• ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    3 天前

    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.

    • Irremarkable@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 天前

      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.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 天前

      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,)