• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Middletown considers 3 strike policy on responding to overdoses

poledriver

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
Middletown considers 3 strike policy on responding to overdoses

City spent 3 times as much on Narcan halfway through 2017 than all of 2016

MIDDLETOWN, Ohio —

A controversial proposal has been made in Middletown to deal with heroin overdoses.

Middletown is considering whether people with addiction should only be given two strikes before they’re out of chances at Narcan.

Middletown is struggling to deal with the heroin problem.

“We are faced with stress on our services, particularly the EMS services where we can do six to eight opioid overdose runs a day,” said Paul Lolli, fire chief of Middletown.

The number of overdoses jumped this year. Last year, there were 532 overdoses. So far, only halfway through 2017, there are already 577.

Also last year, the department spent more than $11,000 on Narcan. This year, $30,000 has been spent on it.

This is a result of more overdoses and the increasing strength of the drugs addicts are using, officials said.

The number of deaths from overdoses is on track to increase, as well. Last year, there were 74 deaths. So far this year, there are 51.

Leaders are frustrated trying to find a solution.

City council member Dan Picard is proposing a three strikes system. After the first two overdose rescues, the person would perform community service for the equivalent amount of money used on the lifesaving response.

The third strike is a bit more controversial.

"If the dispatcher determines that the person who's overdosed is someone who's been part of the program for two previous overdoses and has not completed the community service and has not cooperated in the program, then we wouldn't dispatch,” said Dan Picard, Middletown city council member.

Cont -
http://www.wlwt.com/article/man-stabs-parents-over-lack-of-air-conditioning/10219019
 
Seems fair to make people pay for their own medication. Might consider legal injection sights and prescription heroin as well as increased treatment for these individuals who are struggling.
 
neversickanymore said:
Seems fair to make people pay for their own medication. Might consider legal injection sights and prescription heroin as well as increased treatment for these individuals who are struggling.
Click to expand...

They do pay. Ever heard of medical bills? Even if they don't fat and old people are far more draining on EMS. Should be 3 failed weigh ins and no EMS. Or if your over 80 you get euthanized. Also cancer? You know how much chemo costs? Shit does this look like Sweden?
s//

The title should be Middletown considers murder as solution to drug problem. I mean who the fuck even thought this up? who decides how many strikes you have left? Are the paramedics supposed to just watch you die? I mean this makes no sense outside some right wing ass fucks mind. This country is really losing the plot. It's actually getting scary now.
 
^You know, you say sarcastic, but that doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Just like all that talk about "death panels"--just an idea ahead of its time.

Ohio is ground-zero of the heroin problem in the country, but even the sober folks ain't fucking healthy--I bet there's still more obese people than regular opiate users.

I hate to put the blame on one party, but I kinda feel like it's GOP racists who just want to keep the poors and the blacks and the browns under thumb, but it's been 150 years of this shit and most of the obvious options have been declared illegal, unconstitutional, or just contrary to common decency. You have to give the fuckers points for creativity tho. Shit like this that makes me wish there was a hell sometimes. Even the governor of Ohio dealing with her 2 sons overdosing at home every month doesn't make me feel better about her being an arrogant uncaring piece of shit.
 
I can't help but find this kind of shit highly problematic (that's about as diplomatic as I can be about it). Another great example of drug policy designed to kill users, not save lives or promote recovery.
 
The more important question is why are so many people using and how can we increase support for them to receive help?
 
neversickanymore said:
how cheap is the generic naloxone. I remember awhile back when one of the pharma companies purchased all rights to the drug.

https://www.mountainside-medical.co...cYYFjA5bBcTiY4yzw4wWSPJ4FLnTTLNv1saAmwt8P8HAQ

https://www.mountainside-medical.co...KNc9_iMECmtkRPrABZqW340rTxlftv6HOIaAi_d8P8HAQ

From these prices it looks like 30,000 is about right.
Click to expand...

Here is a list of current prices. Unfortunately the lowest price available is still a little over $20 per dose, which is much higher than I had expected. Still a pittance to save a life, and much cheaper than the vast majority of serious medical interventions.

EDIT: I had an earlier post hypothesizing that generic naloxone should be very cheap, but I seem to have inadvertently deleted it.
 
Last edited:
Felonious Monk said:
^You know, you say sarcastic, but that doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Just like all that talk about "death panels"--just an idea ahead of its time.

Ohio is ground-zero of the heroin problem in the country, but even the sober folks ain't fucking healthy--I bet there's still more obese people than regular opiate users.

I hate to put the blame on one party, but I kinda feel like it's GOP racists who just want to keep the poors and the blacks and the browns under thumb, but it's been 150 years of this shit and most of the obvious options have been declared illegal, unconstitutional, or just contrary to common decency. You have to give the fuckers points for creativity tho. Shit like this that makes me wish there was a hell sometimes. Even the governor of Ohio dealing with her 2 sons overdosing at home every month doesn't make me feel better about her being an arrogant uncaring piece of shit.
Click to expand...

I think it's morally wrong to allow someone to die but we've all heard of medical bills and I think most people treated with naloxone by emergency responders most likely don't pay them.

I'm pretty liberal but I think there should come a time when lines can be drawn. If it's that hard on their emergency services I think allowing someone to die is kinda reprehensible so maybe the third strike should be met with incarceration...drugs exist in jail but at least they could argue that they would be supervised.

Again, I'm pretty liberal but I know most junkies around here leech and at some point....it needs to stop
 
Felonious Monk said:
^You know, you say sarcastic, but that doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Just like all that talk about "death panels"--just an idea ahead of its time.

Ohio is ground-zero of the heroin problem in the country, but even the sober folks ain't fucking healthy--I bet there's still more obese people than regular opiate users.

I hate to put the blame on one party, but I kinda feel like it's GOP racists who just want to keep the poors and the blacks and the browns under thumb, but it's been 150 years of this shit and most of the obvious options have been declared illegal, unconstitutional, or just contrary to common decency. You have to give the fuckers points for creativity tho. Shit like this that makes me wish there was a hell sometimes. Even the governor of Ohio dealing with her 2 sons overdosing at home every month doesn't make me feel better about her being an arrogant uncaring piece of shit.
Click to expand...

Lets take a minute and look at this from the perspective of "triage". That refers to the process which happens in every emergency room pretty much everywhere - when multiple cases come in simultaneously, the doctors look at all the incoming patients and assign them to one of three categories. First (in order of severity, lowest), there are people with relatively mild injuries who are likely to survive a brief wait. Second, there are people with more severe injuries, who have a good chance of survival if attended to immediately, but for whom any delay could be fatal, and third are the people whose injuries are so severe that they are not likely to survive regardless of how quickly they are attended to. The standard policy everywhere is to start by assigning doctors to cases in the second group. If any doctors remain available after all the Group 2 cases are assigned (and, as doctors become available later), they are assigned to cases in the third group for as long as there are people still alive among Group 3. Finally, after treating all the Group 2 and Group 3 cases they can, the doctors begin seeing patients in Group 1.

So.. lets say Middletown has 3 ambulances, and they get 3 simultaneous emergency calls for heroin overdoses. Lets say two patients are first-time overdoses, and the third is a third time overdose. Suppose they dispatch ambulances to each call.. but while the ambulances are in-route, the traffic confusion leads to a car crash where a pickup truck T-bones a minivan with a pregnant mother and her 5y/o child. Someone calls 911 and says that the mother & child need an ambulance. I'm actually OK with the idea that Dispatch would tell the third ambulance (en-route to the third-time overdose) to suspend that response and respond instead to the mom & child. If the vehicle crash is between a semi and a school bus full of high school kids, I'm OK if ALL ambulances are redirected to that scene.

I do not support the idea that EMT's would "stay home" instead of responding to ANY overdose call - I don't care if it's a person's 20th OD, if the EMT's aren't doing anything else, they should respond. But, in the case of a third or subsequent OD, I think that all other life-threatening cases should take priority.

The GOP really just wants to severely limit people's access to mind-altering chemicals that cause people to hurt themselves or others. It doesn't always work (see: Amendments 19 & 21), but that doesn't mean they should just throw up their hands and say "screw it, if you're determined to inject poison, we can't stop you, so we won't try". Which is pretty much what Middletown is saying they'll do upon a person's third overdose. What I don't understand is how the scenario where a person abuses heroin multiple times, procuring it from illegal sources each time, knowing the whole time that it's against the law, but because they chose to do the things that got them addicted, now they feel they "have to" keep doing it... how is this an example of "GOP .. keeping the poors, blacks and browns under thumb"? When someone dies of an overdose, are they now "under the GOP thumb"?

If anyone has the drug using population "under their thumb", it's the people who SUPPLY the drugs, those who say "Here, try this, it's great", those who say "We can't judge how others want to live (a.k.a... die) - we have to try to understand and accept this culture". The people who promote, support and facilitate DEPENDENCY are the enemies of the "poors, blacks, browns" and everyone else in society too. SHOW ME where the GOP's policies are persuading more people to try heroin. Show me where they are pushing for lighter/shorter sentences for dealers so the dealers can get back to dealing sooner. Show me those, and I'll concede your point.

And, by the way, I don't know where you got your information about the sons of Ohio's governor - "her" name is John Kasich...
 
Last edited:
poledriver said:
Middletown considers 3 strike policy on responding to overdoses

City spent 3 times as much on Narcan halfway through 2017 than all of 2016

MIDDLETOWN, Ohio —

A controversial proposal has been made in Middletown to deal with heroin overdoses.

Middletown is considering whether people with addiction should only be given two strikes before they’re out of chances at Narcan.

Middletown is struggling to deal with the heroin problem.

“We are faced with stress on our services, particularly the EMS services where we can do six to eight opioid overdose runs a day,” said Paul Lolli, fire chief of Middletown.

The number of overdoses jumped this year. Last year, there were 532 overdoses. So far, only halfway through 2017, there are already 577.

Also last year, the department spent more than $11,000 on Narcan. This year, $30,000 has been spent on it.

This is a result of more overdoses and the increasing strength of the drugs addicts are using, officials said.

The number of deaths from overdoses is on track to increase, as well. Last year, there were 74 deaths. So far this year, there are 51.

Leaders are frustrated trying to find a solution.

City council member Dan Picard is proposing a three strikes system. After the first two overdose rescues, the person would perform community service for the equivalent amount of money used on the lifesaving response.

The third strike is a bit more controversial.

"If the dispatcher determines that the person who's overdosed is someone who's been part of the program for two previous overdoses and has not completed the community service and has not cooperated in the program, then we wouldn't dispatch,” said Dan Picard, Middletown city council member.

Cont -
http://www.wlwt.com/article/man-stabs-parents-over-lack-of-air-conditioning/10219019
Click to expand...

As opposed to creating competent, and successful recovery programs ! The municipalities, cities, states, and federal governments waste money to such an extent it is deplorable !!
The outright inflated salaries of all the elected officials, and other employees of federal or state level, added to the wasted money on how infrastructure is rebuilt or repaired. When you have 5 guys standing around holding up their shovels, while "one" guy actually shovels pavement into a 12" diameter pothole, is a perfect analogy of the entire system. Yet the mentality here, is let a kid DIE, because he could not get decent enough services to prevent them from relapsing !!! How idiotic could a town possibly be ? I wonder if it were the Mayors kid that was ODing for the third time, they would refuse to go give him/her a life saving medicine that cost approximately $30 ? Amazingly the Federal government has done nothing to stop the despicable Pharmaceutical companies from doubling and tripling the cost of a life saving drug. Because all the many elected officials have been well paid by Big Pharma for their help in allowing them to skyrocket their prices, without any interference from the agencies that are there to protect us from this very thing ! Absolute insanity ! "Sorry, you have already used up your quota of life saving" ! Thank goodness the town officials received there 20% increase in compensation, and benefits though !
 
painfull123 said:
.. Amazingly the Federal government has done nothing to stop the despicable Pharmaceutical companies from doubling and tripling the cost of a life saving drug. Because all the many elected officials have been well paid by Big Pharma for their help in allowing them to skyrocket their prices, without any interference from the agencies that are there to protect us from this very thing ! ..
Click to expand...

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown HAS recently introduced a bill designed to prohibit/punish price gouging by Big Pharma. We'll see where it goes..
 
No. Narcan and u just die as punishment for your overdone? Decriped old men that never have done drugs making decisions like that. Mm seems about right

Isn't that against the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors?
 
I do think nalaxone OTC should be affordable....but if u are given it by paramedics u should pay out the ass...drug addicts need some checks and balances.
 
What I find particularly sad is that there is no reason this should be happening. If our drug policies were actually geared towards dealing with the public health realities surrounding drug use, naloxone wouldn't be in short supply, people would have humane access to effective opioid substitution/maintenance medicines, and people wouldn't be striped of their rights and disenfranchised for using drugs.

I can dream :) the saving grace is that there are more and more models for doing this both outside and within the US. I'm curious to see how long it takes us to get our act together. I'm keeping my expections low nationally.
 
I don't know I feel like I might be in the minority here (at least on this website) but I don't really see this as being overly sadistic or cruel. Especially if Narcan is given out OTC in Ohio (not sure if it is)

there are so many programs and resources for drug addicts these days, to say that the help isn't there is bullshit for most areas.

It shouldn't really be the government's job to continuously clean up your mistakes.

Think of it like this: imagine I knowingly walk up to a live power line and touch it with a metal object and require medical assistance to save my life.

Now I go and do it again two days later. Another ambulance comes

Now I go and do it again the very next day.

Would anyone care if they just let me die?

I get it, a life is a life and everything, and they should help people who need it. But you have to meet people halfway sometimes. They're not gonna just continue to revive you from drug overdoses just so you can continue to overdose on drugs.

I feel like, after 3 times, they're clearly not saving anyone's life at that point, just somebody's pulse.
 
My point was more that if the government was really concerned with reducing OD fatalities they'd be trying to get safe injection sites i programs going, or at least considering looking into them.

I don't see why the drug user should be penalized for the ineffectiveness of our public health systems. Just because our leaders aren't brave enough (or give a shit to begin with, as drug users arent the most cohesive or influential political constituency) to implement an effective response to the increasing OD rate and its burden on public resources, how does that make it acceptable for those same leaders to just write off the lives of drug users.

It's really nothing new. Our drug policy has been geared towards killing drug users for a long time.

Notice how proposed laws like this reframe the situation, from one in which our leaders are failing to provide effective leadership in response to a public health issue into one where the drug user is made responsible for the failures of their public health system...

Blaming the drug users is a politically safe, time tested strategy after all :\
 
Except the public health system isn't failing, Narcan DOES save lives.

I think what they are trying to get across is that it doesn't give people a reason to just continuously, for lack of a better word, shit all over the public emergency responders simply because they won't stop doing drugs, or at least stop being so reckless with them

It is not the government's job to save your life when you continuously put a loaded gun to your head and play Russian roulette every day by shooting heroin.

And I'm a drug addict, don't get me wrong. But I find it kind of annoying when drug users want to have their dope and eat it too so to speak

You don't want the government telling you what to do, but you want them to come and save you when you OD.

Shouldn't work like that IMO

I do agree with you about the safe injection sites, although then I'd wonder where the money for these things would come from?

Hopefully not tax dollars, considering junkies don't really contribute much in that department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top