this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023

90 points (100.0% liked)

Libraries

491 readers

1 users here now

For talk of all things related to libraries!

Please follow this instances rules.

To find more communities on this instance, go to: !411@literature.cafe

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

gabe@literature.cafe

Phoenix to give out free opioid overdose-reversal medication Narcan at public libraries (ghostarchive.org)

submitted 1 year ago by gabe@literature.cafe to c/libraries@literature.cafe

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Whiskey_iicarus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I am all for this being a public service but why is this up to the library? I understand it is usually a convenient, local place that people can easily get to, but I don't think most librarians are equipped to deal with someone who needs help in this kind of way. Much like guns shouldn't be a "hazard of the job" for school teachers, I don't think librarians should be responsible for this kind of public safety.

We should invest in community centers with resources for such things. Mental health professionals, trained social workers, public servants specifically trained to help those who might have stumbled along the way.

[–] radix@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's just because American cities often don't have community centers other than libraries. Libraries already host music concerts, society meetings, naturalization events, English classes, and other things unrelated to books; it's not such a stretch to see them providing this sort of thing as a public service too.

[–] Whiskey_iicarus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I totally agree, but we don't ask other public services to do that. Not do I think we should, but why not make it available at City Hall. If you as a community want to help these people, and have agreed to provide public services to a specific problem, why not lean into it. A single social worker in an office at City Hall could probably handle this better than people who preserve our public knowledge.

I understand the likely hesitation of people in need of something like narcan going to a place like city hall for fear of getting arrested, but if you're providing public funds and services to help someone why would you arrest them for accessing this resource just because a law enforcement officer happened to see them on their way to get assistance?

[–] radix@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Good points. I see what you mean about going the whole hog and helping people at a community center dedicated for just that, helping people.

My initial response was that a social worker's skills are not necessary if the job is just to hand out anti-overdose medication, but then I realized that they could be useful for providing more help for these people, not just preventative drugs (which is great! but no one beat an addiction using more drugs).

[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anyone can administer narcan nasal spray

[–] Whiskey_iicarus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree and understand, but sometimes people who are in need of this service might be less than stable. Again, is someone like a librarian the best public servant to help in this situation?

[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Presumably the best public servant is the one that’s closest and has narcan. We don’t have time to wait for the comptroller to get down there.

It doesn’t even seem like librarians will be administering them? They’re just giving them away

[–] gabe@literature.cafe 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with you in theory as well @wintermule_oregon@lemm.ee said, ideally this wouldn't be the case but this is just better than nothing.

[–] Whiskey_iicarus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

And we should not let perfect get in the way of someone getting possibly life saving resources.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like this, but watch out… it will be tin foil and straws soon.

[–] gabe@literature.cafe 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Harm reduction saves lives.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is true, but easier access to safety nets means less risk and more use. Especially in the open, directly outside the library and inside.

Double edged sword.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Got any proof it actually increases use and doesn't just move the users to somewhere a little more visible?

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Got proof it doesn’t? 🤷‍♂️

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You made the claim, back it up or shut up

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you expect people, including yourself, to show up with data to an online conversation? And, if I browse your history, would I find you citing all of the sources for you opinions?

Back the fuck up, please.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you expect people, including yourself, to show up with data to an online conversation?

If they're going to make controversial claims, yes.

And, if I browse your history, would I find you citing all of the sources for you opinions?

You stated a claim of fact, not an opinion.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

its not controversial to me.
that’s not an answer to the question.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

its not controversial to me.

You aren't the only one here.

that’s not an answer to the question.

Indeed. It's an explanation of why your question is irrelevant.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

You’re entitled to you opinion

[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Do u want more overdoses or less overdoses

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I seem to recall a similar argument being made against condoms being readily available. “Those harlots will bed any man they please if they don't have to worry about getting pregnant or catching a disease! The horror!” Nevermind that condoms make the issue moot: getting pregnant or catching a disease is the only reason not to bed any man you please.

And what do you know? Now that sex does not equal babies, women can and routinely do exit toxic relationships instead of being trapped in them for life. “The horror” indeed.

This doesn't really apply to the present situation, though, because using drugs still ruins your life, exactly as before, and it still kills you, just slightly slower.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did they feel wearing a condom gave them the right to fuck at the library in full view of children?

I see what you’re saying, but I just think there is a better location for these things to be distributed. Like, a shelter, or a hospital, or damn near any Walgreens.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did they feel wearing a condom gave them the right to fuck at the library in full view of children?

How is that relevant? Nobody proposed to make it legal for people to use drugs out in the open. Presumably they'll still be arrested if they do.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn’t really understand how condoms were all that similar to narcan, but you went with it anyway.

Anyhow:

Visit Portland and you’ll understand. It’s legal to do drugs on the street. They distribute tin foil and straws. You can get narcan easily.

It’s a shit show.

If you don’t put words in my mouth, it’s just this: there’s a better place to distribute medical devices than a hospital.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're confusing cause with effect. Portland has a poverty problem, not a drug problem. Housing prices there are extreme. Wages there are nowhere close enough to afford housing there. This has displaced a buttload of people out of their homes and onto the street. These people have nothing left of their old lives, nowhere to go, and nothing to do but get high and detach themselves from their horrible reality as much as possible, especially now that it's over 100°F outside. Better than slowly and horribly dying of hyperthermia in a prison cell while fully conscious and sober, like what's happening in some other parts of the country.

Oregon has serious problems—catastrophic problems, even—but drug legalization isn't one of them. It's just a convenient scapegoat for people who don't want to solve those problems.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

I’m curious to see how the situations become similar in Phoenix when the water runs out, and it’s 130°