Government has no authority to tell anyone what to put in their bodies, just as they have no authority to provide free medicine. Still haven't seen anyone answer the question-would you want a cop or firefighter to stand over your kid while they lay there blue skinned and not breathing, possibly having a seizure? Or would you want them to help them?

My wife is the director of our ambulance service. Sometimes things are different than they appear.

I will add that is is their job to treat people and save lives,not to judge ones bad habits even though it my not be their cup of tea.Alot of folks would have never accepted the Lord if they didn't hit rock bottom at times.

Its all political and about the cash. spelled "FUNDING" (as always).

Finn...the Junkies seek out the "spiked" heroin. I guess the regular stuff just isn't enough? Well, plant corn, get corn I guess. Bust out the shovels and back hoes.

Loosee....You sound like one of those folks who think that any activity that's remotely dangerous should come with a complete staff of people around it that will prevent any and all things from going poorly. IF you're that worried about your kid, move across the street from a level 1 trauma hospital and don't let him go outside...and God forbid he gets in a car. Those things kill people at a far far higher rate than the opioids and the other drugs combined...but everyone jump in...We're going to Grandmas.

I've pulled plenty of dead people including kids out of cars. Never dealt with a dead kid (under 18) from Opioids (yet). But lets mandate every first responder to carry Narcan on their person (local policy). And BTW...they are frail class vails that snap under the least of pressure. Bust em all the time....at $78 a pop. Your welcome Mr Taxpayer.

And I'm not against having Narcan available. But Overdose calls here gets a response from An Ambulance, a Fire crew and Police. Mandating (sometimes as high as 15 people) on scene to be carrying a Narcan kit in their pocket (by policy) is ridiculous.

Im not sure what gave you the idea to make your statement about dangerous activities. I don't think I ever said anything to that effect. My point was that as a first responder, it's your job to save lives, not decide who's worthy of being saved, and that the federal government has no authority to provide free medicine, just like it has no authority to provide welfare, free college, force you to buy insurance, etc. I also find it interesting that everybody seems to be avoiding the question about whether they would want a first responder to stand around and wait for their child to die or to help your child.

REALLY !!! You need to talk to a police officer in a city. SAVE ON COST !!! The fact it is even being paid for and used on junkies BUT we can't "give children and elderly life saving meds is my point.. PLUS this summer when the OD's went thru the roof SEVERAL where repeat offenders. One individual Od'ed 6 times in 5 days. Each time a 1300 dollar dose of narcan was used. So please explain to me the cost savings involved in "bringing him" back. Cremation ain't that high !!!

The other point of my story is the Gov is wanting to hold the first responders liable IF they don't administer it !!!!!



Let the first responders have it if THEY need it not some low lifer !!!!!

Man you guys must be sheltered. You can't tell the difference in a junkie and some fire fighter that may have came in contact? LOL Or a police officer in his uniform. Heck If they stopped bringing them back how soon would they customer base disappear ???????? Month , maybe 2 .

Heroin problem solved !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guarantee one thing Od rate would drop drastically !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jbyrd how does a first responder know if the person lying on the floor lifeless is a junkie? I will absolutely agree that first responders (I find that term strange. The person who called 911 is the first responder. Just a thought) shouldn't be held liable for medical accidents, or most any accident. Actual crimes and negligence are a different story of course, but emergencies are hectic and crazy and snap decisions get made, sometimes they aren't right, but that's how it goes sometimes.

Yea maker is a big supporter of FDA. One thing to mandate that people have it another to "give" it to them free so they may live a prosperous life.

OK you are apparently missing my ENTIRE point. Society has decided that a junkie's life is more important than the 3 year old down the road that was just diagnosed with type 1 diabetes . BECAUSE cities have set up "safe shoot up " stations so they can be monitored incase they OD. Narcan is handed out like trick or treat candy.
I would bet that 99'9% of ALL OD calls are for junkies. PLus once again ask a police officer , they know who the junkies are. They keep records, know addresses. Its their job , its their neighborhood. Not some back forty corn field that they roll up on with person lying in hectic and crazy episode.


GEEEEEZZZZ

I get your point, jbyrd. shoot-up stations are disgusting to me. But whether you like it or not, the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide free medication. If you don't like it, change the constitution. States can, of course, do what they want, but not the feds. Maybe you'll answer the question-if it was your kid, do you want them to wait for your kid to die and haul them to the morgue, or give them the narcan if it's available?

Is jbyrd's point to make first responders carry and administer free insulin?

My stand on this is to have a limit. EVERYONE deserves a second chance. Create a data base and enter someone each time he od's 3 strikes and your out. Don't play the what if its your kid card. Because after he put my family thru it one time when I got done with him meeting Jesus may sound like sweet music to him.
But really how many of the junkies do you think even know where their family is or vice versa ???

Good point, FlyinFinn.

AS we hear from another Mor01 !!!!

jbyrd, are you really name-calling those who disagree with you?

Point is tax payers are paying to save junkie lives but won't fund life saving meds to individuals that can and will contribute to society.

Sorry finn I had several words with more than 4 letters so maybe someone can read this to you...............

He wasn't disagreeing just being himself and most know him.

See he had to ask what my point was . Too many big words for him

jbyrd you don't seem to understand that the constitution doesn't allow the feds to pay for people's healthcare. To do so would be unconstitutional and lawlessness.

My intention for asking was only to get clarification of your argument and help you bolster it. My reading comprehension is fine. It seems, however, by your round about way of going about saying that government is caring for the WRONG people that you seem to think government cares about any people. Is that true? By including an argument about insulin in a rail against free drugs just clouds the conversation.
Also, I would suggest getting on some attitude adjustment meds, what with the name calling and all. If you cannot afford them, perhaps the first responders will have some free of charge in their bag next to the narcan and insulin. You may have to prove to them you're good enough person and bring a net positive contribution to society before they administer your drugs tho.