Should all law enforcement carry Narcan

[Tahuyaman]

There is a bit of a difference between trying to help someone who was not engaging in particularly risky activity who finds himself in a bad way and trying to save someone who deliberately pumped his system full of poison.

People can turn their life around after being saved from a near death experience.

[Common]

I dont care what a person is dieing from or how they are dieing, its a cops job to do their best to prevent it, until professional medical personell arrive.

Cops DO NOT judge who's life is worthy to save and who's is not because they dont like their behavior

[Peter1469]

Using your rationale, we shouldn't cut people out of cars who were in accidents due to inattention, cell phone usage, intoxication, etc after all let them accept the consequences of their actions. And as you said, "the taxpayers should not have to pay for it".

The police don't cut people out of cars. EMS or firefighters do, I believe.

[MisterVeritis]

I dont care what a person is dieing from or how they are dieing, its a cops job to do their best to prevent it, until professional medical personell arrive.

Cops DO NOT judge who's life is worthy to save and who's is not because they dont like their behavior

It is one thing to perform first aid. It is another to compel taxpayers to buy massive amounts of antidotes for overdosing drug addicts. My solution is for each community to decide. If a community wants it then let the community buy narcan for their police officers to carry as a separate item from tax expenditures.

[Common]

The police don't cut people out of cars. EMS or firefighters do, I believe.

Fire rescue, cops do use jaws when they have too

[Common]

It is one thing to perform first aid. It is another to compel taxpayers to buy massive amounts of antidotes for overdosing drug addicts. My solution is for each community to decide. If a community wants it then let the community buy narcan for their police officers to carry as a separate item from tax expenditures.

No where did I say for taxpayers to pay massive amounts for anything, I posted this to get others opinion.

Now pay attention the cost is no different if a cop uses narcan or not, and Im not saying they SHOULD.

Either the cop, the ent or the emergency room uses it, there is no additional cost factor in the adminstration of narcan. Medically the sooner its administered the great the chance of saving a life.

[donttread]

I see drug overdoses the same way I see a self inflicted gunshot wound. If they want to do that to themselves, let them accept the consequences.

No one should be required or feel an obligation to save them, and the taxpayers certainly should not have to pay for it.

Apples and oranges. The drug OD would be less likely if the product were legal and the purity known

[donttread]

Why?

In order to protect and serve and save lives which is their mission. That's why.

[donttread]

It is one thing to perform first aid. It is another to compel taxpayers to buy massive amounts of antidotes for overdosing drug addicts. My solution is for each community to decide. If a community wants it then let the community buy narcan for their police officers to carry as a separate item from tax expenditures.

There's that social compassion again. Ban the drug. Then not provide readily available care when the drug ban has life threatening consequences.

[Cletus]

In order to protect and serve and save lives which is their mission. That's why.

Yeah, except that is not their mission, regardless of what stupid little logos they may have on their cars.

Their job is to enforce the law... end/stop. The Supreme Court has ruled on two separate occasions that police have no legal obligation to rescue you, save you, or do anything other than arrest you if you commit a crime.

Besides, how would they be serving the public better... saving some junkie from an OD so he can OD again later on, or by letting nature take its course?