Ohio Sheriff Refuses to let Officers Carry Narcan

[Virginiá]

Completely agree with him. If these folks keep using drugs time and time again, it should not be on society and taxpayers to keep them alive. This is not like having cops or EMTs carrying epipens or portable defribilators on clean folks having a reaction or heart troubles. These are people that made the choice to get hooked and stay hooked knowing the potential deadly consequences.

That is not how addiction works. People know the consequences but their head is so screwed up that they don't even factor it into their decisions. Perhaps you would like to go on a tour of America and tell the families - the mothers and the fathers that their children died because "they should have known better" and that the officer didn't want to do a thing as simple as inject the person with a reversal agent because they wanted to make a point.

Guess how many addicts that kind of 'statement' is going to influence? Zero. All you're doing is letting people die - people who might have found their way later in life, all for nothing.

[Virginiá]

I think Butler County is often lauded for being quite progressive in its handling of non-violent drug offenders compared to neighboring Franklin County in Indiana, which also struggles with drug abuse. This is not a matter of "taxpayer dollars" or "heartlessness". Basically this:

The sheriff's main point was that he believes it's not safe for his officers to administer it and should be left up to the paramedics.   He should have left the "taxpayer" stuff out of it.

What exactly is not safe? That they wake up agitated and possibly violent? Isn't handling violent people a big part of a police officer's job? And exactly how dangerous would they be if they start out from a semi-conscious state where the officers have the advantage of being prepared for any potential outburst? I mean they could even restrain the person prior to administering the drug.

The point of having police officers carry and use Narcan is if it they come upon someone who is overdosing or has already gone under and they need immediate attention. Overall the excuse is at best silly and misguided or at worst cover for a more heartless position on reviving addicts.

[Virginiá]

Police are sometimes involved in dangerous situations as part of their job, but that does not mean we should create more dangerous situations for them.

It is sometimes difficult for even trained individuals to tell the difference between someone having an opioid overdose and another type of overdose, or something else altogether. Where there is a known opioid overdose situation, paramedics should be dispatched to the site simultaneously with the police. Where the situation is less clear, there is no need to expose a lone police officer to a potentially dangerous situation that might, if all the circumstances line up correctly, merely allow the addict to "live" until their next overdose, potentially committing crimes to feed their habit.

Right, so like I was alluding to, no good reason to not give them Narcan.

[Virginiá]

Aren't police officers supposed to only restrain someone in response to something?

I'm not sure. Fwiw, when I said restrain I meant more like hold their arms so they can't lash out after they wake up, not necessarily handcuffing or anything of the sort. I just don't think the potential violence argument is really valid in this case, since the police have the upper hand over someone who is initially unconscious.

If it really worries them so much, they can tape a syringe to a 10ft pole and stick the OD'd person with it from a distance

[Virginiá]

More so, many of these people didn't get addicted just for kicks. They got addicted after doctors over-prescribed painkillers for minor issues (or flat out wrote prescriptions for cash), as all those "tough-on-crime / tough-on-drugs" people willfully allowed big pharma to feed highly addictive opioids into society without respite. All while people like this guy did nothing. And to think, all of this went on even during a time where America was still unambiguously locked in the "Drug War." If that was a war, then what the government did was treason.

If you ask me, the least the govt could do is provide a little Narcan here and there. Especially if the spineless suits that lurk in the halls of Congress and state capitols never plan on seriously taking on the pharmaceutical industry.