It's about saving lives
Narcan isn't a magic potion. When injected into a muscle, it takes between three and five minutes to start working. If the person dying isn't breathing on their own, then you or someone else must breath for them until Narcan takes effect (like CPR.) Calling 911 must be done. Even after administering Narcan, the person must be taken to the emergency room. The danger isn't over. They can slip into another overdose.
The writer of “A little too far” (VND, June 4) states that Narcan is an enabler. I have startling news: an addict doesn't need to be enabled to use a drug. The availability of sterile needles and Narcan isn't going to make one bit of difference whether an addict uses or not. The gateway ‘enabler' myth has been around forever. Remember when rolling papers were going to turn everyone into reefer fiends? A person who has no interest in using opiates is now going to use because of safe needles and Narcan? I don't think so.
It was also mentioned that we are talking about illegal drugs. I assume the writer means heroin. Heroin is the only Class 1 opiate in the United States. All other opiates are considered Class II substances (legal.) If someone is dying from an opiate overdose, do you think it matters whether the drug is illegal or not? Dead is dead! It is okay because the drug was legal, just misused? Let's save the life and worry about legal or illegal later. I know that it's hard sometimes to remember that an addict is a member of someone's family. Hopefully loved, maybe not. If a member of my family were dying from an overdose, I'd be praying for a case of Narcan.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.