What ever happened to just say no?! Instead we have mandated Narcan in clubs. Let's ban illicit narcotics....

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/06/04/multiple-victims-possible-drug-overdose-waikiki/

https://www.khon2.com/local-news/1-dead-4-hospitalized-after-waikiki-hotel-incident/

Darwin is my hero

related?

https://www.kitv.com/news/local/driver-damages-other-cars-and-homes-after-speeding-through-kapahulu/article_9b126512-034c-11ee-943e-371bd81f28ea.html

The driver dropped a bag filled with an unknown substance and witnesses on the scene believe he was under the influence.

Plenty stupid going around nowadays, huh?

What?  Are illegal drugs no longer safe?   

#Consequences

So C&C rep Santos Tam, who introduced Bill 57, also introduced a bill lthat would require bars/clubs to carry Narcan.

I'm sure he will add hotels to this list.  This guy loves to enable criminal behavior. 1st with sensitve places by keeping criminals safe from their victims shooting them in self defense, and now drug usage.

Stupid choices has consequences.  Like when you die from your decision.  Oh well.  Buh Bye.

What bothers me is when their stupid choices affects innocent people.

That pisses me off.

So yeah.  Go off in the corner and go kill yourself or whatever.  Just don't bother me or anybody else.

Stupid choices has consequences.  Like when you die from your decision.  Oh well.  Buh Bye.

What bothers me is when their stupid choices affects innocent people.

That pisses me off.

So yeah.  Go off in the corner and go kill yourself or whatever.  Just don't bother me or anybody else.

==============
exactly
1-Us taxpayers have to foot the bill for emergency response and ...
2- since there is a shortage of emergency response facilities, it delays legitimate emergency calls.

HNN story from last week...
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/video/2023/06/02/with-ers-oahu-packed-ambulances-are-stacking-up-outside-rather-than-responding-911-calls/

One has to ask themselves why are these lawmakers enabling criminal behavior?
There is no money in "Just say NO!" But there are lots of money in Narcan and substance abuse counselors (Sand Island Treatment Center) https://sandisland.org/.

One has to ask themselves why are these lawmakers enabling criminal behavior?
There is no money in "Just say NO!" But there are lots of money in Narcan and substance abuse counselors (Sand Island Treatment Center) https://sandisland.org/.

The war on drugs has not delivered the results promised nor expected.  If anything, it's made a lot of crooked cops super wealthy and prisons overcrowded.  The amount of money criminal gangs make gives them power over the police and courts.  From bribery to affording high-priced, experienced lawyers, they don't often see the inside of a cell.

As for NARCAN, the liberals and do-gooders who want to help the users crushed by the drug trade make a lot of noise when the annual budget comes up.  It's easy to do a cost-benefit breakdown of an OD and show that a single dose in the field can prevent tens of thousands in hospital costs for ER  services and extended stays for recovery.  Plus, if the person is okay, they can be released in a day, which lets the hospital avoid dealing with the patient's withdrawals.

Many of the people who work to distribute NARCAN packets are former addicts or family members/friends of addicts who've ODed/died.  So, if the former addicts are now leading productive lives triggered by an OD that should have killed them, then the case can be made that those people were worth saving.  They recognize the gravity of their actions now and chose to get clean.

I seriously doubt many addicts are avoiding quitting just because there's a safety net called NARCAN.  I guess it's like someone who almost commits suicide.  Only after they survive do they decide living is better -- but dying removes that choice.  They have to survive to learn the lesson.  Some people don't believe an OD will happen to themselves until it does.

There have been a lot of famous people who died from drug overdoses, and not all of them from illegal drugs.  Heath Ledger,  Philip Seymour Hoffman and John Belushi might have been around much longer if they'd been able to administer NARCAN.  No way to know for sure, but obviously not having it cut otherwise productive lives short. 

Not all addicts are homeless dregs draining society of valuable resources.  Nor are they all 100% to blame, given the prescription opioid crisis in the US.  Even Rush Limbaugh fell into that trap.

‘I yelled, “I’m putting this up your nose”’:
what it’s like to use Narcan
30 May 2023

Over 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year. Advocates say a vast
number of them might still be alive if they’d had access to naloxone. Brandon Kilmer,
a 24-year-old from Minneapolis, lost his brother to a fentanyl overdose in 2022. Now,
he distributes a pack of Narcan to everyone he meets. “I don’t care if you’re a
17-year-old kid or an 80-year-old grandmother,” he said. “I want you to have it.”

Naloxone, better known by the brand name Narcan, reverses overdoses by binding
to the opioid receptors in the brain, blocking the effects of drugs such as fentanyl or
heroin. Harm reduction workers say it should be as ubiquitous in Americans’ homes
as dental floss or hand sanitizer, but not enough people have access to it.

The FDA recently approved selling naloxone over the counter. By late summer, it
could be on shelves at convenience stores, supermarkets, and other retailers that
do not have a pharmacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/30/what-is-narcan-naloxone-overdose

The war on drugs is a scam. If the US really wanted to, they could land troops at the cartels HQ in Mexico and eliminate them.  This would greatly reduce the flow into the US.  We invaded Iraq for much less.  So it can be done.  Same goes with known drug houses and corners. Of course, this would push some underground, but then the plan of attack will change.

I feel no pitty on someone who knowingly ingest illegal drugs.  What I do have pitty for are the innocents that can be affected. Like a cop who reaches into someones pocket then OD's or a 5 year old who finds it on the dining room table and ingest it.  But on the other side, those who caused this to happen, should be charged with negligent homicide or something since they are in possession of an illegal drug. 

I'm glad there are people who changed their lives after using narcan as it was their wake up call. But I'm going to assume that there are many more who don't.  The statement that not all are homeless, just give it time. It's like seeing the fat crackhead. She's still in the early stages and given time, she will be skinnier.   Or the crackhead who didn't resort to hooking yet.  There's a IG page "tales from the streets" and some tell their story and now they are hookers, but it didn't happen right away.

 There was a NatGeo about ice/meth and had a millionaire businessman who is now homeless. He even had a yacht. It didn't happen overnight, but took within 10 years. They also had a special on Kracodill, which is popular in Easthern Europe.  I'm going to assume that the Mexicans know this is a bad business drug as it typically kills the user within a year. 

So back to forcing bars/clubs to stock Narcan, this enables users and will cost tax dollars.  They start small and will increase where has to keep it in stock. Hotels, restaurants, schools, etc...The key would be to stop the flow, not treat after someone is ODing.  Just my $0.02.

==============
exactly
1-Us taxpayers have to foot the bill for emergency response and ...
2- since there is a shortage of emergency response facilities, it delays legitimate emergency calls.

HNN story from last week...
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/video/2023/06/02/with-ers-oahu-packed-ambulances-are-stacking-up-outside-rather-than-responding-911-calls/

I'd hate to think that someone was denied medical emergency services just because some people made bad choices by taking these illegal drugs while yukking it up at nightclubs or whatever.

It's obviously more complicated than "let the druggies kill themselves."

As 2A advocates, we often say, "I am my own first responder," to drive home the point that a 911 response takes time -- sometimes more time than you have to live when facing a threat.

i think the same applies to any emergency -- fire, medical, etc.  There are home defibrillators now being used by casinos, other businesses and private homes with elderly residents.  It's there when needed before EMT or FD arrives.  Many lives have been saved.

NARCAN is another on-the-spot remedy for a medical emergency.  It's cheap (if not free) for most.  It's easy to administer.  And it saves lives similar to insulin and EPI pens.  When you need it, waiting for it to arrive isn't a good option.

"Enabler" is kind of a harsh term for someone giving NARCAN to a person before or during and OD.  Saving someone's life didn't enable them to become addicted or homeless.  That happened long before.  Then there's the partying college kid who isn't addicted or homeless and who makes a bad decision to try something new. 

The only thing being "enabled" is the person's chance of living.  I guess if you think all narcotic drug overdoses deserve a death sentence, then there's not much left to say.

I'd hate to think that someone was denied medical emergency services just because some people made bad choices by taking these illegal drugs while yukking it up at nightclubs or whatever.

I was gonna bring this up, but  you beat me to it...not only emergency, but other types of medical services as well...

It's obviously more complicated than "let the druggies kill themselves."

As 2A advocates, we often say, "I am my own first responder," to drive home the point that a 911 response takes time -- sometimes more time than you have to live when facing a threat.

i think the same applies to any emergency -- fire, medical, etc.  There are home defibrillators now being used by casinos, other businesses and private homes with elderly residents.  It's there when needed before EMT or FD arrives.  Many lives have been saved.

NARCAN is another on-the-spot remedy for a medical emergency.  It's cheap (if not free) for most.  It's easy to administer.  And it saves lives similar to insulin and EPI pens.  When you need it, waiting for it to arrive isn't a good option.

"Enabler" is kind of a harsh term for someone giving NARCAN to a person before or during and OD.  Saving someone's life didn't enable them to become addicted or homeless.  That happened long before.  Then there's the partying college kid who isn't addicted or homeless and who makes a bad decision to try something new. 

The only thing being "enabled" is the person's chance of living.  I guess if you think all narcotic drug overdoses deserve a death sentence, then there's not much left to say.

I meant Tam is an enabler.  Tam enables rapist, active shooters, kidnappers by disarming their victims by the sensitive places bill he introduced. Now he presented a bill that requires private businesses like a bar to keep Narcan in stock. So this isn't the 5 year old grabbing a drug off the table and accidentally ingesting it type of scenario.  It would make more sense to present a bill for those who would mostly likely be innocent. Like first responders ( I don't think it's law, just policy to have Narcan on hand), schools/daycare centers, places like these.  But instead he chooses a bar that is a party place that has a higher chance of drugs being present and being consumed by choice. So again, choosing to do an illegal drug is the main factor.

For places to have a defibrillator, having your heart stop isn't typically by choice or isn't done illegally.  Iolani School had a story some years ago that they teach the freshman and junior classes how to use the equipment and have saved like 5 people since.

For the reply about "I am my own first responder", a drug user is free to carry the Narcan on them if they want.  So are bars or any other type of business or person.  The problem I have is that they would be forced to carry it and what happens if they choose not to use it or can't locate it in time?  Is there an immunity clause in the bill?

In the end, we have different views on the topic and I respect your POV.  Everything above is just my POV.

I'd hate to think that someone was denied medical emergency services just because some people made bad choices by taking these illegal drugs while yukking it up at nightclubs or whatever.

i hate to think we might deny life saving medical treatment to people based on moral judgments.  That's a very slippery slope.

Habitual drug use is just one example of unhealthy lifestyles people engage in.  Alcohol has many known negative health effects.  Do we bump alcoholics from ER services if others are waiting?  Where does it begin?  Where does it end?

I agree that if it's illegal, they did it to themselves.  But I don't think they should be denied reasonable medical treatment.  If NARCAN is cheaper and more successful  than being rushed to an ER, that makes more sense to me.

i hate to think we might deny life saving medical treatment to people based on moral judgments.  That's a very slippery slope.

Habitual drug use is just one example of unhealthy lifestyles people engage in.  Alcohol has many known negative health effects.  Do we bump alcoholics from ER services if others are waiting?  Where does it begin?  Where does it end?

I agree that if it's illegal, they did it to themselves.  But I don't think they should be denied reasonable medical treatment.  If NARCAN is cheaper and more successful  than being rushed to an ER, that makes more sense to me.

So then why stop at bars?  Narcan should be required by law to be at every business in Hawaii.  This bill is asking a non medical professional to under go training and to administer it for someone who by choice committed an illegal act knowing the risk involved.  Why not require TQ's at every business as well and the training needed. CPR, heimlic maneuver, etc...Where does it end?  The later training is typically for accidents from doing things that are not illegal.  Let bars/clubs make their own choice, don't force it upon them.  If they get a bunch of customers who are ODing, then they can choose to stock it.  Or do better searching before letting people in.

What I see is this is the test to see how far lawmakers can push this.  Then the "free" Narcan will make even more money when they make more places keep it on stock.  In the end, costing tax payers money.

Everyone has different morals.  If you know someone was raping a woman and that woman shot the rapist, but you had a TQ on you.  Would you use it? How about on an active shooter?   Rape and active shooting are illegal, like how drugs are.  I mean you could be OK with saving a drug user, but not OK with saving an active shooter or rapist.  That's why peoples morals can be different.

I'm not talking about ER services. If an ODing person shows up or an EMT arrives on scene, they have a duty to help the person.  Same goes with an active shooter who's shot. They have a duty to treat.

The war on drugs has not delivered the results promised nor expected.  If anything, it's made a lot of crooked cops super wealthy and prisons overcrowded.  The amount of money criminal gangs make gives them power over the police and courts.  From bribery to affording high-priced, experienced lawyers, they don't often see the inside of a cell.

As for NARCAN, the liberals and do-gooders who want to help the users crushed by the drug trade make a lot of noise when the annual budget comes up.  It's easy to do a cost-benefit breakdown of an OD and show that a single dose in the field can prevent tens of thousands in hospital costs for ER  services and extended stays for recovery.  Plus, if the person is okay, they can be released in a day, which lets the hospital avoid dealing with the patient's withdrawals.

Many of the people who work to distribute NARCAN packets are former addicts or family members/friends of addicts who've ODed/died.  So, if the former addicts are now leading productive lives triggered by an OD that should have killed them, then the case can be made that those people were worth saving.  They recognize the gravity of their actions now and chose to get clean.

I seriously doubt many addicts are avoiding quitting just because there's a safety net called NARCAN.  I guess it's like someone who almost commits suicide.  Only after they survive do they decide living is better -- but dying removes that choice.  They have to survive to learn the lesson.  Some people don't believe an OD will happen to themselves until it does.

There have been a lot of famous people who died from drug overdoses, and not all of them from illegal drugs.  Heath Ledger,  Philip Seymour Hoffman and John Belushi might have been around much longer if they'd been able to administer NARCAN.  No way to know for sure, but obviously not having it cut otherwise productive lives short. 

Not all addicts are homeless dregs draining society of valuable resources.  Nor are they all 100% to blame, given the prescription opioid crisis in the US.  Even Rush Limbaugh fell into that trap.

‘I yelled, “I’m putting this up your nose”’:
what it’s like to use Narcan
30 May 2023https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/30/what-is-narcan-naloxone-overdose

Simple solution. Don't make a decision that is illegal and stupid and don't make the rest of society pay for the stupid and illegal decision.

I guess I've changed over the years.  I don't care much anymore for people who act and choose to do irresponsible things.  I just keep thinking of those who are responsible and accountable and their struggles to keep themselves and their loved ones safe and healthy.

Yes, good people will make bad choices.  But they usually will recover once they see the error of their ways.

Like it was mentioned earlier, scenarios where a mass shooter gets injured while killing and injuring innocents.  Or a rapist that gets injured while severely raping a woman.  Or a road rage driver that gets severly hurt while causing an innocent family in another car to get severely injured also.

Do you treat each of them equally to the best of your ability?

Who do you help first?  I for one know for sure.

Simple solution. Don't make a decision that is illegal and stupid and don't make the rest of society pay for the stupid and illegal decision.

If only ...

My simple solution would be for the government to start putting even more narcotics on the street -- but cut with NARCAN.

That would not only prevent who knows how many deaths, but also covertly ween people off narcotics with no knowledge they are blocking the effects of the drugs by taking it.  Even if they buy non-NARCAN dope, if they also use gov't NARCAN drugs, they will still be blocking some of the narcotics.

Regardless of feasibility and results, I think it would be a great experiment in a city with rampant drug addiction.  Priced below market cost, it might have an effect on addiction.