Meanwhile trump is trying to just kill easy access to Narcan to save people.
So I'm sure in a few years we'll see numbers climb again.
this post was submitted on 18 May 2025
226 points (95.9% liked)
Uplifting News
15067 readers
189 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
“Some people are just bad” is a core conservative belief. They don’t believe in harm reduction for drug addicts. In fact they want the harm to happen, and ideally for it to be fatal. Because these people are bad, so let’s get rid of them.
They have the same mentality about criminal justice. Some people are just bad - criminals. Give them the death penalty. They don’t want to talk about rehabilitation or small improvements to the recidivism rate. Some people are just bad, they think, so lock em up and throw away the key.
Of course, most conservatives have either done drugs or committed a crime, but the whole “some people are just bad” concept never applies to themselves in their own minds. Because some people are just good too, and doing bad things doesn’t change that.
So, conveniently, they themselves can get away with any kind of wrongdoing, forever. But a single transgression by another person is a good justification to simply end their fucking life.
It’s such hypocritical, violent, hateful mentality. Humans have succeeded as a species by coming together and looking after one another. This mentality is positively inhuman.
Some people are just bad…
But it’s never themselves just wanting addicts to die, breaking up immigrant families, or wanting to enact violence on anyone who disagrees with them.
Because these people are bad, so let’s get rid of them.
Rush Limbaugh was an addict, I'd at least like to have gotten rid of him off the airwaves when his habit got out of hand (circa turn of the century...)
For a long time he topped my list of people I’d love to get rid of. Just not because of his addiction.
Going back to Reagan's presidency, when he encouraged the spread of AIDS, and discouraged any research. The general thought was that it was spread behaviorally, so all they had to do to end AIDS, was stop the behavior (gay sex).
If it’s a family member or loved one who commits a crime, they’re “misguided” or “have a good heart”.
I worked for a medium sized refrigeration contractor company. The owner's son was a massive opiate and coke addict and kept stealing equipment, embezzling and had no less than 2 ODs on company property.
The second time I was tasked to bring him his new phone in the hospital as he had sold his original one for the drugs he overdosed on.
I sat there and synched it up to his SIM and got to watch all the texts from his family pour in
All about 'our little druggie boy' and wishing him quick recovery and the most gentle and humorous of chiding
Two weeks before they had fired my friend, a single father, for testing positive for weed
Guess who the owner voted for
Oh, they know drug addicts are nobody you want to pay money to - just look at what a useless pile of nothing their little druggie boy is.
Yes and God will help! The second they get into mixed territory like that, they run to religion for help. “Love the sinner” blah blah. Just don’t ask them to be a good Christian to immigrants and prisoners, like Christ said to.
They say "God, Family, Country" but it runs more like "Self, Family, Self, Self, God, Self, Self, Self, Country as long as it doesn't inconvenience: Self."
That’s a good way of putting it. Honestly, Christianity is incompatible with the “family / country” part. Christians are supposed to sell everything they own and help the poor, not hoard it for their own. And “country?” Jesus couldn’t give a shit for countries.
I’ve had people (family) argue that drug use increases crime, and by providing things like safe injection sites or narcan you’re encouraging more drug use and inviting more crime by removing the consequences.
they're not completely wrong, but wishing death upon people is still utterly insane
They're more wrong than right. The illegality of drugs is a huge part of why it leads to crime.
How many alcoholics do you see busting car windows at 3am to steal something to pawn for a six pack?
This was one of Rush Limbaugh's biggest drug talking points, one that he pushed again and again
All while secretly addicted to opiates
I guarantee you his rhetoric led to preventable deaths
The hypocrisy of the modern repugnican party is grounds for violence
his rhetoric led to preventable deaths
Eventually including his own, barely age 70 - no amount of money could stretch him to an average lifespan.
What’s the counterargument for it? Or do I just nod and smile
If you have a connection with that person, over time it may be possible to shift their position
A random stranger on the street? Smile and walk away as soon as possible
For non-MAGA people, the statistics on the drop of preventable deaths are usually enough to convince. Unfortunately MAGA is immune to statistics, or secretly are glad the 'trash is being taken out'
Oversimplified foolishness isn’t really what I’d call a core conservative value. It’s more just the way they roll. They roll based on their gut feelings 99.9% of the time.
this is very well put! thanks for saying it so succinctly
Yeah all that is or already was in the chopping block and on it's way to the chipper.
Good. They don't need narcan.
They need a healthy diet, the power of God, and a $20,000-40,000/month rehab clinic.
Hell, instead of sending kids to high school with our failing public education system, why don't we send them straight to rehab? The debt they accrue will motivate them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get a job at the factory
Good. They don't need narcan.
I get it's sarcasm, but yeah you don't need narcan if you don't do drugs. People told you drugs are bad for a reason, and we should be providing aid to the people already addicted and suffering, not to some kid fresh out of high school who thinks narcan is gonna make him invincible
*deletes angry reply
Very nice
If anybody is thinking of downvoting the above comment, they’re being sarcastic to highlight the point.
The fact that this needs to be pointed out makes me sad. I remember a time when it would have been obvious. There was a time when if someone said something over the top, and absurd, it was known to be sarcasm.
Now we have a president who says things like "THEY'RE EATING THE CATS AND DOGS!!!" and a large, maybe even majority, percent of the population just nod and accept it as fact. Because despite being 100% false, it was said with the intention to be treated as fact.
This is just one example, but this is how society is now. People just saying the dumbest shit, and others nodding along.
So when a comment like that is posted, a lot of people WON'T get the sarcasm, because there ARE people who would legitimately say these things. So now it needs to be pointed out.
We live in the dumbest timeline.
What i appreciate about Lemmy is usually not needing to include the /s.
You never need to, unless you're afraid of internet points
“Fuck em” - MAGA cucks
Weird this billionaire owned news source is telling us this just as we ended the Narcan program, shifting the tide back in the bad direction again
Because, as the article mentions, the overdose deaths figures were just released? The article also mentions the budget you're referring to—which hasn't passed yet—and has a link to an article exactly about that aspect.
The last batch of figures showed the same thing months ago.
This trend was already shifting. Showing these stats right as we make changes that will negatively effect them feels disingenuous
This trend was already shifting
Without the complete provisional data through the years' end, Vox could not conclude that "some 27,000 fewer Americans died of a drug overdose in 2024 than in 2023. That year-on-year drop is the steepest single-year decline since the government first began keeping track of overdose deaths 45 years ago. It means that drug deaths are now finally coming back down to pre-pandemic levels — and that we can make progress on what can seem like the most intractable social ills."
right as we make changes
The proposed budget has not passed yet. A headline mentioning "Naloxone program that turned tide on overdoses cut by new budget" will go out if/once it passes with that provision, and it cannot go out before, since otherwise the changes haven't been made and there's a chance it won't. Like I've mentioned, a linked article already discusses how the budget provision will cut naloxone programs more.
disingenuous
How is it misrepresenting anything? The entire article is about the precise narcan program methods the article attributes the success to with a clear message that it should continue and is being threatened by the proposed budget.
Hey, look over here!!!!
shank