Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)

[Roger Schlafly]

"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote
> >Yes -- it's because ritalin meets the statutory criteria for Schedule II
> >drugs. If you have some sort of kooky conspiracy theory, go ahead
> >and post it.
> The question is, "what are those statutory criteria?"

If you and Joe have some sort of point to make, then go ahead and
make it. Instead, you hint that you are sitting on some dark theory,
but you don't want anyone to know that the theory is.

The classification of ritalin as a Schedule II controlled drug is
not particularly controversial. I don't think anyone cares exactly
how the decision was made as long as it was the correct decision.

 

[nknisley]

Mark D Morin wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:55:15 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>>Call
>>>>
>>>>>or write to DEA's Public Information Officer and request the document.
>>>>
>>>>If it is so important, why don't you put it on your web site?
>>>
>>>not a good idea to post the government's copywrited material.
>>
>>DEA public info is not copyrighted.
>>
>>
>>> He is
>>>
>>>>unlikely to go on some wild goose chase just to find some rationale
>>>>for a routine bureaucratic decision. Ritalin is similar to cocaine, and
>>>>cocaine is Schedule II, so why shouldn't ritalin be Schedule II?
>>>
>>>You could also search the archives--the rationale has been summarized
>>>previously
>>
>>Yes -- it's because ritalin meets the statutory criteria for Schedule II
>>drugs. If you have some sort of kooky conspiracy theory, go ahead
>>and post it.
>>
>
>
> The question is, "what are those statutory criteria?" You pretend to
> know Roger, why don't you tell us. Hint: the criteria are not as you
> have been presenting.


Maybe Joe can clarify, but....

I've been under the impression that Joe was referring to the particular
evidence that the DEA considered when it determined that methylphenidate
met the DEA's criteria for being placed on Schedule II.

To my knowledge, the specific information that the DEA considers when it
decides to place a particular medication/drug on its list of controlled
substances isn't on its web site, but the DEA will release the
information in response to a FOIA request.

I believe that Joe at one time had the specific information the DEA
considered when it put methylphenidate on Schedule II. IIRC, "routine
bureaucratic decision" seems to describe how the Schedule II decision
was made, rather than some "conspiracy."


Nancy
Unique, like everyone else

 

[Roger Schlafly]

"Markuss Probertuss" <[email protected]> wrote
> > Yes, there are those who claim that a slow-acting drug cannot
> > possibly be addicting. It depends on your definition of addiction.
> > There are different definitions in common use.
> In the case of Dr. Volkow, she has the right to make such definitions and
> distinctions. She was appointed to head the national Institute of Drug
> Addiction byt Bush II.

She misrepresented her research, in this instance. Her research was
not on addiction, it was on the delay before maximum brain effect.
That may have some relation to addiction, depending on the definition.
By putting out press releases that emphasize addiction without
indicating what definition was in use, she was being extremely deceptive.

 

[nknisley]

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "nknisley" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>no ..is this relevant to whether ritalin is nearly identical with
>>>>>>>>>cocaine as the DEA says?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ritalin works on the many or all of the same receptors as amphetamine
>>>>>>>and cocaine. However, the onset of action and the time it takes for
>
> the
>
>>"New Research Helps Explain Ritalin's Low Abuse Potential When Taken as
>>Prescribed" http://www.nida.nih.gov/MedAdv/98/MA-929.html .
>
>
> A 1998 press release -- not really new anymore.

That's right, the study this press release discusses is old news. So why
do some people still keep claiming that Ritalin works the same way as
cocaine does? Or that Ritalin is highly addictive?

> It reports that ritalin (in
> pill form) has its peak effect on the brain 60 minutes later. Intravenous
> ritalin and (snorted?) cocaine are much quicker. That's all.

No, that's not *all* the article reports.

It reports the findings of a 1998 study reported in the
American Journal of Psychiatry. The lead researcher in that study was
Dr. Nora Voklow--the same researcher involved in the 1995 study that
some people cite for the fact that "methylphenidate acts just like
cocaine in the brain!" or even, "methylphenidate actually is more potent
that cocaine in its effects on the brain!!" Dr. Voklow has published
many other studies over the past decade on the mechanism of addiction.

The press release says that Voklow's 1998 study concluded that
methylphenidate taken orally, as prescribed, gets to the brain rather
slowly, and that fact may explain why it isn't often abused as cocaine
is, and why individuals taking it as prescribed don't become addicted.

The press release says:

"New research sheds light on why individuals taking therapeutic doses of
methylphenidate rarely abuse it or become addicted, even though it is a
stimulant with properties similar to those of cocaine and amphetamines.

"The fact that Ritalin taken orally is drawn so slowly into the brain is
a likely reason why patients do not experience a high from this means of
use. In general, if brain concentrations of a substance peak quickly,
the potential for abuse and addiction increases, as an individual
experiences the drug more dramatically and, thus, is more likely to try
to repeat the experience more frequently."

So much for claims that the research says that cocaine and
methylphenidate have the same effect on the brain.


> The headline is a little misleading. The authors don't consider *any*
> drug consumption to be abuse if the drug is taken as prescribed.


Who *does* consider medications taken as prescribed to be drug abuse? You?



Nancy
Unique, like everyone else

 

[Joe Parsons]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:48:24 -0400, nknisley <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark D Morin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:55:15 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>>>Call
>>>>>
>>>>>>or write to DEA's Public Information Officer and request the document.
>>>>>
>>>>>If it is so important, why don't you put it on your web site?
>>>>
>>>>not a good idea to post the government's copywrited material.
>>>
>>>DEA public info is not copyrighted.
>>>
>>>
>>>> He is
>>>>
>>>>>unlikely to go on some wild goose chase just to find some rationale
>>>>>for a routine bureaucratic decision. Ritalin is similar to cocaine, and
>>>>>cocaine is Schedule II, so why shouldn't ritalin be Schedule II?
>>>>
>>>>You could also search the archives--the rationale has been summarized
>>>>previously
>>>
>>>Yes -- it's because ritalin meets the statutory criteria for Schedule II
>>>drugs. If you have some sort of kooky conspiracy theory, go ahead
>>>and post it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The question is, "what are those statutory criteria?" You pretend to
>> know Roger, why don't you tell us. Hint: the criteria are not as you
>> have been presenting.
>
>
>Maybe Joe can clarify, but....
>
>I've been under the impression that Joe was referring to the particular
>evidence that the DEA considered when it determined that methylphenidate
>met the DEA's criteria for being placed on Schedule II.

Yes.

>To my knowledge, the specific information that the DEA considers when it
>decides to place a particular medication/drug on its list of controlled
>substances isn't on its web site, but the DEA will release the
>information in response to a FOIA request.

Also true. This, of course, discomfits those who, believing the Worldwide Web
to be the repository of all human knowledge, won't look to primary sources that
may not be found online.

>I believe that Joe at one time had the specific information the DEA
>considered when it put methylphenidate on Schedule II. IIRC, "routine
>bureaucratic decision" seems to describe how the Schedule II decision
>was made, rather than some "conspiracy."

There was significant research done to determine whether methylphenidate met the
three criteria for being a Schedule II Controlled Substance:

1) The drug must have a high potential for abuse;
2) The drug must have a legitimate, recognized medical use;
3) Abuse of the drug may lead to severe psychological or
physical dependence

Several years ago, I contacted the Drug Enforcement Agency and spoke to their
Public Information Officer. At my request they sent me a rather thick document
representing the research and testing that they did, leading them to place
methylphenidate on Schedule II under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with DEA's decision in its categorization of
methylphenidate, no one can reasonably say that the decision was made
frivolously, out of bureaucratic routine.

But anyone who believes that methylphenidate's being a Schedule II medication
somehow contraindicates its therapeutic use should have at least some idea how
the decision was reached, and what DEA's decision actually means in terms of the
usefulness, safety and general advisability of this particular drug.

For starters, one should ask how the research and testing done by DEA relates to
actual day-to-day usage of the drug. Without knowing that, these shrill cries
of how addictive it is, or how dangerous, are just that--meaningless, shrill
cries.

Joe Parsons

 

[mark]

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>Yes -- it's because ritalin meets the statutory criteria for Schedule II
>>>drugs. If you have some sort of kooky conspiracy theory, go ahead
>>>and post it.
>>
>>The question is, "what are those statutory criteria?"
>
>
> If you and Joe have some sort of point to make, then go ahead and
> make it.

You posted your belief as to why Ritalin has the classification it does.
Quite frankly, you are wrong.

Instead, you hint that you are sitting on some dark theory,
> but you don't want anyone to know that the theory is.
>
> The classification of ritalin as a Schedule II controlled drug is
> not particularly controversial. I don't think anyone cares exactly
> how the decision was made as long as it was the correct decision.

The controversy lies in the fact that you are making assumptions as to
why it was classified as it is in attempt to bolster your position. If
the foundation is falacious, your conclussions are not going to merit
much consideration.
>
>

 

[Roger Schlafly]

"Joe Parsons" <[email protected]> wrote in
> There was significant research done to determine whether methylphenidate
met the
> three criteria for being a Schedule II Controlled Substance:
> 1) The drug must have a high potential for abuse;
> 2) The drug must have a legitimate, recognized medical use;
> 3) Abuse of the drug may lead to severe psychological or
> physical dependence

Fine. Are you disputing that determination? Do you have some point
that you want to make? Do your secret documents say anything that
is not obvious?

> Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with DEA's decision in its
categorization of
> methylphenidate, no one can reasonably say that the decision was made
> frivolously, out of bureaucratic routine.

Good. Glad to hear that the DEA was doing its job.

 

[Joe Parsons]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:56:54 GMT, "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Joe Parsons" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> There was significant research done to determine whether methylphenidate
>met the
>> three criteria for being a Schedule II Controlled Substance:
>> 1) The drug must have a high potential for abuse;
>> 2) The drug must have a legitimate, recognized medical use;
>> 3) Abuse of the drug may lead to severe psychological or
>> physical dependence
>
>Fine. Are you disputing that determination?

Nope. Never have.

>Do you have some point
>that you want to make?

I have made the point many times--most recently in this very thread.

>Do your secret documents say anything that
>is not obvious?

The documents aren't at all "secret;" they're just not on the web. That pretty
much makes them "secret" in effect for anyone too lazy to go get them. I got
them directly from DEA, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find them at any
decent library.

Joe Parsons


>> Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with DEA's decision in its
>categorization of
>> methylphenidate, no one can reasonably say that the decision was made
>> frivolously, out of bureaucratic routine.
>
>Good. Glad to hear that the DEA was doing its job.

 

[Markuss Probertuss]

"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Markuss Probertuss" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > Yes, there are those who claim that a slow-acting drug cannot
> > > possibly be addicting. It depends on your definition of addiction.
> > > There are different definitions in common use.
> > In the case of Dr. Volkow, she has the right to make such definitions
and
> > distinctions. She was appointed to head the national Institute of Drug
> > Addiction byt Bush II.
>
> She misrepresented her research, in this instance. Her research was
> not on addiction, it was on the delay before maximum brain effect.
> That may have some relation to addiction, depending on the definition.
> By putting out press releases that emphasize addiction without
> indicating what definition was in use, she was being extremely deceptive.

Sorry, roger, but she was not being deceptive and you have no basis for
making such a claim.

Unless you have read the original study in its entirety, which I doubt as
your chronic laziness abounds, you do not have the facts to back up your
baseless claim.

 

[F Troop]

"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
>
>

The Pro-Ritalin zealots are wrong to dispute the similiarity of the chemcial
properties and the similiarity of the mechanism of action of cocaine and
ritalin.

Cocaine and methylphenidate are chemically similiar substances which act
similiarly upon the dopamergic system.

However, their being similiar chemicals having similiar mechanism of action
doesn't mean they will produce anywhere near the same effect in a person
who takes each of them, and people who are anti-ritalin are wrong to
suggest ritalin and cocaines effect will be similiar.

Their effect on people is not merely a function of their chemical
properties, and their mechanism of action, but is also governed by and a
function of what reactions they each trigger in the body and brain of people
taking each of them.

Unless you know how cocaine and ritalin are each being acted upon and
metabolized and cleared from the body you can't assume similiar properties
with similiar mechanisms of action will have a similiar effect on people.

The effects can be completely different from two similiar chemical compounds
having similiar mechanisms of action, because they can be being metabolized
and cleared from the body and brain by totally different isoenzymes!!!

(Even the brain has those meddlesome isoenzymes metabolzing and helping to
clear chemicals etc).

Cocaine might be more rapidly metabolized by a more plentiful isoenzyme or
it might even being inducing the production of isoenzymes result in cocaine
being rapidly metabolized and cleared, so cocaine users wind up getting a
very high very quicly, which dissipates just as quickly, inciting a
craving for more, more, more in those vulnernable to becoming addicted to
highs like that.

The metabolism and clearing of ritalin can be by a different mutation of the
isoenzyme so it occurs in a totally different manner than cocaine, so even
while it's chemical properties are similiar, and its mechanism of action is
similiar, its effects might be completely different than cocaine owing to
being acted upon differently once its in the body. .

For all anyone knows, the REAL benefit of ritalin might be that ritalin
induces production of isoenzymes needed to metabolize food additives some
people don't have.

That's what scientists are suggesting about nicotine, that smoking induces
the production of an isoenzyme some people don't have enough of, that's
needed to properly metabolize and clear a certain toxin, which causes early
parkinsons if its not properly metabolized and cleared.

 

[Markuss Probertuss]

"nknisley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> > "nknisley" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> >>>>>>>>>no ..is this relevant to whether ritalin is nearly identical with
> >>>>>>>>>cocaine as the DEA says?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Ritalin works on the many or all of the same receptors as
amphetamine
> >>>>>>>and cocaine. However, the onset of action and the time it takes for
> >
> > the
> >
> >>"New Research Helps Explain Ritalin's Low Abuse Potential When Taken as
> >>Prescribed" http://www.nida.nih.gov/MedAdv/98/MA-929.html .
> >
> >
> > A 1998 press release -- not really new anymore.
>
> That's right, the study this press release discusses is old news. So why
> do some people still keep claiming that Ritalin works the same way as
> cocaine does? Or that Ritalin is highly addictive?
>
> > It reports that ritalin (in
> > pill form) has its peak effect on the brain 60 minutes later.
Intravenous
> > ritalin and (snorted?) cocaine are much quicker. That's all.
>
> No, that's not *all* the article reports.
>
> It reports the findings of a 1998 study reported in the
> American Journal of Psychiatry. The lead researcher in that study was
> Dr. Nora Voklow--the same researcher involved in the 1995 study that
> some people cite for the fact that "methylphenidate acts just like
> cocaine in the brain!" or even, "methylphenidate actually is more potent
> that cocaine in its effects on the brain!!" Dr. Voklow has published
> many other studies over the past decade on the mechanism of addiction.

Also, we should note that Volkow is probably one of the lead researchers in
the world on the physiology of addiction. She was appointed by Bush II to
head NIDA. For some of her credentials see:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/newsroom/03/NR1-23.html

> The press release says that Voklow's 1998 study concluded that
> methylphenidate taken orally, as prescribed, gets to the brain rather
> slowly, and that fact may explain why it isn't often abused as cocaine
> is, and why individuals taking it as prescribed don't become addicted.
>
> The press release says:
>
> "New research sheds light on why individuals taking therapeutic doses of
> methylphenidate rarely abuse it or become addicted, even though it is a
> stimulant with properties similar to those of cocaine and amphetamines.
>
> "The fact that Ritalin taken orally is drawn so slowly into the brain is
> a likely reason why patients do not experience a high from this means of
> use. In general, if brain concentrations of a substance peak quickly,
> the potential for abuse and addiction increases, as an individual
> experiences the drug more dramatically and, thus, is more likely to try
> to repeat the experience more frequently."
>
> So much for claims that the research says that cocaine and
> methylphenidate have the same effect on the brain.

Sadly, the anti-science know nothings will still repeat this baloney ad
nauseum.

> > The headline is a little misleading. The authors don't consider *any*
> > drug consumption to be abuse if the drug is taken as prescribed.
>
>
> Who *does* consider medications taken as prescribed to be drug abuse? You?


Roger uses some strange definitions and has problems spelling. Now that
Volkow works for the Gubmnt, he wil not believe a word she says.

 

[Jonathan Smith]

[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
> >From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
> >Date: 9/18/2003 4:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:31:52 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:07:57 GMT, Joe Parsons <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:36:01 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>That is not the article that Theta posted. Thus, you must agree that
> Theta
> >>>>>lied.
> >>>>
> >>>>not at all..
> >>>>
> >>>>The article may have well have been removed from the DEA website.
> >>>>
> >>>>the DEA position statement remains precisely the same
> >>>>
> >>>>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.
> >>>
> >>>Let me ask you a question, Bob: are you familiar with the process by which
> the
> >>>Drug Enforcement Agency placed methylphenidate hcl on Schedule II? Dosages
> used
> >>>in making the determination? Was the administration parenteral? What
> >>>difference might it make, if it was?
> >>
> >>no ..is this relevant to whether ritalin is nearly identical with
> >>cocaine as the DEA says?
> >
> >Please show me where DEA says "ritalin is nearly identical with cocaine."
> >Look
> >really, really, REALLY hard. I'll wait right here.
>
> http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html
>
> We are already aware of your tricks Mr. Parsons. They are just one of many from
> *organized medicine*
>
> The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection
>
> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below are
> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.


To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...

Compounded by your insistance that it is the Drug Enforcement Agency
when in reality it is the Drug Enforcement Administration...

One wonders if you understand anything at all avout this topic.

I certainly do.

If one were to use your logic, Demerol and Cocaine are equally
identical. Now, let's see if you can convince a pharmacologist.

js

 

[Jan]

>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>From: [email protected] (Jonathan Smith)
>Date: 9/23/2003 10:24 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> >Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>> >From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
>> >Date: 9/18/2003 4:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:31:52 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:07:57 GMT, Joe Parsons <[email protected]>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:36:01 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>That is not the article that Theta posted. Thus, you must agree that
>> Theta
>> >>>>>lied.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>not at all..
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The article may have well have been removed from the DEA website.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>the DEA position statement remains precisely the same
>> >>>>
>> >>>>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.
>> >>>
>> >>>Let me ask you a question, Bob: are you familiar with the process by
>which
>> the
>> >>>Drug Enforcement Agency placed methylphenidate hcl on Schedule II?
>Dosages
>> used
>> >>>in making the determination? Was the administration parenteral? What
>> >>>difference might it make, if it was?
>> >>
>> >>no ..is this relevant to whether ritalin is nearly identical with
>> >>cocaine as the DEA says?
>> >
>> >Please show me where DEA says "ritalin is nearly identical with cocaine."
>> >Look
>> >really, really, REALLY hard. I'll wait right here.
>>
>> http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html
>>
>> We are already aware of your tricks Mr. Parsons. They are just one of many
>from
>> *organized medicine*
>>
>> The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection
>>
>> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below
>are
>> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
>
>
>To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
>that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
>function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...

Are you seeing things??

>http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html

>The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection
>>
>> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below
>are
>> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
>
FDA Controlled Drug Schedules

Schedule l

These medicines are those with a high abuse and dependence potential.
Typically, the only use for these substances are for research purposes.
Examples include LSD and heroin. A prescription cannot be legally written for
these drugs for medicinal use.

Schedule ll

These medicines have therapeutic uses and have the highest abuse and dependence
potential for drugs with medicinal purposes. Examples include Morphine,
Demerol, Speed, Opium, Cocaine and Ritalin. A written prescription is required
and refills are not allowed.

That is what it starts off saying.

Which page are you on?????


>Compounded by your insistance that it is the Drug Enforcement Agency
>when in reality it is the Drug Enforcement Administration...

My insistance??? Where??

Furthermore you are nitpicking. What difference does it make?? Agency or
Administration???

>One wonders if you understand anything at all avout this topic.

It seems you are making some false accusations. See above and answer.

I understand about Ritalin, I saw the effects for 38 years in my daycare
centers.

>I certainly do.

So you say. It seems you picked something out of then air that isn't there.

>If one were to use your logic, Demerol and Cocaine are equally
>identical.

My logic?? Where in this post did you see my logic??

> Now, let's see if you can convince a pharmacologist.
>
>js

Me thinks this is a diversion. You are seeing things and making false
accusations, while telling us how much you know.

Back up and reboot.

Jan

 

[Joe Parsons]

On 23 Sep 2003 22:46:30 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>>From: [email protected] (Jonathan Smith)
>>Date: 9/23/2003 10:24 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>
>>[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>> >Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>>> >From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
>>> >Date: 9/18/2003 4:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>> >
>>> >On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:31:52 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:07:57 GMT, Joe Parsons <[email protected]>
>>> >>wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:36:01 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>>That is not the article that Theta posted. Thus, you must agree that
>>> Theta
>>> >>>>>lied.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>not at all..
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>The article may have well have been removed from the DEA website.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>the DEA position statement remains precisely the same
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>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.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Let me ask you a question, Bob: are you familiar with the process by
>>which
>>> the
>>> >>>Drug Enforcement Agency placed methylphenidate hcl on Schedule II?
>>Dosages
>>> used
>>> >>>in making the determination? Was the administration parenteral? What
>>> >>>difference might it make, if it was?
>>> >>
>>> >>no ..is this relevant to whether ritalin is nearly identical with
>>> >>cocaine as the DEA says?
>>> >
>>> >Please show me where DEA says "ritalin is nearly identical with cocaine."
>>> >Look
>>> >really, really, REALLY hard. I'll wait right here.
>>>
>>> http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html
>>>
>>> We are already aware of your tricks Mr. Parsons. They are just one of many
>>from
>>> *organized medicine*
>>>
>>> The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection
>>>
>>> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below
>>are
>>> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
>>
>>
>>To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
>>that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
>>function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...
>
>Are you seeing things??
>
>>http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html
>
>>The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection
>>>
>>> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below
>>are
>>> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
>>
>FDA Controlled Drug Schedules

Why would you believe something that's simply been posted on the web--and
flagrantly inaccurate in so many areas--as being authoritative?

Other than Steve Plog's sayso, what makes you believe that what he says is
factual?

Here's how you can put me in my place: get some information directly from the
Food and Drug Administration showing where they classify drugs. Having done
that, show where the text in this privately-written website matches up
substantially with the authoritative text.

[snip]

>Schedule ll
>
>These medicines have therapeutic uses and have the highest abuse and dependence
>potential for drugs with medicinal purposes. Examples include Morphine,
>Demerol, Speed, Opium, Cocaine and Ritalin. A written prescription is required
>and refills are not allowed.
>
>That is what it starts off saying.

What causes you to believe this information is even close to correct? Apart
from the fact that it apparently is in line what you seem to believe, I mean.

>Which page are you on?????
>
>
>>Compounded by your insistance that it is the Drug Enforcement Agency
>>when in reality it is the Drug Enforcement Administration...
>
>My insistance??? Where??
>
>Furthermore you are nitpicking. What difference does it make?? Agency or
>Administration???

If you consistently mis-identify an organization (DEA in this instance), it can
call into question whether you've read the original material carefully--if at
all.

>>One wonders if you understand anything at all avout this topic.

*This* one doesn't.

>It seems you are making some false accusations. See above and answer.
>
>I understand about Ritalin, I saw the effects for 38 years in my daycare
>centers.
>
>>I certainly do.
>
>So you say. It seems you picked something out of then air that isn't there.
>
>>If one were to use your logic, Demerol and Cocaine are equally
>>identical.
>
>My logic?? Where in this post did you see my logic??

Excellent point! Where, indeed?

Joe Parsons

 

[Jan]

>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
>Date: 9/23/2003 7:25 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>On 23 Sep 2003 22:46:30 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>>>From: [email protected] (Jonathan Smith)
>>>Date: 9/23/2003 10:24 AM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>> >Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>>>> >From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
>>>> >Date: 9/18/2003 4:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>>> >
>>>> >On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:31:52 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:07:57 GMT, Joe Parsons <[email protected]>
>>>> >>wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:36:01 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>>That is not the article that Theta posted. Thus, you must agree that
>>>> Theta
>>>> >>>>>lied.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>not at all..
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>The article may have well have been removed from the DEA website.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>the DEA position statement remains precisely the same
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>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.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Let me ask you a question, Bob: are you familiar with the process by
>>>which
>>>> the
>>>> >>>Drug Enforcement Agency placed methylphenidate hcl on Schedule II?
>>>Dosages
>>>> used
>>>> >>>in making the determination? Was the administration parenteral? What
>>>> >>>difference might it make, if it was?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>no ..is this relevant to whether ritalin is nearly identical with
>>>> >>cocaine as the DEA says?
>>>> >
>>>> >Please show me where DEA says "ritalin is nearly identical with
>cocaine."
>>>> >Look
>>>> >really, really, REALLY hard. I'll wait right here.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html
>>>>
>>>> We are already aware of your tricks Mr. Parsons. They are just one of
>many
>>>from
>>>> *organized medicine*
>>>>
>>>> The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection
>>>>
>>>> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below
>>>are
>>>> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
>>>
>>>
>>>To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
>>>that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
>>>function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...
>>
>>Are you seeing things??
>>
>>>http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html
>>
>>>The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection
>>>>
>>>> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below
>>>are
>>>> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
>>>
>>FDA Controlled Drug Schedules


>Why would you believe something that's simply been posted on the web--and
>flagrantly inaccurate in so many areas--as being authoritative?

I am asking this poster, if he is seeing things. So please kindly butt out.

Evidently he is one of your buddies trying to cover for you.

He evidently made a mistake, and now you are trying to cover for him.

I really don't care what you think I know. I had first hand experience.

Jan

 

[Jonathan Smith]

[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

You said:

> >> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below
> are
> >> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.

To which I replied:

> >To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
> >that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
> >function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...
>
> Are you seeing things??

Yes - I see that an anti-ritalin website misrepresents facts to
support their own political position. Personally, I find that
offensive.

> >Compounded by your insistance that it is the Drug Enforcement Agency
> >when in reality it is the Drug Enforcement Administration...
>
> My insistance??? Where??

In repeating it?

> Furthermore you are nitpicking. What difference does it make?? Agency or
> Administration???

It is an error of fact. When you begin with an admonition that others
first need to understand when in fact you are so careless to repeat
two errors of fact....

> >One wonders if you understand anything at all avout this topic.
>
> It seems you are making some false accusations. See above and answer.

The FDA does not schedule drugs - the AG does and it is enforced, at
the Federal level by the DEA.

> I understand about Ritalin, I saw the effects for 38 years in my daycare
> centers.

You have not demonstrated this.

> >I certainly do.
>
> So you say. It seems you picked something out of then air that isn't there.

It is there - and I snipped the second rendition.

> >If one were to use your logic, Demerol and Cocaine are equally
> >identical.
>
> My logic?? Where in this post did you see my logic??

My point exactly - thanks.

> > Now, let's see if you can convince a pharmacologist.
> >
> >js
>
> Me thinks this is a diversion. You are seeing things and making false
> accusations, while telling us how much you know.

I pointed out that you have made to errors of fact - and that suggests
to me that there may be others.

> Back up and reboot.
>
> Jan

Perhaps you need to take your own advice.

js

 

[Jan]

>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>From: [email protected] (Jonathan Smith)
>Date: 9/23/2003 10:06 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>You said:
>
>> >> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below
>> are
>> >> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
>
>To which I replied:
>
>> >To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
>> >that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
>> >function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...
>>
>> Are you seeing things??
>
>Yes - I see that an anti-ritalin website misrepresents facts to
>support their own political position. Personally, I find that
>offensive.

No, that's not what you said.

This is:

> >To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
>> >that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
>> >function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...

The link said no such thing.

>>Compounded by your insistance that it is the Drug Enforcement Agency
>> >when in reality it is the Drug Enforcement Administration...
>>
>> My insistance??? Where??
>
>In repeating it?

Sorry things get reposted when they are being repeatedly discussed.

>> Furthermore you are nitpicking. What difference does it make?? Agency or
>> Administration???

>It is an error of fact. When you begin with an admonition that others
>first need to understand when in fact you are so careless to repeat
>two errors of fact....

I asked you what different it made. the above doesn't answer that point. You
are nitpicking.

> >One wonders if you understand anything at all avout this topic.
>>
>> It seems you are making some false accusations. See above and answer.

>
>The FDA does not schedule drugs - the AG does and it is enforced, at
>the Federal level by the DEA.

I beg yur pardon.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:VUzRMc5u9QsJ:www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/di
rectives/2430.rtf+FDA+schedules+drugs&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Some of these drugs are also regulated under the
Controlled Substance Act of 1970. Drugs regulated under the Controlled
Substance Act have a potential for being dangerous and addictive, e.g. 1
narcotics, sedatives, tranquilizers, etc. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970
places dangerous drugs in categories known as schedules and specifies
regulations for their possession, use, and dispensing. The only persons who can
legally possess scheduled substances are those registered with the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) or those possessing a prescription. Both FDA
and DEA set

standards for accountability and storage requirements. The ADC Deputy
Administrator has established a Drug Committee to review and approve
euthanizing and immobilizing agents and training requirements for ADC.

>> I understand about Ritalin, I saw the effects for 38 years in my daycare
>> centers.
>
>You have not demonstrated this.

Yes, I have. Look it up.

>>I certainly do.
>>
>> So you say. It seems you picked something out of then air that isn't there.

>
>It is there - and I snipped the second rendition.

No, you said it started off with something, and it did not.

You can look again.

http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html

The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection




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


First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below are
the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.



FDA Controlled Drug Schedules

Schedule l

These medicines are those with a high abuse and dependence potential.
Typically, the only use for these substances are for research purposes.
Examples include LSD and heroin. A prescription cannot be legally written for
these drugs for medicinal use.

Schedule ll

These medicines have therapeutic uses and have the highest abuse and dependence
potential for drugs with medicinal purposes. Examples include Morphine,
Demerol, Speed, Opium, Cocaine and Ritalin. A written prescription is required
and refills are not allowed.

>> >If one were to use your logic, Demerol and Cocaine are equally
>> >identical.
>>
>> My logic?? Where in this post did you see my logic??
>
>My point exactly - thanks.

You seem to be going in circles.

I ask again what logic are you referring to??

You are repeating what Joe said.

That's a sure sign of ye good ole boy and girl club.

>> > Now, let's see if you can convince a pharmacologist.

>> Me thinks this is a diversion. You are seeing things and making false
>> accusations, while telling us how much you know.

>I pointed out that you have made to errors of fact - and that suggests
>to me that there may be others.

I pointed out, you are seeing things and nirpicking.

>Back up and reboot.
>>
>> Jan
>
>Perhaps you need to take your own advice.

Ditto.

Jan

 

[Jonathan Smith]

[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
> >From: [email protected] (Jonathan Smith)
> >Date: 9/23/2003 10:06 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >You said:
> >
> >> >> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below
> are
> >> >> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
> >
> >To which I replied:
> >
> >> >To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
> >> >that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
> >> >function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...
> >>
> >> Are you seeing things??
> >
> >Yes - I see that an anti-ritalin website misrepresents facts to
> >support their own political position. Personally, I find that
> >offensive.
>
> No, that's not what you said.
>
> This is:
>
> > >To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
> >> >that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
> >> >function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...
>
> The link said no such thing.

Of course it did -

"First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs.
Below are the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules."

> >>Compounded by your insistance that it is the Drug Enforcement Agency
> >> >when in reality it is the Drug Enforcement Administration...
> >>
> >> My insistance??? Where??
> >
> >In repeating it?
>
> Sorry things get reposted when they are being repeatedly discussed.

Repeating an error does not make it a fact.

> >> Furthermore you are nitpicking. What difference does it make?? Agency or
> >> Administration???
>
> >It is an error of fact. When you begin with an admonition that others
> >first need to understand when in fact you are so careless to repeat
> >two errors of fact....
>
> I asked you what different it made. the above doesn't answer that point. You
> are nitpicking.

It makes a big difference if one is to use the process of drug
scheduling to suggest that drugs in the same schedule are
pharmacologically similar.

You took a link to a website previously where the suggestion is that
the DOJ and the Drug Enforcement Agency (sic) describes
methylphenidate. In the header, the source of the information
misspecifies the name of the government agency supposedly providing
these data. Should one believe the rest - considering that the
information is clearly not primary data from the DEA or the DOJ but at
best retyped (or edited?).

> > >One wonders if you understand anything at all avout this topic.
> >>
> >> It seems you are making some false accusations. See above and answer.
>
> >
> >The FDA does not schedule drugs - the AG does and it is enforced, at
> >the Federal level by the DEA.
>
> I beg yur pardon.

Get your simple facts right and maybe you'll improve your credibility
for the conclusions you draw. If you cannot be bothered to check the
accuracy of what you post then don't get all huffy when people
challenge you on it.

> http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:VUzRMc5u9QsJ:www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/di
> rectives/2430.rtf+FDA+schedules+drugs&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
>
> Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Some of these drugs are also regulated under the
> Controlled Substance Act of 1970. Drugs regulated under the Controlled
> Substance Act have a potential for being dangerous and addictive, e.g. 1
> narcotics, sedatives, tranquilizers, etc. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970
> places dangerous drugs in categories known as schedules and specifies
> regulations for their possession, use, and dispensing. The only persons who can
> legally possess scheduled substances are those registered with the Drug
> Enforcement Administration (DEA) or those possessing a prescription. Both FDA
> and DEA set
>
> standards for accountability and storage requirements. The ADC Deputy
> Administrator has established a Drug Committee to review and approve
> euthanizing and immobilizing agents and training requirements for ADC.

Bingo - "also regulated under the Controlled Substances Act". The FDA
regulates drugs, no doubt about that, but it does NOT schedule them.

> >> I understand about Ritalin, I saw the effects for 38 years in my daycare
> >> centers.
> >
> >You have not demonstrated this.
>
> Yes, I have. Look it up.

Now you have. And I had to laugh - in your daycare centers? How old
were these kids and why weren't they in school?

> >>I certainly do.
> >>
> >> So you say. It seems you picked something out of then air that isn't there.
>
> >
> >It is there - and I snipped the second rendition.
>
> No, you said it started off with something, and it did not.
>
> You can look again.

I did and YOU posted it - again.


> http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html
>
> The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
>
> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below are
> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
>

The statement is BLATANTLY incorrect. And once again, for the writer
to be as condescending as to suggest that if one does not "understand"
then one cannot make statements - yet clearly the writer does not
"understand".


> FDA Controlled Drug Schedules
>
> Schedule l
>
> These medicines are those with a high abuse and dependence potential.
> Typically, the only use for these substances are for research purposes.
> Examples include LSD and heroin. A prescription cannot be legally written for
> these drugs for medicinal use.
>
> Schedule ll
>
> These medicines have therapeutic uses and have the highest abuse and dependence
> potential for drugs with medicinal purposes. Examples include Morphine,
> Demerol, Speed, Opium, Cocaine and Ritalin. A written prescription is required
> and refills are not allowed.

Look at this list - is "speed" a schedule II? No. Amphetamine
certainly is, and one form of methamphetamine (not MDMA though -
that's a CI).

Is opium a CII? Well, sort of, but it can be a cIII or even a CV.


> >> >If one were to use your logic, Demerol and Cocaine are equally
> >> >identical.
> >>
> >> My logic?? Where in this post did you see my logic??
> >
> >My point exactly - thanks.
>
> You seem to be going in circles.

Where in your post did I see logic? I didn't. Get it? You likely
were the last one.

> I ask again what logic are you referring to??

Again - exactly.

> You are repeating what Joe said.

> That's a sure sign of ye good ole boy and girl club.

Jan - when you start off your post with a glaring error - then add in
another on top f it, and then take some second hand non-authoritative
source as evidence of your "correctness", its a loser all the way
around.

> >> > Now, let's see if you can convince a pharmacologist.
>
> >> Me thinks this is a diversion. You are seeing things and making false
> >> accusations, while telling us how much you know.
>
> >I pointed out that you have made to errors of fact - and that suggests
> >to me that there may be others.
>
> I pointed out, you are seeing things and nirpicking.

OK - fine. I really don't care.

> >Back up and reboot.
> >>
> >> Jan
> >
> >Perhaps you need to take your own advice.
>
> Ditto.
>
> Jan

I'm done.

js

 

[Marcurio Probertio]

"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
> >From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
> >Date: 9/23/2003 7:25 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >On 23 Sep 2003 22:46:30 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
> >
> >>>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
> >>>From: [email protected] (Jonathan Smith)
> >>>Date: 9/23/2003 10:24 AM Central Standard Time
> >>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>>[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
> >>>news:<[email protected]>...
> >>>> >Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
> >>>> >From: Joe Parsons [email protected]
> >>>> >Date: 9/18/2003 4:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:31:52 +0100, jake <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:07:57 GMT, Joe Parsons
<[email protected]>
> >>>> >>wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:36:01 +0100, jake <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>>>That is not the article that Theta posted. Thus, you must agree
that
> >>>> Theta
> >>>> >>>>>lied.
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>>not at all..
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>>The article may have well have been removed from the DEA website.
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>>the DEA position statement remains precisely the same
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>>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.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>Let me ask you a question, Bob: are you familiar with the process
by
> >>>which
> >>>> the
> >>>> >>>Drug Enforcement Agency placed methylphenidate hcl on Schedule II?
> >>>Dosages
> >>>> used
> >>>> >>>in making the determination? Was the administration parenteral?
What
> >>>> >>>difference might it make, if it was?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>no ..is this relevant to whether ritalin is nearly identical with
> >>>> >>cocaine as the DEA says?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Please show me where DEA says "ritalin is nearly identical with
> >cocaine."
> >>>> >Look
> >>>> >really, really, REALLY hard. I'll wait right here.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html
> >>>>
> >>>> We are already aware of your tricks Mr. Parsons. They are just one of
> >many
> >>>from
> >>>> *organized medicine*
> >>>>
> >>>> The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection
> >>>>
> >>>> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs.
Below
> >>>are
> >>>> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
> >>>that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
> >>>function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...
> >>
> >>Are you seeing things??
> >>
> >>>http://www.resultsproject.net/Cocaine_Ritalin_Connection.html
> >>
> >>>The Cocaine, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, Ritalin Connection
> >>>>
> >>>> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs.
Below
> >>>are
> >>>> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
> >>>
> >>FDA Controlled Drug Schedules
>
>
> >Why would you believe something that's simply been posted on the web--and
> >flagrantly inaccurate in so many areas--as being authoritative?
>
> I am asking this poster, if he is seeing things. So please kindly butt
out.
>
> Evidently he is one of your buddies trying to cover for you.
>
> He evidently made a mistake, and now you are trying to cover for him.
>
> I really don't care what you think I know. I had first hand experience.

Hint: Go to www.dea.gov and see that they are the agency that schedules
drugs.

 

[Joe Parsons]

On 24 Sep 2003 06:11:46 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>>From: [email protected] (Jonathan Smith)
>>Date: 9/23/2003 10:06 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>
>>[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>You said:
>>
>>> >> First, you must understand how the FDA classifies controled drugs. Below
>>> are
>>> >> the FDA's Controlled Drug Schedules.
>>
>>To which I replied:
>>
>>> >To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
>>> >that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
>>> >function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...
>>>
>>> Are you seeing things??
>>
>>Yes - I see that an anti-ritalin website misrepresents facts to
>>support their own political position. Personally, I find that
>>offensive.
>
>No, that's not what you said.
>
>This is:
>
>> >To suggest that FDA schedules drugs and then post a link to a site
>>> >that starts off by saying this - when in reality scheduling is a
>>> >function of the AG and enforced by the DEA, not FDA...
>
>The link said no such thing.
>
>>>Compounded by your insistance that it is the Drug Enforcement Agency
>>> >when in reality it is the Drug Enforcement Administration...
>>>
>>> My insistance??? Where??
>>
>>In repeating it?
>
>Sorry things get reposted when they are being repeatedly discussed.
>
>>> Furthermore you are nitpicking. What difference does it make?? Agency or
>>> Administration???
>
>>It is an error of fact. When you begin with an admonition that others
>>first need to understand when in fact you are so careless to repeat
>>two errors of fact....
>
>I asked you what different it made. the above doesn't answer that point. You
>are nitpicking.
>
>> >One wonders if you understand anything at all avout this topic.
>>>
>>> It seems you are making some false accusations. See above and answer.
>
>>
>>The FDA does not schedule drugs - the AG does and it is enforced, at
>>the Federal level by the DEA.
>
>I beg yur pardon.
>
>http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:VUzRMc5u9QsJ:www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/di
>rectives/2430.rtf+FDA+schedules+drugs&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Now I *know* you don't read what you post. Here's what that page says, in part:

United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

ADC Directive 2.430 3/26/93

EUTHANIZING AND IMMOBILIZING AGENTS

1. PURPOSE

To ensure that ADC personnel receive adequate training to use euthanizing and
immobilizing agents in a professional and proper manner and in compliance with
all applicable laws and regulations.

2. BACKGROUND

Certain drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
immobilize or euthanize animals and are regulated under the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Some of these drugs are also regulated under the
Controlled Substance Act of 1970. Drugs regulated under the Controlled Substance
Act have a potential for being dangerous and addictive, e.g. 1 narcotics,
sedatives, tranquilizers, etc. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 places
dangerous drugs in categories known as schedules and specifies regulations for
their possession, use, and dispensing. The only persons who can legally possess
scheduled substances are those registered with the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) or those possessing a prescription. Both FDA and DEA set
standards for accountability and storage requirements. The ADC Deputy
Administrator has established a Drug Committee to review and approve euthanizing
and immobilizing agents and training requirements for ADC.

3. POLICY

All ADC employees using euthanizing or immobilizing agents must receive adequate
training in accordance with Drug Committee guidelines. Only drugs and training
programs approved by the ADC Immobilizing/Euthanasia Committee (ADC Drug
Committee) are eligible to be used by the ADC program (Attachment I).

[end of quote]

In case anyone feels like reading this comedy directly, here's the link:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S51721FF5

An FDA directive on animal euthanasia...that's rich.

Joe Parsons