The epidemic of opioid drug overdoses has spread so widely that at two of The Day's first three legislative election debates, candidates have mentioned that a family member has been a victim. That's two of six, or a sampling of one-third. Another candidate is campaigning on the basis of his family's experience.

It has spread so fast and so deeply that some local school districts are stocking the rescue drug, naloxone, in the school nurse's office. Families are keeping doses of the drug at home in case a son or daughter or mother or father suddenly needs it.

All of these citizens are willing to do what they can to save a life, even though a dose of naloxone, or Narcan, can cause a violent or unpleasant reaction as the patient regains consciousness.

So why wouldn't police officers, sworn to protect and serve, be equipped and trained to do the same? In Connecticut, they are about to be required to do so, when a new law takes effect Oct. 1.

Yet the president of the Montville police officers' union is raising objections to the idea of town officers carrying naloxone and administering it if they are the first at the scene of an overdose.

Some of the objections raised by union president Robin Salvatore are reasonable, and the solutions for them have been found by other departments in the two years since it became clear to public safety and public health officials that this is no ordinary drug use. Some of her objections carry less weight.

The answer to all of them is: Police save lives. Wouldn't a cop apply a tourniquet to stop bleeding at an accident scene, or do the Heimlich maneuver on a choking victim in a restaurant? Is there a difference? None that holds up as reasonable.

If, as the union head says, the concern is for officers' safety, training should take care of that. Trainers have taught first responders not to fear exposure to naloxone, which acts only to block opioids and is not toxic to them. If it's legal liability that raises concern, the law continues to protect officers and others from civil or criminal prosecution in connection with giving the drug.

If the concern is proper training, Montville's resident state trooper, Sgt. Mark Juhola, has been working to get certification for any officers who do not have it. And while that is urgent, with the law that requires it about to go into effect, a department acting in good faith will surely have the time it needs.

If the concern is cost, the town can make its own decision about priorities: Saving a life is priceless. Other departments have said the costs were not exorbitant.

Objections that this is the job of others, whether firefighters or family members or anyone else, sound weak and undoubtedly do not reflect the attitudes of dedicated officers who would step in and save anyone they could from any peril.

During the unfolding of this crisis, which has swelled in the past few years because of addiction to prescription painkillers, families of victims took a bold step at the most painful time in their lives and began revealing a secret that had always been too shameful to admit: that a loved one had died from the effects of drug abuse. Heroically, they changed public perception to see this as a horrible illness that warrants treatment, not incarceration nor shame and certainly not death.

With all the reasonable objections addressed, why is administering naloxone any different from performing CPR or giving first aid?

Certainly it must not be because of any lingering blame that an overdose is the victim's own fault. That would be the wrong response.