BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

[ED. NOTE: Those who tied Tuesday morning until about 1 p.m. to access and post comments on THE PLANET could not do so because of a systemwide server problem. The IT guys corrected that. Access and commenting should now be good to go.]

———- ooo ———-

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, MONDAY FEB. 13, 2023) — In response to The Weekend Edition’s story about Narcan, THE PLANET received a detailed counter argument from Brian Andrews, head of County Ambulance, a company kept mighty busy by the drug trade in Pittsfield.

His critique was well presented, and we thanked him for it.

That does not, however, imply agreement. As a lesson in argumentation and debate, his case had many flaws. Today, we show you where some of the holes are.

We love the art and science of debate, and so we thank Mr. Andrews again, this time for the exercise.

As a side benefit, the discussion will once again bring to the front an issue that is sending the city, literally, into the hands of gangs and criminals.

———- ooo ———-

MR. ANDREWS: Sadly, but not surprisingly I was hoping for better from people on this subject. Most of these negative comments are from folks that have never had to face the reality of substance use disorder (SUDS) in a family member, loved one or friend. (Or maybe you are just an unsympathetic, or evil person who finds joy in others demise) It is hard to believe that the naysayers have not been effected in some way as this illness is so prevalent in our society to the tune of over 2.1 million people in our country. I know most of what I will say will fall on deaf ears, but I will never give up my fight to stop the stigma associated with SUDs which contributes to those effected in not seeking recovery.

THE PLANET: You write you were “hoping for better from people.” Might we not put that same question to those who continue abuse drugs? In fact, might it not be better put to them and not the decent, ordinary, hard-working, taxpaying folks who end up paying the social price of addiction? SUDS has a stigma that’s well deserved, not because it’s a character flaw but because of its selfishness in perpetuating so much heartbreak and chaos. 

MR. ANDREWS: I know the first thing Mr. Valenti throws out, is that addiction is a choice. It is not a choice in most cases. I have had family members that are in long term recovery from SUDs and they didn’t make a choice to wake up and crave drugs. They like so many others, were led down a path of over zealous pain management for injuries/illnesses they suffered. They were prescribed opiates by doctors that didn’t have the knowledge to effectively manage pain, caused mostly by Big Pharma who told all healthcare professionals, “Prescribe freely, these aren’t addictive.” We all know now how wrong they were and their motivation. SUDs is not a new problem, it has been around a very long time but exploded due to the misinformation spread by Big Pharma in an effort to line their pockets. Opiates can be used effectively to manage pain but must be managed properly. Let me tell you a story. Due to a extremely painful battle with osteomyelitis of my lumbar spine which caused sepsis (and accidentally revealed a pulsating aortic aneurysm waiting to kill me), I was on very potent and high dose pain medication in Baystate Medical Center’s ICU for a month back in 2012. When I was recovering from the illness they properly titrated my doses and weaned me off the pain medication the proper way. I left the hospital never to take another pain medication. That is not always the case. As was the case with my family members, their illness injury was not properly managed and the doctors just yanked the proverbial pain medication out from underneath them with no weaning. They were left with unmanaged pain and a craving for the pain medication that was over prescribed to them for months.

THE PLANET: “It is not a choice in most cases.” It depends on how you define “choice” and “free will.” Every addict, even those who become hooked due to issues involving pain management and prescribed opiates, at some point must make a free-will decision to continue down that path of destruction or not. Free will is the application of a person’s intentioned determination to follow a particular course of action, up or down, right or wrong, constructive or destructive. Those who seek and accept treatment have made a choice. Those who don’t, who decide to keep ingesting the death, do as well. The process is exactly the same for the person who has never taken or abused drugs, the person who has and but quits, and the one who decides remain addicted. Mr. Andrews should know better than anyone, other than and addict, that to be “addicted” does not provide license to remain that way. 

MR. ANDREWS: The other problem that has occurred is the proliferation of fentanyl in almost every drug in this country. There are local recreational cocaine users that have been found overdosed from fentanyl. Their first reaction is “I didn’t use fentanyl, I was just using a little cocaine.” (I do not condone this) Unknowingly, they consumed a deadly amount of fentanyl. How does this happen? There are some things we know and some that we can only theorize. One of the things we do know is illegal drugs are big business in this country. Drug dealers are often getting involved in many different types of drugs to sell, so they are bagging up their weed, and breaking down there coke into smaller street quantity packages on the same table they are cutting their heroin and fentanyl. These are not rocket scientists or licensed pharmacists using quality control and sterile packaging techniques. And all of this fentanyl is coming from China. China is producing fentanyl in great quantities as well as selling all the chemical components needed to make your own fentanyl, using the Mexican cartels in many cases to get these into our country. This is a concerted effort, in my humble opinion and many others, to inflict damage on our population making us a weaker country.

THE PLANET: In this section, Mr. Andrews makes our case (not his) in a way we could not top. Drug dealers are driven solely by money. They are ruthless in that pursuit. Their products are dangerous. We know that. Society knows that. Those involved in the drug trade know that at an expert’s level … and yet … addicts continue to play the risky game. Knowing the prevalence of fentanyl nonetheless does not deter them from using. Irrespective of HOW one becomes addicted, the continuance of drug taking involves the decision, the choice, to do so. For whatever reason, they freely gamble with their very lives. There’s an old saying in gambling. If you can’t afford to lose, don’t play the game. If you play the game, you accept the risk.

MR. ANDREWS: But back to stigma. We know SUDs is a disease causing changes to the brain. It is driven by physical changes, psychological changes and physiological changes. I know I will be told I’m wrong in this forum but the science is clear. Many people who have this disease often have preexisting mental health issues that are untreated, lack the social support necessary to help them in their situation. Another thing we know is, people will do better when they have the mental health services and social support network that will encourage them to enter recovery and deals with SUDs. But when people stigmatize those with SUDs, which is evident in most of the comments I have read on this forum before undertaking this post.

THE PLANET: First, the science is not as clear as Mr. Andrews suggests. Nonetheless, let’s grant the point. The issue then becomes one of support vs. affordability. Recidivism rates among addicts are astronomically high [pun, unintended]. Does it makes sense for society to pour money down the sink hole if 98% of it is wasted? Is the 2% worth it? This is public money. The economics are clear. What about the morality of the situation? Why is it more “moral” to revive an addict with Narcan, only to keep the misery going? Why is it more moral, if you know that most of the time you will make the problem worse? Why is it more moral that 2% wins over 98%? Why do we have to agree with the current “fad” to send the most public assistance to people who are the worst citizens? We see it in the schools, with housing, with immigration, and with addiction. Why is it a good thing to keep wasting money this way? Why does the problem get worse, the more public money we throw at it? Mr. Andrews thinks if you do not agree with his position, then you must be “an evil person who finds joy in others [sic] demise.“ He assumes such a person has not been personally touched by the pain of drug abuse. It’s a faulty assumption. In fact, those who have had their families wrecked are often the most adamant about not supplying the means — again with public money — for addicts to perpetuate the pain. Narcan? More like Narcan’t. Mr. Andrews need to realize that people who don’t agree with him aren’t “evil.”

MR. ANDREWS: Narcan is part of a harm reduction strategy to help them. Harm reduction can help reduce the threat of death until the person is ready to seek recovery. You cannot force recovery on anyone. They must be ready to seek treatment and seek a path of recovery. We know the war on drugs has been a colossal failure. You cannot jail yourself out of this mess is a mantra you will hear over and over from the law enforcement community, the substance treatment community and civil rights community. We can only offer the services needed for recovery and hope they will seek recovery sooner rather than later. Narcan is no different than any other medication available to treat disease. Would we not provide chemotherapy because the patient may still participate in activities that may have contributed to their cancer? Would we deprive a patient with hypertension the use of antihypertensives because they might not start exercising or reducing their sodium consumption? Would we deprive a diabetic insulin because they may not follow a strict diet to manage their diabetes? The answer is no, no and no. The patient who suffers from the disease that causes them to seek illegal medications should not be deprived a medication that can extend their life until they can successfully seek long term recovery. Also remember that the death of an overdose effects more than just them, it effects their loved ones (siblings, children, parents, etc.). It effects costs on our health care system which we all suffer. The effects felt by the loss of an overdose is far reaching and not anything anyone should ever wish upon anyone.

THE PLANET: Again, Mr. Andrews makes our case when he writes: “You cannot force recovery on anyone. They must be ready to seek treatment and seek a path of recovery.” Precisely, which leads us back to choice and free will. Prior to a shot of Narcan, the person has obviously NOT sought treatment or recovery — despite all the services, all the education, all the pleading from family and loved ones — so what are the chances they will want to seek recovery after being brought back to life? Unlikely at best. Mr. Andrews’ example of denying a cancer patient chemo is specious and spurious, a red herring in a deep crimson hue. Contracting cancer cannot be equated with the choice to continue as a drug addict. A cancer patient can’t “just say no” to the cause of the disease and get clean. A junkie can.

MR. ANDREWS: I would suggest you visit https://harmreduction.org/about-us/principles-of-harm-reduction/ to learn about the principles behind harm reduction. I have had to deal with many negative effects substance use disorder has heaped on ones I love, up to and including death. All which I had little to no control over. And I totally get people that are bitter and angry at relatives that suffer from this disease and caused you to suffer personally. Hell, I have been bitter at some of my loved ones because of this but at the end of the day I remember we are all flesh and blood human beings that deserve our patience and help when we can give it. This could happen to any of us and if you don’t believe this your are very naïve and sadly mistaken.

THE PLANET: Yes. We have agreement on this point. 

MR. ANDREWS: I am prepared to get kicked around due to this post by any that take the time and effort to read my post. I understand that there are many many people that don’t understand this subject and aren’t open minded enough to get educated but if my getting kicked around and lambasted in this forum causes even one person to seek understanding of this complex illness then it is all worth it. And anyone that is ready to throw insults or question what I say, I would ask you to have the cajones enough to put your real name like I have done and meet me in person to discus this subject over coffee in person.

THE PLANET: To say that those who don’t agree with him “are not open enough to get educated” is an old debating trick, one related to ad hominem, one that’s at best mildly effective but almost always usually counterproductive. At worst, it blows up the person’s argument, which it does here. THE PLANET has the cajones to attach our name, and Brian, we accept your invitation to coffee.

MR. ANDREWS: Thanks for those that may have taken the time to read this long post that I could have gone on for much more.

THE PLANET: Again, thank you Brian Andrews. You have a set of beliefs. You argue cogently on their behalf. You signed your name to it. Well done. We have no doubt it will be of use.

———————————————————————–

“My great religion is a belief in the blood, the flesh being wiser than the intellect” — D. H. Lawrence.

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

Copyright (c) 2023 By Dan Valenti, PLANET VALENTI and EUROPOLIS MANAGEMENT. All rights reserved. The views and opinions expressed in the comment section or in the text other than those of PLANET VALENTI are not necessarily endorsed by the operators of this website. PLANET VALENTI assumes no responsibility for such views and opinions, and it reserves the right to remove or edit any comment, including but not limited to those that violate the website’s Rules of Conduct and its editorial policies. Those who leave comments own all the responsibilities that are or can be attached to those comments, be they rhetorical, semantic, or legal. Such commentators remain solely responsible for what they post and shall be and remain solely accountable for their words. PLANET VALENTI shall not be held responsible for the consequences that may result from any posted comment or outside opinion or commentary as provided in, but not limited to, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and this website’s terms of service. We serve as a marketplace of ideas, without prejudice and available to all. All users of this site — including readers, commentators, contributors, or anyone else — hereby agree to these conditions by virtue of this notice and their use of/participation in this site. When PLANET VALENTI ends with the words “The Usual Disclaimer,” that phrase shall be understood to refer to the full text of this disclaimer.