But surely if EVERYONE refused to use the self checkout, piled into line for the cashier lanes, and made sure to take their business to the first stores to hire more cashiers, then that would have an effect on employment.

That's unlikely, but stores don't dictate everything regardless of consumer preference. There are tons of things stores might like to do which customers wouldn't put up with, and at least a handful of businesses folding to consumer sentiment and changing their plans.

So one person going through self checkout doesn't cost a job exactly. But everyone accepting the shift to self checkout IS costing jobs. Just like one person doesn't appoint the president, but the way everyone votes DOES.

The user I was replying to was complaining that it was so freely available without prescription. There are very good reasons that people who are addicted, but because of the stigmatization and legal consequences are afraid to tell a medical provider, or don't have access to doctor visits, should still have access to narcan. There are very good reasons why people who are NOT addicted but for various reasons may encounter an overdosing person need access.

My point is that there are very good reasons to not require a prescription. And that more lives are saved by not requiring a prescription for narcan.

Think this through.

>If you forget to pack one for your kid on vacation, should you need to see a doctor to get one?

You don't need to. You can have your doctor's office send the prescription to a local pharmacy.

What diagnoses would you expect someone to get to have narcan prescribed?

Maybe, but from a practical standpoint, conditions treatable by epi pen are long term issues that people will bring up with a doctor.

Headaches don't involve doctor visits and it would be prohibitive to simple treatment to require one.

There's no perfect harm elimination, there is a balancing of factors.

But it brings attention to the group and their antics, not to climate policy.