• 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
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is this sheriff's decision appropriate?
Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones: My deputies are not using Narcan

Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones: My deputies are not using Narcan - WCPO Cincinnati, OH
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

That's a very poorly written article. It doesn't do anything to explain what Narcan is or why there are doubts about using it.
 
radcen said:
Point taken, but if you do know that doesn't affect the purpose of the question.
Click to expand...

Can you provide any background about this issue that would help people to participate in the thread more meaningfully? I wiki'd Narcan and see that it's a drug to counteract opioid overdoses, but I don't understand the background of the topic or the nature of the controversy.
 
Cardinal said:
Can you provide any background about this issue that would help people to participate in the thread more meaningfully? I wiki'd Narcan and see that it's a drug to counteract opioid overdoses, but I don't understand the background of the topic or the nature of the controversy.
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
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...

I'm not trying to make you jump through hoops for my amusement. I just know nothing about this topic and wanted some help in understanding the background.

But you see my questions as antagonistic, so I won't bother you further.
 
Nope. The police are under no obligation to administer Narcan because they are not medical professionals, even if Narcan is simple to administer.

The solution is don't OD.
 
Last edited:
Cops aren't doctors, paramedics, nor EMT'S. There's no logical reason to force them to perform as such. Too much liability.
 
Cardinal said:
Can you provide any background about this issue that would help people to participate in the thread more meaningfully? I wiki'd Narcan and see that it's a drug to counteract opioid overdoses, but I don't understand the background of the topic or the nature of the controversy.
Click to expand...

Having read a recent article posted on DP about this issue

The sheriff might be trying to allow the addicts to die, rather than save them multiple times. It is one way to take care of the issue over time the number of addicts in that area will likely drop. It is a harsh method that could result in many many orphans and more long term social harm.
one
Another more costly method is to arrest the addict after the overdose and force them into a treatment program ( which would have to be funded by the government as it is unlikely the addict will have the resources to pay for it

Or have safe injection sites with onsite treatment centers to help people control the addiction and perhaps become productive members of society one with an addiction mind you. The quality of the drugs could be controlled as a way to reduce the overdoses as well. (provided the government was selling the drugs)

Option 1 is harsh and other than trying to let death take care of the problem, an unlikely solution to the issue unless a serious depopulation occurs (could work in rural communities with low populations with few people moving in. Unlikely to work in a place like Vancouver

Option 2 very expensive and unlikely to work long term

Option 3 has been effective in europe, and from what I have read in Vancouver.

Now to be honest. In the past (like 15 years ago or so) when I saw a doc about heroin and how the overdoses spiked in Vancouver after welfare checks were mailed out, I felt option one would be the best choice
 
apdst said:
Cops aren't doctors, paramedics, nor EMT'S. There's no logical reason to force them to perform as such. Too much liability.
Click to expand...

I expect nearly all cops are trained in at least basic first aid, and as first responders I expect are expected to provide basic first aid when they can. Providing narcan is not going to present any liability to the police in such situations
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Having read a recent article posted on DP about this issue

The sheriff might be trying to allow the addicts to die, rather than save them multiple times. It is one way to take care of the issue over time the number of addicts in that area will likely drop. It is a harsh method that could result in many many orphans and more long term social harm.
one
Another more costly method is to arrest the addict after the overdose and force them into a treatment program ( which would have to be funded by the government as it is unlikely the addict will have the resources to pay for it

Or have safe injection sites with onsite treatment centers to help people control the addiction and perhaps become productive members of society one with an addiction mind you. The quality of the drugs could be controlled as a way to reduce the overdoses as well. (provided the government was selling the drugs)

Option 1 is harsh and other than trying to let death take care of the problem, an unlikely solution to the issue unless a serious depopulation occurs (could work in rural communities with low populations with few people moving in. Unlikely to work in a place like Vancouver

Option 2 very expensive and unlikely to work long term

Option 3 has been effective in europe, and from what I have read in Vancouver.

Now to be honest. In the past (like 15 years ago or so) when I saw a doc about heroin and how the overdoses spiked in Vancouver after welfare checks were mailed out, I felt option one would be the best choice
Click to expand...

My basic feeling is that doing this really doesn't solve anything. It perpetuates the problem (with that individual) over and over. From what I have read about it follow-up is seldom done, so there is no after care or treatment. Just a sort of, "See ya next time."
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I expect nearly all cops are trained in at least basic first aid, and as first responders I expect are expected to provide basic first aid when they can. Providing narcan is not going to present any liability to the police in such situations
Click to expand...

The first anything that doesn't go exactly right durinh the use of the Narcan and the cop, along with the department will get sued. That's a given.

For this application, the Narcan is a nasal spray (right?).

Someone will show up with a bloody nose and be all like "look what that cop did to me!".
 
apdst said:
The first anything that doesn't go exactly right durinh the use of the Narcan and the cop, along with the department will get sued. That's a given.

For this application, the Narcan is a nasal spray (right?).

Someone will show up with a bloody nose and be all like "look what that cop did to me!".
Click to expand...

If trained and it was determined the person was overdosing, the police officer apply his/her training in an appropriate manner would be cleared of any wrong doing, as would a civilian under good Samaritan laws
 
radcen said:
My basic feeling is that doing this really doesn't solve anything. It perpetuates the problem (with that individual) over and over. From what I have read about it follow-up is seldom done, so there is no after care or treatment. Just a sort of, "See ya next time."
Click to expand...

Which is why there's no point in providing Narcan. Either the addict will stop taking heroin, or they'll die from OD. Either way the problem will eventually solve itself and save the tax-payers money.
 
radcen said:
My basic feeling is that doing this really doesn't solve anything. It perpetuates the problem (with that individual) over and over. From what I have read about it follow-up is seldom done, so there is no after care or treatment. Just a sort of, "See ya next time."
Click to expand...
In most cases there may be a next time but its not a frequent next time. Most overdoses that the cops will come upon are accidental ODs. Ive seen NARCAN administered and Ive never seen the addict become violent. Not saying it doesnt happen, but in my experience they remain fairly docile. If that is a concern, they should cuff the OD prior to administering NARCAN.

NARCAN is not a treatment for use and abuse...its a life saving measure. Heres the deal...psych units are also not treatment centers. They are also life saving measures. I dont see a problem with administering NARCAN in the case of an OD where it saves a life.
 
Not sure, but every junkie who has any modicum of sense understands the risk of pushing that plunger home. One of the things I realized along the way as a former IV user is the definition of death wish, which is as follows. Injecting a product sourced from a sketchy source, of unknown purity with GOD only knows what is in it, is a death wish.

Any smart dealer would keep some on hand.




Not sure if cops should be forced to carry and administer it, bet we see it in a court one day.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If trained and it was determined the person was overdosing, the police officer apply his/her training in an appropriate manner would be cleared of any wrong doing, as would a civilian under good Samaritan laws
Click to expand...

That isn't going stop a lawsuit. It might (might!) keep the plaintiff from winning the lawsuit, but the cop and the city will still have to spend money and time defending themselves.
 
apdst said:
That isn't going stop a lawsuit. It might (might!) keep the plaintiff from winning the lawsuit, but the cop and the city will still have to spend money and time defending themselves.
Click to expand...

Narcan has been used extensively and no lawsuit have been one against the police to my knowledge
 
Even though one would expect a LEO to administer any kind of first aid they can it's my understanding that there is no legal obligation for them to do so.
 
apdst said:
The first anything that doesn't go exactly right durinh the use of the Narcan and the cop, along with the department will get sued. That's a given.

For this application, the Narcan is a nasal spray (right?).

Someone will show up with a bloody nose and be all like "look what that cop did to me!".
Click to expand...

That's a given with or without Narcan.
 
radcen said:
That's a given with or without Narcan.
Click to expand...

Again, cops aren't medical personel. You can't sue them for not being medical personel.
 
I'm not a supporter of just standing there and watching someone OD if you have the ability to stop it. Ideally, rehab would be enforced whenever someone requires Narcan, but money is a huge issue. The answer isn't to just let people die if it's preventable. At least the Sheriff did say he would use it if the courts told him to use it.
 
apdst said:
Again, cops aren't medical personel. You can't sue them for not being medical personel.
Click to expand...
That's funny. Just 29 minutes earlier, in post, 17 you said...
apdst said:
That isn't going stop a lawsuit. It might (might!) keep the plaintiff from winning the lawsuit, but the cop and the city will still have to spend money and time defending themselves.
Click to expand...
...so you were either wrong then or you're wrong now. Which time are you wrong?
 
radcen said:
That's funny. Just 29 minutes earlier, in post, 17 you said...
...so you were either wrong then or you're wrong now. Which time are you wrong?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom