The Therapeutic state will not spell safer, more effective, and wider availability of treatments and drugs. It does, however, usher in an age of unparalleled control of the consumer (patient) and doctor. The centralized control, ultimately in Washington, is a Leviathan. And this so-called “preemptive” drugging problem, as with neuroleptics, is very much the result of a confluence of many factors, greed being but the visible part this iceberg.
The pharmaceutical companies needn’t reach far into their bag of marketing tricks, as it is the very regulations that are there to “protect”, that allow drugs to be marketed “off brand”, etc. The latter is made possible in the first place, because of (intentional) regulatory allowances, not law breaking, per se. With the bureaucratization of medicine, there are at any given time any number of advocates, among them, the “new left”, taking up its banner of safer (no) drugs. Plus ca change.
@klard Yes, and the same applies to this pain reliever. The facts do not change. You blame the pharmaceuticals, without considering that the meddling of the state has not been an unalloyed good: The clear and present complicity of the regulating bureacracy (the state) and of the drug producer. Moreover, you neglect to see “overmedicating” as something at which American culture excels; what I call a propagandistic tour de force of the therapeutic (pharmacratic) state: disease mongering.
(cont) In a free-market system, if one is even remotely positive about individual, enlightened self-interest (including “corporate” behavior), there is NO rational basis to produce a good or service that does harm to the consumer, and discredits the business. This latter principle works for mom and pop shops, as well as the fortune 500. The problem is as I posited: large, lumbering bureaucracies, and a pessimistic, paternal govt. And we are the child-citizens who must be taken in hand.
@klard Captured regulators?! Really, this is so Marxist-centric. Have a look at “Pharmacracy”, “The Therapeutic state” (the subtitles of both elude me), by T. Szasz, and you might very well form a different opinion. This argument, that businesses are inherently evil, greedy and self-serving, has no basis in commonsense and logic, but such a generally pessimistic view of human nature, be it corporate or personal, is consistent with a far left statist!
@klard First off, you are mixing apples and oranges. As for the “natural” argument, I very much doubt that Mr. Whitaker would see cannabis- a very natural substance, with a very wide margin of safety-in any postive “therapeutic manner. I might be wrong, however, I feel that little love is lost between the author and the plant. The latter is typical of this “emerging” new left critique, which, I believe, will do little upset the applecart. Regulation can be good, but not “complicit” bureaucracy!
I am aware that free-market forces, and, moreover, the individual and physician figure less importantly than does the heavy bureaucratic presence of paternalistic govt. Studies were skewed, especially with neuroleptics, as were the results, averredly by both the big pharma and the FDA (and other bureaucratic “oversight”). Certainly, information was withheld for years, and now the chickens have apparently come home to roost.
This tempest in a teacup debate proffered by this “new left”, critical of drugs, both licit and illicit, leaves me skeptical as to how much these drugs might be blamed for the Columbines. Not to say that the critique from the likes of Mr. Whitaker is not timely and needful, however, how much blame might be “reasonably” apportioned to the big pharma, and how much to those on the left who,for years, have promoted psychiatric discourse and praxis. Whitaker, et. al., are cut from the same cloth.
@whiff1962 : There is no free market in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a cartel. A cartel the has captured regulators and manipulates the research and information given to the public. Keep believing this Free Market Place delusion. It does not exist anymore.
@klard Many of the neuroleptics were also prescribed in generic form. The criminality is not in the free-market system and an industry that fills a consumer need. That is what drug companies do. However, I am being the devil’s advocate, and “blaming” is empty of meaning when one speaks of the clout enjoyed by those in behavioural medicine. There is no evil, as this is what our culture has attained…plus ca change.
(cont.) are usually transient and easily controlled by the “seasoned” toker. Yes, I, too, do infrequently get a little squirrely when smoking weed, however, the positive attributes-something Mr. Whitaker does not address (what of medical marijuana and PTSD and depression?)-are well worth it!
To illustrate how pervasive psych jargon has become, most people today do not question the “principle” of mental health, and such is almost a credo. What constitutes “mental”? I would posit that “mental” is synonymous with “mind”, and both are mutually elusive terms. There are brains, however, employing the term “brain health” would not have the same strategic force for the psych profession. In short, is it indeed possible to mention “mental health” as one would, say, heart or liver health? No!
@klard That is rather a facile way of looking at the institutional presence of psychiatry, as it is our culture that has come to engender such. So cutting off this head (pharmaceuticals) will only grow more heads. In the end, the real injustices and abridgements to civil rights continue, and the psych profession is well ensconsed in modern culture.
Pharmaceutical companies will do anything to control the market and make more money. They are criminals. Any natural substances that show promise are outlawed because they are not patentable and not profitable.
The Therapeutic state will not spell safer, more effective, and wider availability of treatments and drugs. It does, however, usher in an age of unparalleled control of the consumer (patient) and doctor. The centralized control, ultimately in Washington, is a Leviathan. And this so-called “preemptive” drugging problem, as with neuroleptics, is very much the result of a confluence of many factors, greed being but the visible part this iceberg.
The pharmaceutical companies needn’t reach far into their bag of marketing tricks, as it is the very regulations that are there to “protect”, that allow drugs to be marketed “off brand”, etc. The latter is made possible in the first place, because of (intentional) regulatory allowances, not law breaking, per se. With the bureaucratization of medicine, there are at any given time any number of advocates, among them, the “new left”, taking up its banner of safer (no) drugs. Plus ca change.
@klard Yes, and the same applies to this pain reliever. The facts do not change. You blame the pharmaceuticals, without considering that the meddling of the state has not been an unalloyed good: The clear and present complicity of the regulating bureacracy (the state) and of the drug producer. Moreover, you neglect to see “overmedicating” as something at which American culture excels; what I call a propagandistic tour de force of the therapeutic (pharmacratic) state: disease mongering.
@whiff1962 Vioxx
(cont) In a free-market system, if one is even remotely positive about individual, enlightened self-interest (including “corporate” behavior), there is NO rational basis to produce a good or service that does harm to the consumer, and discredits the business. This latter principle works for mom and pop shops, as well as the fortune 500. The problem is as I posited: large, lumbering bureaucracies, and a pessimistic, paternal govt. And we are the child-citizens who must be taken in hand.
@klard Captured regulators?! Really, this is so Marxist-centric. Have a look at “Pharmacracy”, “The Therapeutic state” (the subtitles of both elude me), by T. Szasz, and you might very well form a different opinion. This argument, that businesses are inherently evil, greedy and self-serving, has no basis in commonsense and logic, but such a generally pessimistic view of human nature, be it corporate or personal, is consistent with a far left statist!
@klard First off, you are mixing apples and oranges. As for the “natural” argument, I very much doubt that Mr. Whitaker would see cannabis- a very natural substance, with a very wide margin of safety-in any postive “therapeutic manner. I might be wrong, however, I feel that little love is lost between the author and the plant. The latter is typical of this “emerging” new left critique, which, I believe, will do little upset the applecart. Regulation can be good, but not “complicit” bureaucracy!
I am aware that free-market forces, and, moreover, the individual and physician figure less importantly than does the heavy bureaucratic presence of paternalistic govt. Studies were skewed, especially with neuroleptics, as were the results, averredly by both the big pharma and the FDA (and other bureaucratic “oversight”). Certainly, information was withheld for years, and now the chickens have apparently come home to roost.
This tempest in a teacup debate proffered by this “new left”, critical of drugs, both licit and illicit, leaves me skeptical as to how much these drugs might be blamed for the Columbines. Not to say that the critique from the likes of Mr. Whitaker is not timely and needful, however, how much blame might be “reasonably” apportioned to the big pharma, and how much to those on the left who,for years, have promoted psychiatric discourse and praxis. Whitaker, et. al., are cut from the same cloth.
@whiff1962 : There is no free market in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a cartel. A cartel the has captured regulators and manipulates the research and information given to the public. Keep believing this Free Market Place delusion. It does not exist anymore.
@klard Many of the neuroleptics were also prescribed in generic form. The criminality is not in the free-market system and an industry that fills a consumer need. That is what drug companies do. However, I am being the devil’s advocate, and “blaming” is empty of meaning when one speaks of the clout enjoyed by those in behavioural medicine. There is no evil, as this is what our culture has attained…plus ca change.
(cont.) are usually transient and easily controlled by the “seasoned” toker. Yes, I, too, do infrequently get a little squirrely when smoking weed, however, the positive attributes-something Mr. Whitaker does not address (what of medical marijuana and PTSD and depression?)-are well worth it!
To illustrate how pervasive psych jargon has become, most people today do not question the “principle” of mental health, and such is almost a credo. What constitutes “mental”? I would posit that “mental” is synonymous with “mind”, and both are mutually elusive terms. There are brains, however, employing the term “brain health” would not have the same strategic force for the psych profession. In short, is it indeed possible to mention “mental health” as one would, say, heart or liver health? No!
@klard That is rather a facile way of looking at the institutional presence of psychiatry, as it is our culture that has come to engender such. So cutting off this head (pharmaceuticals) will only grow more heads. In the end, the real injustices and abridgements to civil rights continue, and the psych profession is well ensconsed in modern culture.
Pharmaceutical companies will do anything to control the market and make more money. They are criminals. Any natural substances that show promise are outlawed because they are not patentable and not profitable.