Nicholas:

Not being an MD or Ph.D., even a BA, in biology or chemistry, the following has occurred to me. The brother of a former woman boss is a Pharm.D, or doctor of pharmacy.  I have no idea if there is such a degree. She told me that her brother was somethng of a specialist in helping patients overcome allergies to medication. He would apparently give them such a small amount of the allergin, that the med would neither help nor hurt (kill) them. Eventually, the patient would reportedly develop an immunity to what was initially allergic to them. I don't know enough chemistry or human physiology to agree or deny her statements, or even what a pharm.D. is .

Her story sounds lots like the vaccine given to people, provokes the cell to produce anti bodies to fight a virus or bacteria.  Give the person a small amount of the harm, and the body produces anti bodies. Perhaps the SDPD cop was so hypersensitive to fentanyl, that a whiff of it would get to him??  So how small a dose of the drug would be required to help him develop immunity or desensitivity?  I have no idea.

Michael M. Kazanjian 

On Sunday, August 15, 2021, 10:27:33 AM CDT, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks for the comment Michael,

I definitelly understand your perspective, everyone has aversions and other sensitivities from mild sensory discomfort or some vague off-putting feeling to nauseas, panicky and more moderate reactions (but still very transient), to full blown allergic reactions with potential severe and fatal consequences. These are certainly respectable, though highly individualized and if it is what is actually portrayed in the SDPD video then I could understand someone, even a cop, becoming so nervous at being exposed to fentanyl that they faint (I believe the video purported them to be doing a field test so the substance would have been directly handled while wearing gloves), I think the article even mentions the officer has a history of fainting or some related condition. If that's all this is then that's fine obviously it was a mishap that went viral. The issue in this particular case is that this argument is being used to walk back the clear initial argument made by a police officer in the video where he alludes to mere exposure (not ingestion) to fentanyl being potentially fatal and seriously dangerous. The video also appears quite disingenuous in their claims and reactions (they're clearly police officers and not actors), so aesthetically it feels very fake and in that sense somewhat insulting to people who may be for whatever reason actually considering using a substance that is often cut with fentanyl or is known to lead to addiction to substances often cut with fentanyl. 

This is, to me, a perfect example of the antiquated modernist institutional agendas, in this case of the "Don't do drugs" or "Just say no" variety. Not that I'm advocating drug use, I'm not, but this highlights how clearly out of touch modernist and postmodernist agendas and missions are even when the agendas are similar (i.e., postmodernists wants to end opioid addiction just as much, if not more, than modernists). 

Regards,

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.


On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 1:45 PM michael kazanjian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Nicholas and All:

Nicholas, we spoke once via zoom.  I am not qualified at this time address this incident/situation with SDPD.  However, I can see that I deeply regret the legalization of marijuana, which could become a federal law. My regret includes the fact that, speaking of the SDPD officer near fatality via fentanyl,  when I am near someone smoking a joint, I get very sick, nauseaus. I enjoy the odor of cigars, cigarettes, alcohol (I could sleep in a bar without problems). But the odor from a joint gets me sick.  My point is that there may be a cop with SDPD who has a problem with fentanyl.

Indeed, a woman coworker once related to me she could not drink ice cold anything, including water, pop, something on the rocks, etc. One day it was almost 100 degrees outside, and I thought I would mess with her by pretending to take away a can of Coke from her desk. No sooner did I touch it, than I realized it was warm. She had bought it from the canteen, ice cold. She let it sit on the table for a hour or so to get warm. 

Another woman coworker saw me once scretching a rubber band ten feet away. She asked that I stop, because she was allergic to them.

I guess there is always someone, somewhere, who will have a reaction to something. May God help the baby born allergic to oxygen, air, water, etc.  This might be the physiological version of a phobia? I am allergic to liquid caffeine, but not embedded caffeine.

Best,

Michael M. Kazanjian

On Saturday, August 14, 2021, 10:04:05 AM CDT, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/10/police-touching-fentanyl/

Curious if anyone has another side to this story that's probably about at its peak coverage. 

If you haven't heard and don't want to read the article try watching the video online or embedded in the article. These Sand Diego PD officers claimed one nearly died after collapsed on camera when he was apparently "exposed" to fentanyl via touching the substance. 

Now sure if you touch a powder substance like that or have it in the air some of the substance will enter the body, but nowhere near a level that could be considered ingesting it, even something as powerful as fentanyl. Though this post was purported as truth, I haven't seen any argument to defend the legitimacy of the claims and based on everything I know and have heard from experts on substance abuse and poison/infection control this video is embarrassingly incorrect and in that way comes off as/feels to me almost insulting for how rudimentary and ludicrous the scare tactic is. 

I hope it's obvious but I want to be clear I'm not advocating fentanyl use or that PD's shouldn't be educating the community and families and youth in particular, but kids are much more 'street-wise' these days and this stunt reeks of a pretentious attitude toward those who may be afflicted with addictions or struggling with something like a mental health issue or chronic pain/recovery or for whatever other reason are considering the use of heroin or opiates (and thus risking exposure to substances cut with fentanyl). 

Law enforcement has known better, though still largely ineffective education programs (e.g., DARE), so why this? Because the video is a short, TikTok like style might make it more viral but not necessarily more trustworthy or even appealing.

If someone has a more informed opinion or knowledge about why SDPD went about this I'm curious to know because it just seems too stupid to be true the way it is. 

Regards,

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1