![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Abby on May 28, 2000, at 22:14:14
I read about this in the conservative magazine the American Spectator, but then I went to the ACLU's web site.
http://www.aclu.org/action/meth106.html
It's very scary, basically allowing for secret searches etc.
Abby
Posted by kazoo on May 29, 2000, at 2:30:46
In reply to H.R. 2987--ADDers: Feds crack down on amphetamines, posted by Abby on May 28, 2000, at 22:14:14
> I read about this in the conservative magazine the American Spectator, but then I went to the ACLU's web site.
> http://www.aclu.org/action/meth106.html
> It's very scary, basically allowing for secret searches etc.
> Abby^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, Pish, Abby! Do you honestly believe that this idiot Republican Cannon
from UT, no less, has the chutzpah to even attempt such a stupid action?
He would be more offensive than Freud! If there is ever a positive view
of lobbying it would probably be used in this instance; i.e., the pharmaceutical
companys and their power in Washington, D.C. will squash such dumb legislation
before it got out the door, and pulverize Rep. Cannon into the carpet.Let me tell you that the Feds have been trying like hell to rid completely this nation
of this "wicked" chemical since mid-1970s. Have they been successful?
No way! No how!This bill won't go anywhere, so I suggest you just fuggeddaboutdit.
But do contact your state's representatives and let them know how you feel.
I did.Greetz to Abby!
kazoo
Posted by JohnL on May 29, 2000, at 6:20:21
In reply to H.R. 2987--ADDers: Feds crack down on amphetamines, posted by Abby on May 28, 2000, at 22:14:14
>
>
> I read about this in the conservative magazine the American Spectator, but then I went to the ACLU's web site.
>
> http://www.aclu.org/action/meth106.html
>
> It's very scary, basically allowing for secret searches etc.
>
> AbbyAmphetamines are very legitimate medications with legitimate healing purposes, regardless of their treacherous reputation. Specifically they correct dopamine/NE failure as well as low blood supply in parts of the brain. These are major causes of all kinds of psychiatric conditions, and sometimes are successfully treated only with stimulants when other methods have failed.
Any government official--whether I'm on their side or not--who has a problem with amphetamines is only advertising his/her own ignorance and stupidity on the topic. They should best focus their legislative efforts on something they have a good handle on. The politician mentioned is way off base, uneducated on the topic (or miseducated) and his legislation will be squashed effortlessly. There are just too many patients nationwide being successfully and professinally treated with stimulants to have some suit&tie spoil the works.
JohnL
Posted by Abby on May 29, 2000, at 9:54:39
In reply to Re: H.R. 2987--ADDers: Feds crack down on amphetamines, posted by JohnL on May 29, 2000, at 6:20:21
I know that those people are completely uneducated, but that doesn'tmuch matter when they break into your house.
And the bill has already passed the Senate. Plus stims are cheap, not huge moneymakers for the drug companies. So, they probably won't invest huge resources in defeating it.
Abby
Posted by bob on May 29, 2000, at 12:27:24
In reply to JohnL---Being wrong never stopped anybody, posted by Abby on May 29, 2000, at 9:54:39
> And the bill has already passed the Senate. Plus stims are cheap, not huge moneymakers for the drug companies. So, they probably won't invest huge resources in defeating it.
But passing the House will be a lot harder. Every single Representative's job is on the line this year. Why waste money in the Senate when you could do some real damage to incumbents in the House?
Posted by stjames on May 29, 2000, at 15:25:09
In reply to JohnL---Being wrong never stopped anybody, posted by Abby on May 29, 2000, at 9:54:39
I would like to read the full bill as this article was vague.
james
Posted by andrew on May 29, 2000, at 17:57:35
In reply to Re: JohnL---Being wrong never stopped anybody, posted by stjames on May 29, 2000, at 15:25:09
> I would like to read the full bill as this article was vague.
>
> jamesAT: {http://thomas.loc.gov/} type HR2987 in the search box.
Posted by stjames on May 30, 2000, at 0:43:24
In reply to Re: Being wrong never stopped anybody, posted by andrew on May 29, 2000, at 17:57:35
> > I would like to read the full bill as this article was vague.
> >
> > james
>
> AT: {http://thomas.loc.gov/} type HR2987 in the search box.James here...
Cool ! Love the Library of Congress !
james
Posted by JohnL on May 30, 2000, at 3:24:10
In reply to JohnL---Being wrong never stopped anybody, posted by Abby on May 29, 2000, at 9:54:39
Abby,
I think you're right. Kinda scary, huh? What, are we turning into Nazi Germany or something, little by ever little? Heck, I heard yesterday in Massachussettes they are considering testing people for nicotine? It's not even illegal! Are these politicians so wrapped up in their own self glory and legacies that they end up serving themselves rather than the people they are supposed to serve? Geez. I mean, there are REAL problems to fix. Why spend time on these outer fringe things like amphetamines? I mean, they're already illegal without a prescription. What the hell else do they want?We have some serious control frieks in Washington. Perhaps they should consider leaving this 'free' country and going somewhere--like Russia maybe--where central control (and the obvious time-tested failures of it) are practiced.
JohnL
Posted by Sara T on May 30, 2000, at 9:37:46
In reply to H.R. 2987--ADDers: Feds crack down on amphetamines, posted by Abby on May 28, 2000, at 22:14:14
>
>
> I read about this in the conservative magazine the American Spectator, but then I went to the ACLU's web site.
>
> http://www.aclu.org/action/meth106.html
>
> It's very scary, basically allowing for secret searches etc.
>
> Abby
Here is a copy of an e-mail sent to me regarding a petition drive by one ADD online support site. It is a great site for any of you with ADD. Unfortunately the date for signing the petition has passed, but it is online for anyone to read if so interested.Sara T.
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:10:28 "GMT"
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: "A Free Attention Deficit Disorder newsletter from About.com"
From: [email protected]
Subject: We NEED You/ADHD Resolution Update
To: [email protected]Hi,
Forgive me for neglecting the newsletter format for this
message. As always, I appreciate the support and attention
that you give to http://ADD.About.com. THANK YOU!OUR RESOLUTION
So far, there are 754 names attached to the ADD/ADHD
People's Resolution. I want to thank each of you who have
signed. You can see the updated document at
http://add.about.com/library/weekly/aa051800a.htmIf you have not yet signed, please consider putting your
name to this page. The easiest way to do that is to follow
this link http://add.about.com/library/weekly/aa051800a.htm
and click through to the ADD Forum thread. However, if for
some reason you do not wish to do that, you can still sign
on by sending an email with your name to me at
[email protected]It is VERY important that you include your real name in your
signature. Names like "BobsMom" cannot be used.This Resolution will be delivered to Rep. Bob Schaffer,
author of the bill that initiated the Congressional
Subcommittee Hearings about Ritalin use, and to Rep. Michael
Castle, of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and
Families, who chaired these hearings.I would love to have at least 1,000 names on the page when
the bill is delivered to Schaffer and Castle on Tuesday.SPECIAL THANKS TO SANDY MAYNARD
Sandy Maynard - http://sandymaynard.com - lives in the D.C.
area and is going to hand deliver the final version of the
resolution with all signatures on Tuesday morning. This
gives us more time to gather signatures before the 5:00 PM
EST deadline. BUT WE DON'T HAVE FOREVER! If you are going to
sign, do it now.Please.
I have a meeting scheduled in Colorado with Schaffer on
Thursday to discuss this issue with him. If you have
comments that you would like to have included in the
discussion, then please include them in the post with your
signature in the forum.It's time to either put up or shut up. You decide.
Bob
Bob Seay
ADD.About.com
http://add.about.com
---------------------------------
*About This Newsletter*To add a new email address or remove your email address from this
newsletter, visit: http://ADD.about.com/gi/pages/mmail.htm and
click the subscribe or unsubscribe button.
Posted by Rockets on May 31, 2000, at 10:14:02
In reply to Re: H.R. 2987--ADDers: Feds crack down on amphetamines, posted by Sara T on May 30, 2000, at 9:37:46
I agree. The loss of freedoms in this country over the past 50 years has been tremendous. I'm only in my thirties but I can see how many we have lost. Its true that society is not as responsible, by and large, as it once was and this (along with the media hype and society's fear) compounds the situation, however, recently I even heard the top Deputy Sheriff Corner of the county I live in(at a friend's wedding) lamenting the loss of freedom and how much it affected him to see it continuing. Nuff said. But what can we do as individuals except vote, discuss, and participate to some degree?
Posted by Noa on May 31, 2000, at 15:45:59
In reply to H.R. 2987--ADDers: Feds crack down on amphetamines, posted by Abby on May 28, 2000, at 22:14:14
Abby, et. al,
I just looked over the ACLU site as well as some house sites, and it seems this bill is more about cracking down on illegal methamphetamine labs, and is not particularly concerned with prescription amphetamine use. However, there is one piece that is ambiguous to me--a reference to fighting amphetamine abuse in addition to the main thrust of the bill.
The idea of secret searches seems wrong, no matter how good the intention, ie, stopping the hazardous proliferation of street meth, which is a lot more dangerous than the amphetamines I and others here take. To give the FBI this level of power is a bad idea. They should not be given leeway to sidestep usual judicial decisions regarding searches.
Posted by Elizabeth on June 3, 2000, at 8:27:42
In reply to Re: H.R. 2987--ADDers: Feds crack down on amphetamines, posted by Noa on May 31, 2000, at 15:45:59
> The idea of secret searches seems wrong, no matter how good the intention, ie, stopping the hazardous proliferation of street meth, which is a lot more dangerous than the amphetamines I and others here take. To give the FBI this level of power is a bad idea. They should not be given leeway to sidestep usual judicial decisions regarding searches.
Very scary. Just tosses out half of the Bill of Rights. Yikes.
I loved the requirements for even more anti-drug propaganda (you realize of course that this is just going to lead to more stigma for people who take stimulants for ADHD, depression, etc.).
And how about that part that makes it illegal to tell someone how to make amphetamine. Next thing we know, it'll be illegal to explain the pharmacology of amphetamine, and after that they'll make it a crime to express dissenting opinions about amphetamine.
It really frightens me how anti=drug hysteria can turn ordinary people into fascist nuts. I mean, so many Americans just buy into the propaganda. And I think it really isn't about drugs, it's about fear of "different" people. Makes it a lot easier to see how the Holocaust could have happened.
Posted by Renee N on June 3, 2000, at 10:05:25
In reply to Re: H.R. 2987--ADDers: Feds crack down on amphetamines, posted by Sara T on May 30, 2000, at 9:37:46
> Here is a copy of an e-mail sent to me regarding a petition drive by one ADD online support site. It is a great site for any of you with ADD. Unfortunately the date for signing the petition has passed, but it is online for anyone to read if so interested.
>
> Sara T.
>You can see the updated document at
http://add.about.com/library/weekly/aa051800a.htm> This Resolution will be delivered to Rep. Bob Schaffer,
> author of the bill that initiated the Congressional
> Subcommittee Hearings about Ritalin use, and to Rep. Michael
> Castle, of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and
> Families, who chaired these hearings.
> I have a meeting scheduled in Colorado with Schaffer on
> Thursday to discuss this issue with him. If you have
> comments that you would like to have included in the
> discussion, then please include them in the post with your
> signature in the forum.
>
> It's time to either put up or shut up. You decide.
>
> Bob
>
> Bob Seay
> ADD.About.com
> http://add.about.comDear Sara and everyone,
Have you read their resolution? I don't like it.
These people have a real problem with school personnel . I believe school staff can be very helpful in identifying children with a variety of physical, mental, and emotional "challenges". Children in school are trying to learn academic and social skills in an enviroment that is not shared by parents or non-school professionals. Teachers and other education professionals have a unique and important view of the child where he/she spends a huge portion of his/her day. Of course no one knows a child as well as his/her family, but no one knows a child the same way as his /her teacher/classmates either. We need to try to work as a team with as many people as possible who have knowledge that can help our children.
The resolution Bob Seay and About.com authored also seemed to pretty anti meds in tone. I tried ADHD meds with my son for a year, then took him off to see the difference. The meds made him nervous and not noticeably better. When he went off the meds, he wasn't nervous and his ADHD symptoms weren't worse, so he no longer uses the meds. I am still experimenting with ADHD meds for myself with the help of a psychiatrist. I am happy to have the right to decide what's best for myself and my child with the advice of others.
I have known and/or worked with many children for whom ADHD meds made wonderful differences in their social and academic abilities, and consequently in their self confidence and capacity to like themselves. I wouldn't sign any resolution, petition, or document that could possibly make it more difficult for people who need any kind of medicine to improve the quality of their lives to get that medicine.Please read carefully before endorsing anyone else's ideas!!!
Renee N
Posted by Sara T on June 4, 2000, at 21:51:10
In reply to ADD/ADHD People's Resolution---YUCK!, posted by Renee N on June 3, 2000, at 10:05:25
> Dear Sara and everyone,
> Have you read their resolution? I don't like it.
> These people have a real problem with school personnel . I believe school staff can be very helpful in identifying children with a variety of physical, mental, and emotional "challenges". Children in school are trying to learn academic and social skills in an enviroment that is not shared by parents or non-school professionals. Teachers and other education professionals have a unique and important view of the child where he/she spends a huge portion of his/her day. Of course no one knows a child as well as his/her family, but no one knows a child the same way as his /her teacher/classmates either. We need to try to work as a team with as many people as possible who have knowledge that can help our children.
> The resolution Bob Seay and About.com authored also seemed to pretty anti meds in tone. I tried ADHD meds with my son for a year, then took him off to see the difference. The meds made him nervous and not noticeably better. When he went off the meds, he wasn't nervous and his ADHD symptoms weren't worse, so he no longer uses the meds. I am still experimenting with ADHD meds for myself with the help of a psychiatrist. I am happy to have the right to decide what's best for myself and my child with the advice of others.
> I have known and/or worked with many children for whom ADHD meds made wonderful differences in their social and academic abilities, and consequently in their self confidence and capacity to like themselves. I wouldn't sign any resolution, petition, or document that could possibly make it more difficult for people who need any kind of medicine to improve the quality of their lives to get that medicine.
>
> Please read carefully before endorsing anyone else's ideas!!!
> Renee NRenee,
I'm not in agreement with you about the "anti-meds" tone of that resolution. I think that most of the posters on that site enndorse meds for the correct uses. What they want is better insurance coverage for multi-modal therapies and I think they are worried about the "overdiagnosis" of ADHD by persons who are not qualified to make diagnosises (although in my experience that hasn't happened, I have heard others complain about it) and the subsequent backlash.What has happened to me along those lines is that once I got a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome (an autistic spectrum disorder) for my son, at his IEP meeting the school psychologist was very dismissive of the eval report and said that the Asperger's diagnosis was another "flavor of the month" diagnosis. And he hadn't spent any time at all with my son. As a matter of fact, my son was coming home from kindergarten saying he was going to burn himself up and bury himself, and not once did the teacher tell me anything. It wasn't until I went to the school counselor and told them that we needed to do something! The same kindergarten teacher was asked 3 times to fill out a Conners Teacher's rating so my son's psychological evaluation could proceed. She never did send it. And this year my son's Special Ed teacher won't even fill out a behavior report so I can track my son's meds better, in spite of repeated med changes, she sees nothing to report. My son has also had excellent teachers in this school, whose talent and dedication are unfortunatley buried under too many kids and no aids.
So, yes, there probably are more than a few people on that site who are frustrated with school personnel. And it is a shame that there isn't a better partnership between schools and parents. We should be a team.
I did not put up that post, however, to endorse anything. I thought it might be of interest to some of the people who have ADD who post on this site. I do agree, though, that person's affected with ADD, or any other hidden disability need to have their voice heard by their legislators to get their needs met in the larger community.
Respectfully,
Sara T.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.