• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones: My deputies are not using Narcan

Is this sheriff's decision appropriate? (Read Post #1)

  • Total voters
    11
apdst said:
You don't understand that you can't sue someone for something he didn't do? Really?

I would love for you to sue a cop for not being a doctor. Get on that and let us know how it goes for ya.
Click to expand...

So you admit that your "wrong" post was the previous one where you said people can sue for anything, but probably not succeed. Got it.

Thank you. :2wave:
 
I don't know enough about it, to be honest. LEO's aren't medical professionals, so maybe they should call EMT's to diagnose and administer. But perhaps those extra minutes could prove fatal. Certainly anything that can help save an person who has OD'ed should be used, but there are a lot of questions about who should be using it, when and why.
 
I would ask if the liberals who support police use of Narcan would also support a 200% increase in their taxes to pay for it, but I realize most liberals are unemployed and don't pay taxes.
 
radcen said:
I could, easily, but I'm going to be stubborn and not. You seem to do quite well at doing your own research when you want to, so if you honestly don't know and are interested you can do that. I know you know how to go beyond 'wiki'. I've seen you do it many times. If you're not, and you are just trying to get me to jump through hoops for your own amusement, then you won't.

Either way, thank you for your contribution to the thread. :)
Click to expand...

Others are not and where do you draw the line at providing life saving medical attention?
 
It is a hell no from me, yes, saving a drug overdose often is a pointless exercise because most likely they will do it again, but you do not have the right to play god if you have the ability to save people from a possibly accidental overdose/or an overdose out of suicide reasons.
 
radcen said:
Is this sheriff's decision appropriate?

Spare me the Darwin references and arrogant "they deserve what they get" crap, but I honestly don't have any issue with his decision. I wouldn't favor legally banning them from doing this, but I don't favor requiring them to do it, either.

I watched a news report a few weeks ago, and apparently in some jurisdictions it has been used on the same people multiple times in separate instances. When is enough enough? When do you let nature take its course?

I believe I have read this guy's name before, and if I recall correctly he's something of a Sheriff Joe Apaio mini-me, and I'm bot buying his concern for his deputies spiel. I sense that he is one that feels these people are getting what they deserve and he's just spinning it for public consumption. But, be that as it may, I still think he's correct in not using Narcan, though our reasoning may differ.
Click to expand...

This seems like a bad decision - my understanding of how Narcan works is that it's best used ASAP after an overdose starts, for best effect.
Seems like having police officers, often first on the scene, trained in the use of it and using it as needed, is the best option. Of course, if a medically trained person is available, that might be a better option, if they're also trained in it's use.

This sheriff's argument that it's too dangerous for his officers to be around needles and people being saved from an overdose is kinda silly. I mean, sure, it's dangerous, but unless his office's area of responsibility is damned quiet, they see more dangerous things than needles and people who wanted to get high.

And in any case, it's their job to be there.
 
The Mark said:
This seems like a bad decision - my understanding of how Narcan works is that it's best used ASAP after an overdose starts, for best effect.
Seems like having police officers, often first on the scene, trained in the use of it and using it as needed, is the best option. Of course, if a medically trained person is available, that might be a better option, if they're also trained in it's use.

This sheriff's argument that it's too dangerous for his officers to be around needles and people being saved from an overdose is kinda silly. I mean, sure, it's dangerous, but unless his office's area of responsibility is damned quiet, they see more dangerous things than needles and people who wanted to get high.

And in any case, it's their job to be there.
Click to expand...

Even though I'm ok with his decision, I do think that the sheriff using the liability angle is just a ruse.
 
IMO it is NOT the job of LE to administer 'drugs' & particularly administering drugs to JUNKIES that have been abusing their bodies, pumping POISON into their bodies

I do know one thing; Ashleigh Banfield was a reporter for a local station in Dallas, Texas years ago, when I lived there ........ she is STILL HOT :naughty
 
Peter King said:
It is a hell no from me, yes, saving a drug overdose often is a pointless exercise because most likely they will do it again, but you do not have the right to play god if you have the ability to save people from a possibly accidental overdose/or an overdose out of suicide reasons.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. I cannot argue against it.
 
radcen said:
Even though I'm ok with his decision, I do think that the sheriff using the liability angle is just a ruse.
Click to expand...

I live a mile away from his county. Most of the people I talked to support him. We have seen the same people OD several times the news constantly reports the dangerous nature of Heroin in this area and how its being cut with everything from rat poison to elephant tranquilizers. People who OD multiple times are pretty much beyond hope anyway.
 
radcen said:
Is this sheriff's decision appropriate?

Spare me the Darwin references and arrogant "they deserve what they get" crap, but I honestly don't have any issue with his decision. I wouldn't favor legally banning them from doing this, but I don't favor requiring them to do it, either.

I watched a news report a few weeks ago, and apparently in some jurisdictions it has been used on the same people multiple times in separate instances. When is enough enough? When do you let nature take its course?

I believe I have read this guy's name before, and if I recall correctly he's something of a Sheriff Joe Apaio mini-me, and I'm bot buying his concern for his deputies spiel. I sense that he is one that feels these people are getting what they deserve and he's just spinning it for public consumption. But, be that as it may, I still think he's correct in not using Narcan, though our reasoning may differ.
Click to expand...

I bet he changes his mind when one of his cops OD's by contact like happened in another Ohio county.

Ohio police officer accidentally contacts fentanyl, overdoses | cleveland.com
 
Police officers are not medical first responders. There also doesn't seem to be any law requiring them to provide narcan, so yes, his decision seems appropriate and legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom