Should States give away free Naloxone?

www.npr.org...

In Pennsylvania, People Lined Up For Free Naloxone
The state made the medication available to anyone free of charge — no questions asked. It is part of Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf's effort to address the opioid crisis.

I'm not necessarily against this, but I do wonder, why not free Insulin, why not free cancer treatments, free antibiotics, etc etc.
Also, we know free does not mean free.

Is it better to save a drug addict, or a person with diabetes? Everyone seems to think that drug addicts deserve a second chance but people with
other illnesses don't.

I'm going with maybe.

Where I live, we have a big problem- but the democrats here are making it worse.

Their bleeding hearts actually use tax dollars to provide paraphernalia! Clean needles, bandages, etc for shooting up.
They pay kids by the hour to ride around town and deliver this stuff to the various homeless jungles.
Of course, these same kids are also the ones showing up with the drugs- free tax sponsored needles with every purchase!


I don't like spending my tax dollars on these people, but a drug to help is better than straight up enabling them...

a reply to: JAGStorm

It's BS.

Like you said, folks get raked over the coals for stuff like insulin and Epi-Pens.

But junkies get narcanned 15-20 times and taxpayers eat the cost.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Is it better to save a drug addict, or a person with diabetes? Everyone seems to think that drug addicts deserve a second chance but people with other illnesses don't.

So true JAGStorm .. so true.

The addicts shouldn’t have preference over other illnesses.Some family’s child is dying because they can’t afford health care, while the gov hands out drugs for addicts for free. That’s enough to blow the lid off of some father or mother who can’t take it anymore.. because their child is dying from no free will of their own.

I have the same problem with all the money they pour into rehabilitation and education of those convicted of crime, while the good kids are shlepping to school everyday with a heavy workload of homework and part time jobs to make ends meet, while they try to better themselves with that college degree. No help for the “ good” from the government.

I'm sure the pharma company had some influence in this. But I'm not totally opposed to it. There's not that many "cures" out there. It's not like we have a medicine that can cure diabetes, cancer, etc, with the same success rate that Narcan can cure someone having an overdose (75-100%). Also Narcan only needs to be used once (unless the addict returns to the addiction, which I guess would be common), whereas most other medications need to be used for the entirety of the person's disease, or sometimes even their entire life, which is very expensive. I hate to put a price tag on life, but there isn't infinite money out there.

I know I know, every thread seems to be partisan...... BUT.......Criminals, junkies, drug abusers etc make up the BULK of the democrat voter base.

People with ACTUAL sickness that needs treatment are just ‘general population’, the BULK of which are NOT the democrat voter base.

Why else would ‘social programs’ openly support those who most definitely are NOT in ‘need’ while refusing to support those who most certainly ARE?

I believe that at least has something to do with the hypocrisy in taxpayer funded drug supplies.

a reply to: JAGStorm

It can treat far more than addiction, it can help with chronic fatigue and fibromyalga among other things...

ETA.. I was thinking of naltrexone not noloxone.. Doh!

a reply to: JAGStorm

The "system" has been ass backwards and in "politically corrected favoritism" mode for years.

💥😦💥

a reply to: Breakthestreak

I don't disagree with your skepticism, but if there were a drug that cured cancer with 75-100% efficiency like Narcan does with drug overdose, I would be more than willing to shell out more tax-payer dollars for that. Unfortunately such a drug doesn't exist.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Breakthestreak

I don't disagree with your skepticism, but if there were a drug that cured cancer with 75-100% efficiency like Narcan does with drug overdose, I would be more than willing to shell out more tax-payer dollars for that. Unfortunately such a drug doesn't exist.

Actually CBD oil has cured many cancers, and it’s not expensive.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Breakthestreak

I don't disagree with your skepticism, but if there were a drug that cured cancer with 75-100% efficiency like Narcan does with drug overdose, I would be more than willing to shell out more tax-payer dollars for that. Unfortunately such a drug doesn't exist.

So would I.
But cancer is not the result of bad choices and a life of crime. Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding Narcan at all. At least not for drug addicts.

But there those who think differently. I accept that.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: JAGStorm

It can treat far more than addiction, it can help with chronic fatigue and fibromyalga among other things...

So made up BS "conditions" to get more people hooked on prescription drugs.. .

originally posted by: Sheye

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Breakthestreak

I don't disagree with your skepticism, but if there were a drug that cured cancer with 75-100% efficiency like Narcan does with drug overdose, I would be more than willing to shell out more tax-payer dollars for that. Unfortunately such a drug doesn't exist.

Actually CBD oil has cured many cancers, and it’s not expensive.

It’s not supplied by the taxpayers though is it?
I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure it ain’t.

a reply to: JAGStorm

In my country, insulins are 100% subsidized by the government. Many medicins are subsidised. Yet being a doctor is still a higly paid profession, the economy hasn't collapsed and our government is a tiny fraction of the size and wealth of the US government.

Many governments are subsidizing medicine and recovering costs through taxation. It is workable and fairer than only the rich being able to access modern medicine.

Go figure, which is government for the people and by the people?

a reply to: JAGStorm

Why is this an either/or situation.

If there is a better way of dealing with each individual problem, why aren't we applying the best methodology in each case?

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: JAGStorm

It can treat far more than addiction, it can help with chronic fatigue and fibromyalga among other things...

So made up BS "conditions" to get more people hooked on prescription drugs.. .

They are very real conditions that are becoming more and more understood by the medical establishment. Naltrexone is a drug used to help curb addiction although it is being used by drug addicts to get a better hit, I couldn't be arsed explaining how right now but you could look it up if you're interested. Also look up low dose naltrexone.

As I have just discovered there is difference between noloxone and naltrexone, my bad.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: Sheye

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Breakthestreak

I don't disagree with your skepticism, but if there were a drug that cured cancer with 75-100% efficiency like Narcan does with drug overdose, I would be more than willing to shell out more tax-payer dollars for that. Unfortunately such a drug doesn't exist.

Actually CBD oil has cured many cancers, and it’s not expensive.

It’s not supplied by the taxpayers though is it?
I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure it ain’t.

Nope.

a reply to: JAGStorm


No.

States should not give it away for free.


If you want to do drugs to the point of an overdose, that's on the individual and I have not problem with that.

But now I (as a taxpayer) have to foot the bill for their individual choice?


No.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
www.npr.org...

In Pennsylvania, People Lined Up For Free Naloxone
The state made the medication available to anyone free of charge — no questions asked. It is part of Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf's effort to address the opioid crisis.

I'm not necessarily against this, but I do wonder, why not free Insulin, why not free cancer treatments, free antibiotics, etc etc.
Also, we know free does not mean free.

Is it better to save a drug addict, or a person with diabetes? Everyone seems to think that drug addicts deserve a second chance but people with
other illnesses don't.

I think because drug addicts carry some transmittable disease which some are very deadly.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JAGStorm


No.

States should not give it away for free.


If you want to do drugs to the point of an overdose, that's on the individual and I have not problem with that.

But now I (as a taxpayer) have to foot the bill for their individual choice?


No.

With that way of thinking if you made a poor choice and crashed your car and lay there dying people should not help you and leave you to die...