WP: As opioid overdoses rise, police officers become counselors, doctors and social workers

[PeterMP]

33 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

This is literally what Carolyn Bryant, the woman who falsely accused Emmitt Till, did. She held her tongue for 62 years. Then as times changed, and old age softened her heart, she comes out with the truth. As if even whistling at her, which he didn't do, would've justified the brutal murder that occured. I don't think determining whether these quotes can be believed, based on what you or I would say years after the incidents, and not being the kinds of people who take took those kind of actions, makes much sense. 

 

But the story has been widely reported and Bryant is still alive to deny them.  She reached out to somebody while she is still alive to specifically make sure the story would be reported, has seen the story reported, and hasn't denied it.

 

Plus, we don't know what she's told her family and close associates, but they aren't denying the story, which suggest she's told them enough not to deny it.

 

That's not what has happened here.  The situations are not comparable.  The Bryant situation is what you'd expect from an older person that feels bad about their previous action and is repentant.  That's not what happened with your quote. 

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Yea I get that could be the extrapolated meaning behind it. Thats not how I took it though. The drugs where just the means to an end. They changed public attitudes to get rid of their enemies without consequence. Black people and the anti war people. Just the suspicion was enough to get the job done. They didnt need to formally charge anyone with anything. Least of all blacks and hippies. 

 

Again exactly what is happening now. Trump cant charge the Democrats with anything. But he sure can make his voters see them as murders. Once they accept it they will let him take them away in cuffs and they wont think twice about it. Its the same ****, you are watching it happen today.   

 

 

This is where the disconnect is. I'm not disagreeing with anything else you are saying outside of the above. I think thats exactly what the quote is saying. I honestly find it surprising you can argue otherwise. 

 

We see differently here. No big deal. I just dont understand your POV on this one at all. 

 

I guess considering the quote directly and specifically discusses arresting their leaders and breaking up meetings I don't see how you can't see that an integral part of the quote.

Edited January 23, 2018 by PeterMP

[Llevron]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I guess considering the quote directly and specifically discusses arresting their leaders and breaking up meetings how you can't see that an integral part of the quote.

 

The quote also directly and specifically calls blacks their enemies but you don't see it as racist so whats the big ****ing deal? 

 

Im not trying to get any deeper than this as it feels you are just looking for an argument and im really not there right now. You dont agree with me. Ok bro. Live with that. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

15 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

The quote also directly and specifically calls blacks their enemies but you don't see it as racist so whats the big ****ing deal? 

 

Im not trying to get any deeper than this as it feels you are just looking for an argument and im really not there right now. You dont agree with me. Ok bro. Live with that. 

 

I never said the quote wasn't racist, that Nixon wasn't racist, or that Ehrilchman wasn't racist.

 

In this thread, I never said anything wasn't racist.  Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Edited January 23, 2018 by PeterMP

[Llevron]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I never said the quote wasn't racist, that Nixon wasn't racist, or that Ehrilchman wasn't racist.

 

In this thread, I never said anything wasn't racist.  Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

 

My intent wasn't to put words in your mouth. My intent was to show you are ignoring what seems to be the obvious by saying: 

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Clearly, there has been a racist component to Republican support for drug laws where many of the laws and drugs in generally have been biased against minorities.  But that's not at all what that quote is saying.

 

When to me it is clear that is exactly what the add is saying. Again, I didnt mean to put words in your mouth so my mistake. 

 

But again it is clear you are a little more combative, for whatever reason, than trying to communicate at the moment so im bowing out here. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

My intent wasn't to put words in your mouth. My intent was to show you are ignoring what seems to be the obvious by saying: 

 

 

When to me it is clear that is exactly what the add is saying. Again, I didnt mean to put words in your mouth so my mistake. 

 

But again it is clear you are a little more combative, for whatever reason, than trying to communicate at the moment so im bowing out here. 

 

The quote is going well beyond what I wrote.  It isn't just saying that there is racial component to drug laws.  That could happen due to a racist driven lack of sympathy for minorities. 

 

The quote is saying that drugs were intentionally criminalized so that they could arrest the leaders of Nixon's (political) enemies.

 

That's not just racist.  That's a racist conspiracy (and I'd argue if it isn't criminal that it should be).

[visionary]

 

[Kosher Ham]

On 1/22/2018 at 4:24 PM, PeterMP said:

 

 

Clearly, the Reagan administration cared more about defeating communism than the poor, people living in inner cities, and minorities (and jnot ust blacks, but also homosexuals and other minorities (e.g. military funding was favored over funding of HIV/AIDS research).  That was clear at the time he was running for President.

 

Ehh, AIDS/HIV wasn't really recognized by the US until after Reagan was elected. It was a couple of years later that they made the connection between the two. 

At the time Reagan was elected it was widely considered something that was mostly happening in Africa. 

 

As far as his stance with minorities overall though. I mostly agree. He did appoint Sandra Day. 

[nonniey]

14 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

Ehh, AIDS/HIV wasn't really recognized by the US until after Reagan was elected. It was a couple of years later that they made the connection between the two. 

At the time Reagan was elected it was widely considered something that was mostly happening in Africa. 

 

As far as his stance with minorities overall though. I mostly agree. He did appoint Sandra Day. 

Actually AIDs, outside of some specialist doctors who suspected a disease existed and were hunting for it, wasn't even known at all when he ran.  

[PeterMP]

33 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

Ehh, AIDS/HIV wasn't really recognized by the US until after Reagan was elected. It was a couple of years later that they made the connection between the two. 

At the time Reagan was elected it was widely considered something that was mostly happening in Africa. 

 

As far as his stance with minorities overall though. I mostly agree. He did appoint Sandra Day. 

 

AIDS was originally diagnosed in the US (in 1981) before any official diagnosis in Africa or anywhere else in the world.

 

The comment was parenthetical and part of another sentence as an example of his general disregard.  It wasn't meant to applicable specifically before he was elected.  There are less explicitly clear cases from before he was elected.

 

(He said something like society cannot condone a gay life style before before he was elected.  It was clear he would prioritize defeating the Soviets over aiding minorities when he was running.  His funding of the military vs. AIDS then later becomes an explicit example of that.)

Edited January 24, 2018 by PeterMP

[No Excuses]

 

[Larry]

On January 23, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Kosher Ham said:

 

Ehh, AIDS/HIV wasn't really recognized by the US until after Reagan was elected. It was a couple of years later that they made the connection between the two. 

At the time Reagan was elected it was widely considered something that was mostly happening in Africa. 

 

As far as his stance with minorities overall though. I mostly agree. He did appoint Sandra Day. 

 

Oh, I understand that it really wasn't Big News when he was first elected. 

 

But I also remember when it became big news, during his administration. 

 

I remember reading stories about public swimming pools being closed because somebody said that a kid with AIDS swam in the pool. Or people being chased from a grocery store by a mob of people because somebody claimed someone touched a vegetable and then put it back in the pile. I remember reading about people's houses being burnt down because somebody had AIDS. 

 

And I remember the Republican Party's position on the government response. That the government should not study it in any way, because well, it doesn't kill nearly as many people as heart disease, for example, and besides, it only kills gays and drug addicts, anyway, and all we should do is make sure that they don't spread it to the general population. 

 

IMO, Reagan was a Great President in many ways. (I think that part of the job is to be an inspirational leader. And Reagan was really good at that. Even though many of his policies were downright harmful to the country). But his administration's response to AIDS is one of the most shameful in our country's history. (His numerous other actions endorsing Jim Crow discrimination against gays were part of the package, too). 

 

 

---

 

On January 23, 2018 at 5:23 PM, visionary said:

 

 

Frivolous lawsuits, paid for by taxpayer dollars. 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Larry

[Larry]

For what it's worth, my LPN class has been doing clinicals, last two weeks, at a mental health/detox facility.  I got to do a few interviews with a patient who was in for detox for opioid addiction.  Got to learn about some tools that are available.  (One of them seemed to be a surprise to my instructor, who has worked for years as a psych nurse.  Although it seems like the drug was approved by the FDA back in 2010.)  

 

There's a drug available called Invega.  (Generic name Naloxone).  It's an "opioid antagonist".  It's similar enough to an opioid that it will chemically bind to the neural receptors that are sensitive to opioids, but it does not produce opioid effects.  

 

Net results:  give somebody this drug, and almost instantly, opioids will stop working on them.  (They won't get him high, and they won't block pain, either.)  

 

It also apparently works for alcohol withdrawal, but through a different mechanism.  

 

There's drawbacks and serious warnings with the drug.  The first one is that you can't give it to somebody who currently on opioids, or undergoing withdrawal, or you will produce instant withdrawal effects.  So, you have to get the patient clean, before you can start it.  

 

Another is that apparently, after the patient has used Invega a while, and you stop using it, then he may be hyper-sensitive to opioids.  And a relatively small dose can trigger overdose symptoms.  

 

But my instructor also explains that one of the problems with the med is that the patient can't get high while he's on the drug, so he stops taking the drug, so he can get high.  (She explains that many patients have come right out and told her that the reason they're here, getting detox, is because they've built up a tolerance to opioids.  And now they have to take bigger and bigger doses, to get high.  And the pills are costing them too much.  So they're here in detox so that they can get clean enough to get back to where it's cheaper to get high, again.)  

 

Well, apparently, Naloxone is available in a new form, now.  

 

Invega Sustena is an injectible form of Invega, which is slowly released into the bloodstream.  One injection is good for a month.  

 

Apparently, many psych medications are becoming available in this form, now.  I wonder if this might be a bit of a game changer, in psych medication, because it seems to me that it might greatly increase drug compliance, which seems to be a big problem in that field.

 

And, with many of the psych meds, you have to be cautious.  Give a long-lasting injectible to a patient, and if it's the wrong dose or has a bad side effect, then he's on the drug for a month.  Give him a pill, and if there's a problem, you just stop giving him the pill.

 

It's still got the same risks and warnings as the pills.  But it sure does seem like it might be good news.  

 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Larry

[Larry]

Also, from the Land of Unintended Consequences, 

 

instructor claims that efforts at reducing opioids on the street have resulted in addicts being forced to switch to heroin, because it's cheaper. 

[Springfield]

26 minutes ago, Larry said:

Also, from the Land of Unintended Consequences, 

 

instructor claims that efforts at reducing opioids on the street have resulted in addicts being forced to switch to heroin, because it's cheaper. 

 

Yes, it’s been this way for some time now.  Prescription for whatever opioid du jour runs out, can’t get that same drug any longer and turns to self medication.  Eventually ends in heroin use intravenously and then death.

 

This is hardly new.

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[FanboyOf91]

[Riggo-toni]

[Springfield]

Honestly, I don’t see ANY President fixig this crisis.  Calling it a national emergency won’t help.  Any other semantics bull**** won’t help.

[Llevron]

46 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Honestly, I don’t see ANY President fixig this crisis.  Calling it a national emergency won’t help.  Any other semantics bull**** won’t help.

 

Doctors making too much money prescribing poison to people. Its never going to be fixed until we decide to stop that. 

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

Doctors making too much money prescribing poison to people. Its never going to be fixed until we decide to stop that. 

 

I do think that’s been curtailed within the last few years.  10 years ago, I was getting a 30 day supply for Vicodin every time I had a cavity or needed dental work.  Now, I get nothing.  I had a sports injury to my foot that took about 2 months to heal so there was no pain and got prescribed an anti anflamatory instead of an opioid.

 

Problem is that 10 years ago, there were people getting hooked BY THE MILLIONS.  They’re still addicted.  Many will always be addicted.  Aside from the astounding number of deaths, there are exponentially more people out there simply maintaining their addiction.

 

Different prescription practices, harsher penalties, those things won’t change what has already happened.  These addicted people have to want to quit in the first place.  Then, they have to survive it.

 

I believe that there is a medical need for opiates in this country.  I think that, based on my experience alone, there has been a concerted effort to cut back on over-prescription.  I’m not naive enough to think that this is a political issue that simply calling it an epidemic or emergency or hazard or whatever name people want to slap on it will actually help.

 

Its a problem that I’m not real confident will go away any time soon.

[Riggo-toni]

[FanboyOf91]

Quote

Some officials and care providers who work on the frontlines of the opioid crisis, however, are scathing about what they see as a lack of action from the White House. Former Congressman Patrick Kennedy, who served on the White House opioid commission, says he's "incredulous" that, after declaring a public health emergency in October, the president still hasn't requested any money from Congress to combat the epidemic.

"I mean this is just a mental health crisis of the first order," Kennedy says, "and this administration has done nothing."

In fairness, he did need that money for needless corporate tax cuts.

[visionary]

 

[FanboyOf91]

(treats this like the Wire)

 

Ok, who are they going to be moving their product through then? ?