…and this is a 
We are ruled by monsters
Category: Politics
Posted on: January 28, 2008 11:00 AM, by PZ Myers
This is an unbelievable statement from one of our top medical advisors. Heroin overdoses kill many people; there is a cheap rescue option, though, kits called Narcan that cost a mere $9.50 and allow people to save lives. The Bush administration opposes their distribution.
Dr. Bertha Madras, deputy director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy, opposes the use of Narcan in overdose-rescue programs.
"First of all, I don't agree with giving an opioid antidote to non-medical professionals. That's No. 1," she says. "I just don't think that's good public health policy."
Madras says drug users aren't likely to be competent to deal with an overdose emergency. More importantly, she says, Narcan kits may actually encourage drug abusers to keep using heroin because they know overdosing isn't as likely.
Madras says the rescue programs might take away the drug user's motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment.
Hang on there…Bertha doesn't like non-medical professionals having access to an antidote? Does she also tut-tut the availability of defibrillators in places where someone without a medical degree might use them to save a life?
And it just gets worse. She opposes saving lives because watching a friend go into delirium, spasm, turn blue, and die in front of you is a pretty good deterrent to drug use. Even better, if you turn blue and die you won't be repeating your filthy drug habits ever again — the War on Drugs chalks up a win! We have a public health official advocating more deaths among victims of drug abuse as part of their compassionate approach to improving the health of our citizens.
Hey, here's another suggestion: let's stop teaching people the Heimlich maneuver. Not only does it put a medical procedure in the hands of mere non-medical professionals, watching a few fat people in your local McDonalds choke and die, turning purple, thrashing on the floor, and clawing their throats, would be an excellent salutary lesson in the dangers of gluttony and poor dietary habits.
(hat tip to Abel)
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Cyde Weys | January 28, 2008 11:08 AM
This whole administration is corrupt and full of cronies far out of their depth. What use is this "Dr." Bertha Madras if she doesn't even obey the Hippocratic Oath? We need fewer fundamentalists and "moralists" and more people governing from common principles. Here's hoping for 2009.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | January 28, 2008 11:11 AM
It's all tied into the *tian notion of "sin." Because the great sky fairy disapproves of "sin"s of the flesh, victimless crimes like getting high or ruining your own body and brain are something that people should suffer for. It all makes sense, if you're a complete fucktard.
Posted by: andy | January 28, 2008 11:18 AM
Well, if they are against HPV vaccine
for girls because the odd girl contracting
uterine cancer makes for a valuable moral
example, why not? At least they're consistent.
That's not to say these freaks shouldn't be
removed from office and whipped through the
streets until they are bloody. It's too bad
the whipping part's not gonna happen. It's a
moral lesson that would sink into even their
heads.
Posted by: gerald spezio | January 28, 2008 11:19 AM
Suffer little children and wayward uninformed citizens in order to come to the holy Bejeebus.
Posted by: Christianjb | January 28, 2008 11:25 AM
Whadya know? Obama's got a half-decent approach to drugs- he's not in favor of locking up non-violent drug users for life.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nGzHgcrK75c
It's a start.
Posted by: Christianjb | January 28, 2008 11:28 AM
Turns out Hill's drug policy is near identical to Barack's as far as I can tell.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/jul/05/hillary_clinton_drug_policy_refo
Posted by: Raynfala | January 28, 2008 11:29 AM
(citation: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040122-3.html )...except when it's somebody icky, right, sir?
Posted by: Narc | January 28, 2008 11:31 AM
It's actually very understandable. It seems that in Madras's point of view, the policy is more important than the people. It's a logical extension of a very bureaucratic mindset: the bureaucracy becomes the end in itself, and the thing the bureaucracy was put in place to protect is forgotten about.
Posted by: Rasputin | January 28, 2008 11:31 AM
These people want more people to die.
Posted by: Ethan Romero | January 28, 2008 11:32 AM
It's amazing how the same people that claim to support absolute moral truths use highly contextual logic when it comes to helping people they don't like (drug users, gays, women, dark skinned people).
Posted by: Christianjb | January 28, 2008 11:34 AM
Sorry for ruining an otherwise good page with Democratic politics, but since I mentioned both Hill and Barack, I feel it behooves me to mention that Edwards goes one better in supporting needle exchange programs:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy_main/2007/sep/25/john_edwards_supports_needle_exc
(For the record, I won't be voting for any of these people. I'm not an American citizen.)
Posted by: Nurse Ingrid | January 28, 2008 11:45 AM
I actually worked for a narcan distribution program here in San Francisco, and it was one of the most rewarding things I've ever done. Like needle exchange, it sends a powerful message to people who have been mistreated their whole lives: "We care about you, and we care whether you live or die." It's a way to connect with people, a way to encourage them to keep coming back. So if they ever did decide to quit drugs, they could come to us for help. And they did, and sometimes they succeeded.
And surprise surprise, overdose deaths in San Francisco decreased dramatically after the program started. As we say in harm reduction circles, you can't get clean if you're dead.
I agree with the other commenters -- there's just no escaping the conclusion that "conservative" thinking is ultimately shortsighted, and way more concerned with appearances than with results.
Posted by: dwarf zebu | January 28, 2008 11:46 AM
Not at all surprising since this is the same mindset that rejects condoms (globally) and clean needle exchanges to slow the spread of AIDS.
It's completely horrifying though because this is a further step in a very bad direction.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 28, 2008 11:47 AM
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. -Some Guy
Posted by: Chris Bell | January 28, 2008 11:52 AM
This takes "abstinence only" one step too far
Posted by: Frac | January 28, 2008 11:54 AM
My niece babysits for a four-year-old that has and knows how to use an Epi-pen. Better take that away from her, since it encourages her to play with bees.
Posted by: charley | January 28, 2008 11:55 AM
"Like needle exchange, it sends a powerful message to people who have been mistreated their whole lives: 'We care about you, and we care whether you live or die.'"
Exactly. That's why the Republicans oppose it.
Posted by: raven | January 28, 2008 11:56 AM
Needle exchange programs work great. My county has one. It is very quiet but apparently those who need to know, know.
One time during a budget crisis they suspended it. The rate of HIV+ among drug users immediately started increasing. This costs the government big bucks. You don't think junkies pay for the $20-40,000/year for HAART drugs plus the hospitalizations for opportunistic infections and so on? Then there are the poor people they infect.
Next time they had a budget crisis, they cut a lot of programs. They didn't touch the needle exchange one. You don't have to be a compassionate humanist to figure this out. You need some common sense and the ability to count money.
Posted by: Dan | January 28, 2008 12:04 PM
It's almost getting to the point with this administration where a political assassination could be successfully defended in court with a plea of self-defense.
Posted by: T_U_T | January 28, 2008 12:05 PM
those guys want utterly to destroy anything that doesn't fit in their fantasy. That is not only drug addicts, that is everyone who is not a fundagelical, and pretty much the entire universe. That is the reason why they wish for apocalypse.
.
For them, human life per se, has zero or negative value.
Posted by: Anon | January 28, 2008 12:07 PM
Funny... they don't act like people who don't believe in natural selection...
Posted by: Seamyst | January 28, 2008 12:09 PM
This reminds me of those idiots who said that the movie Trainspotting promoted drug use.
Posted by: E in MD | January 28, 2008 12:11 PM
Yay! I'm so happy to be an American under this administration!
Posted by: Sergeant Zim | January 28, 2008 12:17 PM
"You need some common sense and the ability to count money."
Well.... Bushco appears to have ONE of those attributes firmly in place...
@ Nurse Ingrid - - You say that the deaths in SF decreased after the use of Norcan kits - - Well, that's EXACTLY why the current admin. is so opposed to them! If something works, but it isn't 'faith-based', then it cannot be a good thing, and must be disposed of. Contrariwise, if something IS 'faith-based', it must be supported vigorously, whether it works or not, or even if it is shown to be detrimental.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | January 28, 2008 12:20 PM
This is what I don't get, it isn't the lack of xian compassion, that was always conditional. It is the fact that these people are supposed to be xian but they see no possibility of redemption. MInd you it seems to be society wide with the lock up and throw away the key regardless or even better, just kill 'em.
It is this apparently callous disregard for anyone who isn't straight up and successful (even if it is all only show) that is a prime reason I don't want to live in the US, even if the level of religiosity went down an awful lot.
Where does it come from?
Posted by: Clonus | January 28, 2008 12:21 PM
I've read somewhere that many heroin deaths described as overdoses are actually due to a combination of heroin and other drugs or heroin and alcohol. Would Narcan help in situations like this? Just asking.....
Posted by: ema | January 28, 2008 12:27 PM
Hey, here's another suggestion: let's stop teaching people the Heimlich maneuver.
And while we're at it, I must insist we stop teaching cops how to do emergency deliveries. I mean, the nerve of these non-medical people muscling in on Ob/Gyn procedures in an attempt to help fellow citizens. It's scandalous!
Posted by: Doozer | January 28, 2008 12:28 PM
...rescue programs might take away the drug user's motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment.
Ya think maybe this miscreant objects to lifeguards down at the swimming pool? My guess is yes...but only in certain parts of town...
Posted by: Zara | January 28, 2008 12:33 PM
This excretory specimen is not a medical doctor, but rather a Ph.D. psycho... uh, psychobiologist... so we certainly can't hold her to standards like the HIppocratic oath. Because she's a Bush Administration official, moreover, we cannot hold her to standards appropriate to civilized society. Plus, she's an idiot. No wonder she "chose" to leave Harvard for the more fertilized pastures of BushCo.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 28, 2008 12:34 PM
Would eliminate the possibility of finding out what they knew and when they knew it.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 28, 2008 12:37 PM
ROTFL!!!
I can almost smell them. Yuck. :-D
Posted by: RAM | January 28, 2008 12:37 PM
"Well, if they are against HPV vaccine for girls because the odd girl contracting uterine cancer makes for a valuable moral example, why not?"
I recently talked with a fundie who said just that, and claimed his minister said the women who get cancer deserved it for being sexually active. The supposed love and compassion of these people is just horrifying! When I informed him that as a Secular Humanist that I would advocate giving the vaccine, he said, with a straight face, that it proves I was the one without morals. These people are screwed up to the max
Posted by: Mold | January 28, 2008 12:41 PM
Narcan may be problematic outside the medical oversight.
We have seen that "victimless" crimes committed by Our Dear Leader have come back to haunt us.
Posted by: Dustin | January 28, 2008 12:43 PM
Any day now, I expect the sanctimonious douchebags to proclaim that epipens encourage the allergic to stuff themselves with shellfish or tree nuts. From there, they'll move on to stopping cancer research since the possibility of treatment encourages old men to grow great big tumors in their colons.I can't say that their claims aren't without merit, though. I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I say that, once instructed in the use of birth control, I started fornicating like a schizophrenic Roman emperor and, upon learning about antibiotics, I started licking doorknobs.
Posted by: Rick R | January 28, 2008 12:47 PM
The Enlightenment sure was nice while it lasted....
Posted by: Tex | January 28, 2008 12:48 PM
As always, things are even worse in Texas. Today's Houston Chronicle has an editorial explaining the idiocy of our state not only lacking a needle exchange policy, but a DA who arrests people trying to make a difference.
Details here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5489994.html
Posted by: Steve_C | January 28, 2008 12:51 PM
this amounts to... "Fuck em, they're addicts."
Posted by: Jim Royal | January 28, 2008 12:58 PM
This is no surprise. True religionists are the ultimate moral relativists.
Consider the mental gymnastics necessary for the Catholic Church to condemn condom use in a world where millions of Africans are dying from AIDS. They consider this pro-genocide policy as moral.
Consider the moral confusion of a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to allow the appropriate medical treatment for his dying child. Such a person believes that he would feel worse if his child survived than he would if he allowed his child to die. And considering the peer pressure he's under, he's probably right.
No doubt that these idiots who would deny an inexpensive life-saving tool to a person suffering a overdose-related seizure believe that they have made the moral choice.
Like I said: They are ultimate moral relativists.
Posted by: True Bob | January 28, 2008 1:01 PM
Well let's just extend that logic as far as it will go:
No public CPR
No public epi-pens
No public physiucal therapy equipment
No public defibrillators
No public antibiotic treatments
No public pain killers/analgesics
No public first aid (band-aids)
...
Gawd these people are evil.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 28, 2008 1:02 PM
Chalk up another victory for Compassionate Conservatism!
The Madras policy completely discounts the "wakeup call" effect of an OD, and apparently wishes to minimize the number of addicts who survive to answer that call. Furthermore, the abstract fear of death doesn't keep the addict away from the needle. Fear of overdose isn't necessarily the primary motive for getting clean. A common motivation is an increasingly desparate desire to escape the half-life of addiction.
Posted by: Spartacus | January 28, 2008 1:05 PM
Compassionate conservatism and good 'ol, down-home, Christian values at it's finest!
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 28, 2008 1:08 PM
"From there, they'll move on to stopping cancer research since the possibility of treatment encourages old men to grow great big tumors in their colons."
'Tis true, I'm afraid. I currently work as a health geographer in cancer surveillance, and I've had many discussions with my manager about the ethical consequences of my work.
Basically, we've found that mapping disease only encourages people to be geographically dispersed.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 28, 2008 1:09 PM
And it just gets worse. She opposes saving lives because watching a friend go into delirium, spasm, turn blue, and die in front of you is a pretty good deterrent to drug use. Even better, if you turn blue and die you won't be repeating your filthy drug habits ever again -- the War on Drugs chalks up a win! We have a public health official advocating more deaths among victims of drug abuse as part of their compassionate approach to improving the health of our citizens.
This is their general approach. For AIDS, it was, "let the faggots die;" for drugs it's, "let the junkies die." See, it's easy: when all the people they don't like die, the problems they don't like disappear, so they do everything they can to foster death and simultaneously send messages about how bad the bad people are.
Posted by: Dawn | January 28, 2008 1:15 PM
@25 Clonus - Narcan will reverse the narcotic effects of any narcotic type drug (i.e. depressed respirations) and also "kill" the high. It can lead to immediate drug withdrawal, depending on habituation levels, but will keep someone from dying if the problem is due to the narcotic (as I referenced above, as an example, depressed breathing rates).
It won't reverse the effects of non-narcotic drugs (cocaine, amphetamines, etc).
It's been a long time since I've reviewed the drug action so can't tell you exactly how it works anymore.
Posted by: noahpoah | January 28, 2008 1:21 PM
...watching a friend go into delirium, spasm, turn blue, and die in front of you is a pretty good deterrent to drug use.
This is likely true. Of course, this doesn't make it good policy.
The Heimlich analogy is not very good, by the way. Choking isn't typically due to gluttony or poor dietary habits. It's more likely just an accident, I would think. Snorting or injecting heroin, on the other hand, is no accident. Getting rid of epipens, defibrillators, and analgesics is more along the lines of the no-narcan approach.
Posted by: Anonomouse | January 28, 2008 1:33 PM
Well let's just extend that logic as far as it will go:
"No public CPR
No public epi-pens
No public physiucal therapy equipment
No public defibrillators
No public antibiotic treatments
No public pain killers/analgesics
No public first aid (band-aids)
...
Gawd these people are evil."
Meh.
No one accidentally injects themselves with Heroin.
I'm ok if a Drug Addict dies of an overdose.
Thats one less addict.
Posted by: T_U_T | January 28, 2008 1:37 PM
seems you are not very experienced user of the Blame The Victim (C) method. Anyone who choked to death deserved it because he was not cautious enough while eating. As simple as that.
Posted by: Rey Fox | January 28, 2008 1:37 PM
"Basically, we've found that mapping disease only encourages people to be geographically dispersed."
If they ever fix the emergency dispatch system where I live, then everyone will just want to move here. Thbbt.
Posted by: Chaosium | January 28, 2008 1:42 PM
"The Heimlich analogy is not very good, by the way. Choking isn't typically due to gluttony or poor dietary habits. It's more likely just an accident, I would think. Snorting or injecting heroin, on the other hand, is no accident"
Eating and doing heroin is no accident. Overdosing and choking are the accidents.
Posted by: True Bob | January 28, 2008 1:43 PM
Anonomouse, are you just as happy if a fat person dies due to unavailability of defib? I mean come on, they deserved it for getting fat. Likewise any PT equipment - used incorrectly, without a Doctor's supervision (not just a PT) can cause more damage. This would make people injure their limbs less.
And if people weren't so careless, we wouldn't need CPR. Or epi-pens, because really, you ought to know what's in your food.
Apparently you ignored what I wrote about pushing that (poor excuse for) logic.
Death cult much, Anonomouse?
Posted by: Heather | January 28, 2008 1:43 PM
@ Tex (#35):
I live in TX also, and just came across that article. Did you read the first several comments? Makes me sad. Those people have pretty much the same opinion as BushCo. What ever happened to love thy fellow man, or whatever they pretend they are doing when they are tying the noose up in the tree?
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | January 28, 2008 1:44 PM
No one accidentally injects themselves with Heroin.
Nobody accidentally drives too fast in the rain either.
No ambulance rides on rainy days! Let those careless drivers die. One less car on the freeway, right Anonymouse?
Posted by: Kerry | January 28, 2008 1:49 PM
Anonomouse (#45)
If I understand your comment you would be OK if my brother had died or if my daughter had died. If that is true you are below contempt and my writing this is as big a waste of time as you are of skin.
BTW - my brother got clean and sober 25+ years ago and has been a contributing member of society ever since. I know that the taxes he has paid more than paid for the cost of his rehab. My daughter is straightening her life out and will once again be a contributing member as long as she gets the help and support she needs.
Posted by: sublunary | January 28, 2008 2:07 PM
#46 says (in sarcastic imitation fundie voice)"Anyone who choked to death deserved it because he was not cautious enough while eating. As simple as that. "
It's funny how suddenly they reverse their attitude when it's someone they like. Remember that whole incident a few years ago with Bush and the evil pretzel of death?
You know that the second one of their loved ones developes a drug problem it becomes not their fault, or they claim it's ok in these special circumstances since, obviously, the liberals/pro-choicers/science lovers/insert scapegoat here, corrupted them.
Posted by: An | January 28, 2008 2:14 PM
Your false analogies of Epi-Pens, Heimlich maneuvers, Defibrillators, and "Whoops! Coulda Happened To Anyone Accidents" need to stop.
NO ONE accidentally and repeatedly shoves poison into their veins.
Here I thought, as atheists, we're all supposed to be logical. But when presented with the right kind of emotional argument you become just as illogical as a run of the mill creationist.
Poster # 17 Raven is the only one that has presented logical reasons to agree with.
#52 You go ahead and paint me with whatever hate brush you need to make yourself feel better. Just like a Creationist. Point is, was their lives saved by one of these kits? If not whats your point?
Posted by: Tulse | January 28, 2008 2:16 PM
Let's stop all lung cancer treatments, since obviously no one accidentally smokes.
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | January 28, 2008 2:31 PM
But when presented with the right kind of emotional argument you become just as illogical as a run of the mill creationist.
If it's a choice between getting lumped with "run of the mill creationist[s]" or being willing to let people die horribly for their mistakes, I know which one I'll choose. Every time. There are probably many more circumstances that lead a person to become a heroin addict than I will ever know. The thing is, I know that I don't know, and so I'm willing to err on the side of trying to save those people.
This isn't a difference between atheists and the religious. It's a difference between people who think human lives are worth saving and, well, you.
Posted by: Dustin | January 28, 2008 2:43 PM
We are. That means we're also supposed to make some kind of attempt at understanding the psychology and pathology of addiction before hopping on the sanctimonious high-horse, which you haven't done. Go read up on the social causes of drug use, then go read up on neurotransmitters. The latter might also be helpful in diagnosing whatever it is that has gone wrong with your ball of misfiring neurons. I feel like painting you with a stupid brush instead.Posted by: Anonomouse | January 28, 2008 2:45 PM
"Let's stop all lung cancer treatments, since obviously no one accidentally smokes."
Wow, and I thought I was cold blooded.
If you want to stop a medical treatment that fights a disease contributed by the use of legal controlled substance. A substance that has had a widespread and systemic dis-information campaign waged by the companies that produce it, well I suppose.....
Oh wait. You're using one of those Really Really Bad Analogies again?
Really, try to come up with something even close to Deliberately and Repeatedly shoving a toxic substance into ones veins.
Posted by: Justin H. | January 28, 2008 2:49 PM
I feel deeply ashamed for these people. How can they let something like the societal taboo on drug use overshadow the importance of saving lives? I can't believe there's even a need to point this out, but medicine should be evidence based--if there's evidence that distributing naloxone can save lives, then by all means do so. It really couldn't be any simpler. And yet, people let their emotional response to drugs and addicts get in the way of their jobs.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 28, 2008 2:50 PM
c'mon folks, don't be so hard on anonomouse. They're just hoping to get rid of society's degenerates.
Posted by: Brigit | January 28, 2008 2:50 PM
#45- You disapprove on how some people deal with their mental-fucking-illness, so their lives are worthless? Well, of course that's rational...
Me and my husband had to live through the death of one of his best friends from OD. He was just another college kid like us. He was a good man. His death, not his life, was a waste. He was in a different campus than us, we weren't there to help him, but I certainly wish there had been a program that could.
Another friend of ours cleaned up his act, cold turkey, and almost died in the hospital when his body went into shock. He's been rehabilitated for years and now he studies and volunteers to help others clean up.
A college friend -a double major in biology and chemistry with a 4.00 average- went into breakdown, escaped when we tried to take her home, and injected herself some heroin in the slums next to our college. We took her to an emergency room, in which they could not tell us if she'd die or not. We waited there while she vomited, while other took her mom to the courts to get an order to temporarily place her in a mental institution. Thankfully she recovered, and is now in grad school.
The fact that these people at some point "injected themselves with poison" does not make them worthless or any less human. However your comment does seem to make you an imbecilic douchebag.
Posted by: raven | January 28, 2008 3:01 PM
Irony, thy name is Death Cult Xian. We had one family of them in our neighborhood once. OK people but a little bit cuckoo.
Their son was in and out of detox programs for years. Finally died of a heroin overdose. They were devastated.
Somehow I get the feeling that if someone told them it was all god's plan for dealing with drug addicts, they probably wouldn't agree.
Posted by: Pol Lambert | January 28, 2008 3:06 PM
Anonomouse,
"Really, try to come up with something even close to Deliberately and Repeatedly shoving a toxic substance into ones veins."
I would say smoking constitutes of deliberately and repeatedly inhaling a toxic substance into ones longues.
Smoking is legal in some places (no-smoking allowed signs eh?) but that doesn't make it healthy. So yes, by your reasoning, it's ok to let the smokers die.
Posted by: Anonomouse | January 28, 2008 3:07 PM
"It's a difference between people who think human lives are worth saving and, well, you."
No the difference is caring about saving human lives, and saving the human lives of people purposefully, repeatedly and knowingly committing a self-destructive act because it gives them pleasure.
I have no problem with the uses of the drug in clinical treatments to end an addiction. The use of it as a safety net, however flimsy, because an addict might misjudge the quantity or quality of the poison they're injecting themselves is silly.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | January 28, 2008 3:08 PM
Ah yes, the condom argument as shield from criticism. "If they're not available, people won't be tempted to use them for their intended purpose." Or the pill argument: "If it's not available they can't have easy next-day internal abortions."
Posted by: GDwarf | January 28, 2008 3:09 PM
#54
Few things.
First off, an Overdose is an accident. Well, is usually an accident. Yes taking drugs is risky, but then, going outside when it's warmer than 5 degrees Celsius is risky for me, since all it takes is one wasp sting to kill me.
Eating is risky since it's so easy to choke.
Breathing is risky, since you could inhale a deadly virus/bacteria.
etc.
Now, there are some differences, most of the examples given are for things essential to a normal life that are potentially deadly, unlike drug addictions which are just the deadly part. So I'll certainly agree that quite a few people are making false analogies.
However, I must ask, how is the no-antidote stance any different from denying a professional snake handler antivenin? Or an AIDS patient medicine? After all, both of those people presumably had a choice in getting bitten/infected, yet anyone who said that denying them something that could save their lives was a good thing would, quite rightly, be labled a monster. Yet, somehow, it's OK when the person about to die is a drug addict?
Posted by: SeanH | January 28, 2008 3:11 PM
Heroin is an addictive drug, but it's no more a poison than alcohol, caffiene, or any other drug people ingest. Heroin use may not be a lifestyle choice most agree with, but users who takes proper doses are not shoving poison into their veins. When they overdose it's generally because the potency is unpredictable, which is a direct result of the government's ban on heroin.I'm not endorsing heroin use, but it's just a high-risk behavior like smoking, speeding, or anything else. Raven's comment on the costs makes a good point too. Even if what Dr. Madras said was morally right, uneccessarily hauling them into emergency rooms seems like a damn expensive way to teach a guy lesson.
Posted by: Kermit | January 28, 2008 3:19 PM
Anonomouse #58
[regarding tobacco] "Really, try to come up with something even close to Deliberately and Repeatedly shoving a toxic substance into ones veins."
Ummm... you don't think that repeatedly inhaling hot smoke infused with a toxic and highly addictive drug isn't similar? My father did not die from tobacco, but he could have -he was an addict most of his life. He was also a military officer and a law-abiding taxpayer. If he had developed emphysema or lung cancer, would he not have deserved treatment?
Why is one drug addiction a socially acceptable habit but another a capital offense?
Our (US) president was a drug addict for twenty years. He showed contempt for others' lives by driving drunk on a regular basis. Now he passes judgement on those who get stoned on the wrong drugs. As do you, in this post of yours.
Kermit
Posted by: firemancarl | January 28, 2008 3:26 PM
Perhaps an irony is taking place here. My engine carries Narcan. We give it in cases of drug overdose or when the etiology of the patient is unknown and they are unconscious . If you are not using an opiate, there is no adverse reaction to Narcan. If you are using an opiate, you get a really rude wake up and the loss of your high. That being said, Narcan is a controlled substance that is under medical control and is, just like other drugs (medical ones ), is issues in measured vials. It is my own personal opinion that no one by health providers should give Narcan. Since the way we give it is through IV. I don't see any druggies or their families starting an IV of normal saline then pushing the Narcan. Just a hunch, but call me crazy if you must.
I am not sure of it being available at your local CVS or Walgreens.
Of course, they give methadone to meth heads. So, who knows.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 28, 2008 3:28 PM
Oh, but Pol: Smoking is LEGAL. Apparently that makes all the difference to Anonymouse.
The smoking analogy is apt. Anyone who can't see (or won't admit) it must have a very heavy axe to grind.
Incidentally, boys and girls, most overdoses are accidental, just like most drunk driving accidents, etc. If the legality of the substance is the determining factor in the decision to provide or withhold life-saving procedures and technology, then I propose that if a person who has been hospitalized after a DUI crash, one for which they are responsible, is later determined to have been under the influence of an illegal drug, that they be retroactively maimed or killed to restore them to their original, unattended, post-crash physical condition.
Once again, the politics of personal responsibility is used by its advocates to mask systemic discompassion.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 28, 2008 3:36 PM
Anonymouse sez:
Nope. That's NOTHING like a cigarette habit, or compulsive consumption of food or alcohol.
LMAO.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 28, 2008 3:53 PM
NO ONE accidentally and repeatedly shoves poison into their veins.
I feel the same about those who purposely and repeatedly inject poison into threads.
Feeding the trolls only encourage them to keep using. The only cure for trolls like anonymouse is to let 'em OD on their own stupidity.
Posted by: uncle frogy | January 28, 2008 3:57 PM
WOW!! what can I say this thread is all over the place!
It seems to me that the most important thing for the "Neocons" is that they should be consistent and "stick to their guns" and not change ideas to match the reality they find.
Is not that clear with every policy statement. They must be "consistent". Drugs are bad, drug use is bad, drug users are bad. We can not care for them we need to punish instead. Of course ourselves and our "friends " are just victims and need our compassion and understanding.
It is this element of judgment that is displayed here as in other instances that I find so hypocritical and distasteful. They condemn "activist judges" but see no problem in doing the judging themselves.
It is OK to torture the terrorist and hold them as combatants forever because we say they are terrorists and have no human rights.
So why should we be surprised by any of it, The "neocons" simply do not care for anything but themselves.
As we can plainly see the "War on Terror" shows every sign of being just as successful as the "War on Drugs"
Very depressing.
Posted by: Pol Lambert | January 28, 2008 4:03 PM
Re 64 by Anonymouse
"No the difference is caring about saving human lives, and saving the human lives of people purposefully, repeatedly and knowingly committing a self-destructive act because it gives them pleasure."
So you take it upon yourself to decide who deserves to live and who gets to die. According to christianity, that choice belongs to god. So if you are a christian, you're committing the same sin Adam did (right and wrong apple), the very sin that got them kicked out of paradise.
So quite the contrary to your claim, you are not on christian moral high ground.
Posted by: It is Dave | January 28, 2008 4:05 PM
firemancarl: I don't see any druggies or their families starting an IV of normal saline then pushing the Narcan. Just a hunch, but call me crazy if you must.
I won't call you crazy, just too lazy to RTFA and thus spouting uninformed nonsense. The Narcan in this situation is delivered as a nasal spray.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 28, 2008 4:07 PM
That's one less:
Miles Davis
Lenny Bruce
Jerry Garcia
William Burroughs
Billie Holiday
Edgar Allan Poe
Charlie Parker
Sonny Rollins
Janis Joplin
John Lennon
Chet Baker
Just a quick list off the top of my head of one-time heroin addicts that have greatly enriched my life. Sure am glad these people didn't die sooner.
Posted by: firemancarl | January 28, 2008 4:12 PM
@#76.
Just because famous people die from ODing, it doesn't mean they were any less a burden on the system. You forgot Len Bias, the Boston Celtic who OD'd on coke the night he got drafted. Maybe I am just jaded after going to so damn many ODs.
Posted by: Tulse | January 28, 2008 4:17 PM
Yeah, but Sven, if we broaden your list a bit, we could also include Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: Sideways | January 28, 2008 4:22 PM
"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,"
said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than
usually desirable that we should make some slight
provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer
greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in
want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands
are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down
the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge.
"Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish
I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour,
then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first,
that something had occurred to stop them in their
useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to
hear it."
Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol
Pity we seem to be out of ghosts.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | January 28, 2008 4:25 PM
It's part of the Overall War On Pleasure.
Substitute "sex" for heroin and you've got the rationale for why Fundies don't want their daughters inoculated against common forms of VD.
Posted by: Sideways | January 28, 2008 4:26 PM
Sorry to double post, just realized I left off the money quote:
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had
better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | January 28, 2008 4:29 PM
uh...what? I seem to have been misinterpreted. My list is not "famous people who ODed" (few of them did), and I do not claim that it is/was a good thing, in any sense, that they were addicts. My point was merely that writing someone off--anyone--because they happen to be, or have been, an addict is as stupid as it is cold. I consider the people I listed great artists and I'm happy they lived to produce the art that has enriched my life. Those who were killed by their habits I regard as a great tragedy.As for Limbaugh, hey, assholes have opioid receptors too.
Posted by: Tulse | January 28, 2008 4:41 PM
Yep, and when they get nice clean pharmaceutical-quality opioids, apparently it is OK for them to be hooked. It should also be noted that when such nice clean pharmaceutical-quality opioids are used, they don't seem to cause such problems as bacterial infections from dirty needles, health problems from other foreign substances in the drug, etc. etc. etc. In other words, if it's rich folks doing "good" opiates, we forgive them, but if it's poor folks doing "bad" opiates, we let them die. (There is a strong parallel here with the legal treatment of crack versus powdered cocaine.)
Posted by: Kseniya | January 28, 2008 4:50 PM
List[cAddicts].Add("Eric Clapton")
Posted by: firemancarl |