was fentanyl.
Ah. I was referring to the origin of your "Blind Archer". Sgt. Stammel was a character in a series (Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon) that later went by The Blind Archer. Just wondering if that was where you got it.
narcan is a subject I stay well away from. …
It's free. Or at least the machine isn't charging for it. So I predict the machine will be empty most of the time anyway. If it's free some people will take it all regardless of their actual need, because they see no reason not to. A version of tragedy of the commons.
Who's ultimately paying for the medication and restocking, I wonder?
We, the Taxpayers!
If it's "free" some people will take it all regardless of their actual need, because they see the possibility of profit at no expense to themselves, by making the "free" item unavailable and then selling it at a fraction of the normal cost.
Or they'll take it all because it's there and "free", just like how (I hear) sanitary napkin and tampon dispensers in public ladies' restrooms are ALWAYS empty even if they were JUST restocked.
The humanitarian side of me accepts that having Narcan around is good to save a poor wretch from certain death should they OD in the grip of addiction. (I'm an ex-smoker.)
The Conservative side of me tends to why bother?
As a society, we need to do better at helping those who want to break free, do so.
And leaving those who DON'T want to break free alone with the consequences of their choices and actions.
Does that sound callous? Maybe, but I would argue, as a society we need more natural consequences and fewer busybodies dedicated to preventing said natural consequences. You can't ultimately save someone who doesn't want to be saved. (Every psychiatrist and therapist out there would agree with that one; they've been saying it for decades -- a person cannot change unless they WANT to change.)
"Your life will be saved and your addiction kicked, whether you want it or not," sounds a bit too close for comfort to "You will surrender your guns, whether you want to or not."
Not sure how I feel about it in vending machines and an unmonitored giveaway.
However, I've been on pain meds for 20 years (6 spine surgeries to date). VA prescribes and keeps me current with Narcan just in case, which makes sense to me. I figure there is a .001% chance I'd ever need it, but then I have fire extinguishers in my home, too. The key to having Narcan in the home is having someone ELSE knowing where it is and how to administer it. Like CPR, knowing oneself is of little value.
Let
Them
Die
Best carry more than one dose as that sometimes (often?) isn't enough from what I see in stories. Also an issue with it is how it works. The recipient is immediately brought down from their high but still have the craving and may go right back out and hit the opioid again.
I recall seeing the story of a police officer bagging fentanyl for evidence, and had a bad reaction to the trace amounts on the wrapping. It took two doses of Narcan to save his life.
It turns out, he's just exceptionally sensitive to the stuff and found out the hard way. Luckily, they had two Narcan vials available (I believe he and his partner each carried one, and she had to use both on him).
Blind Archer as in Sgt. Stammel?
I checked on it. It happened in Newberg, OR, in March of 2023. The Newberg-Dundee Police Department declined to identify the officer. They initially didn't disclose what drugs he was exposed to, but later said it was fentanyl.
Ah. I was referring to the origin of your "Blind Archer". Sgt. Stammel was a character in a series (Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon) that later went by The Blind Archer. Just wondering if that was where you got it.
Ah. No, nothing like that. Sounds like a good series, though.
Simply put, I've been blessed with a passion for archery since I was a kid, but cursed with increasingly terrible eyesight as I grew up. :D