Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)



On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:48:33 GMT, [email protected] (David
Wright) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:51:21 GMT, [email protected] (David
>>Wright) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>F Troop <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> F Troop <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> You have been able to cite no studies. All you do is make
>>>>> assertions. Since I have no reason to accept your assertions,
>>>>> nothing you've said is at all convincing.
>>>>
>>>>You got any empirical data suggests the compliance rate amongst
>>>>psychiatric populations is *higher* than the compliants rate of
>>>>persons with physiological disorders?
>>>
>>>I'll go you one better and ask: Do you have any empirical data at
>>>all?

>>
>>you are crossposting to a support group David.. not a university
>>seminar..
>>perhaps the number of academics and professionals who have the loudest
>>voices has misled you..

>
>Actually, I was capable of noticing that, thanks, but since I don't
>read it regularly, I have no idea what the standard of discussion
>is. Is it that we should all just be able to make assertions we can't
>back up, or what? (I'm not referring to you, but since you're
>objecting to my posting -- I think -- I'm asking.)


Its not for me to object to anyone posting..
I leave the control freakery to others.........
there is a history on ASAD of intellectual bullying and brow
beating...

Its not a sci group..people should be free to express their opinions

as per your wonderful sig


These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Mark Probert) wrote:

> "F Troop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Joe Parsons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:p[email protected]...
> > >
> > > I am incredulous...asking for substantiation for an assertion is a

> > "trick."
> >
> > Why are you incredulous you are viewed as trolling whenever you make
> > gratuitous requests others provide you a cite to substantiate assertions
> > without your providing any empirical data or grounds for questioning their
> > assertion, Joe?
> >
> > You and the other ASAD trolls have been repeatedly told that unless you
> > provide contradictory empirical data or some reasonable grounds for
> > questioning an assertion, your gratutious requests for cites will be
> > dismissed as trolling.

>
> No, now, Linda, you have been told that proving one's assertions is
> the norm for usenet. Please prove yours.


I wish proving one's assertions were the norm on Usenet, but alas, as
Linda shows, it is not. However, it IS the norm among people who wish to
have their arguments taken seriously, a group of people to whom it would
appear Linda does not belong.

Logical fallacy used by Linda:

Shifting the burden of proof, which is a special case of argumentum ad
ignorantiam. See also:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/ignorant.html
http://datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm
http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/logicfallacies.htm

Unfortunately, this particular logical fallacy is a favorite on Usenet.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Joe Parsons <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 20 Sep 2003 01:47:16 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
> >>From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
> >>Date: 9/19/2003 4:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <[email protected]>


> >>Asking for substantiation is a "trick?" And one from "organized medicine?"
> >>

> >YES YES and YES.

>
> I am incredulous...asking for substantiation for an assertion is a "trick."


Yeah, you frequently hear that from people who can't back up their
assertions.


> Well, I guess you see something new every day.


Obviously you don't understand their rules. They reserve to themselves
the right to demand that you have to back up every assertion you make
and that you have to back up even your reasons for questioning their
assertions. They, on the other hand, don't have to back up any of their
assertions, and if you ask for evidence from them, it's clearly a
"trick."

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:34:11 GMT, Orac <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Joe Parsons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Sep 2003 01:47:16 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>>
>> >>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>> >>From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
>> >>Date: 9/19/2003 4:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>
>> >>Asking for substantiation is a "trick?" And one from "organized medicine?"
>> >>
>> >YES YES and YES.

>>
>> I am incredulous...asking for substantiation for an assertion is a "trick."

>
>Yeah, you frequently hear that from people who can't back up their
>assertions.
>
>
>> Well, I guess you see something new every day.

>
>Obviously you don't understand their rules. They reserve to themselves
>the right to demand that you have to back up every assertion you make
>and that you have to back up even your reasons for questioning their
>assertions.


Yep!..that's Joe and his cronies all right..
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:43:49 GMT, [email protected] (george of
the jungle) wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 07:50:50 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 05:20:59 GMT, Carey Gregory
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Mark Probert) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Better..I right clicked on it and made it my wallpaper.
>>>
>>>Oh, thank goodness

>>
>>
>>uhuh..here comes Carey Gregory
>>
>> > We were all really worried there for a while.

>>
>>who is "we"..?
>>
>>you and your cat?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Okay, so I've got to ask....

>>
>>nah you dont..but your sort cant resist can they?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Here you two are carrying on your own intimate little conversation (complete
>>>with huge binary attachments), cross-posting it to no less than 5 newsgroups
>>>(none of which are even remotely relevant to whatever it is you're talking
>>>about), and yet you both seem downright blissful.

>>
>>jealous are you..well you always have your cat!

>
>I hiked the high divide above the Hoh valley. Incredible. When the
>full moon rose it was so stunning it looked like the Ruskies had
>dropped the big one on the horizon.
>
>The surreal was going from the incredible backcountry to the area
>where repeated commercial timber harvests had turned the land into a
>stick farm, then passing a beaten trailer with stickers about another
>timber industry job.
>
>Sure, we need sticks to build wood frame houses, but the incredible
>backcountry in the PNW or coastal Alaska cannot be turned into a stick
>farm for trailer park jobs. All the money from the timber went
>somewhere else.
>
>.....Bush is a calk sucker.


I can think of other words..

ANd THIS pathetic effort is suposed to make the destruction and
vandalism OK

!"!!%$%%%$£

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/136741_timber27.html

State to reconsider 'green' logging seal
Wednesday, August 27, 2003

By LISA STIFFLER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

The state's public forests are getting another crack at an
environmental seal of approval for logging.

Thanks in part to donations from a private building supplier, two
groups that provide certification of "green" timber harvests are
evaluating the management of Washington's forests.

"Certification can help rebuild the public's trust in the state's
forestry program," said Becky Kelley of the Washington Environmental
Council.

This includes concerns about clear-cutting and protection of salmon,
she said.

The first step to the certification is a review of logging practices.
The Pinchot Institute for Conservation and the Lanoga Corp. are
funding the $250,000 assessment of 1.2 million acres of Western
Washington forests. Redmond-based Lanoga sells timber products to
retail companies nationwide. Locally, it sells to Lumbermen's.

"We are very interested in making sure the product that we sell comes
from a well managed, sustainable forest," said George Finkenstaedt,
Lanoga's vice president of market development. "We have been
advocating that all of our suppliers initiate steps to get their
timberland certified."

The hope of certification supporters is that consumers will
increasingly request wood products that come from certified forests
where environmentally sensitive logging is followed.

The state hasn't committed to certification, but is willing to
consider it.

More than two years ago the state Department of Natural Resources
considered whether to pursue certification for state forests, but
decided against it.

An assessment by the Forest Stewardship Council, an internationally
recognized organization, found that the forests could get their
designation if some practices changed. Those included waiting longer
before logging an area or leaving more trees behind, permanently
preserving some old-growth areas and hiring more biologists.

Certification evaluates the environmental, economic and social needs
of a region.

DNR didn't pursue certification in the past because it was busy
developing its 10-year plan for sustainable logging of state
forestland, said spokesman Todd Myers. That plan should be finalized
by the end of this year, then the department will evaluate whether to
go after certification.

"We are interested in it," Myers said.

This time a second certification organization -- the Sustainable
Forestry Initiative -- is also reviewing the state's operations while
the Forest Stewardship Council is updating its earlier review. The
assessments should be completed in the near future. So far six states
have public land certified by the stewardship council.

Lanoga contributed about $35,000 to the cost of the reviews.

It marks the first time a retailer has helped pay for an assessment,
said an official with Pinchot, which is a national non-profit
organization.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>
>-G
 
In article <[email protected]>,
jake <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:34:11 GMT, Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Joe Parsons <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 Sep 2003 01:47:16 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
> >> >>From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
> >> >>Date: 9/19/2003 4:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >>Message-id: <[email protected]>


> >> >>Asking for substantiation is a "trick?" And one from "organized
> >> >>medicine?"
> >> >>
> >> >YES YES and YES.
> >>
> >> I am incredulous...asking for substantiation for an assertion is a
> >> "trick."

> >
> >Yeah, you frequently hear that from people who can't back up their
> >assertions.
> >
> >
> >> Well, I guess you see something new every day.

> >
> >Obviously you don't understand their rules. They reserve to themselves
> >the right to demand that you have to back up every assertion you make
> >and that you have to back up even your reasons for questioning their
> >assertions.

>
> Yep!..that's Joe and his cronies all right..


I wasn't referring to Joe. But you already knew that, of course, as
demonstrated by your rather feeble attempt to turn my words around.

Joe's expression of incredulity at the tactics of those who exercise the
double standard I was describing (the one in which people like the one
Joe was responding to reserve the right to demand ever-increasing levels
of proof from anyone who questions their assertions but excuse
themselves from having to produce even the lowest level of proof for
their own assertions) demonstrates to me that Joe was either (1)
relatively new at dealing with such people or (2) well familiar with
their double standard and was using sarcasm to point it out.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:01:49 GMT, Orac <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:34:11 GMT, Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Joe Parsons <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 20 Sep 2003 01:47:16 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>> >> >>From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
>> >> >>Date: 9/19/2003 4:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>
>> >> >>Asking for substantiation is a "trick?" And one from "organized
>> >> >>medicine?"
>> >> >>
>> >> >YES YES and YES.
>> >>
>> >> I am incredulous...asking for substantiation for an assertion is a
>> >> "trick."
>> >
>> >Yeah, you frequently hear that from people who can't back up their
>> >assertions.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Well, I guess you see something new every day.
>> >
>> >Obviously you don't understand their rules. They reserve to themselves
>> >the right to demand that you have to back up every assertion you make
>> >and that you have to back up even your reasons for questioning their
>> >assertions.

>>
>> Yep!..that's Joe and his cronies all right..

>
>I wasn't referring to Joe. But you already knew that, of course, as
>demonstrated by your rather feeble attempt to turn my words around.


oh but you decribe their derailing tactics so perfectly..
they are practiced experts at destroying dialogue and communication..
performance artists..
pack attacks are their speciality to drive of all who do not share
their POV...
Oddly few of them actually have been diagnosed with ADHD themselves..



>
>Joe's expression of incredulity at the tactics of those who exercise the
>double standard I was describing (the one in which people like the one
>Joe was responding to reserve the right to demand ever-increasing levels
>of proof from anyone who questions their assertions but excuse
>themselves from having to produce even the lowest level of proof for
>their own assertions) demonstrates to me that Joe was either (1)
>relatively new at dealing with such people or (2) well familiar with
>their double standard and was using sarcasm to point it out.


IOW feigned incredulity and disingenuousness.





__

Trolls don't destroy groups, people who are either too stupid or too
stubborn to use killfiles destroy their own group.

They're like people who ***** about getting wet but insist on going
out in the rain without an umbrella, then they complain to the
weatherman and expect him to do something about it.
 
"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> reposted for Buny to see in asad


Thanks...I didn't see it otherwise...

> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
> > >From: "SumBuny" [email protected]
> > >Date: 9/20/2003 1:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <Yc3bb.2307$AH4.1554@lakeread06>
> > >"F Troop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> http://www.addictionwithdrawal.com/ritalin.htm
> > > The result is an addiction to Ritalin because the individual can

depend
> on
> > >> the immediate, fast, predictable high Ritalin provides.

> >
> > >IOW, those who *abuse* the medication run into trouble...those of us

who
> > >*take as directed* do not...

> >
> > No that's an excuse.
> >
> > >My question....how is it that we who take it as directed for our ADHD
> > >*forget* to take the medication we are supposedly "addicted" to? It

> happens
> > >more often than not.
> > >
> > >Buny

> >
> > And what happens, when you don't take it??



Nothing "extraordinary", except a return of the ADHD symptoms...in my case,
I am more hyper/impulsive, and a little less organized. When I forget to
take my meds, I often don't realise it until someone else points out that I
have been interrupting more (again), I seem "antsy", or I realise that I
have misplaced something...none of the signs of withdrawal that were listed
from *abuse* of the medication...

Then again, I *did* have headaches when I stopped taking caffeine (in the
form of sodas) cold turkey--but never when forgetting to take my concerta.

Buny
 
"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:46:13 -0400, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"F Troop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > Read the last paragraph of the article you cite:
> >> > http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct051600.htm
> >> >
> >> > When taken as prescribed, methylphenidate is safe and effective.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The compliance rate amongst people who are prescribed psychotropic

drugs
> >is
> >> so low, that is a moot point.

> >
> >Really? What is the compliance rate for people who are prescribed
> >methylphenidate? References please.

>
>
>
>
> Ritalin and Attention Deficit Disorder:
>
> History of its Use, Effects and Side Effects.
>
> http://www.crossinology.com/articles/RITALINus.html
>
> Non compliance and medication discontinuance by children and
> especially adolescents was not considered in many studies (Charles et
> al., 1981; Hechtman, 1985; Murray, 1987; Weiss et al., 1975).
>
> In only a small minority of studies was compliance or the method of
> compliance mentioned, which is highly significant since effects can
> only be related to the drug if the subjects are actually taking it.
>
> For instance, Satterfield et al.'s (1981) study used pill counts at
> the end of each week and a urine test for ritalinic acid to confirm
> that subjects had complied with the drug regime. Without the
> assurance of compliance the results of many of the other studies may
> well contain biases not considered in the interpretation of the
> results.


This is true. However, what are the compliance rates?

Jeff
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:30:23 -0400, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:46:13 -0400, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"F Troop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > Read the last paragraph of the article you cite:
>> >> > http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct051600.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > When taken as prescribed, methylphenidate is safe and effective.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The compliance rate amongst people who are prescribed psychotropic

>drugs
>> >is
>> >> so low, that is a moot point.
>> >
>> >Really? What is the compliance rate for people who are prescribed
>> >methylphenidate? References please.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ritalin and Attention Deficit Disorder:
>>
>> History of its Use, Effects and Side Effects.
>>
>> http://www.crossinology.com/articles/RITALINus.html
>>
>> Non compliance and medication discontinuance by children and
>> especially adolescents was not considered in many studies (Charles et
>> al., 1981; Hechtman, 1985; Murray, 1987; Weiss et al., 1975).
>>
>> In only a small minority of studies was compliance or the method of
>> compliance mentioned, which is highly significant since effects can
>> only be related to the drug if the subjects are actually taking it.
>>
>> For instance, Satterfield et al.'s (1981) study used pill counts at
>> the end of each week and a urine test for ritalinic acid to confirm
>> that subjects had complied with the drug regime. Without the
>> assurance of compliance the results of many of the other studies may
>> well contain biases not considered in the interpretation of the
>> results.

>
>This is true. However, what are the compliance rates?



as the article makes fairly clear, little research has been done..
and certainly no large scale epidemological studies that
might shed light on the matter..

The bulk of studies are financed by pharmaceutical companies that have
little interest in such..

>
>Jeff
>


__

"In its recent infatuation with symptomatic, push-button remedies,
psychiatry has lost its way not only intellectually but spiritually
and morally. Even when it is not actually doing damage to the people
it is supposed to help,…it is encouraging among doctors and patients
alike the fraudulent and dangerous fantasy that life's every passing
'symptom' can be clinically diagnosed and, once diagnosed, alleviated
if not eliminated by pharmacological intervention."

Paul R. McHugh
Professor of Psychiatry,
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:30:23 -0400, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:46:13 -0400, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"F Troop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > Read the last paragraph of the article you cite:
>> >> > http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct051600.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > When taken as prescribed, methylphenidate is safe and effective.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The compliance rate amongst people who are prescribed psychotropic

>drugs
>> >is
>> >> so low, that is a moot point.
>> >
>> >Really? What is the compliance rate for people who are prescribed
>> >methylphenidate? References please.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ritalin and Attention Deficit Disorder:
>>
>> History of its Use, Effects and Side Effects.
>>
>> http://www.crossinology.com/articles/RITALINus.html
>>
>> Non compliance and medication discontinuance by children and
>> especially adolescents was not considered in many studies (Charles et
>> al., 1981; Hechtman, 1985; Murray, 1987; Weiss et al., 1975).
>>
>> In only a small minority of studies was compliance or the method of
>> compliance mentioned, which is highly significant since effects can
>> only be related to the drug if the subjects are actually taking it.
>>
>> For instance, Satterfield et al.'s (1981) study used pill counts at
>> the end of each week and a urine test for ritalinic acid to confirm
>> that subjects had complied with the drug regime. Without the
>> assurance of compliance the results of many of the other studies may
>> well contain biases not considered in the interpretation of the
>> results.

>
>This is true. However, what are the compliance rates?



as the article makes fairly clear, little research has been done..
and certainly no large scale epidemological studies that
might shed light on the matter..

The bulk of studies are financed by pharmaceutical companies that have
little interest in such..

>
>Jeff
>


__

"In its recent infatuation with symptomatic, push-button remedies,
psychiatry has lost its way not only intellectually but spiritually
and morally. Even when it is not actually doing damage to the people
it is supposed to help,…it is encouraging among doctors and patients
alike the fraudulent and dangerous fantasy that life's every passing
'symptom' can be clinically diagnosed and, once diagnosed, alleviated
if not eliminated by pharmacological intervention."

Paul R. McHugh
Professor of Psychiatry,
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
 
On 20 Sep 2003 18:21:34 -0700, [email protected] (Mark
Probert) wrote:

>jake <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 20 Sep 2003 07:17:00 -0700, [email protected] (Mark
>> Probert) wrote:
>>
>> >jake <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:18:31 GMT, "Mark Probert"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:11:35 GMT, "Mark Probert"
>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Where is this?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Olympic mountains WA
>> >> >
>> >> >It looked familiar.
>> >> >
>> >> >I lived in Steilacoom, WA while I was assigned to Ft. Lewis, WA, 1969-70. We
>> >> >rented a house on Puget Sound and it was known as party city.
>> >>
>> >> wow!
>> >> small world and all that
>> >>
>> >> :>)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >We went to Olympic National Park several times to go fishing.
>> >> >
>> >> >See: http://www.nps.gov/olym/wic/duplela.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I was not fit enough to go to upper lena but had to stay at lower lena
>> >
>> >You missed a gorgeous lake.

>>
>> oh..I know :>((
>> >
>> >Lower Lena was my day-trip fishing hole. I learned fly casting on the
>> >Hamma Hamma, which means, in Nisqually, much fish.
>> >
>> >It was, until I got there. :)

>>
>> so YOU are responsible..LOL
>>
>> the natural beauty will be locked in my heart for ever

>
>Better..I right clicked on it and made it my wallpaper.
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:30:10 GMT, [email protected] (PF Riley)
wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:56:36 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:39:51 GMT, [email protected] (PF Riley)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>So you think heroin and morphine are bad drugs?

>>
>>morphine addiction is rare and tends to be confined to doctors and
>>nurses..

>
>OK, so apparently you think morphine is OK since addiction is rare
>within the general public.
>
>>heroin on the other hand..devastates whole communities..
>>I have lost track of the number of peole I hve known whose lives and
>>families were trashed by it..

>
>Forget heroin -- by far the most devastating drug in the history of
>mankind is ethanol. Do you ever drink wine?
>
>>been to too many funerals..sorry
>>
>>
>>
>> What's about codeine
>>>and dextromethorphan? Do you ever cough or have pain?

>>
>>sure..and I use codeine as infrequently as possible

>
>OK, but apparently you think codeine is OK.
>
>>>Cocaine is a very useful topical anesthetic.

>>
>>as is morphine and heroin in terminal cancer cases ..for example..
>>
>>that something is a necessary evil does not make it less evil..

>
>So you think it's evil to relieve pain in a "terminal cancer case?"
>
>Let me see if I can reconstruct your logic.
>
>Hmm. Cocaine and methylphenidate are not structurally identical, but
>they have similar biochemical effects. Cocaine is bad, therefore
>methylphenidate is bad.
>
>Codeine is helpful if you have a cough. Codeine is an opioid, and so
>is heroin. They are more similar to each other than methylphenidate
>and cocaine are. Heroin is bad ("devastating," in fact), therefore,
>codeine is bad. But codeine is OK for a cough. I don't get it.
>
>Alcohol is more devastating than heroin, yet you drink wine (I'm
>assuming here), but avoid heroin. Why is that?
>
>Get back to me when you've figured out either (a) a logical
>explanation for your simple-minded paradigm that drugs are either
>"bad" or "good," or (b) that life, and subsequently the ethics of
>psychopharmacotherapy, is more complex than you think it is (in other
>words, "Ritalin acts like cocaine, cocaine is bad, therefore Ritalin
>is bad" is a false syllogism.)
>
>PF
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:30:10 GMT, [email protected] (PF Riley)
wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:56:36 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:39:51 GMT, [email protected] (PF Riley)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>So you think heroin and morphine are bad drugs?

>>
>>morphine addiction is rare and tends to be confined to doctors and
>>nurses..

>
>OK, so apparently you think morphine is OK since addiction is rare
>within the general public.
>
>>heroin on the other hand..devastates whole communities..
>>I have lost track of the number of peole I hve known whose lives and
>>families were trashed by it..

>
>Forget heroin -- by far the most devastating drug in the history of
>mankind is ethanol. Do you ever drink wine?
>
>>been to too many funerals..sorry
>>
>>
>>
>> What's about codeine
>>>and dextromethorphan? Do you ever cough or have pain?

>>
>>sure..and I use codeine as infrequently as possible

>
>OK, but apparently you think codeine is OK.
>
>>>Cocaine is a very useful topical anesthetic.

>>
>>as is morphine and heroin in terminal cancer cases ..for example..
>>
>>that something is a necessary evil does not make it less evil..

>
>So you think it's evil to relieve pain in a "terminal cancer case?"
>
>Let me see if I can reconstruct your logic.
>
>Hmm. Cocaine and methylphenidate are not structurally identical, but
>they have similar biochemical effects. Cocaine is bad, therefore
>methylphenidate is bad.
>
>Codeine is helpful if you have a cough. Codeine is an opioid, and so
>is heroin. They are more similar to each other than methylphenidate
>and cocaine are. Heroin is bad ("devastating," in fact), therefore,
>codeine is bad. But codeine is OK for a cough. I don't get it.
>
>Alcohol is more devastating than heroin, yet you drink wine (I'm
>assuming here), but avoid heroin. Why is that?
>
>Get back to me when you've figured out either (a) a logical
>explanation for your simple-minded paradigm that drugs are either
>"bad" or "good," or (b) that life, and subsequently the ethics of
>psychopharmacotherapy, is more complex than you think it is (in other
>words, "Ritalin acts like cocaine, cocaine is bad, therefore Ritalin
>is bad" is a false syllogism.)
>
>PF
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:01:45 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:


>>This is true. However, what are the compliance rates?

>
>
>as the article makes fairly clear, little research has been done..
>and certainly no large scale epidemological studies that
>might shed light on the matter..


In other words, Linda can not say with certainty that compliance rates
are low?

====================================================
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:23:32 -0400, Mark D Morin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:01:45 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>This is true. However, what are the compliance rates?

>>
>>
>>as the article makes fairly clear, little research has been done..
>>and certainly no large scale epidemological studies that
>>might shed light on the matter..

>
>In other words, Linda can not say with certainty that compliance rates
>are low?


IIRC in this monster thread up to 68% noncompliance was mentioned for
psychiatric drugs in general...

I note you clip the reason for the paucity of studies
:>)

>
>====================================================
>The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
>by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
>an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
>something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
>before we use it, we'll never use anything,
>because we'll never have absolute understanding.
> David Wright 9/20/03
>
>http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 23:48:14 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:23:32 -0400, Mark D Morin
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:01:45 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>This is true. However, what are the compliance rates?
>>>
>>>
>>>as the article makes fairly clear, little research has been done..
>>>and certainly no large scale epidemological studies that
>>>might shed light on the matter..

>>
>>In other words, Linda can not say with certainty that compliance rates
>>are low?

>
>IIRC in this monster thread up to 68% noncompliance was mentioned for
>psychiatric drugs in general...


without any substantiation.

>
>I note you clip the reason for the paucity of studies


I clipped alot. It's all archived if you want to see it again

====================================================
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "PF Riley" <[email protected]> wrote
> > This pronouncement that methylphenidate and cocaine are "nearly
> > identical" is another example of garbage spread about by anti-ADHD
> > [usual ad hominem attack snipped]

>
> This Slate article explains the similarity:
>
> Both cocaine and methylphenidate, the generic name for Ritalin, are
> stimulants that target the dopamine system, which helps control the brain's
> functioning during pleasurable experiences. The two drugs block the ability
> of neurons to reabsorb dopamine, thus flooding the brain with a surplus of
> the joy-inducing neurotransmitter. According to animal studies, Ritalin and
> cocaine act so much alike that they even compete for the same binding sites
> on neurons.
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2076413/
>
> If you are willing to pay $12, you can read this JAMA article:
>
> Pay Attention: Ritalin Acts Much Like Cocaine


> Vastag JAMA.2001; 286: 905-906.
> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/286/8/905


Or you could read the article at:
http://www.drakeinstitute.com/home.phtml/add/2002-10-03-232946/1/

If you read far enough, you'll see this question:"But if
methylphenidate works like cocaine, why aren't millions of US children
getting high and becoming addicted?"

The likely answer follows in the article.

"...the two drugs differ in a significant way: methylphenidate takes
about an hour to raise dopamine levels, whereas inhaled or injected
cocaine hits the brain in seconds. 'It is the speed at which you
increase dopamine that appears to be a key element of the addiction
process,' said Volkow [the addiction researcher who has published
several studies on the similarities--and differences--between cocaine
and methylphenidate]."
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:34:11 GMT, Orac <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>> I am incredulous...asking for substantiation for an assertion is a "trick."

>
>Yeah, you frequently hear that from people who can't back up their
>assertions.
>
>
>> Well, I guess you see something new every day.

>
>Obviously you don't understand their rules. They reserve to themselves
>the right to demand that you have to back up every assertion you make
>and that you have to back up even your reasons for questioning their
>assertions. They, on the other hand, don't have to back up any of their
>assertions, and if you ask for evidence from them, it's clearly a
>"trick."


Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Jeez--all these years on Usenet, and I didn't know certain people have carte
blanche to avoid backing up their assertions.

How can *I* get me some of that??!?

Joe Parsons
 
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:06:46 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:10:06 GMT, Joe Parsons <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 06:10:32 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>In more simplistic terms, this data means that neither animals nor
>>>>>humans can tell the difference between cocaine, amphetamine, or
>>>>>methylphenidate when they are administered the same way at comparable
>>>>>doses. In short, they produce effects that are nearly identical.
>>>
>>>despite all the weaseling and red herrings thrown up, this remains the
>>>DEA position.

>>
>>Say, Bob--have you found that DEA paper I told you about? The one that shows
>>how they decided to place methylphenidate on Schedule II?

>
>no...
>
>>You might find it quite an eye-opener.

>
>why not scan the summary and share the information?


No, Bob. I think that information is important enough that you should get the
whole thing and read it yourself. Here's how to get it: go the the website for
for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (hint: DEA is an agency of the U.S.
Department of Justice). Get a contact phone number and address for them. Call
or write to DEA's Public Information Officer and request the document.

I'm sure they'll be pleased to oblige.

Joe Parsons