Interesting tidbit on Rx drugs and this dangerous behavior

While the mental health issues need to be addressed be extremely skeptical of this. In tyrannies, such as soviet Russia the state's method to eliminate opposition is to diagnose them as being mentally ill. Then off to the rubber rooms never to be heard from again. Also remember the administration objected to having a court hearing to declare a veteran unable to possess a firearm; instead some bureaucrat will do it.

It will be a very bad day when they "try" and take away Vet's guns for no reason..[shithitsfan]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

IMHO restricting firearms due to a prescription of a "psychotrophic" drug being issued is hilarious. One of the most commonly written psychotrophic drugs issued is Ambien for sleep aid. I don't think I honestly know of a household where someone be it a mom, dad, sister, brother, etc doesn't have someone with a script for ambien. Once they have a foothold there they'll move to the anti psychotics... Which already has a stigma associated with it. When in reality different drugs can serve different purposes. For example there are SEVERAL drugs that are meant at high doses to control multiple personality disorders, but at low doses can control things like anxiety and are issued often to control anxiety. We could also look at other drugs that are meant to control schritzophrenea in high doses but in VERY LOW doses only affect certain receptors so that drug became a great sleep aid. Don't even get me started on off label uses for drugs that have a stigma attached to them. Most drugs that were "developed" for something are actually used to treat something else. Cough VIAGRA originally developed for angina now marketed for boners and a lot of body builders use it for it's vascularity.

They would have EVERYONES firearms within a month.

---

yeah, I'm going to call BS on that one- they won't have mine, none of those scripts in this house- perhaps if they carried some kind of consequences meant to protect yourselves and society, then people would take them more seriously. There are LOTS of people that don't buy into big Pharma, and don't run to the doctor for every issue... I like sex as a treatment for insomnia, for example. [Coffee]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byte Stryke

Mine.
If its stronger than an Excedrin Migraine, you better have a bone sticking out.

I believe that we as a society have become so dependent on the instant gratification promised by psuedo-scientific pharmacies that we have cast ourselves into a chemical dependent state.
Then we wonder why our over medicated children kill themselves and others. We have lost our way as a society, as a people and we have lost our common sense. Everything is me, mine, Now, Immediate relief, instant.
I am not saying its all Pharma's fault, I don't want to wind up like john Noveske. I am saying that we managed to survive for thousands of years without Paxil, Zoloft, Ritalin and all of the other garbage
Following 2 years of sporadic employment, I moved to Georgia, a Job on the other side of the country, on that same day I lost my Father to Agent Orange complications. I could not be there when he was Interred. My Brother was Diagnosed with Hotchkins Lymphoma a few months later.
I mourned, I prayed, I Sought my strength from within as my Father taught me.

I didn't run to a pill.

I haven't killed anything more substantial than a sheet of paper or cardboard.




Return to the earth, she will provide. Seek moderation and balance in all things.

---

Very well put- if they want to give you a 'script for a psychotropic, then ask a simple question- "what test have you done to determine this will treat the problem?" and if that fails, how about "what test will you do to determine whether it's working correctly, yet the other EFFECTS (some call them side effects) are under control?"

They simply don't have tests for these drugs in either case above, they don't have a scientific method to determine how well they're working, and what else they're doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CO Hugh

While the mental health issues need to be addressed be extremely skeptical of this. In tyrannies, such as soviet Russia the state's method to eliminate opposition is to diagnose them as being mentally ill. Then off to the rubber rooms never to be heard from again. Also remember the administration objected to having a court hearing to declare a veteran unable to possess a firearm; instead some bureaucrat will do it.

---

Agreed, which is why I'm on the fence about this suggestion- I think it very well could curb some violent events (or at least the violent murders would be committed with other objects they have easy access to) The problem to me seems to be the whole psychiatric system doesn't have accountability or morals to police themselves- so it's time to police them somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brokenscout

It will be a very bad day when they "try" and take away Vet's guns for no reason..[shithitsfan]

---

Why limit this to veterinarians? [LOL]
Seriously, there are plenty of citizens that will not go quietly into the good night.
(I do see that you were using the context of CO hugh... that has already happened on an individual basis)

While we all appreciate your service, further division isn't what we need... [Beer]

I know there is a large "anti big pharma" movement and I know there are certainly side effects to certain drugs that I think shouldn't have been approved due to the side effects. But the reality is... Drugs are good. The life expectancy in the 60's was what 70's? Now it's in the 90's? ish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I know there is a large "anti big pharma" movement and I know there are certainly side effects to certain drugs that I think shouldn't have been approved due to the side effects. But the reality is... Drugs are good. The life expectancy in the 60's was what 70's? Now it's in the 90's? ish?

---

SOME drugs are good- some are dangerous...some are just re-cycled (renamed) after their patents expire... just watching TV, and besides the prolific drug commercials is the lawyers telling you that you may have a case to sue after side effects from drugs.

I'd like a source that states ANY lengthened life from Psychotropic drugs... I don't generalize, there are Staten drugs, for example that will lower cholesterol- but there are TESTS that can be done before and after to OBSERVE the effects directly! That is why I provided the litmus test to warn of drug danger- for me, no test, no 'script.

Watch the video (not the trailer), and note that the sources they are using are Psychiatrists, former Drug sales reps, etc... people that were IN the industry!

When dealing with the brain you just can't predict what someone might do. Say someone is having suicidal thoughts? There is a chance that person could actually commit suicide. There is also a chance that if a person is put on something that has shown to suppress those suicidal thoughts might make them not commit suicide. There is also the chance that what worked on one person may not suppress the thoughts but amplify them.

(I'm not a doctor or a pharmacist) But just off the top of my head there is gabapentin which is used to control seizures (among other uses)... Since you can have a stroke while you have a seizure surely one could argue that it possibly lengthened the life of a person by preventing a stroke. (Yes I realize that a stroke may not kill you, but it can, and it can also turn you into a vegetable for the rest of your life) However, as it helps control seizures you're not going to have that data point because well the seizure never happened.

There's also disulfiram which is used for alcoholics. One could argue by stopping an alcoholic from ruining their life and liver that they have a better chance at living a longer life. However, again that data point doesn't exist so there is no data.

How come all these mental defectives (derogatory term used to illustrate a point) aren't capable to possess a firearm yet nothing else is off limits to include their 1st amendment right (comparing it to rights), their ability to procreate, their ability to vote (and other things that should require demonstrated sound mind) and even legally operating a motor vehicle on public roadways? Seems to me with all this crazy going around we're going to have to start to restrict most freedoms to keep us all 'safe'. Or, and I know this is a foreign idea to most these days, what if we just not focus so much on how to protect everyone from themselves and everyone else and focus on doing what is necessary and legal to protect ourselves from these people who would do us harm, either intentionally or otherwise? When I drive I always watch everyone around me and assume everyone is drunk, sleeping, texting, making an omlette or whatever. This has kept me accident-free even though I exercise civil disobedience to traffic laws I feel are silly on a daily basis. I just don't subscribe to the idea that more restrictions and complications make the world a safer place for all those inhabiting it. If a family is dumb enough to leave guns out around children, those untrained or those otherwise incapable of understanding then they will be visited by the tragedy fairy and their genes will be kept from further contaminating the gene pool. Being alive is dangerous. Smart people tend to do everything within their power to minimize those dangers. Stupid people expect others to do it for them.

Less laws. More freedom.

Something unrelated that struck me as being somewhat familiar from a statistical standpoint that's in the news right now: Did you know that the suicide rate for retired professional football players going back several decades is LOWER than the national average among adults in America? You don't hear that too much though do you? We just hear how violent the sport is from the media and how it needs to be nerfed. Whatever. Anything to make a story. Don't give away all of our liberties to save a couple dozen people a year or life won't even be worth living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

How come all these mental defectives (derogatory term used to illustrate a point) aren't capable to possess a firearm yet nothing else is off limits to include their 1st amendment right (comparing it to rights), their ability to procreate, their ability to vote (and other things that should require demonstrated sound mind) and even legally operating a motor vehicle on public roadways? Seems to me with all this crazy going around we're going to have to start to restrict most freedoms to keep us all 'safe'. Or, and I know this is a foreign idea to most these days, what if we just not focus so much on how to protect everyone from themselves and everyone else and focus on doing what is necessary and legal to protect ourselves from these people who would do us harm, either intentionally or otherwise? When I drive I always watch everyone around me and assume everyone is drunk, sleeping, texting, making an omlette or whatever. This has kept me accident-free even though I exercise civil disobedience to traffic laws I feel are silly on a daily basis. I just don't subscribe to the idea that more restrictions and complications make the world a safer place for all those inhabiting it. If a family is dumb enough to leave guns out around children, those untrained or those otherwise incapable of understanding then they will be visited by the tragedy fairy and their genes will be kept from further contaminating the gene pool. Being alive is dangerous. Smart people tend to do everything within their power to minimize those dangers. Stupid people expect others to do it for them.

---

Common sense isn't very common anymore, but it's okay because Government will tell us all what to think, say, and do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brokenscout

It will be a very bad day when they "try" and take away Vet's guns for ANY reason..[shithitsfan]

---

Edited for accuracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clint45

Common sense isn't very common anymore, but it's okay because Government will tell us all what to think, say, and do.

---

Bingo.