Picard's Decision

Seems to be a slow time here on the old forum so I thought I would introduce a topic for discussion to enhance interest a bit.

How do you feel about Picard's decision to drop the subject concerning the Narcan treatments?

Personally, I liked his idea of asking a question whether the city was obligated to supply Narcan to repeat heroin overdose offenders. I would like to see the practice of taxpayer financed Narcan treatment stopped as I have never felt it was the taxpayer's responsibility to keep people alive that showed us many times that they didn't care whether they lived or died. Furthermore, if they made that first time lifestyle decision to take heroin, knowing that it could kill them, why did they do it in the first place if they considered the fear factor? As a result of their uncaring attitude, the least they can do is pay for the Narcan, the ambulance/EMT run and the subsequent hospitalization out of THEIR POCKET, not yours nor mine. Heroin users should be required to carry Narcan at all times and pay for it as well. It would be up to the people around them to administer it after they OD. Make carrying Narcan if a user a city law if possible. That is a reasonable request isn't it Mr. Adkins? If they were bold enough to roll the dice the first time, they can also inherit the costs of treatment to bail them out. I see no reason why it is the responsibility of society to play "Florence Nightingale/Mother Theresa" as it relates to sustaining their lives. THEY are responsible for their own lives, not us. When are we going to hold people accountable for their own actions and why do we think we need to babysit people in our society who can't seem to live within the parameters of acceptable behavior? Sooner or later, we all are going to have to accept a certain point where the line in the sand has been drawn as to what society will tolerate. The lowering of the bar and being kinder/gentler needs to bottom out at some point. I believe we passed this point years ago. It is not good for our city, our state and our nation to maintain this line of thinking IMO.

I can also see the reasoning behind Picard dropping the subject as it relates to the city liability, although I don't agree with Ohio law that mandates mandatory action be taken to treat those who don't seem to care. Why? The very people who are footing the bill for these people have no sayso in the use of their money at all and, adding insult to injury, are paying for these problem children to survive. Again, why?

It is a shame we just can't all unite and refuse to pay our taxes, starving the financial source of this overdose bailout scenario. JMO

I think what one must realize is that due to laws and due to legal pressures - we are kinda stuck with the status quo in the meantime.