A conversation the USA must have.

For anything else...

Moderators: sunny, BzaInSpace, spzretent, MODLAB, NightWash

spzretent
Site Admin
Posts: 5587
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Motor City

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by spzretent »

Sorry for your loss.
http://www.lilmoxie.com
Detroit, Music, Sports and Other Stuff(including Spiritualized, Spacemen 3)
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by redcloud »

Firstly, and most importantly, I too am sorry for your loss.
semisynthetic wrote:
I am certain that I will return to discuss music and other interests rather than continue to share my thoughts with those who have already made up their minds, who are not as open-minded as they might be; but again, that is your choice.
With all due respect Semi, it works both ways. Clearly, on this subject your mind is already made up too.
semisynthetic wrote:But that "Violent Third", are generally the people who cause the worst criminal offenses when they scour the country, and where any American might live.
Because those violent criminals are Americans too.

Clearly we disagree. But, the point of this thread was to discuss the elephant in the room. I hope these discussions continue in Washington and I seriously hope that intense pressure from a powerful profit-making group that has far outspent its opposition by many, many millions does not get in the way of democracy.

On that note....I too am bowing out of this thread.
Hofstadter
Known user
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by Hofstadter »

That's really sad to hear semi.

Even though you won't respond, I have a feeling you might still check this thread (it is hard to ignore those red crosses... they just stand out so much from the rest of the green/grey!).
semisynthetic wrote:I will not attempt "one sentence answers" for matters of Consequence; this is not akin to Answering "Paper or Plastic?" at the checkout counter; which is not a very emotional issue, does not cause very much divisiveness because of varying background and lifestyle, and has an extremely limited affect on such Important Documents and The Philosophy of Living contained in the Constitution of the United States.
I only asked for one sentence answers because I would, as a potentially open-minded, malleable brain for yall to influence, like to hear the core of your justifications for either side expressed concisely. I think if you really do fall strongly on one side of an issue, you should be able to communicate why you feel that certain way on some fundamental, unifying level, and do so simply.

For instance, it seems to me that your (semi's) one sentence answer would be: it is not fair to the vast majority of people who ARE responsible gun-owners, and to "take guns away" (whatever that means) would be to deny people their liberty (maybe a different color though :wink: ).

It would just be helpful to me to hear that straight from the semi-horse's mouth.

In fact, reading that makes me think about my feelings towards drug legalization. If I am an ardent supporter of drug legalization (a conversation the USA maybe not must, but really really should, have), and part of my argument is that it is possible to use drugs responsibly and independently as an individual, does that mean I should also be a big gun-rights supporter (which I will come out and say I am not at all, I was trying to be at least fairly neutral and only ask questions, but oh well... if it has not been made clear in other points, yes I am very "liberal/left/etc" but like I said, trying to just ask questions)? Obviously the analogy is not a perfect isomorphism because there are lots and lots of other bases to my views on drug rights that are pretty different from the gun issue, but there are certainly a few more that I can think of where I can see parallels between my drug justifications and gun arguments. Do I only support drug legalization and anti-gun law because I like one thing and don't like the other? I don't think so, but...
semisynthetic wrote:Denying the worth of the Constitution must be one of the most inane comments I have yet read in this discussion, invoking scat instead of thoughtful give and take of ideas is not worth much of a serious response that have any worthwhile meaning.
Sorry, I was just trying to "stir the pot" a little bit... regardless, still think the way you read my comment wasn't exactly how I intended it to come off (my fault for the purposefully slightly antagonist phrasing) - the feeling I was trying to express was that I think pointing at the Constitution and saying "because it says so!" is a horrible argument, and one that a lot of people give or that a lot of defenses for things boil down to. It's totally mindless. I was trying to ask for justification for why it should be in the constitution in the first place - what the reasoning for the inclusion would be... the explanation for having guns be something protected by the constitution today... I was not asking in a "because I don't think it should be" sort of way, but just in a "I honestly, genuinely want to hear why you think owning guns is a fundamental right" sort of way. Like I said before, it is pretty easy to explain why, say, the first amendment as a whole is and should be a part of the constitution, or for instance going through any random article/clause/amendment, you could try to explain why we would want that to be included in the constitution/what the point of that particular piece of text is from both a classical, founding fathers point of view and a modern perspective.

I am simply asking people to try do the same with the second amendment - why should guns be protected? I made the specific caveat of "from a modern perspective" because there are a lot of arguments (centering around the idea of militia/revolution) that used to be relevant but are just not relevant in USA today (maybe Syria, but not here).

I also was not trying to accuse anybody of using that sort of "because it says so" argument that I don't like, I was just trying to preempt any of those.
semisynthetic wrote:I do NOT want ANY part of the Constitution touched; it is a Document and a Philosophy - Freedom of Choice for the Individual that has served this Country, and arguably, helped to serve (and save) great parts of the world.
Do you mind if I ask you about this bit? Just because it is something that is not too uncommon to hear and yet confuses me very much. I get the "constitution as a philosophy" idea, but REALLY don't understand what is meant by "Constitution as a Document/historical document"... if it is a historical document of the past, then why should we look to as the actual framework for our present day government? Shouldn't it just be a philosophical model for whatever it is that actually dictates how our government/society works? Also, why should some document be so hallowed/respected if it is just an old "Document"... this goes back to what I was saying about "pointing at the constitution" as opposed to actually justifying it.... I just don't get what "it is a Document" is supposed to mean...

On top of that, you
semisynthetic wrote:do NOT want ANY part of the Constitution touched
- this seriously makes no sense to me, please help me understand this. Does this mean the amendment process is invalid, or is that okay because it is described in the constitution? It's just a confusing thing to say because the Constitution itself provides a means for it to be "touched." Your statement makes even less sense to me if you want the constitution to be our actual, present day framework for our government - would you have black people only count for 3/5s in the census and be unable to vote/also is slavery cool? (just pickin' original constitution stuff that obviously is not chill today) I guess maybe I would understand you better if I knew what you meant by "touched," because I am sure you are not down with slavery. I think your statement makes a little more sense if you are only viewing the constitution as a historical document from which you are drawing some philosophical pointers.

Anyways, help me understand you man.

semisynthetic wrote: The Idea of The Individual is a very important concept. You may have one view, and I, another, but it is the nature of a Free Nation to agree to disagree; not for the loudest or the majority to control.
Definitely not the loudest's right to control shit, the majority though? That's where things get really confusing I think... especially if you don't like the majority :lol:!

Sorry for typos/grammar, in a rush.
semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: A conversation the USA must have?

Post by semisynthetic »

.
.

My Philosophy in these matters is fairly straight forward; punish the CRIMINAL for the commiting an actual crime rather than making the ownership of "X" the crime. Emotional responses alone have often made bad law.

"Legalization" in general, or the Freedom to do what one wants stops only when it infringes upon the Rights of others.

Apply that to most things, and you put the onus on the CRIMINAL element, give more Freedom to the Individual, and take away power from a government that seeks only to grow itself and have yet MORE Power over practically every aspect of our lives.

That kind of absolute Control may be just fine for the Subjects of Colonies and Monarchies, or "property" of Neo-Socialist Governments, but NOT HERE in the USA. Make the CRIME COMMITTED illegal, not an object or substance. What one does peacefully in the Privacy of their own home is very different than committing a Crime outside of that home.

Had that Criminal mentioned above pickled himself along with his friends at HOME, no crime; but when they jeopardized the health and well being of the Innocent, they should put them away for murder, not a slap on the wrist that allowed yet more senseless deaths. They were punished THIS time by circumstance; maybe kharma; but it is inexcusable that their actions caused the deaths of innocent children and their mothers. Disgraceful.

That is about as concisely as I can manage the general Idea. I hope this is helpful to understanding what I have tried to convey.

Since this is only a brief synopsis, it is incomplete.

.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus
semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by semisynthetic »

redcloud wrote:Firstly, and most importantly, I too am sorry for your loss.
semisynthetic wrote:
I am certain that I will return to discuss music and other interests rather than continue to share my thoughts with those who have already made up their minds, who are not as open-minded as they might be; but again, that is your choice.
With all due respect Semi, it works both ways. Clearly, on this subject your mind is already made up too.
Not Quite. I DO understand that many people choose to NOT enjoy shooting sports and/or hunting; yet I do not wish to impose any sort of demand upon them, (or you). It has always struck me as ironic that the "liberal" thinker is more likely to prefer to not only be TOLD what they can or cannot do, but in turn, wish to TELL OTHERS what they are "allowed" to do based upon the "liberal" view.

No, I understand the opposing view and condone it as valid; I understand and believe both points of view should be allowed to exist. Let those who wish to NOT own a firearm, not own one, and say so under the 1st Amendment. Let those who qualify, own as their Rights allow under the 2nd Amendment.
You, I believe, do not.



I appreciate all who have written about the tragic loss of life on December 30th. Thank You for your Sympathetic comments.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by redcloud »

semisynthetic wrote:Let those who qualify, own as their Rights allow under the 2nd Amendment.
You, I believe, do not.
I will refer to my comment I made in several posts throughout this thread.

Nobody has, of yet, convinced me nor have they even tried to convince me WHY anybody needs to own a semi or fully automatic gun.
Hofstadter
Known user
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have?

Post by Hofstadter »

semisynthetic wrote: That is about as concisely as I can manage the general Idea. I hope this is helpful to understanding what I have tried to convey
Very helpful, thanks - I see now that it does in fact parallel my ideas for legalization of certain substances quote a bit when I cut down to the core - now the question I have to answer for myself I guess is, is it too easy for guns to infringe on others rights (namely, right to life) compared to drugs, which for the most part only affect the individual?

Anyways, I would love it for you to respond to some of my other questions man - they are not really even about guns, so please man, I really want to here what you have to say! I am a young, impressionable, soon to be voter, view me as a mind to mold :lol: (alright it's already got a pretty defined shaped, but I really do want to hear your answers!). Please don't ignore them!
Shinesalight
Known user
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Brighton, U.K.
Contact:

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by Shinesalight »

Just saw this on FB via Neil Eat Lights. I really dislike Piers Morgan, but even he looks like a genius compared to this "don't mess with our 2nd Ammendment" nut job :shock: :-

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQPZ-taYBs

Now, I didn't have a clue who this Alex Jones was and just took him for some rabid far-right lunatic but, going by his wiki page, he says he doesn't consider himself to right-wing, but rather a libertarian. Obviously the guy is very passionate about what he believes in and you can see he's never going to let ANYONE take his guns away. Although this guy is an extreme case, this is the sort of person I picture when we're talking of 2nd Ammendment defenders (sorry Semi). Someone who just won't budge or even listen to counter arguments no matter what disaster happens. Hopefully, after his performance on this show, he would have done us a favour, and his petition to get Piers Morgan kicked out of the US will fall on deaf ears (because, frankly, we don't want him back. :wink: ) I would like to assume that most of the clear thinking US population would rather ship this guy out anyway.
www.dronerockrecords.com
The Home of Drone
Laz69
Known user
Posts: 2632
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:09 am
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by Laz69 »

I agree with you on Piers generally as i'm not a fan of him, but he does let this guy hang himself by letting him go off on a lunatic-style rant... this is all Piers had to do. I think Alex's paranoia comes through though when he's talking about the banks taking over the world and the sponsorship by drug companies giving out their suicide pills. He may be intelligent and knowledgeable, but if you behave like a lunatic, you'll be treated like one and people won't listen to you rationally. There is another video online from him in response to this appearance with Piers where he claims the CIA are tailing him now.

I can't take him or any off his comments seriously after that display...
Shinesalight
Known user
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Brighton, U.K.
Contact:

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by Shinesalight »

Brilliant column written by Simon Kelner in today's i newspaper summed up perfectly in his final paragraph:-

"Only in America, you might say. Only in America would it even be a matter for debate that, in the wake of another horror, gun ownership should be controlled. Only in America would prime-time be given over to man who believes that the Bush administration was behind 9/11 and that Prozac, rather than guns, is the primary source of murder in the US. And only in America could Piers Morgan achieve the fame he always craved."
www.dronerockrecords.com
The Home of Drone
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by redcloud »

My wife and I actually watch Piers most evenings. Mainly because he has a knack of getting his guests to talk and he often gets a good interview out of them. He replaced Larry King who towards the end of his career was dreadful. Most of the time when King interviewed somebody you didn't learn anything that you didn't already know.

I know Piers isn't well received in the UK but to be fair to him he has been very good about keeping this important gun debate in the media and having people discuss, question and re-examine what our priorities are as a nation (or maybe what they should be!). If he manages to help generate a movement on this important issue than he will have earned back any lost karma for his slimy days with The News of the World, The Daily Mirror or the phone hacking scandal.

So, we watched, in horror on Monday night as Piers interviewed this man who not only started the petition to have him deported but who has a popular radio show. He came on with an agenda and that was to not let Morgan speak. He was a raving lunatic from start to finish. He is also way beyond the far right...he is a total paranoid conspiracy theorists whack job! He also does not represent the NRA well! Knowing that this man owns 50 guns imagine being in his house and disagreeing with him? As he foams at the mouth and becomes more and more unhinged and aggressive he is the LAST person I would want to have a gun!
Hofstadter
Known user
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by Hofstadter »

redcloud wrote:My wife and I actually watch Piers most evenings. Mainly because he has a knack of getting his guests to talk and he often gets a good interview out of them. He replaced Larry King who towards the end of his career was dreadful. Most of the time when King interviewed somebody you didn't learn anything that you didn't already know.
Off topic, but Larry King owns a bagel place around the corner from me called "the Brooklyn Water Bagel Co" (remember, I live in LA) - tag line: "it's all about the water" - the principle is that what makes their water so great is that they have a "Brooklynizer" - this huge shiny machine that looks like some sort of distillery/home brew thing that gets the water to perfectly match the "pH" and "nutrient-content" of Brooklyn water (which makes new york bagels so good...), and they then use that water to make the bagels... it's such a fucking sham, the thing is clearly fake... there's fake brick on all the walls, they are always playing the Odd Couple, and it's 10 dollars for a bagel... what a joke. It's a pretty hilarious place. Also, Larry King's son (yes, son) was in the local little league several years back, and Larry King got kicked out of multiple games for screaming at players on his own son's team. Just thought yall might find that entertaining.
spzretent
Site Admin
Posts: 5587
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Motor City

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by spzretent »

Completely off topic and something that irritates me to no end is Detroit have the best bagels I have ever had. I have been to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Seattle, Toronto, Monteal, London, Israel and more and nowhere are the bagels as good as they are here. They are not huge water bagels but more dense and flavorful. And no ridiculous flavors. Just plain, egg, onion, salt, raisin, and pumpernickel.
Rant over 'cuz I am off to the toaster!
http://www.lilmoxie.com
Detroit, Music, Sports and Other Stuff(including Spiritualized, Spacemen 3)
semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by semisynthetic »

.
.(Last night I was flipping through the televison, when I came upon and watched a documentary in progress of which the "tag line" was of importance to me, the documentary "deals with the State of Education in the USA and how the quality has declined over time". I observed this myself for many years; college students in there 3rd or 4th year who were essentially "mathematically illiterate" for what they proposed to study, and whose problem solving skills on many levels were far less able than the students from even the previous year; this was an observable decline; something that may illustrate this observation more clearly was a "quiz" I had routinely given out the first week of the class which covered the essentials necessary for the (most advanced) Organic Synthesis Laboratory and Theory that pre-med or chemical engineers, and those wishing to pursue a Post Graduate degree would need in order to do well in the class. The data, over time, was very clear. The same quiz was used every year, and had no credit attached to it, this was simply a way for me to see what the strengths and weaknesses of those in an incoming class were; I just changed the order of the questions; the scores were around 92% average in 1983, and by 2000, the score was 47%). WHY? If anything, the questions were "old news" if the educational system below the collegiate level was keeping pace; so after 17+ years, the scores should have improved, or at least, stayed about the same.


THE FOLLOWING IS THE MOST INTERESTING, (AND for me, SHOCKING DATA PRESENTED):
School shooting after school shooting was committed by kids who were loaded up with a soup of prescribed antidepressants of the greatest potency; Lumox, Celexa, various Tryptallines and many others, very often combined with methylphenidate! The pharmacological data that accompanies all of these and other drugs in the same class, ALL make it quite clear that Agitation, and Psychosis, especially when the drugs are combined, could (and does) lead to Violent Anti-social Behaviors; there was an extensive list of schools where these shootings occurred, and in almost every case, the kid (or kids) were known to have been taking these powerful prescription drugs. All of these drugs are powerful substances, and methylphenidate (RITALIN), makes a nasty "chaser", and is a substance which further confuses the brain chemistry of an individual taking these antidepressants. The brain chemistry of the youth is NOT the same as an adult; there is a reason that kids go to pediatricians, they are physically and biochemically "different". Some kids may actually NEED this treatment, but the numbers cited were not reasonable; there were seemingly TOO many kids being given this stuff.

These compounds interfere with normal serotonin uptake, cause great disturbances in the normal flow of dopamines and other normal neurotransmitters in the brain. I was shocked that so many kids were essentially "doped" to keep them sedate in class, since energy, excitement and involvement with projects makes a much better student than some zombie-voodoo-mixture-for-breakfast each morning does; they may be passive and controllable; they may APPEAR to be calm, but inside these kids are ticking time bombs. It is no wonder that from Columbine, (and before, and certainly AFTER) most of the shootings by students were committed by kids full of prescribed, yet dangerous, mind altering substances that have a proclivity for inciting violent behavior. PERHAPS THIS aspect of "education" and violence in school should be addressed before we decide to "change the Constitution" or make schools look more like Prisons.

The explanation for why children aren't learning at the level they should be, a level that was once the norm, and not the exception might also be helpful in explaining just why too many finally snap, and commit Violent and Psychotic acts that seem to defy logic. No ONE variable can necessarilly be "the answer", but this data is thought provoking.

This "drugging" of the kids in the classroom may explain quite a bit. It is so obvious a potential problem, that to ignore it would be foolish.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus
sunray
Known user
Posts: 3131
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:07 pm

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by sunray »

Alex Jones may be completely paranoid but some of his stuff is plausible. Problem is if you go down that road you'd never leave your fucking house for fear of what's going on!

Semi, I read your latest post and immediately thought of Dead Kennedys 'Hyperactive Child'.
Nineteen...Nineteen...Six Five
semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by semisynthetic »

The Dead Kennedy's were GREAT in their way; they kicked Political Correctness in the ass, made a joke out of almost everything;
If you can find a Promo DVD called "Fresh Fruit for Rotting Eyeballs", you will see and hear more things from their side of the story; how it was serious, but at the same time, fun and a lot of "hyperactivity".

There is a GREAT East German Bootleg; a blue cover w/ an insert of a wartime postcard; and between THEIR songs, they play intros from Yes and other bands; it just made their bizarre brand of humor and entertainment even weirder!
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by redcloud »

semisynthetic wrote:This "drugging" of the kids in the classroom may explain quite a bit. It is so obvious a potential problem, that to ignore it would be foolish.
Semi, you raise a good point. Those doing the drugging though are parents and physicians as schools obviously cannot dispense drugs. There is an entire generation (or two) that have been drugged to the eyeballs by parents and physicians.

I cannot remember the last time I had a prescription or an antibiotic. Well, actually thinking about it....it was seven years ago when I had a hernia operation. Seven years! My wife and I have been in company with people who rattle off names of various prescription drugs in everyday conversation as if it is common knowledge. We're lost! It's like they are speaking a different language.

I have also read that water filtration/purifying plants now have to take into consideration how to filter out the many prescription drugs that are excreted through urine. We have become a nation that is hostage to the multibillion dollar prescription drug companies. No wonder health care is so damn expensive and doctors make so much money!
Hofstadter
Known user
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by Hofstadter »

Video of the Jones/Morgan thing for those interested - not really posting for discussion I guess because it is just so absurd, more for entertainment value. Because it is entertaining. It's pretty awesome. Sorry for not contributing to the conversation.

Semi, since you are back in the thread, I am still interested in your responses to my questions about the Constitution, really genuinely.


Re: the drugging stuff: as somebody who is in high school... it is crazy how common prescription meds are... it's hard to say about SSRI's because people are less open about that/people are less interested in those because they cannot really be used recreationally/people might be embarrassed by them, but I definitely have friends who are prescribed SSRIs who don't need them/don't take them because they understand that they are given them just as a result of freaked out/overbearing parents, and I also have some friends who do take them and it helps them, and friends who, when they are taking them per their parents requests, I can clearly tell the difference and it's freaky how zombie like they become...

On the other hand, meds like Ritalin/Concerta/Adderall/Vyvanse - i.e. amphetamines, methylphenidate, dimethylphenidate, etc) are VERY common, both for prescribed use - and again, it is clear that it helps some people and just makes others totally loopy - and recreational use (studying and fun... at all these sort of high-powered/high-stress/high-expectation private schools in LA/NYC/the New England boarding schools, they are used quite a bit as study aids - I can provide you with links to some articles that actually specifically mention my school/others). What I find really interesting is that if I refer to somebody as using "speed," whoever I'm talking to might say "What the fuck? Speed? Really?" while on the otherhand if I say "adderall" it would just seem like no big deal... really their one and the same...

So yeah, I guess the point of that was that I have firsthand experience with going to school in an overmedicated society. Crazy how easy access to this stuff is for students who want to use the stuff recreationally...

And redcloud, that last bit... wow that's creepy.
toomilk
Known user
Posts: 2973
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by toomilk »

Hofstadter
Known user
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by Hofstadter »

I burst out laughing in the middle of class. Thanks Kevin.

:lol:
semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by semisynthetic »

Hofstadter wrote:[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-tsHlDviuA]Video of the Jones/Morgan thing for those interested

On the other hand, meds like Ritalin/Concerta/Adderall/Vyvanse - i.e. amphetamines, methylphenidate, dimethylphenidate, etc) are VERY common, both for prescribed use - and again, it is clear that it helps some people and just makes others totally loopy - and recreational use (studying and fun... at all these sort of high-powered/high-stress/high-expectation private schools in LA/NYC/the New England boarding schools, they are used quite a bit as study aids - I can provide you with links to some articles that actually specifically mention my school/others). What I find really interesting is that if I refer to somebody as using "speed," whoever I'm talking to might say "What the fuck? Speed? Really?" while on the otherhand if I say "adderall" it would just seem like no big deal... really their one and the same...So yeah, I guess the point of that was that I have firsthand experience with going to school in an overmedicated society. Crazy how easy access to this stuff is for students who want to use the stuff recreationally...


NO! Not quite. I will attempt to explain:


These compounds do share a common moeity, one that gives them biological activity, the phenylethylamine nucleus; when you compare the chemical structure of [amphetamine] with [methylphenidate] you see the phenylethylamine moeity common to both; but the steric hindrance (and electronics) of [methylphenidate] cause the stimulant effect to be attenuated; they may both be stimulants, but so is caffeine!; [amphetamine], by the nature of its structure is a far more effective stimulant; and also far more toxic per unit dose over time. MANY analogues of phenylethylamine compounds are synthesized to INCLUDE a moeity that attenuates the marked effects of [amphetamine], but retain SOME stimulant activity. You are close, but your comparison lacks precision and specificity. In [amphetamine], the ONLY additional moeity, as you can see from viewing the structure is a 2-methyl group; whereas the attenuating structures in [Ritalin] are two; the methyl ester of acetic acid, and 2-piperidine. Ergo, [amphetamine] is 2-methyl Phenylethylamine, and [Ritalin] is alpha-Phenyl-2-piperidineneacetic acid methyl ester.

BOTH can cause dependence; but Ritalin has a very different effect in the younger person; that "Biochemical demarcation/ and "change" that occurs with time causes the drug to have vastly greater stimulant activity; so there is a quandary; when, IF it is deemed necessary should the person QUIT taking it? Usually, any so called "hyperactivity" decreases with age; but the person taking the drug may develop firstly, psychological dependence, followed, in time, by physical dependence. The fact that there IS a change in a child's biochemistry with time makes cessation of [Ritalin] important to their health, both psychologically, and physiologically. THAT IS THE MOST OBVIOUS PROBLEM POINT. I wouldn't care if my kid bounced off the walls like the old "superball", I would be extremely reticent to have them take these medications. The long term consequences, on a number of levels would likely make me prohibit it for my child. Only in a short term usage if it was absolutely a medical (not a state) requirement.

The laws and procedures vary from state to state vary on why Jimmy has to take Ritalin. In many states, the school nurse or another person in the school system can say to little Jimmy's parents that Miss Ratchet just can't control little Jimmy, or he isn't COMPLIANT! And then the cascade of paperwork begins to have little Jimmy "comply" and go get a prescription; and who DOES give prescriptions?

Don't blame the Dr. for doing the state's dirty work. Where I live, Doctors are loathe to give out such meds to kids; and even Law Enforcement sees a problem; but let us NOT do two things: PLEASE DO NOT change the subject to "drugs in AMERICA" when the main discourse was centered on DRUGGING THE KIDS; and secondly, although it IS true that Physicians get paid more than ditch diggers; both honorable professions, but quite different when it comes to prerequisites.

I take some offense at the "getting rich" remark; I know many Physicians, and they do well, but there is another even greater cost to the Country's future. Imagine a Dr's office bills out $1000; how much of that do you think ACTUALLY goes to the Physician? This isn't a Soap Opera; they don't get $1000. If a physician gets 20% of what they have billed for, that is a high-end reimbursement. IF they are very good at what they do, and are in demand, they might make $300,000 or so a year, depending on their specialty, and they can pay upwards OR MORE than 50% in taxes for a 60-80 hour work week with enormous responsibility and accountability. (The new "healthcare" rules will weigh down upon Physicians even more; already Medical Schools have seen decreases, some for the first time in their history). Is all this "fair", when so many people wriggle out of paying NOTHING? It seems that the Country's morale would be improved if everyone who worked paid SOMETHING. You made $500 last year? Put $10 in the kitty and quit bitching. Pay your way by working harder; NOT by having your hand out to get what someone ELSE earned. The "$ figures" I used were purely for the idea; I do not want anyone to starve; but I also don't want to pay anyone healthy and able to work to sit and watch Looney-Toons at someone else's expense. THAT is not "fair" in any otherworldly view. All of this "fair" tax crap is damned annoying, unless, I suppose you live with mum and dad or are on the dole as a way of life, if it can be CALLED life; more like "existence".


IF you are going to be a proponent of this legalization idea, you had best have an excellent working knowledge of EXACTLY what drug is what, and not generalize; Specificity is KEY when dealing with any complex and emotional topic. Having an opinion is fine, but attempting to actually convince people who tend to see the negative side of almost everything anyway, is not going to be easy. Most people probably are better off with an aspirin a day. Period. The ignorance in this culture is mind-numbing WITHOUT drugs! Read more, Learn more; and your opinion may actually matter. Otherwise, you will be just another person who wants to get spiffed, and convince only those who already agree with you.
.
Last edited by semisynthetic on Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus
Hofstadter
Known user
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by Hofstadter »

First of all, although I did know that they are not all the same and feel that my mistake was just that I was listing them carelessly - I do know which corresponds to which, I was just grouping them together because they are all present at my school - I have to say I really liked reading your more detailed descriptions of the differences. (Also, when I wrote dimethylphenidate I meant to write dexmethylphenidate i.e. focalin). I only have very basic O.Chem knowledge (pretty much just yer standard functional groups/nomenclature/basic organic reactions), it is enjoyable/interesting to me to try to piece through the differences.
NO! Not quite. I will attempt to explain:
Can you tell me what exactly you were saying no to? Re-reading what you quoted of mine, I don't really see anything that's wrong there besides my casual listing. I was never saying they were all the same, just grouping them together... maybe that was invalid? Again, like you said, they do have a lot of things in common. (Plus, Ritalin and Concerta the exact same thing - methylphenidate - just timed differently). The only thing that was really wrong was di vs. dexmethylphenidate, and you didn't even mention that!! Almost all of the stuff was just me talking about my school...

The only thing I can think of seems to be when I compared "speed" and adderall," since you bolded that part so it must have osme significance to you - I will however ask this - I wasn't wrong in saying Speed and Adderall were one and the same was I? Speed is already a very generic term, but generally (:lol: - I know you don't like that word, but I'm still using it!) speaking (pretty much always), it is used in reference to amphetamines... Adderall is just a few different amphetamines is it not?

(dextroamphetamine saccharate, dextroamphetamine sulfate, (racemic) amphetamine aspartate monohydrate, (racemic) amphetamine sulfate - all in equal parts usually right?).
semisynthetic wrote:Don't blame the Dr. for doing the state's dirty work.
I don't really get what that means. I guess you're talking about public schools, and a process that leads to kids getting prescriptions because their school recommends they go see a doctor? I'll be honest, this is something I have no knowledge of. I was just talking about my own personal experience, where kids can just ask their parents to go see the doctor or parents bring their kids to the doctor. Also, I attend a private school, so I the state doesn't really factor into my experience.
semi wrote:Where I live, Doctors are loathe to give out such meds to kids
that's your experience man - don't generalize it :wink: we live in very different places... as I made clear in my post, I was only sharing my own personal experience as I felt I could provide a point of view that was in the middle of what you guys were talking about. Purely anecdotal about the school I go to/community I am in.
PLEASE DO NOT change the subject to "drugs in AMERICA" when the main discourse was centered on DRUGGING THE KIDS
Couldn't tell if this was addressed at me or not, felt like it was because of the use of "was" as opposed to "is"... don't know why I am getting all defensive... anyways, I don't think I was changing the topic at all... if you were saying that in reference to my early posts where I just had some random musings on drug stuff, I think those posts occurred before this whole topic came up...

and on the subject of not changing the subject, the subject did at some point get changed by a certain somebody from guns to drugging the kids... :lol: alright that was pretty facetious. I would still like a response to my questions about your views on the constitution, (see what I did there :wink: :lol: ) or at least an "I will not respond to those questions" (I really don't see why you wouldn't, you're clearly the smarter, older person in this dialogue, I was just hoping you could explain to me what you said so I could better understand it... I don't see why that would be so hard for you who clearly seems to have a lot to say on most topics).
take some offense at the "getting rich" remark
:?: What? Sorry, I just feel like I missed something, I have NO idea what this is a reference to... none at all... I even took the time to do a ctrl-f! Also, that whole paragraph about health care and taxes and such? I thought this was about drugging the kids? :lol: I mean guns? :lol: (sorry, couldn't help myself there...)
I suppose you live with mum and dad or are on the dole as a way of life, if it can be CALLED life; more like "existence".
I do! How'd you know????.... you sly devil. Sorry, I don't know what's gotten me in this mood. Maybe it's just existing as opposed to living... it really gets me down sometimes. #existentialcrisis Seriously man, I hope that thing about living was not directed at me, and if it was - really, because I live with my parents!? I am still in high school... I have a feeling it wasn't directed at me though, in which case, nevermind, ignore this paragraph.
Otherwise, you will be just another person who wants to get spiffed
Jahhhhhhhh. No not really... maybe? I don't think I am. I have very full opinions on legalization stuff which I have not brought up at all (definitely don't intend to write now either, at least not in this thread).

Couldn't I say the same about lots of gun owners (not you, but many?)... just another person who wants to be carrying their gun?
you had best have an excellent working knowledge of EXACTLY what drug is what
I'd like to think I do, I regret not making that clearer earlier on. Again, I was trying to share personal experience. I could even describe to you very well the subjective differences to you, but I won't.

Anyways, I am much less interested in the legalization of these (semi-legal) drugs than I am various fungi/cacti/plants/RCs/etc - i.e. drugs that can generally be considered to be non-addictive. That is what I have done much more research into and would consider myself more equipped to talk about (in all regards), but again, that really has no bearing on this thread right now.

As a side note, I would consider "dialogue" to be the point of this thread/forum - everybody goes off on their own tangents all the time, and that's fine, but it would be nice if, instead of quoting a large block of test, and then putting your own large block of text that meanders away very quickly, we tried to have a very direct back and forth so everybody could understand each other better. I tried to make it very clear what I mean when I say this by making this post itself an example of what I think is good for the forum - if I have something to say, picking out the parts of your text that lead me to say it/lead me to questions/etc and addressing specific things that you said so that you can address specific things that I have said.

And I'm still waiting on a response to the constitution stuff - the Document and Philosophy that cannot be touched parts --> my comment was here

Also, I'm sorry if I am being a bit facetious/sarcastic at times, it's not to attack you, it's just because I don't want to be very self-serious as I just dislike self-seriousness in general
moop
Known user
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by moop »

Hofstadter wrote: As a side note, I would consider "dialogue" to be the point of this thread/forum - everybody goes off on their own tangents all the time, and that's fine, but it would be nice if, instead of quoting a large block of test, and then putting your own large block of text that meanders away very quickly, we tried to have a very direct back and forth so everybody could understand each other better. I tried to make it very clear what I mean when I say this by making this post itself an example of what I think is good for the forum - if I have something to say, picking out the parts of your text that lead me to say it/lead me to questions/etc and addressing specific things that you said so that you can address specific things that I have said.
[/b][/quote][i][b][u][size=200][color=# ... u][/b][/i] :mrgreen:
Last edited by moop on Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hofstadter
Known user
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by Hofstadter »

I'm sorry, definitely didn't mean to cross.... Not sure if you were serious or not though since part of the whole joke of that scene is that Walters rxn is itself... Well you can fill in the rest.

Where did I cross so I know not to make that mistake in the future? Just want to be a better board member yo.

EDIT: All I was trying to say is that I think the best way to understand each other is through question and answer... I think semi has said repeatedly that we need to be open minded/receptive to what others are saying - I think the only way of doing that is by engaging in dialogue - it has to be a two way street. That's all I want. To be able to ask questions, but more importantly, be asked questions that force me to think about what I am saying - I think that's the way to get people to potentially change their minds, challenging what they are saying so they are forced to examine their own views, and perhaps in so doing gain a better understanding of the the flaws in them. Sometimes having to explain what you are saying is the best way to see that it may be wrong...

Sorry for any hard feelings i may have caused in this thread by 'stirring the pot' a little pit, just trying to... Be a gadfly. We all have to be each other's gadflies... Now THAT was pretentious.
Last edited by Hofstadter on Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
moop
Known user
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by moop »

haha, no just messing with ya
Hofstadter
Known user
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by Hofstadter »

O woops. Sorry for misinterpreting ya in my last comment. Ill leave it just since I clarified what I was trying to say in the edit.

re the gadfly comment - this is a forum not am agora, but oh well. hehe
moop
Known user
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:46 am

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by moop »

there. edited mine too (to a smiley face so it's clearer what i meant). humour can be tricky in text form sometimes!
having to explain why what i said was supposed to be funny is probably the best way to see that it wasn't particularly funny in the first place, haha. actually i was just calling you out on your humorous use of formatting... :roll:

i agree with what you said. it's interesting how some topics in this thread get pounced upon and others get ignored/lost in the pages of discussion. i'd be interested to hear the responses too. Actually, this has been a particularly interesting thread. i didn't join in because i wanted to hear the various 'American' perspectives. it's been quite illuminating to be honest. one thing i'll never get over is the extent to which political issues are polarised in the US. i blame the media!

so.. yeah, overly prescribed drugs to kids. it sounds like this is a pretty big problem, esp in the US. i'd like to hear more on exactly why you guys think this is happening. I mean, is it just used as a lazy solution to bad behaviour? It is because meds have become so familiar that people don't think twice about prescribing/taking them? Is it a sign of the times caused by a youth disenchanted by the perceived lack of jobs/opportunities? Certainly if frequently prescribed drugs are linked to the shootings it's not a good advert for the companies, so it makes sense that if the company in question is sponsoring certain people/organisations, they would keep quiet. I assume that's what alex jones was getting at!?

It's a shame the guy isn't more articulate or that would have been an interesting discussion. but you're right, it was comedy gold. somehow me reminds me bill hicks' hyper-american character, except he's not joking. I think when he responds to piers' question with 'how many chimpanzees can dance on the head of a pin' you can hear one of the production team laughing. I have no idea how piers kept a straight face - either he's a robot or he has no soul :wink:
semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by semisynthetic »

Hello Hofstadter;

Your confusion is understandable. "NO" simply referred to the reference that Ritalin, et al, were "amphetamines"; that is an error; [amphetamines] are a very specific family of compounds, not simply a generic name for stimulants. The other substances, the Phenidates, do all have varying attenuated stimulant activity, for the structural reasons I described; but they are not "amphetamines". Adderall is MOST CERTAINLY a combination of amphetamines. As for my "cranky remark" about if "you live with mum and dad", I should have been clearer; I was referring to someone much older than I know you to be from the context of what you have written; IF you are STILL home with mum and dad in 15 years, yeah, it applies to you if you are Healthy, but just lazy; however, it was NOT intended for you. I was making a few ad hoc comments, and as you will see, below, not referencing only your questions or comments.

I was also responding in part, to some of what redcloud had mentioned; if you read his contribution next or near to the one you wrote, and I responded to it, you will see that; I was simply trying to answer both (you) and redcloud, but time was short and I did not finish an important point that I touched upon that redcloud presented; I did not want the SPECIFIC
references to "KIDS ON MIND-ALTERING DRUGS", in which (almost) EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL SHOOTING the kid that snapped was known to be taking this soup of Mind Altering substances; I do not mean "psychedelics", or a "Trip around the Bay", I specifically refer to the compounds written about that were discussed in the "school documentary" that cause, and are known to cause Psychosis, Alienation and a proclivity for VIOLENT ACTIVITY; THAT kind of mind-altering-drug; (benzodiazapines are not likely to cause ANY violence); these antidepressants and stimulants that DON'T ACT THAT way in younger kids, but over time, as the kid grows older, biochemical factors are CHANGING in that student, and create a real "crossing of the wires" in the minds of these kids.

I did not really like the idea of that gentle rhetorical Shift from "KIDS ON MIND-ALTERING DRUGS" to a watered down, generalized, "AMERICANS ON DRUGS", I believe it clouds the point - why so many kids are often forced to take these medications, and also the point that the pool of kids who snapped and KILLED were almost all known to be prescribed compounds that, in combination, are known to cause SEVERE problems; ergo, go take a GOOD LOOK at WHO "ENFORCES" this "COMPLIANCE", and what effect these drugs have on the kids who snapped.

There are many reasons Societal trends have devolved into what they are; making these kids into Violence-prone little-chemical-voodoo-zombies may be a VERY IMPORTANT AREA that should be considered before we start mucking about with the Constitution, only to find the problems are somewhere else. The question and problems related to ADULT usage is interesting, but way outside of the point I discussed earlier. Save that for another day.

I hope that clears up the confusion, and answers your questions. I should have finished or at least made the last point (above), clearer at the time, but a lack of time, interferred, and I apologize.

.
Last edited by semisynthetic on Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:52 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus
semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: A conversation the USA must have.

Post by semisynthetic »

redcloud wrote:
semisynthetic wrote:This "drugging" of the kids in the classroom may explain quite a bit. It is so obvious a potential problem, that to ignore it would be foolish.
Semi, you raise a good point. Those doing the drugging though are parents and physicians as schools obviously cannot dispense drugs. There is an entire generation (or two) that have been drugged to the eyeballs by parents and physicians.

I have also read that water filtration/purifying plants now have to take into consideration how to filter out the many prescription drugs that are excreted through urine. We have become a nation that is hostage to the multibillion dollar prescription drug
companies. No wonder health care is so damn expensive and doctors make so much money!
Parents and Physicians VERY OFTEN AT THE BEHEST OF SCHOOL SYSTEM CRITERIA! I believe it is terrible; and I do not understand how the idea of zoning-out-Jimmy makes him a better student; most children, do NOT have a mental disorder sufficient to warrant such powerful, mind disturbing drugs. Over time, these compounds have incredibly deleterious effects in many children and young adults who are STILL on medications that should have been ceased years earlier providing they ever REALLY needed them in the first place. But, they become "COMPLIANT"! I am certain some PARENTS
want Jimmy quiet and compliant; but little Jimmy can snap, and has, and will, and why is it so staggeringly ignored?

In my "live and let live" approach to life, there are some stunningly BAD EXAMPLES from the State and some School Systems. How can it be "Ritalin Time", right before or after the D.A.R.E anti-drug Speaker arrives? The hypocrisy is just too much, and erodes faith in the people who are supposed to be looking out for these children; not making them easier to control.

We are not "HOSTAGE" to anything; How many (Adults) WANT to get high? How many specifically GO to Obtain this or that from the street, or a physician who takes their word for an ailment?

Are the people you have heard so much from, like a different language; do they have a gun to their head everytime they pop a
handful? Likely not.


People make their own decisions, but they should be held accountable for errors or crimes they commit when they are "Off to see the Wizard". I don't blame ANYONE. The drug companies make compounds that save lives, and in a very few cases, (look at a PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) from 20-30 years ago); it was Disco Heaven with a chaser then. Most of those "recreational" pharmaceuticals are not made in the USA anymore. NOT the type that were once so prevalent. Those are now made in Mexico (methaqualone, and dozens more), or in Europe. Even the strongest opiates are prepared as hydrochloride salts in the UK, but are manufactured as the sulfate salts here; there IS a subtle difference.

If what I say sounds like a alien language, it is the result of 32 years of Medicinal and Synthetic Organic Chemical Research.

Nowadays, the central structure of a once "common, but powerful" drug is simply modified in such a way that the original substance structure is still active, but attenuated. MOST of the so called "CLASS II" drugs are either gone, altered, made outside this country (and are now illegal here), and were replaced by newer compounds BY STATE DECREE. Some of these Verboten compounds were overused, abused, or taken incorrectly. The Adults versus children COMMANDED by the State are two VERY DIFFERENT discussions.

But for me, the more important argument is WHO ACTUALLY MAKES THE RULES for the KIDS TO BE AT RISK from their OWN MINDS? That is something worth looking into. It is not simple to fully understand, but I have tried to explain in my clumsy way just why it is a terrible idea
.
.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus
Post Reply