- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
…Narcan?
*Actually decided to click through to the article for this one.
Since 2020, Griswold has made available at least $5 million in grant money for more physical security at election sites, which has allowed counties to take measures such as installing bulletproof glass or having Narcan on hand in case fentanyl is deployed as a chemical weapon.
I know fentanyl is the big scary drug of the decade but…is that something that happens? That sounds insane.
this happened once https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis
if large amounts of fentanyl are available, who knows, but it seems like a weird choice over, say, extra first aid kits or bulletproof vests
That’s a lot of casualties caused by the rescue effort.
You can’t have hostage crisis if there are no hostages. See also Beslan school siege, where russian army fired thermocaric rockets and tank shells into that building with hostages inside
I mean…yeah, ok. I don’t think a single incident from 2 decades ago is exactly a sign this is common, but it’s precedent I suppose. Would narcan even help with something like that?
Yeah, and lots of people died because doctors didn’t know about it, and thought it was something else
Whether it’s because of a silly reason or not, it’s never a bad idea to stock up on Narcan at events where lots of people will be present.
Maybe they didnt wanna say that they expect lots of people to show up while high af
That is pretty insane. Opiates seem like they would make terrible chemical weapons.
I know that here in WA state last year, several county election offices were sent envelopes filled with white powder, and a few of them tested positive for trace quantities of fentanyl. It’s a somewhat nebulous threat, since nobody was actually affected, but there you go.
Apparently the Narcan is “in case fentanyl is deployed as a chemical weapon.” How often does this happen? I can find one instance of Russia using aerosolized fentanyl against Chechen separatists during a hostage situation in 2002.
This doesn’t strike me as an especially efficient way to increase security.
It killed 150 of the hostages. Holy shit.
If I had to guess, it’s primarily to make people feel safer, security theater type stuff. I’m usually against that sort of thing, but you want people to feel it’s safe to vote, so if you gotta do some silly stuff, so be it. Plus it’s not like having narcan on hand is literally ever a bad thing.
So it makes even less sense when you realize that it would have to be ingested or aerosolized to have meaningful effect.
As “famous” as it is for being absorbed through the skin, fentanyl can’t be easily absorbed through the skin- it takes a particular formulation and long exposures to it (ie skin patch,)
Thanks, Trump
So glad I early voted.
I’m grateful my state employs tracked mail-in voting, makes it easy, safe, and trackable.
