Save a life, face prosecution?

[Tiassa]

This is your War on Drugs:

A bill that would provide legal immunity for people who call 911 to help someone overdosed on illegal drugs just passed the state senate, with only one dissenting vote, from Sen. Mike Carrell (R-28). The bill now goes to the state house of representatives.

Sponsored by state senator Rosa Franklin (D-29), ESB 5516 says, "A person acting in good faith who seeks medical assistance for someone experiencing a drug-related overdose shall not be charged or prosecuted for possession of a controlled substance."

(Holden, "Overdose")​

I'll be looking into the details, but the first thing to mind is: Why is this bill even necessary?

Well, the law, as it stands now, is absolutely screwed up:

In every fatal overdose case, the drugs came from someone. But as the prosecutor, St. Clair, explained, the controlled-substance-homicide charge is uncommon because in most cases the overdose victim is "alone when they were found so you can't make that connection" to the supplier. But instead of preventing overdose deaths, prosecutions like these may result in more deaths. The state of Washington's position is clear: If someone calls 911 when a friend is overdosing, not only does the witness risk charges for possessing or selling drugs (which 911 callers in these situations have feared since the passage of the Controlled Substances Act), but he or she could be charged with homicide, too. The end result? Overdose victims—who might survive with prompt medical care—may be abandoned and left to die.

"It goes in the wrong direction and cuts against overdose prevention, overdose reporting, and taking someone to the hospital," says defense attorney Hiatt. "If I give you the drugs, I'll be less likely to take you to the hospital."

—————​

I can relate. When I was 17, a friend who had taken five hits of LSD showed up at my house during a small party. He misheard a conversation and believed we thought he was gay. He began to worry that his attraction to women was a charade—it wasn't—and then spiraled into an acid-induced state of terror. He began babbling like R2-D2, holding his breath until his head looked like a plum, and trying to claw out his eyes. I called 911.

A fleet of screaming ambulances and police cars arrived at my parents' house. I didn't think twice about opening the door and directing them to my deranged shell of a friend. But no sooner had they crossed the threshold than a cadre of police officers escorted me to the basement, where they handcuffed me to a chair. Officers interrogated me for hours, threatening to search my house. (My parents are out of town so I can't give you permission, officer, and besides, there's no acid at the house, nope, and he took it before he arrived, yup.) The officers finally left, but not until midmorning. My wrists were bruised from the cuffs and I've never looked at a police officer quite the same way again.

(Holden, "Death")​

How does that make sense?

Upshot: There's apparently only one person in the state senate that thinks it does.
____________________

Notes:

Holden, Dominic. "Overdose Prevention Bill Passes State Senate". Slog. February 5, 2010. Slog.TheStranger.com. February 6, 2010. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/02/05/overdose-prevention-bill-passes-state-senate

—————. "A Death in Edmonds". The Stranger. January 2, 2008. TheStranger.com. February 6, 2010. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=474219

 

[TFL]

Options 1&3 for me, but I could only choose one.

What happened to sanity in the law? ...Has it ever even been sane? I can only imagine what a mess things will be by the time I pass the arbitrary limit that says I'm an adult.

 

[Asguard]

Tiassa, in most states (im not 100% sure if this is not the case in ALL states, hense the "most") in Australia there is a blanket rule a) police will NOT be called by the ambos unless they feel in danger themselves (fairly ovious), b) the police will NOT charge ANYONE involved in an overdose if they call 000. I dont belive its in legislation in very many (or possably any) of the states but it IS police procidure (and they advertise it widely) because they want people to call the ambos if its nessary.

As for homicide charges that is one thing i have never understood. How can that law even be valid unless they admistered the drugs directly? If you take that law to its final conclusion you could charge KFC (or Mcdonalds ect) with industrial homicide because by selling fast food a person had a heart atack. Tobaco and Gun manifacturers should already have faced homicide charges under those laws because they surplie items which directly lead to death

 

[John99]

I cant comment on the story the op tells. Could be false, could have been hallucination. If the bill is the point of the discussion that is a different story, no need to bias the subject with something that we dont know the circumstances of and really done care to.

Asguard, if someone overdoses and someone calls the authorities the person who called will most likely stay with the person who od'd and when asked questions will, in all likelihood say 'he just showed up here'....'he went into the bathroom and came out like that'.

However, if the person shows the police or ambos where the drugs they are all doing can be found then they would be charged. Just using that as an example.

Do you know if it is legal or not legal to be under the influence of drugs?

 

[Asguard]

I cant comment on the story the op tells. Could be false, could have been hallucination. If the bill is the point of the discussion that is a different story, no need to bias the subject with something that we dont know the circumstances of and really done care to.

Asguard, if someone overdoses and someone calls the authorities the person who called will most likely stay with the person who od'd and when asked questions will, in all likelihood say 'he just showed up here'....'he went into the bathroom and came out like that'.

However, if the person shows the police or ambos where the drugs they are all doing can be found then they would be charged. Just using that as an example.

Do you know if it is legal or not legal to be under the influence of drugs?

wrong (qualification, in Australia). This actually happened to me not 2 weeks ago, i was working the minor treatment area for St John at a recent event (not going to say which one for privacy reasons) when a youngish couple walk in. The girl is very spaced out and the male partner says to us "she has had to much meth". Because of the way we were set up i had to take her across the walk way to where we had set up a min hospital (including proffessional ambo's, st john nurses and a st john doctor). I took her straight in and asked quite plainly "does she normally take meth? has she taken what she normally takes? does she normally react like this?" ect and the male partner was quite open with his answers to myself, to the doctor, the nurses, the ambos. Guess who we DIDNT call and who wouldnt have attended if we did UNLESS WE WERE IN PHSYICAL DANGER.

She was one of about 6 or more cases of drug OD at that event i might point out and not one was arested.

The cops will NOT charge someone (With drug offenses i mean), even if they respond for whatever reason, even if there are people smoking BONG right there, if an ambulance has been called because they WANT people to seek medical aid if needed

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Upshot: There's apparently only one person in the state senate that thinks it does.

Washington is an extremely liberal state and Seattle is very soft on drugs. It looks like they're just trying to normalize their laws rather than have laws on the books that are not enforced.

You have to be careful about drawing conclusions from one dissenting vote. For one thing, that's rather remarkable unanimity. Even in California there would be a few more curmudgeons trying to hang onto the old ways. People vote against a bill that they know is guaranteed to pass just to make a statement to some of their most influential constituents, i.e. the ones who contribute the most to their reelection campaign, even if they're wackos.

 

[Asguard]

Washington is an extremely liberal state and Seattle is very soft on drugs. It looks like they're just trying to normalize their laws rather than have laws on the books that are not enforced.

You have to be careful about drawing conclusions from one dissenting vote. For one thing, that's rather remarkable unanimity. Even in California there would be a few more curmudgeons trying to hang onto the old ways. People vote against a bill that they know is guaranteed to pass just to make a statement to some of their most influential constituents, i.e. the ones who contribute the most to their reelection campaign, even if they're wackos.

Interesting your parties dont seem to have as much control over there members as they do here (from your statement), "crossing the floor" (ie voting against your party) is a very big thing for a party member here (and in the english parliment). The procidures vary depending on the party, for instance in the British parlimentry parties you have to get the permission of the party whip which will only be given if it wont effect the passage of the bill, for the liberal party here you have tell the whip, then face the leader and then the party room and explain to each of them WHY you wont be surporting the party position (and for a cabinate minster or shadow minster it means loss of position on the front bench anyway) and im not sure on the procidures for labor. If the procidures arnt followed then it can mean expusion from the party (not the parliment but it basically means unless your REALLY personally popular loss of seat at the next election as the party runs another candate against you)

Back to this debate however, these laws have very little to do with drugs at all. In fact i wouldnt expect arest rates to go down by more than 1 person if that a year because of these sorts of changes. what WILL change is the death rates by OD and the number of Ambulance call outs for drug OD

 

[Tiassa]

One small thing ....

Washington is an extremely liberal state and Seattle is very soft on drugs. It looks like they're just trying to normalize their laws rather than have laws on the books that are not enforced.

Except that they do try to enforce it.

Monte Levine, a member of the Kitsap County Substance Abuse Advisory Board, says, "There is a balance of weighing personal fear over doing what is right and humane." A woman near Levine's Bremerton home had that fear become reality: "A person was overdosing and she called to save the person's life," he says. "She was arrested."

(Holden)​

And in the general case that Holden's article considered (the "Death in Edmonds"), it may well not have been the MDMA that sixteen year-old Danielle McCarthy.

It may have been easy to save Danielle McCarthy's life. "MDMA use in sufficient dose or under the right circumstances can be fatal, but that is very rare," explains Dr. Thomas Martin, of the Washington Poison Center and an associate professor at the University of Washington. "An overdose from two pills is very unlikely."

According to a statement issued February 5, the Snohomish County Medical Examiner's Office ruled that Danielle's official cause of death was acute intoxication of ecstasy. But McCarthy's toxicology report indicates she had a postmortem concentration of only 0.31 milligrams of MDMA per liter of blood. Although a handful of fatalities with MDMA in that concentration have been reported, that dose is generally considered nontoxic. (Other MDMA users have been documented with 20 times the concentration of MDMA found in Danielle's blood—and they exhibited only a hangover and hypertension.)

Danielle's toxicology report also showed slight presence of MDA, a drug very similar to MDMA, and caffeine. This indicates the pills she consumed were not completely pure, which, in pills sold as ecstasy, is very common.

But unreleased portions of Danielle's toxicology report reveal something unusual: a high level of ketones, acids produced by the body when it breaks down fat for energy, and glucose at 500 milligrams per deciliter in Danielle's urine. (Information regarding the toxicology report was provided to The Stranger by a confidential source.)

If this information is accurate, Danielle McCarthy may have been suffering from undiagnosed diabetes. "This presentation of a very high glucose level and high levels of ketones could have been due to a complication of undiagnosed diabetes known as diabetic ketoacidosis," says Martin.

(ibid)​

Good thing for prosecutors I'm nowhere near the juries on this one. That's acquittal for everyone, right there.
____________________

Notes:

Holden, Dominic. "A Death in Edmonds". The Stranger. January 8, 2008. TheStranger.com. February 9, 2010. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=474219

 

[Asguard]

Except that they do try to enforce it.

Monte Levine, a member of the Kitsap County Substance Abuse Advisory Board, says, "There is a balance of weighing personal fear over doing what is right and humane." A woman near Levine's Bremerton home had that fear become reality: "A person was overdosing and she called to save the person's life," he says. "She was arrested."

(Holden)​

And in the general case that Holden's article considered (the "Death in Edmonds"), it may well not have been the MDMA that sixteen year-old Danielle McCarthy.

It may have been easy to save Danielle McCarthy's life. "MDMA use in sufficient dose or under the right circumstances can be fatal, but that is very rare," explains Dr. Thomas Martin, of the Washington Poison Center and an associate professor at the University of Washington. "An overdose from two pills is very unlikely."

According to a statement issued February 5, the Snohomish County Medical Examiner's Office ruled that Danielle's official cause of death was acute intoxication of ecstasy. But McCarthy's toxicology report indicates she had a postmortem concentration of only 0.31 milligrams of MDMA per liter of blood. Although a handful of fatalities with MDMA in that concentration have been reported, that dose is generally considered nontoxic. (Other MDMA users have been documented with 20 times the concentration of MDMA found in Danielle's blood—and they exhibited only a hangover and hypertension.)

Danielle's toxicology report also showed slight presence of MDA, a drug very similar to MDMA, and caffeine. This indicates the pills she consumed were not completely pure, which, in pills sold as ecstasy, is very common.

But unreleased portions of Danielle's toxicology report reveal something unusual: a high level of ketones, acids produced by the body when it breaks down fat for energy, and glucose at 500 milligrams per deciliter in Danielle's urine. (Information regarding the toxicology report was provided to The Stranger by a confidential source.)

If this information is accurate, Danielle McCarthy may have been suffering from undiagnosed diabetes. "This presentation of a very high glucose level and high levels of ketones could have been due to a complication of undiagnosed diabetes known as diabetic ketoacidosis," says Martin.

(ibid)​

Good thing for prosecutors I'm nowhere near the juries on this one. That's acquittal for everyone, right there.
____________________

Notes:

Holden, Dominic. "A Death in Edmonds". The Stranger. January 8, 2008. TheStranger.com. February 9, 2010. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=474219

wow, thats rare. I have never herd of anyone actually dying from a hyperglycimic event before. Hypos yes because the onset is so rapid but a hyper is slow, it takes weeks for a person to get to the unconcious stage with that. Its more likly to cause other problems such as loss of limbs ect

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

In the USA, prosecutors, courts & legislatures are much less interested in saving lives than in persecuting people.