![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 4 to 28 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on March 31, 2009, at 12:44:19
In reply to Re: Barbiturates for insomnia » myco, posted by myco on March 31, 2009, at 12:13:03
Being older would you believe was in false labor and given two seconals. Didn't fall asleep til next day when discharged then slept. Once in junior high or now called middle school a girl brought in his Mom's phenobarbital I took half the bottle on a dare. And then got scared and vomited them up. Was a time when they were prescribed for anyone I was first on miltown and valium. Got better too. Love Phillipa
Posted by myco on March 31, 2009, at 13:08:28
In reply to Re: Barbiturates for insomnia, posted by Phillipa on March 31, 2009, at 12:44:19
I am glad you vomited that up Jan...that would have killed you.
That med is actually used in assisted suicide patients in europe...watching a documentary on tv here about a man who had a neurological disorder that was slowly making his body and all his organs paralized...he was down to his face only in the documenatary and decided with his family to end his life...had to travel to i think it switzerland or denmark...cant remember. They administered a drug first to strengthen his stomach then he drank from a straw 15ml of phenobarbitol (dont remember the concentration) and he want into coma 5min later....just closed his eyes and was gone...very peaceful though. I dont believe it takes much in the way of barbituates to run into serious problems.
> Being older would you believe was in false labor and given two seconals. Didn't fall asleep til next day when discharged then slept. Once in junior high or now called middle school a girl brought in his Mom's phenobarbital I took half the bottle on a dare. And then got scared and vomited them up. Was a time when they were prescribed for anyone I was first on miltown and valium. Got better too. Love Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on March 31, 2009, at 20:13:38
In reply to Re: Barbiturates for insomnia - potential trigger » Phillipa, posted by myco on March 31, 2009, at 13:08:28
I was very reckless as a teen preteen really. Also once took whole bottle of aspirin and boy did my ears ring. That's all though. The vomit thing is the teacher wouldn't give permission for ladies room so I bolted and did it. That girl was run out of town afraid of getting arrested. Had no idea at the time of the severity of it. Love Phillipa
Posted by yxibow on April 1, 2009, at 4:06:50
In reply to Barbiturates for insomnia, posted by Zana on March 31, 2009, at 11:25:03
> Has anyone had any experience using barbituates for sleep? The only thing that has worked for me is remeron but it exacerbates my anxiety and does nothing for my depression. My mother took seconal for years and found it not only got her to sleep but was an aphrodisiac as well. That would be nice. I've also read, however, that the sleep inducing effect lasts for only a couple of weeks.
Exactly because they are probably more powerful in dosage than some benzodiazepine sleep agents, although both are GABA-a acting agents.
That would be no good. Any info will be apprechiated as I meet with a new psychopharm doc this afternoon.
> Thanx Zana
I have to say definitely no to barbiturates for anything today other than monitored sedation in hospitals. There is no antidote other than ICU supportive care.It is really odd that seconal has returned to the market, I would imagine though only prescribed in special situations.
That's why benzodiazepines came in -- they do have an antidote and the amount that is therapeutic is not so close to being lethal as barbiturates can be.
What else have your doctors tried for insomnia? How much of a dose were you taking of Remeron? Yes, it can exacerbate anxiety in some situations because of NE activity.Have you ever tried a very small dose of Seroquel such as 25-50mg? There's almost no AP activity at that dose.
And I assume you've tried unisom (doxylamine formation) ?
There is also amitriptyline, though it has to be used judiciously as it is somewhat as a liability as barbiturates. I won't go further into that.
-- tidings
Jay
Posted by jerrypharmstudent on April 2, 2009, at 0:09:43
In reply to Barbiturates for insomnia, posted by Zana on March 31, 2009, at 11:25:03
My family doc finally resulted to using barbituates for my severe insomnia after several years of failed treatments for insomnia.He put me on Nembutal 200mg and it worked wonders. Best sleep I ever got- felt refreshed in the morning - ahh it was great. But the effects only lasted a couple months and so we didn't continue it.
This was years ago. I'd be surprised to be able to find another GP who would prescribe them. My doc had an extra "degree" or speciality in pharmacology so he knew what he was doing and when he put me on Nembutal he kinda whispered "Barbiturates aren't as bad as doctors make them out to be."
My story anyway.
Jerry
Posted by metric on April 2, 2009, at 13:29:13
In reply to Barbiturates for insomnia, posted by Zana on March 31, 2009, at 11:25:03
You'll never get a barbiturate prescribed for insomnia so don't even bother.
Hopefully one day you'll be able to buy any drug you want over-the-counter, as was the case a century ago. In the meantime you're stuck paying extortionate fees to doctors to obtain permission slips for useless drugs such as Remeron and Ambien. I, for one, do not need or want a doctor to "diagnose" me with me with insomnia when I can't sleep, anxiety when I'm nervous, or excessive-daytime-sleepiness when I'm tired, or depression when I'm depressed. I urge everyone who cares to complain as loudly as possible about the encroachment of medicine into every unpleasant human emotional state.
Posted by yxibow on April 2, 2009, at 19:06:49
In reply to Re: Barbiturates for insomnia, posted by metric on April 2, 2009, at 13:29:13
> You'll never get a barbiturate prescribed for insomnia so don't even bother.
>
> Hopefully one day you'll be able to buy any drug you want over-the-counter, as was the case a century ago. In the meantime you're stuck paying extortionate fees to doctors to obtain permission slips for useless drugs such as Remeron and Ambien. I, for one, do not need or want a doctor to "diagnose" me with me with insomnia when I can't sleep, anxiety when I'm nervous, or excessive-daytime-sleepiness when I'm tired, or depression when I'm depressed. I urge everyone who cares to complain as loudly as possible about the encroachment of medicine into every unpleasant human emotional state.
Despite the rant, chronic insomnia is a condition that affects millions of people. I for one know that it is probably one piece of the very intricate disorder I have.It affects anxiety, depression, EPS and side effects -- the lack of sleep interferes and can increase those disorders.
I wouldn't just snub it off like that, but you're entitled to your own opinion. I know personally I don't like being an insomniac.
As for "as it was a century ago", people were selling heroin, cocaine, anything, you name it, over the counter. Do you really think in a society where medicine has rapidly expanded health you would want readily available hard drugs OTC ?
Oh, and about a century ago 20 million people died of the flu around 1915-1920.
There were no antibiotics, at least none you would want unless you wanted to play russian roulette with sulfa drugs.
No MRIs, polio, malaria, a lot of diseases were rampant in 'modern' countries.
Yes, people were stylin' in the roaring 20s in some ways like rebirths of fun and debauchery in recent times.
But if one thinks psychiatry is still fraught with problems, which it is, because while we have a lot of tools, it is still in some ways in the 'middle ages' -- try living then.
There was nothing but asylums, misunderstanding at best, and rough and inhumane at worst.
-- Jay
Posted by metric on April 3, 2009, at 16:23:43
In reply to Re: Barbiturates for insomnia » metric, posted by yxibow on April 2, 2009, at 19:06:49
> Despite the rant, chronic insomnia is a condition that affects millions of people. I for one know that it is probably one piece of the very intricate disorder I have.
>Insomnia sucks. There is nothing good about insomnia. Where did I imply otherwise?
> It affects anxiety, depression, EPS and side effects -- the lack of sleep interferes and can increase those disorders.
>
> I wouldn't just snub it off like that, but you're entitled to your own opinion. I know personally I don't like being an insomniac.
>Please show me where I trivialized insomia.
> As for "as it was a century ago", people were selling heroin, cocaine, anything, you name it, over the counter. Do you really think in a society where medicine has rapidly expanded health you would want readily available hard drugs OTC ?
>I'm sorry, that reads as a non sequitur to me. Societies in which medicine has "rapidly expanded health" have an increased need for prohibition?
Of course I believe people should be able to buy any drug they want. I value individual liberty. Somehow, incarcerating people for their personal choices seems contradictory to the principles upon which this country was founded. Moreover, the War on Drugs is essentially a war on the poor. Rich people can afford to pay doctors to legally obtain their drugs (hard and soft), while the poor cannot.
> Oh, and about a century ago 20 million people died of the flu around 1915-1920.
>
> There were no antibiotics, at least none you would want unless you wanted to play russian roulette with sulfa drugs.
>
> No MRIs, polio, malaria, a lot of diseases were rampant in 'modern' countries.
>
> Yes, people were stylin' in the roaring 20s in some ways like rebirths of fun and debauchery in recent times.
>You've lost me completely. Perhaps English is not your native language? That would explain a lot. I mean that innocently.
> But if one thinks psychiatry is still fraught with problems, which it is, because while we have a lot of tools, it is still in some ways in the 'middle ages' -- try living then.
>Psychiatry doesn't have *any* tools (at least not in the sense you intend). I don't regard psychiatry as a legitimate branch of medicine.
> There was nothing but asylums, misunderstanding at best, and rough and inhumane at worst.
>In other words, like it is now, sans the drugs.
> -- Jay
Posted by rjlockhart04-08 on April 4, 2009, at 12:11:37
In reply to Re: Barbiturates for insomnia » yxibow, posted by metric on April 3, 2009, at 16:23:43
Ok,
Barbiturates where used from 1903 when Veronal (first barbiturate was made) but it lasted for days. Huge half-life.
Phenobarbital was released, by Bayer, (i believe) in 1912. It's been known in the past, very effective for siezures, and was used for anxiety till, the mid 1950's, when safer Meprobamate, was used alot. Until Librium came out in 1960, Valium 1963. After, benzodiapines where seen as effective as barbiturates, and they are safer, in one aspect, they don't shut down the respitory system, which caused many death's. Seconal, was very popular 1930's-1970, controlled substance act, made it known that they are more abuseable, and cause death on accident of taking more, or recreational use.
The only barbiturates, today, that are available, Phenobarbital (which is understandable, it's used at times for siezures, after standard medication's failed, it usally used with Phenytoin) but it has a long half life, 10-12 hours, it sedates, but pretty much i've read it causes "groginess". Seconal, very suprisingly is still used under some doctor's, who used it in past for pateints, and also went through the "barbiturate epidemic" in the 60's, death's from abusing, or accident by taking 2 more than what is "told" on the bottle take "1" capsule at night if needed. I guess, some people where blind, but also tolerance, develops high-fast with short acting barbiturates, Nembutal, Seconal, Amytal (not around any more, used only in hospital's i believe). And, they lose their "sedation" that makes you "put out". So, some people self-medicated and took 3-4, and respitory problems will happen then, dangerous.
Butabuital, is still used, and not considered, as a "peace-making sleep" like Seconal. Still, it's a barbituate, but it's intermitate acting 4-6 hours. Seconal is 4 hours.
Really, today, the best sleeping medication's used for insomnia, are Restoril (temazepam), Ativan (lorazepam, also used for anxiety), Prosom (estazolam). There safe, but still have abuse potiental. I took Restoril 30mg, 1 everynight for 1 (1/2) years, which, i was shocked, but a long time ago, i had alot of emotional issues, i couldnt sleep, etc. It didnt produce any tolerance...wierd, and i stopped it, just stopped taking it, because my new doctor wanted to lower the dose. I just stopped it, no withdrawl symptoms, but agitation happened, that's because i just think too much at night. Seroquel knocked me out of reality, stopped it.
Main point, it's just old, and known and well-documented in medical, and goverment assoications for abuse, and danger potiential by the death's it caused. It's still used....but only some doctor's ever would consider it.
Ativan, Xanax help with sleep, i suggest those, but Xanax last short, and wakes you up. Halcion is a "horror" drug, lasts 1 hour, read caused people to go "psychotic" after it wore off.
That needs to be taken off the market.
Trazadone, Ambien, Lunesta are the main used today at first. 1st standard treatment.
Take care
rj
Posted by yxibow on April 4, 2009, at 13:43:17
In reply to Re: Barbiturates for insomnia » yxibow, posted by metric on April 3, 2009, at 16:23:43
> > Despite the rant, chronic insomnia is a condition that affects millions of people. I for one know that it is probably one piece of the very intricate disorder I have.
> >
>
> Insomnia sucks. There is nothing good about insomnia. Where did I imply otherwise?
Only adjunct about the anti-psychiatry comments when in fact insomnia fits right into a substantial diagnoses.I'll give you that.
> > It affects anxiety, depression, EPS and side effects -- the lack of sleep interferes and can increase those disorders.
> >
> > I wouldn't just snub it off like that, but you're entitled to your own opinion. I know personally I don't like being an insomniac.
> >
>
> Please show me where I trivialized insomia.
>
> > As for "as it was a century ago", people were selling heroin, cocaine, anything, you name it, over the counter. Do you really think in a society where medicine has rapidly expanded health you would want readily available hard drugs OTC ?
> >
>
> I'm sorry, that reads as a non sequitur to me. Societies in which medicine has "rapidly expanded health" have an increased need for prohibition?
Yes. in certain cases -- I think our "war on drugs" is a waste on time when we should increase our "war on guns" -- but modern knowledge has said also that drinking bottle after bottle of heroin snake oil syrup just might perhaps create some addiction problems, just to name a hundred examples.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should criminalize marijuana, some light drugs and esoteric 'entheogens', etc -- but this "modern society", yes, has plenty examples such as e.g., the misuse and bad timing of hard drugs causing crack babies to be born from addiction.
> > Oh, and about a century ago 20 million people died of the flu around 1915-1920.
> >
> > There were no antibiotics, at least none you would want unless you wanted to play russian roulette with sulfa drugs.
> >
> > No MRIs, polio, malaria, a lot of diseases were rampant in 'modern' countries.
> >
> > Yes, people were stylin' in the roaring 20s in some ways like rebirths of fun and debauchery in recent times.
> >
>
> You've lost me completely. Perhaps English is not your native language? That would explain a lot. I mean that innocently.
I actually don't believe you mean that the way you say you do but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't seen that I've been a poster here for years and it has been obvious that I've said I've been in the US.
I write colloquial, if not somewhat rambling responses in NEAT paragraphs that may take a second reading to understand the underlying implications........and yes, most definitely American English IS my first language and I can even understand Canadian, British, and Australian surprisingly (humour to this bollocks), not to mention some knowledge of other languages.
My whole point there was to illustrate that looking back a century through rosy lenses eliminates what were SERIOUS problems and people did not -necessarily- have a life expectancy of 78 (in developed regions) unless they managed to escape flu, terrible diseases that are now vaccinated against, etc.
> > But if one thinks psychiatry is still fraught with problems, which it is, because while we have a lot of tools, it is still in some ways in the 'middle ages' -- try living then.
> >
>
> Psychiatry doesn't have *any* tools (at least not in the sense you intend). I don't regard psychiatry as a legitimate branch of medicine.This is where we are getting to the crux of things -- anyone is entitled to their opinion, but there has been an increased amount of anti-psychiatry threads on this board over the years I've been here.
Why are people in the -medicine- board if they don't like medicine in the first place ?
Again, each to their own.
> > There was nothing but asylums, misunderstanding at best, and rough and inhumane at worst.
> >
>
> In other words, like it is now, sans the drugs.No. Hardly. Try living with a psychiatric disorder for 7 years that NOBODY has and at least some medication and much therapy (if you think psychology is legitimate, I'm not going to get into another argument)...
...and you'll know what it feels like to be alone and what feels like inhumane is really anger against something that can't be solved yet, maybe not even in my own lifetime.
Yes, part of this is -personal-, but what part of humanity isnt?
And try living, even now, in a situation where biological imbalances, mental illness, are labeled still all sorts of things despite organizations like NAMI attempting the otherwise.I'm not a 'fruitcake' or a 'wacko' or 'crazy' or deserving of 1940s insulin shots.
- Jay
Posted by Sigismund on April 4, 2009, at 14:39:21
In reply to Re: Barbiturates for insomnia » yxibow, posted by metric on April 3, 2009, at 16:23:43
>Societies in which medicine has "rapidly expanded health" have an increased need for prohibition?
That sounds about right. Diacetylmorphine was OTC here until 1968. Now you can't buy pseudoephedrine OTC.
Posted by metric on April 4, 2009, at 17:47:58
In reply to Re: Barbiturates for insomnia » metric, posted by Sigismund on April 4, 2009, at 14:39:21
> >Societies in which medicine has "rapidly expanded health" have an increased need for prohibition?
>
> That sounds about right. Diacetylmorphine was OTC here until 1968. Now you can't buy pseudoephedrine OTC.Depends where "here" is. Opioid prohibition began in 1914 (Harrison Act) in the United States.
Posted by Sigismund on April 4, 2009, at 20:47:16
In reply to Re: Barbiturates for insomnia » Sigismund, posted by metric on April 4, 2009, at 17:47:58
We're many years behind.
Posted by metric on April 7, 2009, at 16:35:04
In reply to Modern biochemistry and humanity » metric, posted by yxibow on April 4, 2009, at 13:43:17
> Yes. in certain cases -- I think our "war on drugs" is a waste on time when we should increase our "war on guns" -- but modern knowledge has said also that drinking bottle after bottle of heroin snake oil syrup just might perhaps create some addiction problems, just to name a hundred examples.
>Most of the damage associated with addiction is a direct result of prohibition. Where it isn't created outright, it is greatly amplified.
Since you raise the issue of heroin addiction, it's worth mentioning that there've been many high functioning opiod addicts. The famous surgeon William Halstead is one such example. These people do fine as long as their supply isn't cut off. In contrast with tobacco and alcohol, there is no known organ damage associated with long-term opiod use, even when the dose is continually raised to overcome tolerance.
> Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should criminalize marijuana, some light drugs and esoteric 'entheogens', etc -- but this "modern society", yes, has plenty examples such as e.g., the misuse and bad timing of hard drugs causing crack babies to be born from addiction.
>The problem with this argument is that we already *have* prohibition, so examples about crack babies can hardly be interpreted as supportive to your cause. The use of drugs such as crack has emerged _during_ prohibition. The demand for drugs such as crack would all but disappear if safe and effective alternatives were readily available.
> My whole point there was to illustrate that looking back a century through rosy lenses eliminates what were SERIOUS problems and people did not -necessarily- have a life expectancy of 78 (in developed regions) unless they managed to escape flu, terrible diseases that are now vaccinated against, etc.I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think we should go back to dark ages. I'm all for progress in medicine and any discipline that can improve the condition of life for humans. Unfortunately, prohibition has been a giant leap backward for mankind.
At least in part a consequence of prohibition, there has been a sharp increase in the medicalization of human behavior. Common but irritating behaviors and symptoms of personhood have become classified as medical illnesses in order to justify the use of psychoactive drugs. It would be a helluva lot more honest to simply accept that people want to use drugs to enhance their lives, and allow them to do so, instead of insisting that they have "diseases" (anxiety, insomnia, depression, etc.) that require medical treatment and permission slips from a doctor. Ideally, a prescription should be analogous to a shopping list rather than a permission slip.
The absence of a laboratory test for any so-called mental illness (point me to the "mind" in any anatomy textbook) further calls into question the usefulness of medicine in addressing them. I can't recall a single instance in my existence in which I needed a doctor to tell me I was, for instance, feeling nervous or depressed. Why can't people "diagnose" and "medicate" their own emotional symptoms without sanction from the state?
> This is where we are getting to the crux of things -- anyone is entitled to their opinion, but there has been an increased amount of anti-psychiatry threads on this board over the years I've been here.
>
> Why are people in the -medicine- board if they don't like medicine in the first place ?
>I'm not in any way against the use of drugs. I just don't see the use of psychiatry. If individuals were free to buy their drugs without a prescription, there wouldn't be any need for psychiatry. Psychiatrists don't do any kind of objective testing to diagnose physical pathology. They just prescribe drugs, often in combinations such that their "patients" would more appropriately be described as experimental research subjects, which raises the question: why aren't the "patients" receiving compensation instead of the other way around?
> No. Hardly. Try living with a psychiatric disorder for 7 years that NOBODY has and at least some medication and much therapy (if you think psychology is legitimate, I'm not going to get into another argument)...I'm genuinely sorry that you're suffering. It is *not* my intent to trivialize anyone's suffering.
> ...and you'll know what it feels like to be alone and what feels like inhumane is really anger against something that can't be solved yet, maybe not even in my own lifetime.
>I know very well what it's like to be alone. I am not a stranger to morbid despair, social isolation, severe anxiety. Please do whatever you can to make your situation better. Don't wait for psychiatry to "fix" you, or to make you feel "normal", because there is no such thing.
>
> Yes, part of this is -personal-, but what part of humanity isnt?
>
>
> And try living, even now, in a situation where biological imbalances, mental illness, are labeled still all sorts of things despite organizations like NAMI attempting the otherwise.
>NAMI is a marketing arm of the pharmaceutical companies.
> I'm not a 'fruitcake' or a 'wacko' or 'crazy' or deserving of 1940s insulin shots.
>I would never label you as such.
Posted by Sigismund on April 8, 2009, at 23:57:45
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity » yxibow, posted by metric on April 7, 2009, at 16:35:04
The illegal drug industry and the drug abuse control industry are 2 sides of the same coin, and the penalty is paid by those in the third world who have their environments destroyed to produce drugs and destroyed again by the drug abuse control industry.
Progress? Believe in it if it makes you feel more meaningful and hopeful, I guess.
Posted by yxibow on April 9, 2009, at 1:58:49
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity » yxibow, posted by metric on April 7, 2009, at 16:35:04
> NAMI is a marketing arm of the pharmaceutical companies.
That is an incredibly biased and completely untrue statement.
NAMI has been working for years to destigmatize mental illness, to the point of labeling people with mental illness now "consumers", that is, people who go to someone to get help just like anyone would go anywhere else, to a barber.
They fund, with local sources, outreach groups, counseling groups, depending on funding in areas.
I'm not quite sure what else to say to your comment but it is completely untrue.
-- Jay
Posted by metric on April 13, 2009, at 20:15:54
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity » metric, posted by yxibow on April 9, 2009, at 1:58:49
> > NAMI is a marketing arm of the pharmaceutical companies.
>
> That is an incredibly biased and completely untrue statement.
>
> NAMI has been working for years to destigmatize mental illness, to the point of labeling people with mental illness now "consumers", that is, people who go to someone to get help just like anyone would go anywhere else, to a barber.
>
> They fund, with local sources, outreach groups, counseling groups, depending on funding in areas.
>
> I'm not quite sure what else to say to your comment but it is completely untrue.
>
> -- Jay
>Critically examine NAMI's source of funds.
Posted by garnet71 on April 13, 2009, at 21:23:03
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity » yxibow, posted by metric on April 13, 2009, at 20:15:54
"Critically examine NAMI's source of funds."
I was thinking along those same lines. The mental health stigma advocacy might be just a side agenda, though I always liked NMIH too.
The concept of government itself is corrupt-it's a division of power, well there's other ways too look at it too..but after working for several govt. agencies/different levels, I saw lots of corruption. It forever changes you.
No, lots of government workers are not corrupt, but corruption trickles down. If the leader allows corruption, more people start to take part and it becomes the norm. It's contagious. After it gets so far, whoever tries to challenge it will get stoned. Not the good kind of stoned.
Then there are the judges and police--tons of corruption there. If you have cops as friends, some might tell you about it.
The division of power is decided by just a few people at the highest levels. Narcissists tend to rise to power a lot easier than their more sensitive counterparts. The motivation is instinctual. they are more thick skinned then say people with more idealistic tendencies. Do you think someone real sensitive and nurturing could survive being a politician in D.C.? Maybe sometimes. It's brutal and cuthroat.
ThIt's human nature. History validates this. It goes way back...slavery has existed as long as history. The strongest and most narcisstic dominate the rest. The difference between then and now is that our systems are so complex; there are so many other ways to harness power. Just because it is not as obvious due to the complexity does not mean the ideology is much different.
I really dislike being pessimistic about this, but like I said, once you see a lot, you can't go back. Instead, you become a realist.
Only recently did I realize there is a shift taking place, where power is going to be more distributed - this is due to information technology. However, the power is going to be allocated to more groups of 'regular' people, but still groups, rather than individuals. that's kind of scary too, if you can imagine a herd mentality controlling things. It's actually very interesting to think about the direction we're headed. Evolution.
Why did I just say all that.
Oh, because this is the type of thing that influences me to go move to an island somewhere and live a simple life. And get away from all things ugly.
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 13, 2009, at 21:42:28
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity, posted by garnet71 on April 13, 2009, at 21:23:03
> Oh, because this is the type of thing that influences me to go move to an island somewhere and live a simple life. And get away from all things ugly.
Sounds good. Is your island big enough to share? I'm an excellent gardener and cook.
Lar
Posted by garnet71 on April 14, 2009, at 0:17:19
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity » garnet71, posted by Larry Hoover on April 13, 2009, at 21:42:28
lol Yeah, I could really use a gardener, I'm not that good yet. But I want to do the cooking - can you do the dishes instead?
It's not a deserted island, there will be lots of people there who don't care about politics and want to enjoy life - how does that saying go "eat, drink, and be merry"? or should I say "life is too short". Someone else could think of something better.
Dubai is building a lot of islands. Maybe someday I can create one with this mindset.
Posted by HyperFocus on April 14, 2009, at 21:52:30
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity, posted by garnet71 on April 13, 2009, at 21:23:03
Problem with retreating to an island is pretty soon you're going to run in to the same problems you claim to be running away from. The minute somebody asks the question 'Hey who takes out the trash in the morning?' you're going to have to deal with issues of politics, governance, liberty, civil rights...
Democracy is not perfect but it's the best the human race has. I think we have it pretty good here in the West, whatever our problems are. I don't agree with many laws but you just have to look at a failed state like Somalia to see what democracy has steered us away from. They're doing pretty badly without a central government and laws.
> "Critically examine NAMI's source of funds."
>
> I was thinking along those same lines. The mental health stigma advocacy might be just a side agenda, though I always liked NMIH too.
>
> The concept of government itself is corrupt-it's a division of power, well there's other ways too look at it too..but after working for several govt. agencies/different levels, I saw lots of corruption. It forever changes you.
>
> No, lots of government workers are not corrupt, but corruption trickles down. If the leader allows corruption, more people start to take part and it becomes the norm. It's contagious. After it gets so far, whoever tries to challenge it will get stoned. Not the good kind of stoned.
>
> Then there are the judges and police--tons of corruption there. If you have cops as friends, some might tell you about it.
>
> The division of power is decided by just a few people at the highest levels. Narcissists tend to rise to power a lot easier than their more sensitive counterparts. The motivation is instinctual. they are more thick skinned then say people with more idealistic tendencies. Do you think someone real sensitive and nurturing could survive being a politician in D.C.? Maybe sometimes. It's brutal and cuthroat.
>
> ThIt's human nature. History validates this. It goes way back...slavery has existed as long as history. The strongest and most narcisstic dominate the rest. The difference between then and now is that our systems are so complex; there are so many other ways to harness power. Just because it is not as obvious due to the complexity does not mean the ideology is much different.
>
> I really dislike being pessimistic about this, but like I said, once you see a lot, you can't go back. Instead, you become a realist.
>
> Only recently did I realize there is a shift taking place, where power is going to be more distributed - this is due to information technology. However, the power is going to be allocated to more groups of 'regular' people, but still groups, rather than individuals. that's kind of scary too, if you can imagine a herd mentality controlling things. It's actually very interesting to think about the direction we're headed. Evolution.
>
> Why did I just say all that.
>
> Oh, because this is the type of thing that influences me to go move to an island somewhere and live a simple life. And get away from all things ugly.
Posted by metric on April 16, 2009, at 16:04:46
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity » garnet71, posted by Larry Hoover on April 13, 2009, at 21:42:28
> > Oh, because this is the type of thing that influences me to go move to an island somewhere and live a simple life. And get away from all things ugly.
>
> Sounds good. Is your island big enough to share? I'm an excellent gardener and cook.Count me in. I'll catch the fish. All the omega-3s you can eat.
I have some thoughts concerning the selection of plants...
Posted by Garnet71 on April 16, 2009, at 23:30:30
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity » yxibow, posted by metric on April 13, 2009, at 20:15:54
Hey-don't be trying to ruin my ~dream~ now, my dream of living a simple, stress-free life surrounded by beauty, living like a bohemian and becoming a writer of music and books, and a painter. I'll make pottery too. I mean, who are we if we can't DREAM of such things??? Besides, my son and I NEVER argue about taking out the trash. And either will Larry or Metric.
So I don't care if anyone else shares my dream--but plllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee don't try to ruin it. Besides, I've been through enough in my life, been to enough countries around the world and studied enough about the world to know what I want and what I don't want. :-)
If anyone thinks my plan is far-fetched, then why does my favorite website exist?
http://www.escapeartist.com/efan/efan.htm
And see, I already have 2 followers. so there!
Posted by desolationrower on April 17, 2009, at 22:42:26
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity, posted by garnet71 on April 13, 2009, at 21:23:03
i've spent a little time around some politicians, and the main thing about them is they are *ss-kissers. impressed by people with power (read:rich people). you have to be, because most of the job is to ask people for money.
-d/r
Posted by garnet71 on April 17, 2009, at 23:29:33
In reply to Re: Modern biochemistry and humanity, posted by desolationrower on April 17, 2009, at 22:42:26
See, that's not natural.
I once knew a narcissist very well - and yeah, he was impressed by that sort of thing too, mostly dated rich women (except for me...lol). Some people feel important by hanging out with that crowd. Well, he was a military commander-and he loved that "power trip". It fed his primative needs.
Well I don't see how you would fit in with that crowd. Will you come to my island? You can be the island psychiatrist... lol
Go forward in 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.