Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:42:13 +1000, Brian Elliott wrote:
> 
>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>> news:47b5d140$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> Suppose that psychotic purchased the weapon prior to their break?
>>>
>>> Or they decided not to take their medications?
>> It seems you are closer than you were probably yet sure of.
> 
> It's a fairly common theme in shootings like this.  Similarly we had two 
> here in Salt Lake City over the last 10 years that were similar 
> situations - people who were on medication to deal with mental 
> instabilities who owned weapons prior to their diagnosis stopped taking 
> their drugs and went off the deep end.
> 

One thing that is glossed over is that many of the anti-depressants,
SSRI types, have serious withdrawal. Paxil, the big one for a while, was
a once a day pill that no one noticed had a half life of about 2.5 hours
and was out of the blood in something over 12. Withdrawal on a daily
basis mixed with what ever already caused the depression/anxiety/what ever.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:58:36 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:19:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I don't believe Cho was on Prozac.
>>> Ditto.  But even if she was, I have family members who have taken
>>> Prozac in the past, and they never went out and killed anyone.  It
>>> actually worked the way it was supposed to.
>>>
>> He. And since I wrote that, I did a little digging. Wiki (yeah, some
>> people use that as a source) cite an article that claims he was
>> prescribed Prozac during the non-detention. The article doesn't say
>> anything about it actually, and I have a damned hard time believing that
>> someone who skipped out on mandatory counseling would take the drugs
>> they prescribed for him.
> 
> Yeah, he.  Don't know where I came up with "she" - must've been 
> conflating the name with Margaret Cho for some reason.
> 
> But I also would have a hard time believing that someone who skipped 
> their sessions took their drugs.
> 
>>> But people have different reactions to different drugs.  When I broke
>>> my leg, I was prescribed Hydrocodone for the pain.  I had an adverse
>>> reaction to it - it made me hallucinate.  I went for a week without any
>>> real sleep (I did rest, but after I was off of it and on something
>>> else, I realized that I'd been lying awake at night on the
>>> Hydrocodone).
>>>
>>>
>> Simple cold medicine does that to me, the hallucination I mean. I only
>> recently found that the "Latest, Greatest" drug out there was designed
>> to get rid of that, so I can finally spend ten minutes with my parent's
>> cat before my nose jumps off my face in fear.
> 
> LOL!  I mean, it isn't funny, but it is, if you know what I mean. :-)
> 

Funny as in the cat chasing my nose around the yard, or not funny in 'oh
crap, I lived with a cat that I couldn't go near growing up.' . . . Oh,
both, I see.

>>> My reaction is typical of < 0.1% of people who it is prescribed to. 
>>> That doesn't make it a bad drug, just bad for me.
>>>
>>>
>> Curious, I have to wonder if that was caused by the APAP, the active
>> side of hydrocodone, or the inactive side.
> 
> Not really sure myself - all I know is when it became apparent that the 
> drug was the problem, I saw the doctor and told him what was happening 
> and he changed the prescription after giving a brief explanation.  I've 
> got a friend who worked in a hospital and learned a lot about drug 
> interactions, I suppose I could ask him.  He did confirm from his sources 
> (probably a PDR as he no longer works in the industry) that that was a 
> rare side effect.
> 

Sorry, my geek side started showing. I couldn't study medicine, so I
just study drugs.

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad wrote:
> I now realize I must spell everything out for you guys.
> 

Because, when you rant like this, no one except you can tell what your
point actually is. It's not spelling it out, it's actually making your
point. If you can't do that effectively, maybe it's not the audiences'
fault.

> Why does someone need their ass kicked for this?
> 
> If weren't for the profiteering drug war this now dead killer more than likely
> would have been smoking a bong and solving his issues creatively, not doing
> what he did.
> 

No one ever went on a shooting spree before pot was banned, did they?
That means there was no 'massacre' type crimes that could be blamed on
pot, so the government could ban it. But the government did ban it by
blaming it for causing people to go crazy and kill each other.
Therefore, the crimes existed and pot was to blame.

Post a reply to this message

my above post was sarcasm.  Surely authorities responsible for his 
mental condition or guns salesmen are just as responsible for the 
tragedy as he was.  He decided to unload a gun at some people.  If he 
had no gun, nor was on drugs to get a better perspective on his actions, 
there would be no massacre.

Perhaps it could be as simple as gun sales requiring a sanity test of 
some kind for people buying guns.  But then, how would they make any 
money?...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:22:06 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> Fact:  There are always going to be people who abuse freedom.
>> it's just that there seem to have been a lot more of those lately.  I'm
>> not aware of many shooting incidents in school in the 50's of something.
>>  While surely there was a lot of shooting in the Old West or Chicago in
>> the 20's, this happened outside of schools.
> 
> I don't know that there is any more or less than there used to be, but 
> there certainly is more media coverage of these terrible events.

don't know or don't wanna know?  You sound overly optimist...

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Go to a doctor, especially a hospital, you can be given compazine for nausea;
> nothing more than pesticide with an ethyl/amine chain. Also fluoride
> antipsychotics for something as simple as sleeplessness.
>
> Anyone prescribing these poisons either took the Hippocratic oath in jest or
> failed to their biochemistry. The breakdown into carbon/fluorine molecules is
> equivalent to Teflon; a carbon/fluorine chain.


I usually try to stay out of these arguments, but this name-calling is counter
effective, if anything, to your cause.  Just because molecules may be similar
in structure does not mean they must be similar in function.  Like it or not,
pharmaceutical drugs have improved the quality of life for millions of people.
Yes, drugs do have side effects, and yes, I do think they are over-prescribed,
but this all out attack seems to have little basis in anything more than visual
inspection of molecules.  You said yourself to do your research first, but I'm
struggling to find citations and evidence for your strongest assertions.
Perhaps drugs have prevented more public massacres than they have caused.  I'm
not saying that's the case, but I certainly don't think there's enough evidence
to say, "The range of interactions can produce different adverse effects
including ... public massacre."  Drugs and the human body are very complicated
-- much more complicated than you have made it.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> "alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>>> REAL medicine is illegal and poison is prescribed instead.
>> Crack and heroine don't exactly make their (ab)users much good.  And being
>> constantly stoned by marijuana will not exactly do much good for your career,
>> unless you're a popstar and need it to get all creative in a snap...
> 
> There is a big difference. It is only pharmaceutical profit motive that keeps
> real meds illegal.

crack is real med?  I think you're in need for some med...

> What did we do before republicans, prohibition and profit motive. Did we destroy
> oursevles. No. Did we have a war on natural herbs and try to irradicate? NO.

did we have crack, heroine, ecstasy and more back then?  NO.

People in the past got stoned by drinking alcohol, munching coca leaves 
or smoking opium and a few other herbs.  In the 19th century, chemistry 
was rocking the world and they began industrializing and mixing various 
toxic wastes from the natural herbs into what is know known as cocaine, 
heroin and the like.  Artists, intelectuals and even Sherlock Holmes 
loved it as their long-term nocive effects were unknown at the time.

Calling street drugs real medicine just because it's illegal does not 
make it any better.  These are vicious substances just as toxic as the 
legal ones.

> We smoked and ate to our hearts content. I bet we were much happier also.

yeah, everyone happy with their medicine for the soul.  Smoking an opium 
pipe in a brothel, surrounded by lovely, caring syphilitic women. Those 
sure were the days...

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:38:51 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Perhaps it could be as simple as gun sales requiring a sanity test of
> some kind for people buying guns.

Most states in the US do require it.  The problem is that often times 
people develop mental issues *after* they've purchased a weapon.

So what then?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:43:00 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:22:06 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> Fact:  There are always going to be people who abuse freedom.
>>> it's just that there seem to have been a lot more of those lately. 
>>> I'm not aware of many shooting incidents in school in the 50's of
>>> something.
>>>  While surely there was a lot of shooting in the Old West or Chicago
>>>  in
>>> the 20's, this happened outside of schools.
>> 
>> I don't know that there is any more or less than there used to be, but
>> there certainly is more media coverage of these terrible events.
> 
> don't know or don't wanna know?  You sound overly optimist...

I said I don't know, and I meant I don't know.  If I'd meant I didn't 
want to know, I would have *said* that.

That said, the phrase is fairly common parlance (at least around here and 
where I'm from) - not really stating *knowledge* (one way or the other).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:16:22 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:42:13 +1000, Brian Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>>> news:47b5d140$1@news.povray.org...
>>>
>>>> Suppose that psychotic purchased the weapon prior to their break?
>>>>
>>>> Or they decided not to take their medications?
>>> It seems you are closer than you were probably yet sure of.
>> 
>> It's a fairly common theme in shootings like this.  Similarly we had
>> two here in Salt Lake City over the last 10 years that were similar
>> situations - people who were on medication to deal with mental
>> instabilities who owned weapons prior to their diagnosis stopped taking
>> their drugs and went off the deep end.
>> 
>> 
> One thing that is glossed over is that many of the anti-depressants,
> SSRI types, have serious withdrawal. Paxil, the big one for a while, was
> a once a day pill that no one noticed had a half life of about 2.5 hours
> and was out of the blood in something over 12. Withdrawal on a daily
> basis mixed with what ever already caused the depression/anxiety/what
> ever.

Yes, some of them do have those kind of adverse effects - no doubt about 
that.  For some people, the side effects are worse than others.

I really think Lewis Black got it right when he said there's no such 
thing as general health guidelines, because everyone's health is 
different.  While he was taking the idea to an absurd extreme (he is, 
after all, a comic), the core idea does make a certain amount of sense.

Jim

Post a reply to this message