• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

National crisis: fentanyl & other super-opiate overdoses

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jarnhamar said:
When it comes to the effects of drugs and topics like decriminalizing or free injection sites in Canada etc.. I think input from Police, Corrections, Paramedics and those in the Medical field carry quite a bit of weight.  I never even considered police and medics were at such a risk of secondary exposure and corrections officers get a ground zero look at this stuff without rose coloured glasses.

Input is always good, from anyone.  However, exclusivity is not.  These people see the extreme of the dangers in EVERYTHING in our lives.  Want them to also recommend on other topics as well, without input from others?

I think not, wouldn't you agree?  No one on this thread is discounting them, just the fact some feel they are the final word in the matter.

;)
 
mariomike said:
Sorry it came across that way, Tess.

Roger, I too may have come across to strong.  Trust me when I say I know you have a very tough job, all of the first responders do.

Just hoping there is more of a balance, that's all.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Well Ballz and Tescione I just happen to work in the field and have for close to 30 years.  When I start posting on how to be an Infantry guy or how to put lights on a stage then I would expect you to correct my stuff.    But obviously between reading, and your limited exposure to drugs and addicts, you know more then I could have possibly learned in 30 years, but carry on.......

Bruce, it's not that I don't value your perspective. I very much do, I value all of them. But this is not the same comparison. Perhaps you could tell me more about what a prison guard does and it will make more sense to me. But, the way I see it.... this is like you having a foreign policy opinion, and me pretending to be the authority on foreign policy because I have to be on the shitty end of the stick that deals with the *results* of foreign policy.

You, as a prison guard, are on the shitty end of drug legislation, just like I, as an infanteer, am on the shitty end of foreign policy. No doubt, having this perspective makes me passionate about foreign policy just like having your perspective makes you passionate about drug legislation.

However, I am not going to tell anybody that they should listen to me about foreign policy based solely on me being the guy that deals with the shitty end of it.

*Full disclosure... I have not had a tour so I haven't actually gotten to deal with the shitty end of foreign policy. But I hope you can catch my drift.

Jarnhamar said:
When it comes to the effects of drugs and topics like decriminalizing or free injection sites in Canada etc.. I think input from Police, Corrections, Paramedics and those in the Medical field carry quite a bit of weight.  I never even considered police and medics were at such a risk of secondary exposure and corrections officers get a ground zero look at this stuff without rose coloured glasses.

Indeed, their opinions carry weight and an important perspective that we can't get just by analyzing statistics.

But there is much more to this than just looking at the end results... what *causes* the end result that they have to deal with? What can we change so that their job is less hazardous, so that their job is less burdensome, so that the ER is not packed with druggies?

To me, everyone seems *unwilling to consider* the effect that prohibition has had on the *results* that LEOs and medical personnel deal with. It is that unwillingness to even consider it that is causing the strife in this thread.

As for the strife, I hope we are now on the other end of it...
 
So, I get that there is a debate where not everyone agrees how narcotics and opiates should be handled.

But going to the specifically the stuff this thread is about - that stuff is a hazard that should force first responders into HAZMAT/CBRN gear to enter the environment that has this stuff in it.

We have prohibited toxic substances in this country.  Are we saying that, once a person decides to recreationally consume something, such prohibitions should come off?

 
For statistical comparison, I read that in the US, "More than 1.5 times as many people died from overdoses than motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) in 2014."

"Carfentanil - 100 times stronger than fentanyl-has also begun appearing on the scene."
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Carfentanil&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=9gUzWNnjJIaN8Qe7uroY&gws_rd=ssl

"The epidemic began in the mid-1990s with the introduction of OxyContin."
See, our "OxyContin Epidemic" discussion,
http://army.ca/forums/threads/102473.0/nowap.html

"Between 2004 and 2013 there was a 41% increase in the reported number of people dying from overdose in Toronto."






 
There is a possibility that pot has been laced with fentanyl

http://www.news1130.com/2016/11/20/insite-says-found-pot-laced-fentanyl/
 
Also what is not being discussed is the why? Why do people feel the need to alter their mental state with drugs of any kind?

Some just will and we need to recognize that. Others may need interventions - but they will not quit until they are ready to quit, not when we say they should quit.
 
Hamish Seggie said:
Also what is not being discussed is the why? Why do people feel the need to alter their mental state with drugs of any kind?

The "why" question has been studied by many learned experts,

"Why do people use drugs."
https://www.google.ca/search?q=why+do+people+use+drugs&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=EiMzWOW4BoyN8Qekw6Yo&gws_rd=ssl#q=why+do+people+drugs
"About 44,400,000 results."
 
Hamish Seggie said:
Also what is not being discussed is the why? Why do people feel the need to alter their mental state with drugs of any kind?

Some just will and we need to recognize that. Others may need interventions - but they will not quit until they are ready to quit, not when we say they should quit.

Considering the number of people that like to drink alcohol recreationally, can we not just conclude that it's just part of the human condition to want to get f***ed up?

You can extend this to methods other than alcohol. If you ask people who exercise or play sports why they enjoy it so much, they'll say that they get a real rush ("a high") from the completion, form the burn, form the pump, etc. You see the same thing in people who participate in extreme sports. As I'm sure most of you would agree, you get a huge rush (of euphoria?) when you get to the bottom of a ski hill after carving a sick line.

Alcohol and drugs are just the lazy man's way of getting that rush.

Maybe? I'm just throwing this out there...
 
Chispa said:
That's just like in Nam word got around the VC laced weed with chemicals too make US Force passive,  [lol:

I heard when the plant is weak in TH they spray stuff, you'll know coming down you get a heck of a headache.....

C.U.

The process of making THC into an aerosol form is so expensive and time consuming, that it would not be cost effective to "Spray" plants.  Just another urban legend, that does NOT happen.

;)
 
ballz said:
Yes, the person actually bringing another way to combat this drug epidemic for discussion is self-righteous, nevermind those who can't do anything better than try to shout people down with "drugs are bad."

Do you have anything of interest to add to the discussion or are you just doing your usual post a sarcastic remark that the majority will appreciate and then ducking out? ::)

Yes.

What does the current wait times have to do with it unless you are making the assumption that legalizing drugs will increase drug use despite the evidence?

Oh, I see, you *are* still making that assumption.

Thank you. Finally, something. I find the arguments stronger on the anti-prohibition side, but at least the wikipedia article doesn't just say "drugs are bad."


PBA with BP the paralysed side of my face slowly rejuvenated a month ago, with dyslexia, it really surfaces some days, therefore any misunderstanding just ask....



Well for over a decade two camps have vigorously argued on lifting prohibition on all drugs; however in my case there’re 3 sides to every coin.

Can we kindly stop the stick poking, a $hit I forgot, in Canada/USA you have freedom of expression or speech……..

Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state. Mark Twain
The New York Times February 28, 1901.

Are U aware the law applies only too Users with “possession of small amounts,” drug pusher, etc., are not exempt from prosecution and extended Jail sentences? You’re only using a questionable study “Portugal” and just made aware of the Wiki page which I posted quickly, providing a debatable reference. Post Portugal prohibition lifted drug use alarmingly went up for 6 years, countless of past studies conclude the EU model wouldn’t work in North America.

“Trend data from Portugal shows how levels of drug use changed in the years following decriminalisation in 2001. Although levels of drug use rose between 2001 and 2007, use of drugs has since fallen to below 2001 levels. It is clear that there has not been a lasting and significant increase in drug use in Portugal since 2001,” the report says.  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/30/drug-laws-international-study-tough-policy-use-problem

Assuming, same can be said on your pro legalise all drugs, obscured by certain facts….the roots….legalised might not be relevant…monkey see monkey do…USA/Canada, littered with professionals, doctors, teachers, professors, academics, artists, etc., which are perpetual drug/alcohol users. True some have recreationally used a few times then stopped, although I have seen, heard, (ca 4+ decades) many start using only on Friday, within a month Fri – Sun., leading to addiction.

My wig wang understanding humans are wired for “addiction” deriving from a neuron mini-volt release captured by cell receptors releasing a pleasurable sensation. Addiction metamorphosis’s into many forms, drugs, alcohol is certainly not the main trigger. While developing a sense of reservation we’re easily manipulated, motivated, especially with encouraging friends, etc. It’s my understanding in the past decade drug use and abuse has grown in Canada. Although with minimal understanding I’m certainly no expert in this subject however I see relevance in addiction & self-righteous…..


Oxford Scholarship online: Self-addiction and Self-righteousness 1 by David Brin: DOI:10.1093/acprof:eek:so/9780199738571.003.0062….

The word “addiction” appears to limit our perception of a much wider realm—general behavioral reinforcement within the human brain. If neurochemical processes reinforce “good” habits such as love, loyalty, and joy in music or skill, then addiction should be studied in a larger context of both harmful and wholesome reinforcement triggers, their commonalities and differences. Self-righteousness and indignation may sometimes become pernicious addictive habits, arising as much from chemical need as from valid concerns about unfair actions. Among other outcomes, this may cause pathologically altruistic behavior. Indignation addiction may underpin the obstinate behavior of those on both the far left and far right of the political spectrum. Moderate-progressives who seek problem-solving pragmatism may get a boost if it were openly demonstrated that the self-righteous mental state is reinforced chemically by hijacking internal addiction mechanisms.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:eek:so/9780199738571.001.0001/acprof-9780199738571-chapter-005


An Open Letter to Researchers of Addiction, Brain Chemistry, and Social Psychology
By David Brin, Ph.D.

For years I've followed advances that investigate reinforcement processes in the human brain, especially those involving dopamine and other messenger chemicals that are active in mediating pleasure response. One might call this topic chemically-mediated states of arousal that self-reinforce patterns of behavior.

Of course, what this boils down to -- at one level -- is addiction. But not only in the sense of illegal drug abuse. In very general terms, "addiction" may include desirable things, like bonding with our children and "getting high on life." These good patterns share with drug addiction the property of being reinforced by repeated chemical stimulus, inside the brain……...


The Most Common (but Unstudied) Form of Self-Addiction

I want to zoom down to a particular emotional and psychological pathology. The phenomenon known as self-righteous indignation.

We all know self-righteous people. (And, if we are honest, many of us will admit having wallowed in this state ourselves, either occasionally or in frequent rhythm.) It is a familiar and rather normal human condition, supported -- even promulgated -- by messages in mass media.

While there are many drawbacks, self-righteousness can also be heady, seductive, and even... well... addictive. Any truly honest person will admit that the state feels good. The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong.  http://www.davidbrin.com/addiction.html

http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr2014/World_Drug_Report_2014_web.pdf


I have allot more, my eyes are irritated, watering after all of this......


C.U.
   



 
Chispa said:
Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state. Mark Twain
The New York Times February 28, 1901

But, what could happen to a guy back then? Get drunk and fall off your horse?  :)

If the fall didn't break your neck and kill you, you were probably on your own for the medical bills.
 
John Tescione said:
The process of making THC into an aerosol form is so expensive and time consuming, that it would not be cost effective to "Spray" plants.  Just another urban legend, that does NOT happen.

;)

Not TH aerosol, that would be $$$......Google; aerosol products sprayed on weed to make it stronger or smell better.


C.U.
 
From semi-legal pot http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/investigations/globe-investigation-whats-in-your-weed-we-tested-dispensary-marijuana-to-findout/article31144496/

Canadian pot up to 24% THC
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-208-potent-pot-s-preeminence-befriending-racists-sean-michaels-love-of-theremin-and-more-1.2905476/potent-pot-how-marijuana-got-so-strong-and-what-it-means-for-legalization-1.2905483
 
Colin P said:
From semi-legal pot http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/investigations/globe-investigation-whats-in-your-weed-we-tested-dispensary-marijuana-to-findout/article31144496/

Canadian pot up to 24% THC
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-208-potent-pot-s-preeminence-befriending-racists-sean-michaels-love-of-theremin-and-more-1.2905476/potent-pot-how-marijuana-got-so-strong-and-what-it-means-for-legalization-1.2905483

That is called breeding, and legal LPs do not spray.  I know the industry, I have the privilege of knowing LPs, and I have met the top grower of Cannabis in Canada.

There is a huge difference with growing them "High" and spraying.  The dispensaries that you linked to are the illegal ones, that use herbicides and pesticides that are not approved.  This has NOTHING to do with the Terpene content of the product, other than to push the grow time limits.  Big difference from "Spraying" things on it, Fentatnyl or otherwise.  Higher levels of Terpenes are done by using growing methods that EVERY farmer uses on their crops.  Natural and on modified.

Thank you

Tess
 
John Tescione said:
That is called breeding, and legal LPs do not spray.  I know the industry, I have the privilege of knowing LPs, and I have met the top grower of Cannabis in Canada.

There is a huge difference with growing them "High" and spraying.  The dispensaries that you linked to are the illegal ones, that use herbicides and pesticides that are not approved.  This has NOTHING to do with the Terpene content of the product, other than to push the grow time limits.  Big difference from "Spraying" things on it, Fentatnyl or otherwise.  Higher levels of Terpenes are done by using growing methods that EVERY farmer uses on their crops.  Natural and on modified.

Thank you

Tess


That's my understanding the high % levels of T depends on plant strain, feeding method, etc., for growing 24-8-16 = 3-1-2....flowering 15-30-15 some prefer 10-30-10 or 1-3-1........

C.U.
 
MCG said:
So, I get that there is a debate where not everyone agrees how narcotics and opiates should be handled.

But going to the specifically the stuff this thread is about - that stuff is a hazard that should force first responders into HAZMAT/CBRN gear to enter the environment that has this stuff in it.

We have prohibited toxic substances in this country.  Are we saying that, once a person decides to recreationally consume something, such prohibitions should come off?

This is a good point to consider... especially considering as we stand today (all things remaining prohibited and likely to stay that way for a loooong time), this hazard is going to become more and more for our first responders.

I personally would have no issue with some sort of outlined "here is what our first responders cover... and here's what they don't" guidelines. It sounds like our first responders are also sick of bailing out the idiots that get themselves in these situations by their own stupidity. In a private market, I am quite sure private companies would offer paramedic services for "x,y,z" but not "a,b,c." I don't see why it should be any different for government-insured healthcare... government health plans already don't provide certain services, I think it would be more than fair to say "if you use x,y,z, substance, you are not entitled under this plan to be rescued under our plan." Unfortunately, I suspect the first responders will confirm for us that they usually don't know these kind of specifics of what they are going into before they get on the scene, so this idea may be a bit of a pipe dream...

Remaining on the topic of prohibition vs non-prohibition.... The more f**ked up and deadly these toxins people decide to consume become, the more at risk first-responders become. As I said earlier, I do believe that these most effed up drugs are a *result* of prohibition, and so I do think that legalizing narcotics would result in less risk of first responders being exposed to some of these crazy things. In saying that, I also don't think that keeping them prohibited is protecting our first responders.
 
ballz said:
I am quite sure private companies would offer paramedic services for "x,y,z" but not "a,b,c."

No idea about out of town, but never going to happen in Toronto. If you call 9-1-1 in this town, you will be riding in the back of one of our heaps.

TFD would take it over before they would ever let privates get a piece of the action. Even during SARS they didn't give up calls.
And we already won the battle to remain independent of TFD.

TPS is the sole provider of emergency medical response for the City of Toronto.

The City of Toronto has operated the ambulance service directly on an uninterrupted basis since 1883. Full-time emergency service since 1888.

130 years of tradition unimpeded by progress!  :)

ballz said:
It sounds like our first responders are also sick of bailing out the idiots that get themselves in these situations by their own stupidity.

I apologised for calling them skells in mixed company. It showed a lack of empathy. They are our customers, our bread and butter.  :)
Stupidity? We called that Job Security.  :)

ballz said:
Unfortunately, I suspect the first responders will confirm for us that they usually don't know these kind of specifics of what they are going into before they get on the scene, so this idea may be a bit of a pipe dream...

Tones go off. Doors go up. Wheels rolling within 60 seconds. That's the only sure thing.





 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top