I just wonder why some people don't just open up another window, and do a quick search before they "flame" someone. Or do facts just mess up ones fun?
Posted on 09/25/2002 1:20:28 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:09:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
April 29, 1999 Web posted at: 4:22 p.m. EDT (2022 GMT)
(CNN) -- Reports surfaced Wednesday that one of the gunmen in the Littleton, Colorado, school shooting, Eric Harris, was rejected by Marine Corps recruiters days before the Columbine High School massacre because he was under a doctor's care and had been prescribed an anti-depressant medication.
Harris' prescription was for Luvox, an anti-depressant medication commonly used to treat patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
It is one of a class of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). Other SSRIs are Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft. Prozac is the most commonly prescribed anti-depressant in the United States.
Serotonin is a chemical released in the brain that can affect mood and behavior. SSRIs work by enhancing the brain's ability to use serotonin.
These drugs are typically tested for safety and efficacy in adults but are also widely prescribed to children and teen-agers. Doctors make dosage adjustments based on the patient's weight.
Luvox is generally prescribed to patients whose obsessions or compulsions cause them distress, consume time, or interfere with their daily activities.
American Psychiatric Association President Dr. Rodrigo Munoz said there is no specific link between these drugs and violent behavior.
"Despite a decade of research, there is little valid evidence to prove a causal relationship between the use of anti-depressant medications and destructive behavior. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that undiagnosed and untreated mental illness exacts a heavy toll on those who suffer from these disorders, as well as those around them," Munoz said.
It is not known if Harris actually took the medication, and investigators said Wednesday early toxicology tests performed by the medical examiner's office showed no evidence of drugs or alcohol in the body of either gunman, Harris or Dylan Klebold.
"The final reports from the coroner have not been made and given to us. However, like I've said, I'll have to revert to what they told us about the toxicology reports earlier, and that is that there weren't any drugs or alcohol in the blood, and, once again, I didn't hear her say illegal drugs or legal drugs," Jefferson County Sheriff's spokesman Steve Davis said.
LUVOX FACTS Luvox is an anti-depressant most commonly prescribed to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder.
It is one of a class of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI).
The drug works by interacting with a chemical in the brain called serotonin, which affects mood.
A young child (under 7 or 8) doesn't even understand their own behavior, how can they understand their parents?
Can you see how and when what I wrote does apply? A parent can tell, or even forbid their child from smoking and drinking, yet ultimately it is by the child's own authority that he or she decides to drink or smoke.
A government on the other hand shouldn't even be sending messages that it is bad to drink or smoke. That's not what the tax dollars are supposed to be used for. And certainly the government shouldn't prohibit smoking and drinking on private property.
The government-school educators shouldn't be telling parent's that their kids should (in some cases must) be on Ritalin. Not to mention the school shouldn't be in the education "business" in the first place.
When I was a young child I questioned all kinds of supposed higher authorities. Some of the most loved and respected higher authorities were my parents.
A young child often looks to their parents as they work their innocent little minds toward accurately identifying reality. Often they look up to their parents to verify whether what their little mind is identifying is reality or not. You're right, young innocent minds don't yet have the experience to rely on their own mind to make many important distinctions.
The parent holds a great responsibility in fostering in the child the skill and ability to use their growing little mind to identify reality on their own. That is called encouraging the development of self-authority. Unfortunately, many parents unknowingly sabotage that process by injecting mysticism into the innocent little mind of their own children. Telling the child that certain non-realties are real. I'm talking about flying reindeer with fat man in tow -- Santa Clause, the tooth fairy and Easter bunny.
I never thought badly of my parents for doing that to me. When I did figure out the flying-Santa-Clause lie (five years old but almost six) -- since those that loved me most and wanted the best for me didn't know any better -- that I best not just out-of-hand trust what another person says is reality.
For me, I figured it out while looking out the window of an airplane while talking off from the East coast and five hours later looking out the window as we were approaching the airport on the West coast. My little mind integrated reality of time, space and distance. I successfully identified reality. I never did ask my parents why they told me that Santa Clause could fly, instead, I trusted my oldest sister (five years older) to explain the reason why. I then thought for myself whether her answer was satisfactory to my sense of reality. It did.
Teenagers. Some young teenagers have enough confidence in their own authority, others don't. For example, it happens when drug Czar John Walters says that "marijuana is as harmful as heroin". Kids try smoking marijuana and say, "well that wasn't bad. In fact it was fun, so heroin can't be any worse -- I'll try that." That's one of the really bad aspect of relying on bogus higher authorities rather than ones own authority. The young teenager that is confident in his or her own authority can make the distinctions and dismiss John Walters and peer pressure and chose not to do any drugs.
I just wonder why some people don't just open up another window, and do a quick search before they "flame" someone. Or do facts just mess up ones fun?
It's not hard to read between the lines
.....and what event 2,300 years caused to world to be taken in by this so-called hoax?
Yes; many radio stations hire and pay their local Howard Stern wannabe. Just don't push it too far, a la the late unlamented "Opie & Anthony".
...now you weren't supposed to bring that up!
See, here's the scoop: For people who do NOT need ritalin, it acts as a stimulant. For people who DO need ritalin, it does not. This is similar to the effects of other drugs, such as pain-killers. For people who are NOT in pain, narcotic pain-killers have intoxicating effects. For people who ARE in pain, those effects are minimized.
Like most scientific, medical, health, global-warming issues, there are arguements, and opinions on both or all sides of the debate.
On the very search you proffered, you ignored web sites that disprove your thesis:
Nothing has been disproved, just another opinion or research that draws a preconcieved conclusion.We can post opposing research back and forth all day, but what is the point. The reality is that Ritalin being prescribed willy nilly has got to stop!!!
I can agree with that; however, Ritalin is not cocaine to those people who do need it. I just want to point that out.
OTOH, drugs that are properly prescribed do not make for drug addicts.
I did not see a reason to quote research that has to do with injecting ritalin, since this thread was previously about taking ritalin by pill. The link I gave had to do with taking a reasonable dose of it by pill, as I do.
If one really looks at the JAMA article fairly, one will conclude that it has ammunition in it for both sides. Volkow does say that there is a chemical similarity between when cocaine does and what ritalin does. It is not clear, but appears that she does, with unstated or no evidence, believe her research on injectable ritalin to have some application to the pill form. On the other hand, she says that the effect of injectable ritalin is different for a person with ADD than for a normal person, and links that difference to concrete brain tranport chemistry. Thus, if you believe this JAMA article, there is an actual physically measureable chemical difference in the brains of correctly diagnosed ADD people -- it is not just a personality thing, as claimed by ritalin opponents.
So is Volkow's imaging research. Her study subjects took ORAL doses of Ritalin.
You're trying very hard to draw a distinction between the two stimulants. That's your right, but you should stick to the facts.
In terms of how the two drugs act on the brain, the facts suggest there's little difference beyond dosage, method of administration, and who makes the money.
Equally obvious: You are not a medical doctor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.