Forums » Off-Topic
America's Drug Problem
hello Erik :P
cant believe someone with a higher intelect like you would join digg a community mostly made up or 10 year old potheads
cant believe someone with a higher intelect like you would join digg a community mostly made up or 10 year old potheads
fooking brother logging on to Vo
It's extremely biased and deliberately provocative. Truths and half-truths mixed with a lot of assumptions and conjecture. It's impossible to draw useful conclusions regarding the boy's treatment from all that.
Digg iPhone Application
10/11/2007 The Digg iPhone application is a light and fast way to browse Digg. And it takes advantage of the user interface of iPhone and iPod touch.
one judges with the intelligence that one has ^^
Vive le Groland
10/11/2007 The Digg iPhone application is a light and fast way to browse Digg. And it takes advantage of the user interface of iPhone and iPod touch.
one judges with the intelligence that one has ^^
Vive le Groland
It's extremely biased and deliberately provocative.
This may be true. It is, however, still a highly accurate representation of the government's current attitude towards drugging children, and also of the repercussions.
I can tell you that much based on extensive experience.
If you actually look at many of the specific cases, and then research all of the drugs involved, you'll find it doesn't take a Ph.D in pharmacology to figure out that many of the drugs are being administered simply to counteract the side-effects of other drugs, and that in the majority of cases this is a very dangerous thing. There are several recorded deaths attributed to drug toxicity and overdose of drugs used to treat attention deficit and cyclothymic disorders in particular (to say nothing of the many deaths caused by long-term complications of the latent side effects), and many of the latent side effects are permanent in a staggeringly high percentage of long-term users (henceforth to be referred to as 'victims'). Many of the side effects are sympathetic or accumulative with the effects of the other psychotherapeutic drugs the victims are on, especially where they impact vital systems such as the heart, liver and CNS. Some of them, such as valproate semisodium, can be more harmful to the liver than a lifetime of chronic alcoholism, and can lead to morbid obesity in a matter of a few years.
The following is an archetypal scenario of an unlucky child, which I've seen happen in the past, and many others similar to it... could happen to anyone, really:
A victim, 'johnny Doe' (age 7, highly intelligent) is recommended for medication by the school faculty due to loss of concentration during a perfectly normal phase of life, such as a parent's divorce, loss of a relative or friend, or any number of other traumatic experiences.
The parents may resist the school's recommendation, but it's not likely to fly unless they have proper legal counsel and understand all the facts. Johnny's parents cave in easily once the school board threatens to have Johnny transferred to an 'alternative school' if he's not medicated.
Johnny's parents take him to a shrink, and come out 15 minutes later with a cookie-cutter diagnosis of ADHD and a prescription for Dextroamphetamine, one of many drugs commonly used to treat ADHD. After two weeks of administering the drug, there is no improvement to Johnny's concentration, so another prescription is given, this time for Methylphenidate (Ritalin). However, as time goes on, Johnny continually relapses, being met each time with an increase in dosage to counteract Johnny's acclimation to the drug. Eventually, Johnny lucks out and is taken off the drug before he reaches toxic levels and dies of an overdose, and is put on Venlafaxine instead. The Venlafaxine however causes Johnny to become instable, exhibiting mood swings. He is taken back to the shrink again where he is diagnosed with manic-depressive or bipolar disorder. He remains on the Venlafaxine, but has Valproate semisodium added to his daily drug regimen to treat the mood swings. It doesn't work, and more side-effects crop up. Over the course of the next 9 years, Johnny is taken back and forth between shrinks and alternative schools, diagnosed with no fewer than 3 other disorders, and administered several drugs on a trial-and-error basis, including Quetiapine, Gabapentin, Olanzapine, Paroxetine and Fluoxetine, each administered to generate a missing effect or counteract the side-effects of the last, and each as unsuccessful as the first. Throughout the course of all this medication, Johnny is sent into a downward spiral from which few ever recover. His manner changes completely - along the way he passes through phases during which he becomes becomes aggressive, violent, depressed, suicidal and vegetative. He is hospitalized twice, institutionalized once, and then taken away from his parents to spend the rest of his childhood years in a children's home for troubled kids, isolated from society and under 24/7 surveillance so the state can keep a watchful eye on his unsound behavior. He fails all of his classes in spite of his former mental capacity, and is finally released to a transitional home at the age of 18, with a 5th-grade education and in a nearly comatose state. He suffers through a worse case of withdrawal than most heroin addicts after his medical insurance runs out, and is left with virtually nothing to pick up what's left of his life on his own.
Johnny was lucky, because he survived, and went on to find a mediocre job and enter college to make up for his lost education. He is, however, still suffering from the long-term side effects of the drugs; he is now obese, a diabetic, and suffers from liver damage as well as mild bouts of amnesia. However, not everyone is as lucky as Johnny.
This may be true. It is, however, still a highly accurate representation of the government's current attitude towards drugging children, and also of the repercussions.
I can tell you that much based on extensive experience.
If you actually look at many of the specific cases, and then research all of the drugs involved, you'll find it doesn't take a Ph.D in pharmacology to figure out that many of the drugs are being administered simply to counteract the side-effects of other drugs, and that in the majority of cases this is a very dangerous thing. There are several recorded deaths attributed to drug toxicity and overdose of drugs used to treat attention deficit and cyclothymic disorders in particular (to say nothing of the many deaths caused by long-term complications of the latent side effects), and many of the latent side effects are permanent in a staggeringly high percentage of long-term users (henceforth to be referred to as 'victims'). Many of the side effects are sympathetic or accumulative with the effects of the other psychotherapeutic drugs the victims are on, especially where they impact vital systems such as the heart, liver and CNS. Some of them, such as valproate semisodium, can be more harmful to the liver than a lifetime of chronic alcoholism, and can lead to morbid obesity in a matter of a few years.
The following is an archetypal scenario of an unlucky child, which I've seen happen in the past, and many others similar to it... could happen to anyone, really:
A victim, 'johnny Doe' (age 7, highly intelligent) is recommended for medication by the school faculty due to loss of concentration during a perfectly normal phase of life, such as a parent's divorce, loss of a relative or friend, or any number of other traumatic experiences.
The parents may resist the school's recommendation, but it's not likely to fly unless they have proper legal counsel and understand all the facts. Johnny's parents cave in easily once the school board threatens to have Johnny transferred to an 'alternative school' if he's not medicated.
Johnny's parents take him to a shrink, and come out 15 minutes later with a cookie-cutter diagnosis of ADHD and a prescription for Dextroamphetamine, one of many drugs commonly used to treat ADHD. After two weeks of administering the drug, there is no improvement to Johnny's concentration, so another prescription is given, this time for Methylphenidate (Ritalin). However, as time goes on, Johnny continually relapses, being met each time with an increase in dosage to counteract Johnny's acclimation to the drug. Eventually, Johnny lucks out and is taken off the drug before he reaches toxic levels and dies of an overdose, and is put on Venlafaxine instead. The Venlafaxine however causes Johnny to become instable, exhibiting mood swings. He is taken back to the shrink again where he is diagnosed with manic-depressive or bipolar disorder. He remains on the Venlafaxine, but has Valproate semisodium added to his daily drug regimen to treat the mood swings. It doesn't work, and more side-effects crop up. Over the course of the next 9 years, Johnny is taken back and forth between shrinks and alternative schools, diagnosed with no fewer than 3 other disorders, and administered several drugs on a trial-and-error basis, including Quetiapine, Gabapentin, Olanzapine, Paroxetine and Fluoxetine, each administered to generate a missing effect or counteract the side-effects of the last, and each as unsuccessful as the first. Throughout the course of all this medication, Johnny is sent into a downward spiral from which few ever recover. His manner changes completely - along the way he passes through phases during which he becomes becomes aggressive, violent, depressed, suicidal and vegetative. He is hospitalized twice, institutionalized once, and then taken away from his parents to spend the rest of his childhood years in a children's home for troubled kids, isolated from society and under 24/7 surveillance so the state can keep a watchful eye on his unsound behavior. He fails all of his classes in spite of his former mental capacity, and is finally released to a transitional home at the age of 18, with a 5th-grade education and in a nearly comatose state. He suffers through a worse case of withdrawal than most heroin addicts after his medical insurance runs out, and is left with virtually nothing to pick up what's left of his life on his own.
Johnny was lucky, because he survived, and went on to find a mediocre job and enter college to make up for his lost education. He is, however, still suffering from the long-term side effects of the drugs; he is now obese, a diabetic, and suffers from liver damage as well as mild bouts of amnesia. However, not everyone is as lucky as Johnny.
I think that psychoactive medications should only be prescribed and managed by an experienced psychatrist - that would address many of the problems. Physicians who don't know these medications well should leave it to the professionals.
Most medications that actually do something have side effects of some sort. These can be controlled by dropping the dose, adding another medication to manage them if dropping the dose isn't therapeutic, or switching to another medication if the patient is especially sensitive.
See these side effects: "The most common side effects of [this medication] involve the gastrointestinal system and ringing in the ears. It can cause ulcerations, abdominal burning, pain, cramping, nausea, gastritis, and even serious gastrointestinal bleeding and liver toxicity. Sometimes, stomach ulceration and bleeding can occur without any abdominal pain. Black tarry stools, weakness, and dizziness upon standing may be the only signs of internal bleeding. Should ringing in the ears occur, the daily dose should be reduced. Rash, kidney impairment, vertigo, and lightheadedness can also occur." Pretty bad.
The issues with the school could happen if one is not familiar with their rights. In California, anyway, parents have a lot of power - if they know to wield it.
On the other hand, in a hospital setting, I've seen lives saved by psychiatric medication. I've also seen lives ruined by witholding psychiatric medication. I knew a kid who we begged to have medicated in the hospital, but his physician refused because he's read something in a book he wanted to try involving culturally-based cures. I still see the kid around - he's too far gone now.
Most medications that actually do something have side effects of some sort. These can be controlled by dropping the dose, adding another medication to manage them if dropping the dose isn't therapeutic, or switching to another medication if the patient is especially sensitive.
See these side effects: "The most common side effects of [this medication] involve the gastrointestinal system and ringing in the ears. It can cause ulcerations, abdominal burning, pain, cramping, nausea, gastritis, and even serious gastrointestinal bleeding and liver toxicity. Sometimes, stomach ulceration and bleeding can occur without any abdominal pain. Black tarry stools, weakness, and dizziness upon standing may be the only signs of internal bleeding. Should ringing in the ears occur, the daily dose should be reduced. Rash, kidney impairment, vertigo, and lightheadedness can also occur." Pretty bad.
The issues with the school could happen if one is not familiar with their rights. In California, anyway, parents have a lot of power - if they know to wield it.
On the other hand, in a hospital setting, I've seen lives saved by psychiatric medication. I've also seen lives ruined by witholding psychiatric medication. I knew a kid who we begged to have medicated in the hospital, but his physician refused because he's read something in a book he wanted to try involving culturally-based cures. I still see the kid around - he's too far gone now.
Whistler: That's a common side-effect label to NSAIDs. Aspirin, Ibuprofen, etc...
The difference is, that serious complications arising from the use of NSAIDs as perscribed are much more rare than serious to potentially life-threatening complications from the use of SNRIs, SSRIs, antipsychotics and stimulants.
While the main dangers of NSAIDs are interactions with other drugs such as alcohol, resulting in accelerated deterioration of the liver, or by overdose, and are relatively rare (almost everyone uses them - very few cases of unintentional poisoning or complications), mildly severe to dangerous complications can show in as many as 20-40% of people taking, for example, Effexor, an SNRI antidepressant. That's one in three people. If one in three people became even mildly ill after taking NSAIDs, you wouldn't be able to buy them.
A lot of antipsychotics also permanently damage the CNS with extended use. Once damage to the neural pathways sets in, it can never be reversed, and brain function is lost.
Part of what it boils down to is the therapeutic range of the drugs. Over the counter drugs such as NSAIDs and pain killers touch on the low end of that range, and the dosage never has to get high enough to pose any threat to the person using them. Psychoactive drugs on the other hand are used in much more extreme dosages in order to significantly alter the user's brain functions. That makes psychoactive drugs hundreds if not thousands of times more dangerous than painkillers.
If you're smart about drugs, do your research, use them responsibly and don't abuse them, you should never have any problems. For over the counter drugs, that means following the labels and using a bit of common sense. For psychoactive drugs, that means not taking them unless you have no other option.
The difference is, that serious complications arising from the use of NSAIDs as perscribed are much more rare than serious to potentially life-threatening complications from the use of SNRIs, SSRIs, antipsychotics and stimulants.
While the main dangers of NSAIDs are interactions with other drugs such as alcohol, resulting in accelerated deterioration of the liver, or by overdose, and are relatively rare (almost everyone uses them - very few cases of unintentional poisoning or complications), mildly severe to dangerous complications can show in as many as 20-40% of people taking, for example, Effexor, an SNRI antidepressant. That's one in three people. If one in three people became even mildly ill after taking NSAIDs, you wouldn't be able to buy them.
A lot of antipsychotics also permanently damage the CNS with extended use. Once damage to the neural pathways sets in, it can never be reversed, and brain function is lost.
Part of what it boils down to is the therapeutic range of the drugs. Over the counter drugs such as NSAIDs and pain killers touch on the low end of that range, and the dosage never has to get high enough to pose any threat to the person using them. Psychoactive drugs on the other hand are used in much more extreme dosages in order to significantly alter the user's brain functions. That makes psychoactive drugs hundreds if not thousands of times more dangerous than painkillers.
If you're smart about drugs, do your research, use them responsibly and don't abuse them, you should never have any problems. For over the counter drugs, that means following the labels and using a bit of common sense. For psychoactive drugs, that means not taking them unless you have no other option.
I think I pretty much covered that in fewer words - at least enough where you ought not to have felt compelled to preach to the choir. The point of bringing the side effects of aspirin in was to establish that one can throw around all sorts of scary-sounding side effects to discredit an otherwise useful drug.
Yes, antipsychotics can do CNS damage over time. So can psychotic episodes.
It looks like we agree, though, that medication has a place and is not inherently bad.
Yes, antipsychotics can do CNS damage over time. So can psychotic episodes.
It looks like we agree, though, that medication has a place and is not inherently bad.
I think we can agree on that, however I do think it is inherently bad that we are giving these drugs to roughly one in ten school children, and almost one third of the 'gifted' children. That makes the proliferation of these drugs and half-baked diagnoses a cancer to our society - we're drugging a large portion of our nation's brightest into a stupor and ruining their futures, and with them the future of our country.
If you base your actions off of predetermined thinking (or education), chances are you'll be right about half the time. Yes, of course there are times when those who 'should' have been medicated were not. And there were times when those who 'shouldn't' have were. But if the solution is to pull all the cases together, and then mathematically deduce which side is 'worse' for America, then we'll only end up over correcting again.
The only way to go about intelligently solving a problem is to use more detailed observation, and in that science is woefully behind. Rather, the majority medications I've seen seek to disable one's senses to one's own problems. Ahh, the mighty aspirin. Yet most people are comfortable with the idea that professionals know more about their living body from reading books, and slicing up cadavers.
I'd say that the most effective treatments we've developed are still the most barbaric ones, cutting someone open, physically looking inside, and taking out anything we don't like. Which is fine, it's a pretty concrete method, save for judging what we do or don't like. Hard to go wrong.
When we get to psychological 'illnesses' though, we start to move away from such beautiful concepts as the scientific method. Instead, we dabble into the murky depths of morality, from which no logical conclusions can emerge. It's hard to slip a camera into someone's personality, and every psychiatrist is bound to have their own view on what a human should or shouldn't do... that whole observation phase necessary to make anything more than random guesses at what's wrong starts to fade away. In light of that, we've turned yet again to a more barbaric method of testing drugs. We'll just take 'em, and see what happens! =D
Whether it's a conscious effort, or simply a propensity for self natural selection, I can't tell yet, but I do think you'd have to be a moron to start eating things because some stranger tells you it's 'good' for you; what's good for me is up to no one else but me, and believing anything less than that puts your life out of your control. Whether people 'should' be controlled, of course, is up to you. Arguably, anyone who lets themselves be controlled ought to be, so the process works out quite beautifully.
Oh yeah, and drugs are tested to the point of immediately noticeable effect. One dosage of Aspirin in your life will potentially cause a tummy ache. Chronic dosage probably eats through your stomach lining. Sure, the human body can adapt, but at what cost? Do you maybe have scars in your abdomen that you developed to help metabolism dangerous drugs? Who knows? We can't see, we can't prove anything, so the pharmaceutical companies (<--- entities who's prime responsibility is to make money, by the way) aren't held liable, until some study somewhere proves elsewise, at which point the drug in question is deemed unsafe, and we move on to repeat the process, coming ever closer to the perfect cocktail at the mere price of humans, which is a convenient way to curb the climbing human population anyways.
The only way to go about intelligently solving a problem is to use more detailed observation, and in that science is woefully behind. Rather, the majority medications I've seen seek to disable one's senses to one's own problems. Ahh, the mighty aspirin. Yet most people are comfortable with the idea that professionals know more about their living body from reading books, and slicing up cadavers.
I'd say that the most effective treatments we've developed are still the most barbaric ones, cutting someone open, physically looking inside, and taking out anything we don't like. Which is fine, it's a pretty concrete method, save for judging what we do or don't like. Hard to go wrong.
When we get to psychological 'illnesses' though, we start to move away from such beautiful concepts as the scientific method. Instead, we dabble into the murky depths of morality, from which no logical conclusions can emerge. It's hard to slip a camera into someone's personality, and every psychiatrist is bound to have their own view on what a human should or shouldn't do... that whole observation phase necessary to make anything more than random guesses at what's wrong starts to fade away. In light of that, we've turned yet again to a more barbaric method of testing drugs. We'll just take 'em, and see what happens! =D
Whether it's a conscious effort, or simply a propensity for self natural selection, I can't tell yet, but I do think you'd have to be a moron to start eating things because some stranger tells you it's 'good' for you; what's good for me is up to no one else but me, and believing anything less than that puts your life out of your control. Whether people 'should' be controlled, of course, is up to you. Arguably, anyone who lets themselves be controlled ought to be, so the process works out quite beautifully.
Oh yeah, and drugs are tested to the point of immediately noticeable effect. One dosage of Aspirin in your life will potentially cause a tummy ache. Chronic dosage probably eats through your stomach lining. Sure, the human body can adapt, but at what cost? Do you maybe have scars in your abdomen that you developed to help metabolism dangerous drugs? Who knows? We can't see, we can't prove anything, so the pharmaceutical companies (<--- entities who's prime responsibility is to make money, by the way) aren't held liable, until some study somewhere proves elsewise, at which point the drug in question is deemed unsafe, and we move on to repeat the process, coming ever closer to the perfect cocktail at the mere price of humans, which is a convenient way to curb the climbing human population anyways.
Forgive me if I sound like a broken record, as I did not read ALL the posts prior to this one.
I think however that America and doctors in general are treating children with more medicine than actually required. Every ten years or so, a new disease becomes the hip thing to diagnose, and in the 90's and following the Millenium, the hip one has been ADD or ADHD.
These increased diagnoses have led to a LOT of increased medication, and has made a Prozac or Ritalin nation, and frequently, to counter-act the side-effects of Ritalin or Prozac, docs also load up on a second or third drug.
Ultimately, the cycle will pass and some other new disease will be the great medical fad of 2010 or 2020 and we'll see a whole new problem.
I think however that America and doctors in general are treating children with more medicine than actually required. Every ten years or so, a new disease becomes the hip thing to diagnose, and in the 90's and following the Millenium, the hip one has been ADD or ADHD.
These increased diagnoses have led to a LOT of increased medication, and has made a Prozac or Ritalin nation, and frequently, to counter-act the side-effects of Ritalin or Prozac, docs also load up on a second or third drug.
Ultimately, the cycle will pass and some other new disease will be the great medical fad of 2010 or 2020 and we'll see a whole new problem.