Ohio Sheriff Refuses to let Officers Carry Narcan

[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.

[Santander]

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.

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.

[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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

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

[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

[Badger]

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.

Which is of course a red herring. There's a reason law enforcement agencies across the state in the country regularly use and administer Narcan. It is not impossible to find some scenario Were Somehow the administration of it results in an injury with officer, the same way as an attorney can come up with a scenario where I get injured in a courthouse by tripping over my untied shoelaces on the staircase. Administering Narcan is literally no more dangerous than 90% of an officer's ordinary duties

[Badger]

$37.50 per shot vs. the cost of an autopsy and even the most DIRECTLY related costs, and further even ignoring it costs VASTLY more if even one person goes into a drug-induced coma for god-knows how long.

Even counting this policy at its most heartless dollars and cents standard, the guy's math is vastly off.

The cost is really beside the point; they're human beings, not road kill.

Oh, I totally agree. My point here was that even taking away that obvious element of basic Humanity, the sheriff isn't even correct on the whole saving taxpayer Dollars line. He's actually I guarantee you costing the taxpayers more money because he has an ideological opposition towards helping out those dirty pain-in-the-neck drug addicts who never get better so why should we spend officer hours trying to save these recidivist lives instead of letting nature take it's course b*******.

[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.