A local school system is putting narcan, the drug used to counteract a drug overdose, in all the schools as a preventive measure should they need it. There are people protesting this because it "sends the wrong message". I don't understand what message they think it is sending. Can someone explain this to me?


5 Answers

Levi F. Profile
Levi F. answered

Some will probably argue that it will encourage kids to use drugs knowing that the antidote is there in case they take it too far. This seems to be a common problem people have with preventives and other safeguards. (People make similar arguments against condoms). 

I tend to believe that it's better to be safe than sorry. It's a pragmatic measure: If you have people overdosing, you should have an antitode present, all other factors are irrelevant. That said, narcan is just a band-aid solution, it's not going to tackle the actual drug problem that places like Akron have.

PJ Stein Profile
PJ Stein answered

I think the people who are protesting or arguing against are either ignorant or putting blinders on to the fact that kids are getting high in school. They don't see a problem, so there is no need for it. Kids have been getting high in school for decades. I graduated high school in 1980 and there were kids smoking pot across the street in the woods or had bottles of liquor in their lockers they would drink from between classes. The drugs access to harder drugs has gotten easier since my day, and it is scary. I think if I was a parent of a student in this day and age I would fight for it in the school. I don't think my child would be using, but I wouldn't doubt they knew someone who was. I would hate for them to lose a classmate when there was help available and the school system didn't make it available.

Darik Majoren Profile
Darik Majoren answered

The preventative measure being a "Prevention of Death". Versus just "Death" from over dose?

It sounds like they THINK, that the addicted user will abstain from using a drug that could kill them if they take away the safety net. This , of course, sounds like a person who knows NOTHING about addiction its it's powerful hold on an individual. When some one is truly addicted wants a "Fix", the threat of death is set WAY back in their mind . . . They want the high enough to gamble with their life.

I don't know, maybe the wrong message is that they would prefer the addicted people to die so they do not have to rehabilitate them as a civil society would. An illness of the mind is no different then an illness anywhere else in the body.

Tom  Jackson Profile
Tom Jackson answered

If someone is walking down the street and a little old lady has a heart attack and goes unconscious and her car jumps the curb and hits and injures that someone, I'm willing to pay taxes to provide medical treatment for the person hit and the lady driver who hit him.

If another someone is riding a skateboard in and out of traffic on one of San Francisco's hilly streets and he crashes and startles a little old lady so badly that her car jumps the curb and hits and injures another person walking down the street, I am not entirely eager to pay those taxes to treat the skateboarder since he was was acting irresponsibly and illegally.

Now I agree that in my philosophy all 3 humans are entitled to the same quality and availability of medical care, and I realize that a civil action could fix responsibility and allow for recovery of costs---but I still don't like the concept that we will still protect those who choose to live and act irresponsibly from the consequences of their actions.

So I think that sending the message that we are willing to provide equally for those who suffer because of their own consequent ignorance and who choose to live and act irresponsibly from the consequences of their actions as well as those who suffer from "acts of god" and "mother nature" could use some tailoring to members of the first group.

Answer Question