America's Love-Hate Relationship with Drugs !!!

America's Love-Hate Relationship with Drugs

By Bruce E. Levine, AlterNet. Posted January 9, 2008.

Many prescription drugs have effects similar to those of illegal drugs. But we still view some users as criminals -- the others as patients.

Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
45 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

Also in Health and Wellness

Bush's Prescription for Plutocracy
Sam Pizzigati

The Future of Medicare Is the Future of Health Care
Trudy Lieberman

Is Prayer Good for Your Health?
Stan Cox

Designer Vaginas, Anyone?
Cath Elliott

Pentagon, Big Pharma: Drug Troops to Numb Them to Horrors of War
Penny Coleman

More stories by Bruce E. Levine

Health and Wellness RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

Advertisement

While Americans are inundated with coverage of the Democrats' quibbling over Barack Obama's use of marijuana and cocaine as a teenager, a truly important drug story continues to be neglected: The hypocrisy of Big Pharma, psychiatry officialdom, and justice institutions regarding mood-altering (psychotropic) drugs -- specifically the denial of the similarity between illegal and psychiatric drugs.

Author and science writer Michael Pollan observed the following about Americans' illegal-psychiatric drug hypocrisy: "Historians of the future will wonder how a people possessed of such a deep faith in the power of drugs also found themselves fighting a war against certain other drugs with not-dissimilar powers. ... We hate drugs. We love drugs. Or could it be that we hate the fact that we love drugs?"

When we recognize that psychotropic prescription drugs are chemically similar to illegal psychotropic drugs, and that all of these substances are used for similar purposes, we see two injustices. First, we see the classification of millions of Americans as criminals for using certain drugs, while millions of others, using essentially similar drugs for similar purposes, are seen as patients. Second, we see a denial of those societal realities that compel increasing numbers of Americans to use psychotropic drugs.

In the history of psychiatry, there has been a revolving door in which a "medication" becomes an "illegal drug" -- and visa versa. Sigmund Freud used cocaine as medication to treat his own and others' depression and despair. In the 1930s amphetamines were prescribed to treat depression; later amphetamines were prescribed for weight loss; while today amphetamines such as Adderall and Dexedrine are prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Alcohol was a recommended treatment for anxiety as late as the 1940s; and in the 1950s and early 1960s, psychiatrist Oscar Janiger treated the neuroses of Hollywood stars and other celebrities with LSD. Ecstasy was used in marital counseling during the 1980s, and today researchers are studying it as a possible treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

It is politically -- and economically -- incorrect for the corporate press, dependent on Big Pharma advertising revenue, to compare psychiatric drugs with illegal drugs. However, the psychiatry drug textbook A Primer of Drug Action notes that individuals who have used cocaine have difficulty distinguishing between the subjective effects of cocaine and dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine) when both are administered intravenously. The amphetamines Dexedrine and Adderall, besides being prescribed for ADHD, are used by many college kids, truck drivers, and others to pull all-nighters.

Both cocaine and amphetamines enhance the neurotransmitters norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine. The antidepressant Effexor enhances norepinephrine and serotonin, and the antidepressant Wellbutrin enhances dopamine; and it is not uncommon to be prescribed Effexor and Wellbutrin at the same time. Effexor in combination with Wellbutrin enhances the same neurotransmitters as cocaine (you won't likely feel the same, mainly due to the quicker impact and shorter half-life of cocaine). And selective serotonin reuptake inhibitiors (SSRIs) such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Lexapro, and Luvox enhance the neurotransmitter serotonin. Ecstasy also enhances serotonin, although by a different mechanism (you won't likely feel the same using SSRIs as you would using Ecstasy in part because Ecstasy has a quicker, shorter-lasting pop).

The Speed Culture, coauthored by psychiatrist Lester Grinspoon in 1975, astutely predicted: "Drug companies probably will continue to produce increasingly sophisticated and disguised amphetamines, and these 'new' drugs undoubtedly will be greeted with initial enthusiasm by the medical establishment until it is recognized that any drug with amphetamine-like CNS [central nervous system] stimulating properties almost invariably is just as toxic, potentially addictive, and therapeutically limited as Benzedrine or Dexedrine."

While many people use mood-altering drugs recreationally, many others believe that they need their psychotropic drugs -- prescribed and illegal -- to function. Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, investigating the meatpacking industry, discovered this: "The unrelenting pressure of trying to keep up with the line has encouraged widespread methamphetamine use among meatpackers. Workers taking 'crank' feel charged and self-confident, ready for anything."

In 2004 Miami Dolphins running back Ricky Williams announced that he had found marijuana to be "ten times more helpful than Paxil" for his anxiety and depression. What made Williams's declaration difficult to ignore was that he had been a celebrity spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of Paxil.

Neuroscientist Pankaj Sah notes, "It's worth considering that people who constantly use cannabis may be doing it for other reasons than just to 'get high' -- perhaps they are experiencing some emotional problems which taking cannabis alleviates. Much the same way as some people drink alcohol to relieve anxiety."

Marijuana and other illegal psychotropic drugs can, according to Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, "represent a form of self-medication against physical and emotional pain among people who do not have access to psychotherapy or Prozac." The Drug Policy Alliance (an outgrowth of Nadelmann's Lindesmith Center, a drug policy institute created with the support of George Soros) "advocates for drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health, and human rights."

The illegal-psychiatric drug hypocrisy in the U.S. is an ugly triumph. It is a triumph of marketing over science. It is a triumph for pharmaceutical corporations and America's ever-growing prison-industrial complex. It is a triumph for those comfortably atop society who would rather Americans view their malaise as exclusively a medical rather than a social problem. And ultimately, it is a triumph of injustice and greed over human rights and a sane society.

US health care system ranks last, France #1, again

US health care system ranks last, France #1, again
by Chris in Paris · 1/09/2008 03:45:00 AM ET · Link
Discuss this post here: Comments (41) · reddit · FARK ·· Digg It!

The GOP and right wing media lapdogs always cherry pick data about something that failed in a national health system and use that as the excuse for propping up the dysfunctional and costly system that exists in the US. They always fail to recognize the WHO ranking that puts France at the top (Freedom Health, perhaps?) and the US arriving at number 37, just behind global heavyweights Dominica and Costa Rica. Here's another study that they will all want to ignore. Every life is precious, if you can afford health care, might be their new line. At least the US didn't have to compete with Costa Rica this time. Whew!

France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

Are you ready for a recession?

Dow Jones Index Suffers Worst Start to New Year Since 1904

In economic news, more signs are emerging indicating the country might be heading toward a recession. The reported unemployment rate hit 5 percent in December -- it was the biggest jump in unemployment since a month after the Sept. 11 attacks. The price of oil briefly topped one hundred dollars a barrel for the first time ever last week. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average suffered its worst start to a new year since 1904. The Nasdaq composite index dropped over five percent last week--its worst start to a new year ever. And the Times of London reports the living standards in Britain are set to rise above those in the United States for the first time since the 19th century.

Ethan Harris, the chief economist at Lehman Brothers, predicted 2008 would be a difficult year for the U.S. economy.

Ethan Harris: "We are going into a very uncertain period for the economy with lots of downside risks. The fact that the stock market started the year on a down note is a reminder that there are significant risks out there, so that's the message. It's just confirming what we knew, which is it's going to be a difficult year. The stock market could be up in the year if the economy can skirt recession, but it's going to be a choppy ride this year. "

President Bush: "This Economy of Ours is on a Solid Foundation" President Bush has attempted to put a positive spin about the recent economic news. President Bush: "While there is some uncertainty, the report is that our financial markets are strong and solid. And I want to thank you for being diligent. This economy of ours is on a solid foundation. But we can't take economic growth for granted. And there are signs that cause us to be ever more diligent in making sure good policies come out of Washington."

Recession in the US economy has arrived! A curtesy of Bush and the Republicans!

The feared recession in the US economy has already arrived, according to a report from Merrill Lynch. It said that Friday’s employment report, which sent shares tumbling worldwide, confirmed that the US is in the first month of a recession…

An official ruling on whether the US is in recession is made by the National Bureau of Economic Research, but this decision may not come for two years…

It bases its assessment on final figures on employment, personal income, industrial production and sales activity in the manufacturing and retail sectors…

Merrill also objected to the use of euphemistic terms for the state of the economy.

“To say that the backdrop is ‘recession like’ is akin to an obstetrician telling a woman that she is ’sort of pregnant’”.

Another aspect of the discussion - predictably - is the “I’m all right, Jack” crowd - who really don’t give a damn about anyone else, anyway.

No Difference Between Pussy Democrats asnd the Filthy republicans

The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

Thu, 10/18/2007 - 19:57 — dlindorff

The difference between the Republicans in Congress and the Democrats in Congress is striking.

The Democrats are in the majority in the House, and are a narrow majority in the Senate, yet they cannot pass any consequential legislation. The one thing they tout as an accomplishment in nine months of controlling Congress is a pathetic “raise” in the federal minimum wage which, first of all, is so small and belated that in most states it will go unnoticed because it’s lower than most state minimum wage laws, and in any case it’s below what the market is providing, and secondly, they only passed that measure by attaching it to an obscene $120-billion funding bill to continue the Iraq War.

The Republicans, however, in House and Senate, though in the minority in both Houses, have managed, by asserting their unity and collective strength, to block a bill that would somewhat restrict spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, to block a bill putting a deadline on the US occupation of Iraq, and to uphold a presidential veto on a bill expanding subsidized health insurance for children.

Say what you want about Republicans being cold-hearted, child-hating, war-mongering, domestic spying advocates. At least they fight for the crap they believe in!

Democrats, on the other hand, claim to be against the Iraq War, but they continue to support funding it, to the tune of over $300 billion since they took control of Congress.

They could stop this war in a heartbeat if they acted like Republicans and just refused to introduce a war funding bill in the House, or if 41 of them would filibuster any war funding bill to death in the Senate. (Or a senator could have just put a "hold" on the war funding bill, as Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) just today put a hold on the NSA spying bill.)

They could stop NSA spying the same way. If they can’t muster the votes to pass a law outlawing warrantless spying by the agency, they can just hold the NSA’s budget hostage until Bush agrees to their terms.

They could get S-CHIP—the child health insurance program—expanded the same way—by holding something else the Republicans want hostage until Republicans agree to override a presidential veto of the program.

Democrats could also put a stop to presidential trashing of the Constitution by voting to initiate an impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee under John Conyers, giving him full subpoena power to go after the people and the documents his committee needs for its investigation of high crimes and misdemeanors by the administration.

There’s no need for more dead-end investigations by various gutless House and Senate Committees. The Bush/Cheney administration has made it clear that it is simply going to stonewall those investigations and refuse to honor any subpoenas—if the Democrats even have the ganas to issue subpoenas. But an impeachment panel would be something else. It’s pretty hard for a president to stonewall an impeachment committee, since unlike other committees of the Congress, an impeachment committee is a Constitutionally sanctioned body—one which would likely win the backing of any sincere “constructionist” jurist on the bench. Moreover, in an impeachment inquiry, a president could not make a supportable argument of “national security” or “executive privilege.”

But the Democrats in Congress know all this. They know that they could do these things, and yet they are not doing them.

Only the Republicans are playing hardball. The Democrats are playing wiffleball.

Why is this the case?

Progressives typically attribute it to spinelessness. But this misses the point. The Democrats are no more or less spineless than Republicans.

What they are is devoid of principle.

The party leadership, with the backing of most of the rank-and-file members, has decided in its “wisdom” that the only important thing is winning in 2008. Pious rhetoric aside, they could care less about the lives of American men and women trapped in the bloody quagmire of Iraq. They could care less about the children of the uninsured poor and middle class. They could care less about the privacy of Americans’ phone and computers. All they care about is the November ’08 election. And they have decided that the best way to win that election is to do as little controversial as possible, and to keep the war perking along. They also want to try to pass as much nice sounding progressive legislation as possible. If those bills are killed by Republican maneuvering, fine. They’ll blame the Republicans and say we need to elect more Democrats. If some of those bills pass, and then get vetoed by the increasingly unpopular President Bush, fine, too. They’ll blame the Republicans and their president for intransigence.

But it’s all a lie, because, in the majority, they have the power to stop the war, to stop the Constitutional violations, to win health insurance for kids who don’t have it, and to impeach the president.

They just won’t use it. And no amount of phone calling, letter writing and protesting is going to make them do it. They lie and claim they need 60 votes in the Senate, or even 67 votes, but look what the Republicans can do with just 49.

There is only one way to get the Democrats to act properly, and that is to threaten their dreams of a 2008 victory in the Presidential and Congressional elections.

How do we do that? By letting them know that they no longer can count on the automatic support of progressive voters.

If progressives, African-Americans and trade unionists—the whole base of the Democratic Party and the core of its support--were to rise up and quit the party to become independents, there would be such a scramble to the left side of the Capitol building that the domed structure would tilt on its foundation.

Note: these core Democratic constituencies wouldn’t need to decide how they are going to vote next November. Individuals can each make that decision on Election Day. But by cutting that tie to the party, they will put the fear of death on the incumbents in Congress and on the leaders of the Party, who will worry that they’ve lost their grip on voters that they have taken for granted for decades.

Nor do people have to give up voting for progressives in the primaries. In many states, you don’t need to be in a party to vote in that party’s primary, and in the other states, people can just re-register in time to vote, and then quit again.

We progressives cannot wait until November 2008 to elect more Democrats to Congress and to elect a Democratic president. People are dying in Iraq every single day that we delay. The Constitution is being destroyed line by line, article by article, every day. And besides, we have seen just this past November what happens when we just give our votes to the Democrats without demanding anything from them.

They just turned around and screwed us royally. We’ll end the war, they said, and then turned around and funded it through the rest of Bush’s second term. We’ll defend the Constitution, they said, and then threw in the towel and gave Bush permission to spy without a warrant. We’ll fix the mess in New Orleans, they said, but New Orleans is still a dying city.

It’s time for progressives, for African-Americans, for unionized workers, for feminists, to all let these devious hacks know that we’ve had it. Our votes are no longer in their pockets. We are no longer Democrats. We are democrats!

If they want our votes in November 2008, they have exactly 12 months to prove to us that they will fight for those votes. If they want our votes next year, they’ve got to end the war NOW. They’ve got to start impeachment proceedings NOW. They’ve got to get health care for poor kids NOW. They’ve got to stop the NSA spying NOW. They’ve got to fix New Orleans NOW.

Otherwise, next year we may be going elsewhere with our votes

Obama takes money from big business

Obama Rolls The Dice With Latest Edwards Criticism

Posted December 30, 2007 | 02:10 AM (EST)

---

Read More: Barack Obama, Election 2008, John Edwards, Patton Boggs, Podesta Group, Washington Lobbyists, Breaking Off The Bus News

While John Edwards announced this weekend that he will ban corporate lobbyists and foreign government lobbyists from his White House, Barack Obama has stepped up criticism of Edwards on everything from his populist views to Iowa ads about Edwards by an independent organization backed by union members.

• Email
• Print
• Comment

With these latest remarks, however, Obama is wading into treacherous territory if he thinks no one will notice his close ties to big business lobbyists and their money, all while he attempts to play connect-the-dots on Edwards.

Obama has been relying on the advice and support of Washington lobbyists since early in his 2008 predential campaign. In an article from March of this year on The Hill, Alexander Bolton detailed Obama's K Street connections:

"Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young."

These lobbyist ties surfaced again before the holidays, when The Hill published this story on December 20 that exposed two federal lobbyists currently on Obama's campaign payroll, one of whom appears to have received payment while she was working as a lobbyist.

"Teal Baker, who received her first payment from Obama's campaign on June 13, represented 18 corporations between Jan. 1 and June 30 of this year while working as a lobbyist for Podesta Group, a K Street powerhouse. Clients paid Podesta Group over $2 million during those six months for Baker and her colleagues to represent them, according to documents filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.

Clients such as Oshkosh Truck and Pinkerton Consulting paid more than $700,000 for Emmett Beliveau and his colleagues at Patton Boggs to represent them during the first half of 2007. Beliveau received a $3,050 payment from Obama's campaign for advance work on Feb. 21, a campaign finance report shows.

In addition, the article states, "Brandon Hurlbut, Obama's liaison to veterans, union members and senior citizens in New Hampshire, represented clients such as the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Allegheny County Housing Authority from January to June, according to public records. Six clients paid B&D Consulting $380,000 for Hurlbut to lobby their causes.

Until recently, Hurlbut had a voice mail greeting at B&D Consulting informing callers that he was on "a temporary leave of absence" to work for Obama's campaign."

On its website, Patton Boggs, (the firm that employed Beliveau), proudly boasts of being "consistently ranked as the nation's number one lobbying firm by the National Journal."

The Podesta Group, (the firm that employed Teal Baker), is run by Tony Podesta, a Chicago native. Podesta was listed third in Washingtonian magazine's list of the city's top lobbyists. The Washingtonian article from June says Podesta was hired by British Petroleum, whose pipeline problems and refinery fires have created regulatory and public-relations issues. Podesta had been "guiding BP through congressional hearings."

The author of the article, Kim Eisler, writes, "Podesta and his team of 23 lobbyists are said to collect $12 million to $15 million in annual billings."

A chart on current and former lobbyists who've worked for presidential campaigns for the 2008 election is published on The Hill's website. Wondering who's on Edwards' payroll? The chart names two men: Adam Jentleson and Matthew Morrison.

Jentleson "lobbied on behalf of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank," and Morrison, "was registered as a lobbyist for the American Federation of Teachers," (a trade union). Trade union and liberal think tank, quite the distinction from Obama's political movers, isn't it?

According to Colleen Murray, a spokeswoman for Edwards, both aides have ceased lobbying.

As Paul Krugman recently confirmed in his column for the New York Times, Obama is attempting to compare labor unions and progressive interests with groups that advocate for corporations as he criticizes Edwards, those recent Iowa ads and tries to link Edwards to Washington lobbyists.

But by doing just this, Obama glaringly leaves the door wide open on his own involvement with big business lobbyists and more importantly his denial of what's at stake in this era of rampant corporate greed.

Sen Clinton and Obama received more money from Health than republicans

Health:
Top 20 Recipients

Election cycle: 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 List Top 20: All Recipients Presidential Candidates Senators Members of the House Senate Candidates House Candidates All Members of Congress

Rank	Candidate	Office	Amount
1	Clinton, Hillary (D)	Pres	$2,675,147
2	Obama, Barack (D)	Pres	$2,158,610
3	Romney, Mitt (R)	Pres	$1,642,427
4	Giuliani, Rudolph W (R)	Pres	$1,448,277
5	McCain, John (R)	Pres	$869,890
6	Richardson, Bill (D)	Pres	$544,113
7	Edwards, John (D)	Pres	$536,176
8	Baucus, Max (D-MT)	Senate	$491,164
9	Rangel, Charles B (D-NY)	House	$396,600
10	Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ)	House	$353,568
11	Coleman, Norm (R-MN)	Senate	$311,403
12	Thompson, Fred (R)	Pres	$283,025
13	McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)	Senate	$277,000
14	Dodd, Christopher J (D)	Pres	$275,300
15	Reid, Harry (D-NV)	Senate	$269,150
16	Paul, Ron (R)	Pres	$252,475
17	Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD)	House	$243,650
18	Specter, Arlen (R-PA)	Senate	$240,850
19	Harkin, Tom (D-IA)	Senate	$236,482
20	Cornyn, John (R-TX)	Senate	$226,050

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations took place during the 2007-2008 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, October 29, 2007. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.