When we recognize that psychotropic prescription drugs are chemically similar to illegal psychotropic drugs, and that all of these substances are used for similar purposes, we see two injustices. First, we see the classification of millions of Americans as criminals for using certain drugs, while millions of others, using essentially similar drugs for similar purposes, are seen as patients. Second, we see a denial of those societal realities that compel increasing numbers of Americans to use psychotropic drugs.
In the history of psychiatry, there has been a revolving door in which a "medication" becomes an "illegal drug" -- and visa versa. Sigmund Freud used cocaine as medication to treat his own and others' depression and despair. In the 1930s amphetamines were prescribed to treat depression; later amphetamines were prescribed for weight loss; while today amphetamines such as Adderall and Dexedrine are prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Alcohol was a recommended treatment for anxiety as late as the 1940s; and in the 1950s and early 1960s, psychiatrist Oscar Janiger treated the neuroses of Hollywood stars and other celebrities with LSD. Ecstasy was used in marital counseling during the 1980s, and today researchers are studying it as a possible treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.
It is politically -- and economically -- incorrect for the corporate press, dependent on Big Pharma advertising revenue, to compare psychiatric drugs with illegal drugs. However, the psychiatry drug textbook A Primer of Drug Action notes that individuals who have used cocaine have difficulty distinguishing between the subjective effects of cocaine and dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine) when both are administered intravenously. The amphetamines Dexedrine and Adderall, besides being prescribed for ADHD, are used by many college kids, truck drivers, and others to pull all-nighters.
. . .
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/72391/
Note: http://www.alternet.org...
America's Love-Hate Relationship With Drugs
Posted on Wednesday, January 09 at 13:40 by DiogenesContributed By
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
That way, the payoffs received by congress and the senate, now being paid by the drug cartels, would continue to be paid, but by Big Pharma.
---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck
---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck
of another date which will live in infamy -- the (US) Marijuana Tax Act.<br />
<a href="http://zketrouble.gnn.tv/blogs/12757/Hemp_Outlawed_for_Nothing">http://zketrouble.gnn.tv/blogs/12757/Hemp_Outlawed_for_Nothing</a><br />
"....the year hemp was outlawed, hemp cord was replaced by (Dupont) nylon...."<br />
<br />
I think this quote kinda says what it's all about. What I find utterly amazing is the longevity of this act, flying in the face of all that we know of the hemp plant. <br />
<br />
The payoffs must be very large indeed!<p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ota.com/organic/environment/cotton_environment.html">http://www.ota.com/organic/environment/cotton_environment.html</a><br />
Cotton uses approximately 25% of the world's insecticides and more than 10% of the pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and defoliants.). (Allan Woodburn)<br />
<br />
Approximately 10% of all pesticides sold for use in U. S. agriculture were applied to cotton in 1997, the most recent year for which such data is publicly available. (ACPA)<br />
<br />
Fifty-five million pounds of pesticides were sprayed on the 12.8 million acres of conventional cotton grown in the U.S. in 2003 (4.3 pounds/ acre), ranking cotton third behind corn and soybeans in total amount of pesticides sprayed. (USDA)<br />
<br />
Over 2.03 billion pounds of synthetic fertilizers were applied to conventional cotton in 2000 (142 pounds/acre), making cotton the fourth most heavily fertilized crop behind corn, winter wheat, and soybeans. (USDA)<br />
<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency considers seven of the top 15 pesticides used on cotton in 2000 in the United States as "possible," "likely," "probable," or "known" human carcinogens (acephate, dichloropropene, diuron, fluometuron, pendimethalin, tribufos, and trifluralin). (EPA)<br />
<br />
In 1999, a work crew re-entered a cotton field about five hours after it was treated with tribufos and sodium chlorate (re-entry should have been prohibited for 24 hours). Seven workers subsequently sought medical treatment and five have had ongoing health problems. (California DPR) <br />
It takes roughly one-third of a pound of chemicals (pesticides and fertilizers) to grow enough cotton for just one T-shirt. (SCP)<br />
<br />
Cotton and water consumption: It can take more than 20,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of cotton; equivalent to a single T-shirt and pair of jeans.<br />
<a href="http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/freshwater/problems/thirsty_crops/cotton/index.cfm">http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/freshwater/problems/thirsty_crops/cotton/index.cfm</a><br />
<a href="http://waterwars.wordpress.com/aral-sea-2/">http://waterwars.wordpress.com/aral-sea-2/</a><br />
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1139216.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1139216.htm</a><br />
<p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />
To me, this is the purpose of control: to keep the minds of men in various states of confusion and therefore under the control the ‘Masters of the Universe’<br />
<br />
Speaking solely for my self I know for the most part what is reasonably expected of me by my fellowman in order to keep peace. I have what I believe to be a reasonable reciprocal expectation of the state, which by the way derives its powers (in theory) from me as a voter.<br />
Reality is quite different however.<br />
Reality is I, and most others are under; not equal to, law and many other constraints, from my god-given, I am told, rights, rights listed in the Declaration pf Human Rights.<br />
As long as my actions do not in a direct way interfere with the rights of others<br />
I don’t much like being ‘controlled” it interferes with my freewill.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2382/">http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2382/</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/albanystudent/contribution6.html">http://www.geocities.com/albanystudent/contribution6.html</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.roninpub.com/MarLaw.html">http://www.roninpub.com/MarLaw.html</a> <br />
<br />
Among the general public, the law concerning consent is perhaps the most misunderstood. The general rule is that if a person consents to a warrantless search, the search automatically becomes reasonable and therefore legal. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search will be used to convict the person. Simply put, if a person consents to a search, he has waived the primary protection offered by the Fourth Amendment. <br />
The sad fact is that most people believe that when an officer approaches them and asks permission to search their person or enter their home, that they are required to grant the officer's request. The truth is the exact opposite -- you have a right to associate with and speak to whomever you please. In this respect, there is nothing special about a police officer. Whenever a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under no obligation to consent. The only reason he is asking is that he doesn't yet have enough evidence to forcibly search. By consenting you are giving up one of the most important constitutional rights you have. <br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />
in the rights and whatevers
I peeked
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck
“Among the general public, the law concerning consent is perhaps the most misunderstood. The general rule is that if a person consents to a warrantless search, the search automatically becomes reasonable and therefore legal. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search will be used to convict the person. Simply put, if a person consents to a search, he has waived the primary protection offered by the Fourth Amendment.
The sad fact is that most people believe that when an officer approaches them and asks permission to search their person or enter their home, that they are required to grant the officer's request. The truth is the exact opposite -- you have a right to associate with and speak to whomever you please. In this respect, there is nothing special about a police officer. Whenever a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under no obligation to consent. The only reason he is asking is that he doesn't yet have enough evidence to forcibly search. By consenting you are giving up one of the most important constitutional rights you have”.
Hopefully the red herring issue of ones ability to call on their rights has been settled because the central idea is that we, the public have allowed ourselves to be cowed by police.
ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]
It is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake