
Needle Program
#61
Posted 30 September 2005 - 02:18 PM
"...warned about a recently identified, potentially life-threatening hazard that may be caused by drinking too much water, hyponatremia."
http://www.jnj.com/n...1030_105713.htm
-- Albert Einstein--
California's Economy: Too Big To Fail?

#62
Posted 02 October 2005 - 06:46 AM
#63
Posted 02 October 2005 - 12:02 PM
#64
Posted 02 October 2005 - 12:28 PM
Just to make sure I'm clear in my understanding of this, the city council voted to not allow private pharmacies to sell needles, correct? This had nothing to do with a needle "program". Did you see it any differently?
#65
Posted 02 October 2005 - 12:36 PM
#66
Posted 02 October 2005 - 01:16 PM
I go out with my metal detector, I have for years, and one place that was the worst for me was under the boardwalk down in Santa Cruz. I guess that is where a lot of the druggies went to shoot up.
I always use a metal basket when on the beach and when I hear a signal I scoop up the dirt with the basket and shake it to see what is left inside. I came up with a lot of used needles under the boardwalk.
If they sold all the needles that the drug users wanted, we would have many many more of them laying around for kids or others to get stuck and possibly get infected.
Thanks City Council.
Cal
#67
Posted 02 October 2005 - 10:24 PM

Sort of.
Prohibition actually went into effect on 1/16/1920. Women's suffrage was proposed to the states on 6/14/1919, but ratified on 8/26/1920.
So you could say it was a drunk Congress that proposed it, but sober states that approved it.

#68
Posted 03 October 2005 - 09:26 AM
I had been concerned that neighboring communities would reject it, leaving Folsom "the place to go" for needles. Now Rancho Cordova can struggle with that, but they've been pretty conservative about things like this.
#69
Posted 05 October 2005 - 07:55 AM
Does it really make us bad people that we don't want one more "Johnny Hopheads" in our "fair town"?
Are we really bad people because we don't want "more discarded needles with which kids could prick their fingers"? By the way, he left out the danger to our emergency service personnel and law enforcement personnel.
The reporter's cavalier "fair enough" response to that concern and the ambiguous statement of Ms. Trochanter that there was "no scientific evidence to suggest more needles meant more drug use" does nothing to provide proof that this program is worth the risk.
Is there no scientific evidence because there was none collected regarding more improperly disposed of needles? How did their research differentiate a decrease in HIV from the practice of safe sex versus clean needles? Vice versa how do they know their documented HIV cases didn't come from unprotected sex versus dirty needles? I'm seriously asking if there is some sort of scientific way through blood tests they can determine that.
If I'm given the choice between "Johnny Hophead" risking HIV infection through his use of an illegal drug and a child or firefighter risking contracting the same disease through an improperly disposed of needle, I'm sorry but "Johnny Hophead will lose every time.
I am glad the council didn't cave to this "feel good" program that has no benefit for our residents.
#70
Posted 05 October 2005 - 08:15 AM
Folsom Telegraph 10/4 Needle Article
I agree that the article shows a certain slant.

#71
Posted 05 October 2005 - 08:57 AM
#72
Posted 05 October 2005 - 09:06 AM
#73
Posted 05 October 2005 - 09:30 AM
Thanks for the link, Forumreader.
#74
Posted 05 October 2005 - 10:13 AM
-- Albert Einstein--
California's Economy: Too Big To Fail?

#75
Posted 05 October 2005 - 02:28 PM
I thought the Folsom junkies WERE the doctors who wrote the prescriptions!
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users