This Present Madness

Print Friendly
February 1, 2016 | 3 Comments

Comments

  1. Have just finished reading it and found it gripping to the very end – a really enjoyable and easy read. Would have enjoyed a further chapter or two at the end though for total satisfaction!
    It is a book that would suit teenagers really well – giving them factual knowledge of great importance within a fast-moving plot – teenagers being a group who could do with a warning about these medications before they are handed prescriptions for them. By the very nature of being a teenager, telling them to be wary doesn’t work as well as a subtle message wrapped up in a story of others affected by such drugs. I really feel it’s time that the message about ‘prescription drugs’ should be given the same platform as ‘street drugs’ and ‘recreational drugs’ within high school, youth club and college ‘health lectures/ life skills lessons’ and this book would fit very well to provide discussion points on such a topic. I also feel that a network of ‘survivors of SSRIs’ willing to visit such institutions to share their personal experiences would also work very well. It has been done with drug users and alcohol abusers with good results.
    If someone should decide to turn this book into a film, as Julie suggests, I wonder how many would object stating that it is a ‘sensitive subject’? There’s certainly enough action here to provide a very decent film I would say.

  2. Having just watched the ABC News show, 20/20, where the mother of Dylan Klebold (Columbine High School, Colorado, killer along with Eric Harris, April, 1999) was interviewed, I am reminded and newly angered by the U.S. media’s insistence, and law enforcement’s insistence, on willfully ignoring the role of psychotropic drugs in mass shootings. Evidence exists that Eric Harris was taking prescribed paroxetine (branded Paxil® in the U.S.). It is not known if Klebold was taking any prescribed drugs.

    But that isn’t the point of my comment. It is newly angering to me that, because of their huge profits from pharmaceutical ads, and in fear hat merely telling the truth about what the kid was taking might encourage a lawsuit from the drug company, ABC News conveniently leaves this fact out of their coverage. It wasn’t all about Klebold. The last segment of the one-hour show was “what is being done to identify possible mass shooters.” They’ve come up with several possibilities, but the one they have willfully ignored is the one about drugs. Yes, yes, I know about HIPAA and privacy laws, but all the kids at school know when other kids are taking drugs; some of them consider it a “cool” distinction. I believe it could easily be discovered.

    Until Big Media begin to look honestly into Big Pharma, this particular cause of many of these events will continue.

    William Cory

    • They won’t. Not for a long while (look into BigPharma).
      Medicine, the field, hasn’t lost its lustre, and therefore the barrier to an examination of pharmaceuticals persists.

      It’s not “big pharma advertising dollars.” Carmakers spend hugely on advertising, but when a car is found to have killed people because of a design flaw, there’s a national hue and cry driven by ubiquitous media analysis and reporting, and the carmaker recalls the vehicle and continues to advertise heavily in all media.

      It’s possible the the upper middle class and 1% who run media are invested in drug companies companies, but I think it’s more likely that they do not believe our stories of what happened to us.

      If psych drugs caused our spleens to explode, they’d believe us. If spleen drugs caused our brains to explode, they’d believe us. But brain drugs causing brains to explode has no curb appeal.

      Plus, we are unappealingly angry. That we are emotional about it at all works against us, too.

      And this list goes on: one of the worst things the drugs do is cause people to hoard of weapons and shoot numerous people in public places. They typically have no motive or goal; they then shoot themselves or wait to get shot or captured; they never attempt to flee the scene. No one seems to recognize that as evidence that the crimes are not planned by a mind with executive functioning intact. The dialog on those crimes is owned by the opposing side of the gun debate. The anti-gunners want guns gone and at a guess, 40% of them are on psych drugs which is half the reason they can’t stop thinking about massacre. The pro-gunners stand firmly on principle and aren’t the kind of people who brook excuses for bad behavior, so they know very little about why their toys are used in senseless crimes.

      If the drugs led to equally horrific, but gun-free crimes, the focus would be on the drugs, unless there’s a trebuchet lobby.

      Especially if they were spleen drugs.

Leave a Reply