Medicine

Chris Christie Trades Drug Users' Lives for Drug Busts

|

A couple of months ago I said a "Good Samaritan" bill approved by New Jersey's legislature, aimed at preventing overdose fatalities by protecting bystanders who call 911 from prosecution for drug offenses, gave Gov. Chris Christie "a chance to show he is less mindlessly draconian than other drug warriors." He blew it. The Drug War Chronicle reports that Christie vetoed the bill because he worries that it might let drug dealers "off the hook." Here is how he explained the decision at a town hall meeting in Mount Laurel:

How about if they're not a Good Samaritan? How about if they're the [person] who supplied the drugs? That was my problem with the bill….

What I'm not willing to do is to give is to give people who commit harm to other people a free pass just because they picked up the telephone.

Is it better to let someone die of an overdose (which happened 1,000 times in New Jersey last year) because people are afraid to call for help? That appears to be Christie's logic, and it does not jibe very well with his avowed commitment to harm reduction.

The bill, which applies to charges for possessing or sharing drugs but not selling them, is similar to laws adopted by 11 states. Christie said he would be open to signing a revised version, but the most likely change—narrowing the immunity to drug possession—would put more lives in jeopardy by excluding people who buy drugs with friends or acquaintances.

More on Good Samaritan laws from Brian Doherty here.

NEXT: Deprived of Government Funding Greek Soccer Teams Turn to Sponsorship, Including Brothels

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He was a prosecutor, which means he’s an asshole. There should be no surprise here.

    1. I prefer the term “prostitutor.”

      1. Of course you do. When you need to show up in court, do you always start off with just pulling out the thermal detonator and threatening to blow the whole place up?

        1. It’s a fair move. Screaming about it won’t help.

      2. Huh. The Great White Hope from Joisey turns out to be a run-of-the-mill Republican thug. Go figure.

        Tell me again why libertarians are supposed to support candidates the Stupid Party?

        1. He did a lot of good on teacher’s unions. Supporting his election made sense; his re-election less so.

          1. Yeah, but was his opposition to teacher’s unions due to actual principles, or just because they were the allies of the “other team”?

            1. I think it was principled, but it doesn’t matter that much.

          2. Yeah? So fucking what?

            1. Don’t forget republicans consider libertarians allies of the other team (“Voting for Gary Johnson is the same as voting for Obama”) before you get to happy about them smacking around their political opponents.

              1. Again, so fucking what?

                Are you under the deluded impression that anyone here cares a rat’s ass for either major party?

              2. Don’t forget republicans consider libertarians allies of the other team (“Voting for Gary Johnson is the same as voting for Obama”) before you get to happy about them smacking around their political opponents.

                Why does that matter?

              3. Don’t forget republicans consider libertarians allies of the other team (“Voting for Gary Johnson is the same as voting for Obama”)

                It’s worse than that. When I told a Republican of a former Obama supporter who is planning to vote for Johnson this time, the guy shook his head and said “that’s just a vote for Obama”. Three attempts later, he still didn’t get it.

            2. So what? He showed that fighting a teachers’ union is doabble. That’s significant.

              1. I admit, it was very entertaining, but small fucking fry in the scheme of things.

  2. I thought the survey said libertarians had less compassion? Stick this little item in the “Christie” file to trot out when he runs for
    president someday though I doubt he will ever be embarrassed by his
    “tough on drug dealers” stanch.

    1. Stanch. I like it.

      1. Stanch = Staunch Stance, right?

        1. I thought it was stank + stance.

            1. Fucking ampersand vacuum.

          1. Stench + chance. Fat people always smell.

  3. I’m voting for the candidate that supported drug legalization and gay marriage from the beginning, who you guys voting for?

    1. It’s funny that some people are reading your comment, thinking “Obama!” No, not exactly.

    2. Erect Gary’s Johnson!

      1. Pull that lever!

          1. Slot that pick!

    3. I’ve been having extreme Pauline Kael syndrome lately in that everybody I meet where the subject comes up is voting for Gary Johnson. for a moment I wonder how in the hell he’s only going to get 1% of the vote when he’s got at least 40% of the people I run into.

      Then sanity returns. I do think, however, that Johnson is going to have the highest ratio of people who would have voted for him if folks bothered to go vote to actual votes.

      1. They’re voting for the Big O, but are too embarrassed to say so.

        You can’t have a Republican in the White House. He might go starting wars and spending us back into the stone age.

      2. moment I wonder how in the hell he’s only going to get 1% of the vote when he’s got at least 40% of the people I run into.

        You run with some good people?

  4. i can’t tell you how much christie disgusts me. last year i responded to over a dozen heroin oversdoses. sadly, with oxy mania and the subsequent switch to heroin (largely due to the new “OP” formulation of the oxy pills) we are seeing way over a 2fold increase in heroin overdoses. in a heroin overdose, seconds count. we get there in time (especially the medics with the narcan ) and the person lives. otherwise, they die. it’s THAT simple.

    this is life and death shit, christie. people are DYING out there. laws like this (and yes, my state has one) can make all the difference between life and death and the fact that christie would be willing to see more deaths as long as it doesn’t mean giving people a “free pass” is just disgusting. fuck him

    1. +1
      What else can you say…

    2. Quite right. Lives come first, worrying about punishment later*.

      *SLD regarding full drug legalization

      1. Life obviously didn’t come first for the person who shot themselves up with something they got from some creep on the corner.

          1. We are watching Tulpa go completely insane. What John did quickly Tulpa is doing slowly.

    3. Well said. Is Narcan available OTC? It should be, although are heroin addicts cognizant enough of the risks to carry a dose and instructions on its use for their companions to adminiter it?

      1. Note that I have no idea of the chemical composition of Narcan.

        1. narcan is a prescription drug (but not a controlled substance). there was an article here a while back about how some jurisdictions are working on getting narcan legal for over the counter sales (since 2/3 of overdoses have a witness present, they could supply the narcan) for users. also, a few police dept’s have been authorized to carry it , too

          but yea, it is a controlled substance, although that it under review at this time. it SHOULD be OTC imnsho

          you can’t harm somebody by administering it (apart from improper injection technique) if they DON’T NEED it, and you can save a life if they do need it.

          note that there are other injectable drugs available OTC- such as Humulin R so merely the fact that it is injected doesn’t mean it has to be a prescription drug

          1. More on Humulin R.

            note that there are other injectable drugs available OTC- such as Humulin R so merely the fact that it is injected doesn’t mean it has to be a prescription drug

            That’s true, however, Humulin R is a short acting insulin, and the odds of keeling over from an insulin OD is not terribly high, and can be reversed pretty quickly. Longer acting insulins, not so much. Not defending the practice, but shedding some light on the rationale (such as it is.)

            1. absolutely correct. i was just pointing out the injectible status of a drug doesn’t justify in and of itself making the drug Rx Only.

              i suspect the $$$$ behind the AARP lobby are a big part of the reason why humulin R is OTC

            2. Humulin? Like in hops?

        2. More on naloxone HCL.

          It is not currently OTC, and probably won’t be anytime soon D/T only being available in injection form.

          1. right. just making the point that while very few injectable drugs are otc, SOME are (humulin R).

            the nice thing about narcan is if you apply it and it is NOT needed, it can’t harm the person… unlike insulin.

          2. I SF’d the link,in case anyone is interested. NARCAN admin does carry risks, and is not a panacea.

            1. you are correct. i am understating the risk, when after all… compared to death, it’s low risk 🙂

              but yea, you are right. it’s not like injecting sterile saline. there are SOME risks.

              as for panacea, i’ll just say – it’s an amazing drug. i have seen it work, and it’s a glorious thing. from dead to pissed off in less than 5 seconds

      2. If it’s done by injection, I’m pretty sure their companions can do it.

        1. Yep, doesn’t make much sense not to have NARCAN OTC, IMO. Dosing without supplemental medical care is something of a trick though, as an OD on NARCAN is possible.

          Another analogue would be a friend administering epinephrine via an Epi pen (no relation to Episiarch. -)))

          1. yes. and iirc, aren’t EPI pens script?

            of course it’s easy to get a script for one. few addicts are going tobe able to convince a dr to write a script for narcan…

            “hi, i’m a heroin addict. would you write me a script for narcan, thx?!”

            lol

            1. yes. and iirc, aren’t EPI pens script?

              You win a Kewpie Doll.

  5. This is why I scoff at Scott Adams’ decision to support Romney due to Obama’s continuing the WoD.

    Team Blue will continue the WoD.

    Team Red wants to ramp it up to Warp 33.

    1. Team Red wants to ramp it up to Warp 33.

      I’m just not seeing it.

      1. Me neither. On the WOD and the WOP, I don’t think you could slip a single $100 bill between TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE.

        Thugs gonna thug. Its what they do. Its who they are.

      2. Agreed.

        Neither party is objectively better or worse than the other in the WoD. They both eat a bag of dicks.

    2. “Fewer people are using drugs! The Drug War is working! Ramp it up another notch!”

      “More people are using drugs! We’re not trying hard enough! Ramp it up another notch!”

      Heads they win, tails we lose.

    3. Team Red wants to ramp it up to Warp 33.

      Don’t be absurd. Everyone knows that Warp 10 is the theoretical limit for warp technology.

      Wait, unless….Christie is the Traveler!

      1. Sub-creatures! Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, the Traveller has come! Choose and perish!

      2. That’s a load of crap. They went over Warp 10 more than once on TOS.

        1. That’s because TOS used metric.

          1. No, it’s because technology went downhill after socialists took over the Federation.

          2. That was sort of the explanation.

            1. I like mine better. In fact, I hereby declare it to be canon.

              1. When ship’s captains stopped nailing everything that moved, it was a harbinger of the end times to come.

                1. Well, I’m sure the socialists who took over the Federation imposed all sorts of freedom-squelching sexual harassment laws.

        2. They have explained that Warp Factor is a sliding scale, not an absolute. Warp 6 in TOS is far slower than Warp 6 in TNG. Warp 10 is the current maximum at the time whenever it is used.

          Which is stupid. That’s a stupid explanation.

          1. It’s more than stupid. It’s fucking stupid. Why not make the limit higher than anyone ever said? Warp 20 was available.

            And don’t get me started on worrying why the low-budget Klingons didn’t look like the high-budget Klingons. How fucking stupid was that?

    4. Bullshit. Team Red has historically respected medical MJ more than Team Blue at the federal level.

      As for general legalization, there’s a couple of drops in the bucket of support for it in both parties. With Barney Frank retiring the balance shifts to Team Red there too with Rand Paul still kicking.

      1. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the GOP is better, but they are both terrible on this issue.

  6. The people dying here are just drug users. It’s not like they’re human beings or anything. They gave up their humanity when they started using drugs. Let them die. Who cares? They’re only drug users. If they lived then they’d end up in prison, costing all kinds of money to the taxpayers. Better to just let them die.

    1. Or have police officers brutalize them to death.

    2. The people dying here are just drug users. It’s not like they’re human beings or anything.

      My girlfriend who’s a nurse thinks THIS. EXACT. WAY. Anytime we bring up the topic of drug policy she is firmly in the camp of “they’ve made their bed now let them die in it”. I say legalize drugs so that they don’t have to go through all the loopholes of buying them dangerously, and perhaps the number of overdoses are drastically reduced.

      At the very least, more attention can be paid to treatment versus punishment. Then she gives anecdotes about homeless people not having insurance and being a drag on the system as if that’s something I want as a libertarian.

      1. Your girlfriend sounds like an asshole.

        1. Gosh, what an empathetic angel of a caregiver she is.

          1. “First do plenty of harm”?

            1. “First, not give a fuck.”

        2. She’s a nurse; she’s supposed to be abrasive.

          Besides. Nurse uniform, dude.

          1. Not really. And I’ve been in the hospital a whole bunch of times and I can count the number of even remotely hot nurses on one hand. And not use the whole hand.

            1. You’re going to the wrong hospitals. Or it’s just that Florida thing again.

              1. You’re probably right; Wrexham Maelor hospital in Wales and Hospital for Special Surgery in Manhattan aren’t probably the best hospitals for nubile candy stripers.

                1. Ah, I see the problem. They’re called candy strippers here.

              2. it’s more of a Guido thing – he wants gis gals to have big hair, gold chains, and jogging suits.

                1. You got a problem with that?

              3. You need to hang out in the maternity ward. That’s where the hot nurses hang out, at least here in south Florida.

          2. Nurse uniform = scrubs these days.

            1. Sadly, yes.

              One of the best things about Thailand is that the nurses still dress in white skirts, stockings, and that little hat.

              1. Whitecaps. Hmmm, perhaps I should have relocated to Thailand. -)))

      2. There actually is no reason you both can’t be right.

        1. Legalize the stuff, and fuck ’em if they kill themselves with it.

          1. ^This is the right answer. And since the stuff is illegal right now then every drug user assumes some level of risk in using. Sure it sucks donkey balls, but you can’t expect people to always bail you out when you’re in trouble.

            1. Exactly so…. when’s the last time you heard of a tainted batch of Captain Morgan’s?

              Make it legal – not decriminalized, really legal. Your “Johnny Walker White” brand heroine will be precisely dose controlled and pure – reducing the risk of accidental overdose. Plus we can all try “Red Bull X-Treme” energy drink with cocaine and amphetamines, for that extra, extra kick.

              Double plus, making intoxicants legal might lead to interesting research. They’ve spent the last 40 years researching ways to take the “high” out of opiate pain killers to reduce abuse. How about research into how to intensify the high while reducing the negative effects?

          2. ^^Bingo.

            Unfortunately to the progs, “fuck’em” is the part they’ll never come around to, because we’re all brothers and all responsible for eachother in the great world community and don’t you have any empathy blah blah blah.

            1. Right.

              Using drugs is far worse than prison. Prison is the epitome of empathetic and community support.

              1. “We care for you so much we’re going to subject you to random rapes and beatings.”

                1. Oh no, they don’t want them in prison, they want them shooting up and then getting free healthcare to deal with the consequences.

          3. Necrophilia FTL.

      3. To be fair the drug addicts on the street are basically diseased and gross and often criminals.

        1. The few heroin addicts I’ve met weren’t exactly model citizens before they got into drugs.

          1. I’ve known several regular heroin users who held down jobs and bathed regularly. Same with meth, coke, pot, acid, MDMA, ketamine. Now, everyone except the potheads had several really shady associates. But I attribute that to anyone holding more than a small amount is looking at 5-15, so they’re far less risk averse than I’m comfortable with. I don’t think it says much else about their character beyond that.

            1. I’ve known several regular heroin users who held down jobs and bathed regularly. Same with meth, …

              I thought that said “some”… bathing with meth, eh?

              1. It’s so much cleaner when it goes in through the pores.

            2. “I’ve known several regular heroin users who…had several really shady associates.”

              I’m sure, I mean they all knew you, right?

        2. To be fair the drug addicts on the street are basically diseased and gross and often criminals.

          Regardless of whether they are alkies or druggies.

        3. Of course they’re criminals. Drugs are illegal and the cost is artificially high because supply is artificially constrained. Why are we so much more concerned about these drug users than we are about alcoholics?

  7. I hope the fat fuck has a heart attack and the people around him forget to call 9-11.

    1. “Oh shit, I sold him the egg salad sandwich that finally did him in. Put down that phone, you fool! Run!”

      Remember when a lot of us kind of sorta thought we could learn to like this guy? Ah precious memories.

      1. It was fun watching him kick around teachers and such. My friends in Jersey told me he was a piece of shit. I initially wrote it off to them being liberals. But they were right.

        1. Yeah he sort of burst onto the national scene doing a couple of cool things, and it’s been all downhill ever since. Color me shocked.

        2. He’s done some good and overall is…sigh…a positive force. *Does not flinch at barrage of oncoming rotten vegetables*

          1. Only in a decrepit state like New Jersey could that fat bastard be considered a positive force.

      2. That was a scence from Bloomberg’s N.Y. wasn’t it Goijra.

      3. I was thinking ham sandwich and choking a la Mama Cass, but heart attack and egg salad sandwich work, too.

    2. “We could use the defibrillator, but it would send the wrong message about fighting obesity.”

      1. Threadwinner.

      2. Whoa. I just saw the future.

      3. all pwnage to the nCat

    3. Cholesterol dealing isn’t a crime, so that’s a piss poor analogy.

      1. Cholesterol dealing isn’t a crime

        ….yet

        1. STOP GIVING BLOOMBERG IDEAS!

            1. Let’s not forget the real Bladerunner, i.e. the socialized medicine dystopia, not the sex-droid dystopia.

            2. “Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.”

              I think you SF’d the link?

                1. the apostrophe that shortens the word “leggin” is actually in the link address, but it is not in Stormy’s.

                  1. And with some extra words to appease the filter… Lipidleggin’

      2. Way to miss the fundamental objection to the WOD, Tulpa.

        An excellent illustration of why, in this time and place, you can be “Law and Order” or you can be “libertarian”, but you can’t be a law and order libertarian.

        1. I object to the WoD also. But having the govt bend over backwards to favor lawbreakers is BS. Individual citizens have the luxury of holding principles against the law; the govt does not.

          1. Oppression must be total and complete or the Tulpa will get upset.

            1. Laws are automatically moral, Cyto. Otherwise they wouldn’t be laws, right?

            2. I suppose you’re OK with govt holding its principles above the law when it comes to police misconduct, too?

              1. OK. Let’s say it’s a bank robber shot in the commission of said crime. Do you let him bleed to death because he’s a lawbreaker?

      3. But what if he was eating something with banned trans fats in it?

      4. Cholesterol dealing is considered harmful, but its none of the governments fucking business, so it is a great analogy.

  8. Fuck this guy. And fuck this state where this guy is the best they can do.

  9. And one other thing. Since when is the person sold the drugs responsible for some degenerate overdosing? I hate that fucking canard. If you OD it is your own damn fault. If you don’t want to risk ODing, don’t do drugs. But if you do, don’t blame it on the guy who sold them to you anymore than Christie should blame being a fat ass on the Capitol Grill.

    1. The overriding concern is to make sure that sinners get punished and that those that lead the sinners down the wrong path get their comeupance as well.

    2. Remember the naked guy that the cop gunned down recently?

      Supposedly he was tripping on acid. Last I heard they’re searching for the person who sold it to him so they can charge them with murder.

        1. Yup. It’s the drug dealer’s fault that he’s dead. Not the cop who wasn’t carrying a club, or pepper spray, or a taser, but instead only had a gun.
          Nope. The dealer is solely responsible for the dude’s death.

          1. That stuff makes me almost physically ill. They need a scalp to hide the fact they just shot down a 135lbs naked guy, not even trying anything else except bullets.

            1. The officer feared for his safety. Nothing else matters.

              1. Feared for his safety? Well, then….the tripping naked dude must have had one hell of a club on him.

    3. I hate that fucking canard. If you OD it is your own damn fault.

      Since you are consuming something that is illegal, it isn’t likely to have been made with quality controls, or nice labels indicating dosage levels or active ingredient amount etc. Therefore the user can’t reliably know how much is too much ahead of time.

      If heroin were produced by Pfizer I believe OD deaths would plummet. I doubt any drug user *wants* to OD, unless suicidal.

      So the war on drugs is (again) the real root of the problem.

      1. If heroin were produced by Pfizer I believe OD deaths would plummet.

        They would drop but I am not sure they would plummet. The biggest cause of heroin overdoses is people who quit and then start taking it again and think they still have the same tolerance they did when they were hooked. Once someone goes through withdrawal on the shit, they have to start taking it again like they have never taken it before. For some reason some junkies never learn that and wind up killing themselves.

        The ODs that would be eliminated are the ones where people get heroin that is really pure and improperly cut. That happens, but not as much as people just being stupid and taking too much.

        1. Once someone goes through withdrawal on the shit, they have to start taking it again like they have never taken it before

          Don’t you think that proper dosage instructions might eliminate some of those deaths?

          Take such and such for first does, then raise to such and such…

          1. However, good luck getting a pharma company in the US to ever sell such things – they are pursued by sleazy contigency fee tort lawyers for lifesaving medicines, much less recreational drugs – insurance is becoming increasingly difficult to get, and any risk management professional would have the risks (legal, reputational, etc) in the screaming high part of any assessment.

            There would have to be startups to do such.

        2. If it was legal, you wouldn’t need heroin. You could just buy opium and smoke it until you passed out. It’s hard to take the dose to get from “sedated” to “dead” via inhalation, unless you’re in an opium sauna or something.

          Actually, they’d probably just make opioid inhalers. Man, libertopia is awesome.

        3. ja, my ex-junky friend had a few rules when shooting up:

          at least as I heard them –

          Don’t drink and then inject. Too many junkies would use booze to help go through the dry patches… and then when they scored, they would shoot up drunk.

          With a new batch, try a little bit before dosing your normal.

          and a few more that I can’t remember. He does tell fascinating stories from back then = hanging out with hookers and pimps, getting harassed by the police, etc. He was just lucky that he had rich parents and always looked clean/normal.

      2. Since you are consuming something that is illegal, it isn’t likely to have been made with quality controls, or nice labels indicating dosage levels or active ingredient amount etc. Therefore the user can’t reliably know how much is too much ahead of time.

        And that knowledge is lost on the user how…?

        1. Oh, I don’t know because he or she is either high, or generally not of his or her right mind?

          1. Users should be aware before they take their regular habit that the doses aren’t measured by docs. If they haven’t heard of ODing by then maybe we have some Darwin winners.

    4. “And one other thing. Since when is the person sold the drugs responsible for some degenerate overdosing?”

      I know that in Wisconsin, people who supply drugs to the person who OS’s are charged with murder.

      1. A jury will decide the fate of a Milwaukee man charged in the overdose death of Reedsburg resident Jason Webber in August 2010.

        A trial, scheduled for two days, began Thursday for Laraccus A. Ross, 23, of Milwaukee, who faces 42 1/2 years as a maximum initial sentence on felony charges of first-degree reckless homicide by use of drugs as party to a crime, felony delivery of cocaine and felony delivery of heroin.

        Webber, 28, of Reedsburg, died as a result of a drug overdose in Wisconsin Dells on Aug. 24, 2010.

        Webber was unresponsive and pronounced dead after an ambulance call to a Washington Avenue address in Wisconsin Dells according to police and court records.

        A blood test and autopsy indicated that a combination of drugs, including cocaine and heroin, caused Webber’s death.

        Ross is one of six co-defendents charged in the case; the majority of the testimony Thursday focused on one of them: Alicia M. Feinberg, 27, sentenced to a 7 1/2 year deferred-prosecution agreement after pleading no contest to felony first-degree reckless homicide as party to a crime and delivery of heroin as party to a crime.

        http://www.wiscnews.com/news/l…..3ce6c.html

        1. Let’s hope the jury nullifies.

            1. I know…I know…

    1. I’m still waiting to hear “Snoop Liony Lion… in da house!” I am disappoint there has been no release yet.

      1. Keep towing that one…

  10. One of the members of his administration should be a tuba musician who performs an appropriate signature melody for Christie’s entrance before he proceeds with his official duties.

  11. I don’t get it, what’s with all the hate towards a guy that just wants people to be responsible for their actions?

    1. He wants to make other people responsible. If I leave a bottle of Tylenol out and my kid chugs the whole thing, does Walgreen’s get charged with a homicide? No? So why is the drug dealer different?

      1. If you leave a bottle of Tylenol out and my kid chugs the whole thing, do you get charged with a homicide? Possibly since you have ultimate responsibility for your child.

        If you leave a bottle of heroin out and an adult you don’t know chugs the whole thing, does you get charged with a homicide? Under current laws, probably.

        If someone leaves a bottle of heroin out and an adult you don’t know chugs the whole thing, are you responsible for saving his life? I hope not.

        1. *first part should be your kid.

          1. So I get charged, but not Walgreens? Why the fuck not? They sold it. This is the exact same theory of liability, but Walgreens is immune and the drug dealer gets charged why, exactly?

            1. Say Chico is your distributor (Racist, I know) and you are the middle-man. Now you take the drugs you got from Chico and sell them to John who takes them and ODs. In this case, you are the drug dealer, not Chico because you are the one directly giving the drugs to John. If you get busted, you could rat out Chico to get your punishment reduced, sure.

              In the case of Tylenol, sorry but that’s not an illegal drug. Walgreens has no responsibility in anyone’s death for just this reason.

              1. So this theory of liability rests entirely on whether or not the substance is legal. Got it. IOW, it’s complete bullshit and a dilution of responsibility, not making someone take responsibility for their acts.

                1. I’m not sure what you’re on about here. The law that was vetoed would have made it fine for a dealer to call in an OD and not get punished. Without this law in place, people who OD on illegal drugs may die. Of course it rests on the illegality of the drugs, but that risk has to be assumed by anyone who still wants to be a user.

                  I’m all for making every drug known to man legal and letting anyone who wants to take them do so. That being said, if anyone ODs on legalized drugs, don’t ask me to feel bad about it and don’t make me responsible for picking up the phone and calling it in.

    2. I don’t get it, what’s with all the hate towards a guy that just wants people to be responsible for their actions?

      Because its not obvious at all, at all, that the person who is with an addict when they OD is the person who sold them the drugs.

      What Christie is saying is that he is willing for people to die on the off chance that the Good Sam law would allow a drug dealer to call in an OD and not go to jail for it.

      1. The person who has taken the drugs and ODed should be responsible for their actions. It doesn’t matter how little they took or whether they should not have ODed.

  12. How many of those 1000 people died because there was no one to call 911, as opposed to dying because they ODed with no one else around? Kind of an important consideration before you throw out that number in your rant against Christie.

    Reason doesn’t seem interested in the cost-bennie analysis for some reason.

    1. Reason doesn’t seem interested in the cost-bennie analysis for some reason.

      Yeah. Weighing whether or not to risk prison for trying to save a person’s life isn’t a cost-bennie analysis.

      derp

      1. What if the heroin club invites a noob to their next meeting so that he’ll OD and they’ll be immune to arrest.

        1. Are you trying to reach Peak Derp?

          1. Wow, and I thought T O N Y had reached that yesterday…just…wow.

        2. yaaaaaaay dumb analogies. I knew my day was too good to be true.

          1. That’s not even an analogy. It’s a scenario that would unfold directly as a result of this law.

            To think I casted you as the Humungus of this band of rhetorical brigands. You’re more like the blond chick who dozed off while the demon boomerang was whizzing around.

            1. It doesn’t make you immune to prosecution forever, only at the specific instance in question. Under your scenerio, the only possible explanation for their actions would be because they wanted to watch somebody die for the lulz.

              1. Every time you go to heroin club there’s a possibility of a bust. This is bust insurance.

                1. Just remember folks… he’s not joking, because that would be glib.

                  1. Tulpa’s capacity for inane stupidity is rapidly becoming too much for a normal human to generate. I believe he may be evolving–or really, devolving–into the Obertard, the next step in the (d)evolution of the retarded. Nietzsche wrote about it, look it up.

                    1. “In the beginning was nonsense, and the nonsense was with Tulpa, and the nonsense was Tulpa.”

                      -Nietzsche.

                    2. “Verily, a retarded stream is Tulpa. One must be a sea to be able to receive a retarded stream without becoming retarded oneself.”

                      – Nietzsche

                    3. “There are horrible people who, instead of solving a problem, tangle it up and make it harder to solve for anyone who wants to deal with it. Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all. ”

                      -Nietzsche

                2. Yeah, but it doesn’t protect you if you haven’t called 911. So in order for your goofy theory to work, it’d have to work like this:

                  a) invite noob
                  b) have lookout watch in case cops come
                  c) once cops are spotted, immediately push enough heroin to OD noob
                  d) everybody immediately dials 911
                  e) cops burst in to ODing noob and a roomful of junkies on the phone with 911

                  Really, you’ve missed your calling in life. You need to be scriptwriting for Michael Bay. All you’re missing is the explosions. You’ve got ridiculous contrivance down pat.

                  1. RTFA. Only one person has to call 911 and everyone participating in the upshot is immune from arrest.

                    You could have 10,000 people shooting up in an open mine and if one of them ODs and another calls 911, everybody’s immune.

                    1. You could have 10,000 people shooting up in an open mine and if one of them ODs and another calls 911, everybody’s immune.

                      Yes. So the cost would be a loss of 10,000 drug convictions (good) and the benefit a life saved (good).

                      Wait…what was your point again? If you want the state to have Law y Order, then what is wrong with wanting to, oh, I don’t know, enshrine this win-win scenario into law?

                    2. But it makes a mockery of the law for the tens of millions of other people in the state.

                      The rule of law is bigger than you or me or 10000 other people.

                    3. But it makes a mockery of the law for the tens of millions of other people in the state.

                      How?

                    4. Your scenario gets better and better, man. Ten thousand junkies at the smack party in the old mine pit! Then suddenly, the cops show up! The inexplicably placed barrels of flammable liquid are shot! Explosions! Fireworks! Screaming junkies run for cover as the brave SWAT team swoops in to arrest the transforming robot kingpin drug dealer pushing space heroin! Alas, the court case falls apart because of one 911 call to save poor (blond haired blue eyed) Jenny, who was tricked into heroin use for the first time by her (swarthy minority) boyfriend! Robot kingpin walks free, to set up our sequel! Genius, I’m telling you. Summer blockbuster or ABC Afterschool Special? You decide.

                      You’re not a moron, Tulpa. You have to see how far past the point of absurdity you are now, don’t you?

                    5. He’s a moron, and no, he doesn’t.

                    6. “General: Those aren’t ideas. Those are special effects…

                      Michael Bay: I don’t understand the difference…”

                    7. It’s called hyperbole to make a point.

                3. Okay, the cops are dumb, but they’re not dumb enough not to catch on to that game after the fifth time. Okay…as they’re cops, the 15th time.

                4. Dude, that doesn’t even make sense at all. How is that bust insurance? How would having an ODed guy at your heroin party help? Unless they all move the party to the ER, but somehow I don’t see that happening.
                  I usually don’t think you are as much of an ass as many on here do, but this really takes the cake.

            2. That’s not even an analogy. It’s a scenario that would unfold directly as a result of this law.

              My use of the wrong terminology does not make the scenario any less dumb.

              1. It shows you didn’t even attempt to understand my comment before lashing out in a knee jerk insulting manner.

                1. I understand it just fine, Diogenes, and it’s still a dumb scenario.

                2. We understand that you’re retarded, Obertard.

                  1. “Whatever does not kill him, makes him more retarded.” – Nietzsche

        3. So let’s see if I have this right. They’ll invite a noob, make sure he OD’s, then call 911 – all to give themselves immunity from a crime that nobody would have known about if they hadn’t called 911 in the first place? Fucking brilliant.

          1. I’m starting to think that Tulpa is pretty depraved when he comes up with this shit as objections to bad laws. He actually thinks this is common enough that it would be a problem!

        4. What if the heroin club invites a noob to their next meeting so that he’ll OD and they’ll be immune to arrest.

          I don’t get it. What would the point of that be? Wouldn’t it just be much simpler to have a regular club meeting and peacefully shoot up instead of inviting the cops so they can sneer at you as they rest their hands on the gun belt and chew their cud?

        5. That’s just dumb, Tulpa. Seriously fucking idiotic. That won’t happen. How the fuck could they even use that situation to avoid arrest? If they hear the cops coming, give the newbie an extra big shot and then all pile in the car and go to the hospital? I don’t think that the law says that just having a person around who has ODed makes you immune. You need to actually be seeking care for that person.

          1. No. RTFA. Once someone calls for help, the entire group is immune.

    2. Professor Fuckhead in the house.

    3. Reason doesn’t seem interested in the cost-bennie analysis for some reason.

      Which would be…?

    4. Reason doesn’t seem interested in the cost-bennie analysis for some reason.

      The benefit here, presumably, is locking up a dealer.

      I don’t that weighs very heavily in the scales against saving someone’s life.

      1. In my book – the life wins every time.

      2. In my book, saving one person from a minor irritation outweighs arresting all of the drug dealers in the world (for dealing drugs, anyway, I’m sure some are nasty people in other ways).

    5. How many of those 1000 people died because there was no one to call 911, as opposed to dying because they ODed with no one else around? Kind of an important consideration before you throw out that number in your rant against Christie.

      Can’t Reason just go back and analyze all the government statistics that weren’t ever reported? How lazy can they be?

  13. He blew it.

    No shit?

  14. That’s not even an analogy. It’s a scenario that would unfold directly as a result of this law.

    That deserves a

    ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF

    1. I remember that from a few years back. Who was the troll we used to use that on? I remember they were annoying as hell.

        1. Really? I thout it was someone else. They posted around the same time as waffles. I think they were banned.

      1. It was Edward/Concerned Observer/Lefiti who was at one time the most annoying troll here. He kind of wandered away after Mary Stack showed him that he was strictly bush league.

        He had a huge rage-boner against Ron Paul for some reason. He also once admitted he had been a huge Edwards supporter, and I always assumed to collapse of his idol was what had made him snap.

        1. Na, it was someone with a silly name. I be looking into that tomorrow.

  15. Here is Chris Mathews giving a big sloppy kiss to authority. Watch if you can keep from vomiting.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..IBbMKCX-YI

    After the clip ended, Matthews seemed appalled. “I don’t think [Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States,” Matthews said. “He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘You’ll get your chance.'”

    1. It’s right there in Article II. Everyone needs to shut up when the president wants to talk.

    2. I’m sure he’ll apply that same standard when Romney is president.

      1. when Obama was president-elect the post ran a story that had paragraph about reporters discussing what to call Obama and whether to stand when he entered the room. i booked a flight to Jamaica that afternoon to make sure i was out of town on inauguration day.

    3. Matthews is a pathetic ass-kisser. I swear I can see the brown stain around his nostrils.

  16. http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..e_map.html

    RCP currently has New Jersey as “leans Obama”. Holy shit. There is no way Romney should be within 10 points of Obama in New Jersey.

    1. i wonder what Maryland is. there hasn’t been any recent polling. and there’s same-sex marriage and gambling on the ballot this year.

    2. What is equally stunning to me is that electorally, there are more Romney/leaning Romney states than there are Obama/leaning Obama states. The donks may actually have to cheat to steal this election, not that they won’t anyway (b/c they will), but that may be the only way they can possibly win.

      1. The GOP has gotten a bit smarter and gone after voting rolls. The Donks’ ability to cheat, while still there, is not what it used to be.

        1. They still try.

          My mom was weirded out at the last municipal election, someone representing a campaing called her out of th eblue and offered to give her a ride to the polls.

          She declined because she wasn’t going to vote.

          I’ve been toying with the idea of checking to see if she is listed as having voted in that election.

  17. i spent a LOT of time with heroin addicts and opioid addicts when undercover. they are almost always good people (not criminals) who fell into it one way or the other – often from some sort of injury where they were prescribed narcotics and just kept taking them and maybe a bit more than prescribed and then they get hooked and…

    some go straight for heroin, no injury/opioid meds prescribed required.

    right now, i am on opioid meds (relatively high dosage dilaudid, post surgery), so i empathize with those in pain.

    NONE of these people should be dying. setting aside that, imo, opoids should be LEGAL, narcan should be over the counter. every police car and medic unit, even AMR (merely EMT’s) should carry it. this is life and death

    again, i hung out with heroin addicts a LOT when undercover. when using, they are completely harmless. just want to chill on the nod. TOTALLY distinguishable from meth addicts for example.

    when jonesing, they are sick like with a nasty flu . either way,t hey deserve sympathy and HELP. and never to die because some asshole politician is anti-drug. fuck christie

    1. Undercover with drug addicts, yet you still maintain that you haven’t served your role as drug warrior?

      Your point is well taken (that most drug addicts are completely harmless), but your charade that you aren’t a willing foot soldier in the WoD is a farce.

      1. oh, no. i readily admit i *was* a drug warrior. for several years.

        my undercover assignment solely went after dealers, fwiw, and of “hard drugs”.

        but that was then, this is now. i believed in the drug war back then

        i was wrong.

        and the vast majority of opioid addicts are harmless. meth addicts can be much worse (violent, etc.)

        no wonder that a substantial # fo those shot by cops (as i posted in a metastats article) turn out ot be high on meth. almost none were high on heroin

        but i never claimed to always have been anti-WOD. quite the opposite

        1. And if you were selected tomorrow, because you’re such a good cop and all, to head up a drug task force (with all of the accompanying power and raises and such), I assume you’d tell your bosses that the WoD is bullshit and you’d deny the position?

          Something tells me “no” would be the answer.

          1. i would deny the position. i love where i’m at. i wouldn’t want to head up a drug task force. i would simply say “no thanks”. my views on drugs are well known in my dept. haven’;t hurt me as far as i know. hasn’t stopped me from making a criminal case for drug possession/dealing when the evidence presents itself. considering my state’s VERY strong protection against search and seizure, it doesn’t come up very often, but when it does…

            most drug cases we see in patrol are script based, but my normal district has few drug stores, so even those rarely come up except when i am backing up.

            but either way, i appreciate the question, and the answer is : i’d decline the offer

            fwiw, i know at least two of my bosses who readily agree with me that the WOD is bullshit. it’s not AS unusual a viewpoint for a cop as you’d think

    2. either way,t hey deserve sympathy and HELP

      Wrong. Nobody is automatically entitled to help.

      1. fine. help, IF THEY ASK FOR IT

        1. And if I wish to say “no”?

          1. To be fair Doc, it was only MNG who wanted you to be a slave.

            1. No no, it was only going to take a few punches.

      2. Yeah, they don’t deserve a damn thing, AFAIAC.

      3. Being one of those unempathetic libertarians, I’m not sure they deserve a whole lot of sympathy. Sympathy for the crap they get from the state because of the WOD, sure. Sympathy for being hooked on drugs? Not so much.

      4. I don’t think that to say that someone deserves something means that they are entitled to have it handed to them. For example, I think that there are a lot of people who deserve to be killed or maimed for being such nasty people, but I still oppose the death penalty and corporal punishment.

        1. Even using your looser definition, I still don’t think they deserve anything. I have little sympathy for people who knowingly get themselves into shitty situations that are easily avoided.

          1. I guess it is sort of silly to say that someone deserves sympathy. You are either sympathetic to a person in a particular situation or you are not. It is more of an emotion that something you decide to to based on rational criteria.

  18. Why can’t someone who provided drugs to someone be a good Samaritan? What a dick.

  19. I’m going to throw one out here.

    If doctors can be held liable for mis-prescribing a drug in a hospital setting, why would we exempt a drug dealer from prosecution simply because they called the OD in?

    Perhaps it’s the distinction between civil and criminal liability, maybe it’s a breach of contract thing, or maybe it’s just a bad analogy.

    What does HampersandR think?

    1. Well, as long as the dealer gave the customer what he wanted, I think it is on the customer to use it in a safe way and accept the risks of using a potentially dangerous product. The person buying heroin wants heroin, despite the dangers. The person who got the wrong thing in the hospital and was killed or injured reasonably assumes that the doctor knows what he is doing and will not give him something dangerous.

      1. Fair enough

        1. Also, the doctor doesn’t get busted if he prescribes the correct drug and you use it in a manner inconsistent with the instructions.

          1. Better

  20. “What I’m not willing to do is to give is to give people who commit harm to other people a free pass just because they picked up the telephone.”

    How about making a counter proposal that addresses this issue?

    That’s what he’d do this is a reason and not a rationalization. If that’s really the reason, he should want to overcome it.

    I’m guessing that there is no counter proposal.

    1. Describe, in exquisite detail, the ‘harm to other people’ that was done.

      1. They gave them something they wanted! Voluntarily! In exchange for money!!! How do you not see the harm in that!!!

  21. It’s funny that Christie seems to think that people buy drugs from a dealer and then shoot up immediately.

  22. Not really defending him but is there any evidence that this law will make it more likely that drug users will call 911? What do you do if you have an outstanding warrant? Are the police permitted to seize evidence of other crimes?

  23. Sounds like Christie is bucking for a spot in Obama’s door-smashing, head-cracking DEA.

  24. “Chris Christie Trades Drug Users Lives”

    My god…sensational much? He makes a good point that the bill could protect drug dealers from getting prosecuted. Plus, how is it Christie’s fault that someone is having an overdose?

  25. I guess, in Reason world, people shouldn’t have to deal with the consequences of their actions if it’s breaking a law they disagree with.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.