Will you carry Narcan?

Nope. Not interested. Darwin at work.
 
toysoldier said:
I think we should look for a financial link between the Surgeon General and the Narcan manufacturer. Big Pharma has made millions from indiscriminate opiod use, now wants to make millions more "saving" people from opiod overdose. I won't be carrying Narcan.

Bing Bing Bing! We have a winner!
 
Trouble is some of the drugs are so potent non users are overdosing. Cops are responding to traffic accidents having air born powder land on them and need to be saved with narcan. The problem is worse than you think it is.

Somebody near me had his dog overddose on his morning walk, by sniffing a cigarette pack. It was at his daughters school bus stop.
 
In my personal situation, I'm far more likely to encounter someone experiencing nerve agent poisoning than an opioid overdose. Big Army won't let me walk around with Nerve Agent Antidote injectors, so I guess Narcan is a no-go, too. Assuming that it's even available here. My money is on what toysoldier suggested - the Surgeon General has a vested interest in increased sales of Narcan (read as: he's getting paid).
 
NOPE; NO WAY.
I'm reminded of the time YEARS ago when in the ER because my daughter had slipped in the shower and banged her head; An Ambulance shows up and they wheel this over dosed kid in on a stretcher, the Intern takes a look at him and says "Holy Bat Excrement, This moron was in LAST NIGHT for over dosing."
Time to let them Expire.
 
There is definitely an epidemic out there. I see users frequently. Even though people have died within blocks of my house, I see no need to carry Narcan/naloxone. The recommendation is for people that have family members or friends that are users, not really the general public. I am not so heartless that should I come across someone in need of assistance, that I would not help. However, that generally means calling 911. That I will definitely do. The response time in my area is usually pretty fast. Although last year, in a sudden black ice day, it did take almost an hour and a half to get to me sprawled out on the sidewalk. (No drugs or alcohol)
Checking on prices, out of curiosity, Narcan should run about $135. Naloxone should be about $20 to $40. I just don't see the need to carry it. If I had a loved one with drug problems, I might think differently. Maybe.
I actually had a friend that was a former alcoholic. I am not sure if he ever was a drug user. I met him long after he cleaned himself up. He told me that he had been married and that his wife was also addicted to alcohol and drugs. This apparently went on for years for both of them until my friend decided that was enough. He suffered heart and liver damage. He pulled himself out of addictions but was unable to help his wife. He said it was like watching a slow suicide. He never left her, but at some point realized that she was simply going to die from drugs. He rescued her multiple times from overdoses, but began to question those decisions. He told me that he understood that his prayers for addiction release were only going to be realized by her passing. I met him about twenty years after that situation. He said that even after all those years, he still grieved over that loss.
I bet almost everyone knows a story like that one.
 
smoke-eater said:
Just what the junkies need: a safety net. Then they can do a repeat performance tomorrow. No interest in saving a lost cause from himself.


Looking at this from a "guns or butter" livestock herd maintenance aspect. (I know I'm heartless and mean-spirited, deal with it) it appears to me that we spend a lot of capital on protecting the culls of society at the expense of those that are truly profitable to society. I know I often get censured for my attitude towards drunks. But for a long time, I have felt that persons that need drugs or alcohol to face life are simply unable or unwilling to cope with their environment. Assuming that these people "breed true" then this implies that their next generation cannot cope as well. If Darwin is to be believed, working towards the continuation of this particular segment of the society is not really in humankind's best interest.

Once again, I realized that is a heartless attitude to take. Also keep in mind that I have culled affectionate and winsome animals from the dairy herd in the interest of profitability. As my dear departed grandfather used to say when he took his revolver to a lost cause cow – you can save the weak or you can save the herd but you can't do both. In my mind, I see little difference with drunks and druggies.
 
No,I won't.
Looking at the side effect list,you could get sued,especially as I don't know if I could tell the difference between an overdose,and a stroke.
https://www.rxlist.com/narcan-side-effects-drug-center.htm
 
As a nurse of 48 years and a first responder, I have been around quite a few people in OD situations. I can’t afford the dose to just carry around. EMS gets to the same place I do in under 5 minutes. I can keep someone alive that long! That plus not having an order to give from a doctor, and the attendant lawsuits. Nope, I won’t carry/give.
gramps
 
No. I already do enough stupid stuff the government tells me.

Now, if I knew, I would be around innocent people that could
come in contact some how with the potent stuff then, yes.

The "No" options I have read above I agree with.

Out here in the Wild West North only the smartest, fittest, and
independent survive, the rest die eventually. I would just turn
and walk silently away, keeping to my self.
 
Plus, why should I care more for someone than he/she cares for themselves?

They know ODing is a distinct possibility, so I'M suppose to look after them...?
 
SamV said:
He rescued her multiple times from overdoses, but began to question those decisions. He told me that he understood that his prayers for addiction release were only going to be realized by her passing. I met him about twenty years after that situation. He said that even after all those years, he still grieved over that loss.
I bet almost everyone knows a story like that one.

Hi,

Yep... a young woman I knew years ago attempted "suicide by medication" several times. One of the later times her husband said he came home, found her unresponsive, and called paramedics. They told him she was within a few minutes of being dead when they arrived. He said later if he'd have known that, he might have run out for a cup of coffee before calling them.

Another time, her husband was out of the country, and I got a call from a local hospital to come pick her up. She'd tried again. On the way home, she wanted to stop by the pharmacy, to fill a scrip for the same stuff they'd just pumped out of her stomach a few hours earlier (she had several, from different doctors!) She was furious with me when I talked to the pharmacist, filled her in on what was going on, and the pharmacist refused to fill the scrip. I felt I'd done the right thing.

They divorced and I lost track of both of them, but saw an obituary in the paper a few years later. She'd just turned 50...

Rick C
 
Alamosa Colorado Fire Department EMT'[s were supplying Narcan inhalers to responsible citizens just to get them out in the public. Narcan dose wont hurt you even if you did not do opioid, so pretty safe to administer "better safe than sorry" on an unresponsive person, especially if signs of opioid use are found with them
 
Selena said:
smoke-eater said:
Just what the junkies need: a safety net. Then they can do a repeat performance tomorrow. No interest in saving a lost cause from himself.


Looking at this from a "guns or butter" livestock herd maintenance aspect. (I know I'm heartless and mean-spirited, deal with it) it appears to me that we spend a lot of capital on protecting the culls of society at the expense of those that are truly profitable to society. I know I often get censured for my attitude towards drunks. But for a long time, I have felt that persons that need drugs or alcohol to face life are simply unable or unwilling to cope with their environment. Assuming that these people "breed true" then this implies that their next generation cannot cope as well. If Darwin is to be believed, working towards the continuation of this particular segment of the society is not really in humankind's best interest.

Once again, I realized that is a heartless attitude to take. Also keep in mind that I have culled affectionate and winsome animals from the dairy herd in the interest of profitability. As my dear departed grandfather used to say when he took his revolver to a lost cause cow – you can save the weak or you can save the herd but you can't do both. In my mind, I see little difference with drunks and druggies.

Here's the thing about that. If you want to take the "save the herd" mentality then you also need to apply that logic to any terminal condition that was choice related. That can included smokers, many diabetics and by most estimates 20-40% of deaths every year. Otherwise you are simply preferring one bad choice over another. So do we not do CPR on diabetics, do we let obese individuals with hypertension go without treatment for their stroke? These conditions, just like addiction are a drain of societal resources. I think it's a fair question.
 
Bull Barrel said:
I think its more important to carry emergency beer!

Nope, wont carry Narcan.
Btw....do ya need a script to get it?

I find that had to argue! Besides I know no one who might need it! ps
 
Since heroin is such an epidemic why don't they do something about where it is coming from ?
Like close the border.

As far as carrying a syringe around , I think not.
I will call 911 for them and let the professionals handle it.
Besides I don't know enough about it to determine what they are over dosing from.
 
Back
Top