Some Odd Thoughts for the New Year

1.  The opioid epidemic rages.  “More than 63,600 people died from drug overdoses in 2016” with 66% of those deaths coming from opioid abuse.  The most publicized initiatives are:  increasing availability of naloxone (narcan) to revive people who have overdosed; and needle exchange programs to reduce the risk factors for AIDS and hepatitis.

This New York Times article explains the first.  “Every day across the country, hundreds, if not thousands, of people who overdose on opioids are being revived with naloxone. Hailed as a miracle drug by many, it carries no health risk; it cannot be abused and, if given mistakenly to someone who has not overdosed on opioids, does no harm. More likely, it saves a life.”

Perhaps an important question to ask is whether these programs are doing anything to change behavior.  One FDA study from a few years back, when the problem wasn’t as widespread, estimates that almost one in five patients are receiving naloxone not for the first time.  This was based on EMT data.  With it now available to many private citizens, spouses and roommates, such incidents could be higher.  Some people are so seriously addicted that a brush with death is insufficient disincentive, while some taxpayers are asking how many second chances should be allowed.

Needle exchanges are likewise controversial.  Some programs recommend a one-for-one swap, but don’t enforce it.  Others receive objections from neighbors about an increase in discarded needles on the street.

But this from the LA Times almost 4 years ago:  “Alcohol is responsible for about 88,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to a new government report on the toll of excessive drinking.”  That’s 88,000 compared to 63,600. 

What's the deal?  Why is only one considered a crisis?  Is it because alcohol is legal?  Is it because we have been fighting (and losing) the war on drugs since 1970 but quit fighting a war on alcohol in 1933?  Is it because an overdose death is immediate but an alcohol-related death is often gradual?  Or is it just another instance of "shark attacks" where what makes the best headlines gets attention?

2.  Back in November I wrote that when looking for reasons to be offended, some people aren’t satisfied citing ordinary matters.  They will dig deep and use plenty of imagination to uncover the most obscure examples.  In mid-December we learned of a Boston University professor “who has researched the origins of the popular Christmas carol ‘Jingle Bells’ [and] says she has found proof that the seemingly-innocent song is steeped in racism.”  Why not add White Christmas to the list, pretending it doesn’t snow around Boston?  Forget white; a quick search of the Internet reveals that using the C-word to describe the holiday is not politically correct and may be offensive.

3.  A few weeks ago the New York Times reported that the pentagon spent $22 million on the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program to investigate UFO sighting.  A pet project of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the funds were hidden in the budget.  Coincidentally, most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by one of his personal friends.  Shouldn’t revelations of such waste and abuse of power be as disturbing as a senator mock-fondling an actress?  Yet it goes in and out of the news cycle with almost no comment except for a few lame UFO jokes.

 A couple of other comments on the UFO investigations:  one on cost, the other on value.  First, I heard in one report that the program was discontinued in 2012, but the government employee running it resigned only this year - good work if you can get it.  Second, with cell phone cameras everywhere and the tendency to take pictures of and post every unusual (or ordinary) event, what is the likelihood of having aliens in our midst without evidence being spread all over social media?

4.  Wildfires in California have burned about 300,000 acres of mostly trees and brush.  The Governor conceded that this kind of devastation will become a new normal due to changing weather patterns.  How would the situation improve if the State and the people who so loved trees allowed logging companies to harvest a reasonable number to build new houses instead of leaving them all in place to help spread the fires and to act as fuel, destroying occupied houses?  The Governor’s real message is that they are consciously choosing to continue yesterday's policies, knowing they will get the same result.  Critical thinking, anyone?