babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
haha, no the BNP are WAYYY to leftwing for me, I'm a libertarian. I'll stick with the Tories, thanks.
Thanks, too, kropotkin for providing me again with the fascist policy statement that I believe I tried to abide by. It is way to restrictive for me, you're right. I was not aware that "Progressive" meant "communist". I will remove myself from the forum.
Nobody was saying that "progressive means 'communist'".
But progressive DOES mean never being judgmental of the poor.
And nothing in the Babble rules could possibly be equated to "fascism".
It's not fascist to defend the powerless.
Oh well he thinks someone with the handle of Kropotkin believes in communism. Another libertarian who doesn't have the first clue about the concept of mutual aid.
And a "libertarian" who doesn't understand what the word "libertarian" ORIGINALLY meant.
Seriously, people. Well-meaning sniping aside, do you REALLY see my comments as having been "anti-poor"? by refuting the suggestion that there are no jobs? There may well be few jobs, but that's not the point. If there are few jobs, then why have immigration, which is usually justified by 'labour shortages'? (although I understand these may be seasonal in Canada)
Can you see how someone might think, for example, genuinely, that having large number of immigrants does not impact Canada's poor? And how flooding the labour market might cause wages to fall dramatically - which you yourself have identified as the problem? It is about supply and demand after all.
And secondly, Ken, do you REALLY think that raising any questions at all about a country's immigration policy is racist? And does the fact that I myself AM an immigrant influence the answer?
My original objection on this thread was to the assumption that homelessness is a singular phenomenon with a single solution and I stand by that objection. The mentally ill (who I NEVER said were ALL homeless people) cannot be helped by throwing money at them, but by proper medication and rehabilitation. That's hardly controversial.
Proper medication and rehabilitation REQUIRES the expenditure of public funds(or, what people on the RIGHT call "throwing money").
It can't be dealt with through charity. And certainly can't be dealt with through paternalism and the direction of judgmental sanctimony towards the homeless. Really, any of us COULD end up homeless with one or two bad breaks.
And yes, blaming immigration for a country's social problems is racist,because it implies that it automatically makes things worse to let people of differing ethnicities or races move to a country. It's essentially saying that Canada, or the U.S. or Britain or Denmark would be just fine if only those countries were whiter.
Immigration is just a fact of life. There's no longer any moral or non-bigoted way of restricting it.
I really disagree with this assertion. Anybody can become homeless and, once they do, their mental health tends to deteriorate quickly. That's quite a different scenario than what you're suggesting -- that they're homeless because they're crazy and/or addicted. That's the BC Liberals' line and it serves it purpose(s): to blame the victims and to negate our responsibility for them. I am technically suffering "mental health and addiction issues" yet my home is completely secure. It's not a straight line, not by any means.
Does anybody see the irony in solving addiction with "proper medication"? What is this great distinction we are all making between street drugs and legally prescribed ones? My "drug of choice" is Seroquel and I am certainly addicted to it. I can get it for free at the pharmacy or on the street (as "Suzy Q," a substitute for heroin) for a price. It's the same drug! But at the pharmacy it's "medication" while on the street it's a "substance" being abused. Thomas Szasz is quite correct on this issue.
I wasn't endorsing the idea that everyone's problems should be resolved through medication, G. I was just pointing out that if you looked at the question of homelessness in pharmaceutical terms, as Viking evidently does, dealing with that REQUIRES a fair amount of money to be spent, and that most of that would have to be public monies, an observation that discredits Viking's argument that properly medicating everyone would somehow be an alternative to "throwing money at the problem".
Didn't mean to rub you the wrong way, Ken Burch. Unfortunately, Big Pharma and therefore mainstream psychiatry *does* endorse the idea that there's a pill for every ill. It would cost almost nothing (in relative terms) to provide suitable housing. A $900 disability pension or welfare or whatever is much, much cheaper than throwing 911 at the problem.
- G.Muffin
Hi. Seroquel is a sedative and antipsychotic, and is not the same as heroin as I'm sure you're aware. It has no euphoric abilities, unlike many illegal drugs.In any case, many addicts steal things like blood pressure medication, so it can be the idea of taking SOME medication that can be 'addictive' but that isn't physiological addiction as such.
I think Ken Burch didn't describe my objection accurately. A large number a homeless people are addicts, not all of them are of course, but that's the point. They (the addicted ones) aren't homeless because they don't have a house. I've known a few addicts who have a home they haven't visited in years. My point is simply this; saying that the government has to make more houses because that solves homelessness is a fallacy for those, specific homeless people, who are homeless for 'physiological' reasons. They are sick and need a different kind of help. A lot of people fall into that category here in BC. I agree that painting all homeless people as addicts is a false generalisation, but so is the idea that buying them a home makes them not-homeless.
Sure, Seroquel isn't heroin, but it does have some abuse potential - there have been a small number of case reports of folks grinding up and snorting Seroquel. In my experience (addiction treatment), Seroquel is what I have observed to be a "provisional" drug of abuse; that is, a drug that people will use because they can't get their drugs of choice; ie, heroin, Oxycontin, and so forth.
Other provisional drugs of abuse include bupropion (Wellbutrin), venlafaxine (Effexor), and gabapentin (Neurontin).
In any event, Seroquel's abuse potential has not yet been clearly defined. IMO it's less than the benzodiazepines (Valium, Ativan, Rivotril), but it's not zero.
[/thread drift]
I've never tried heroin. All I know is the resale value of Seroquel is similar.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Yes, it most certainly does have "euphoric" abilities.
i disagree. I think that is *exactly* what addiction is. That's why homeopathic tea works for me even though I know the claims of the manufacturer are quite frankly ridiculous.
No. Any homeless person, by definition, is suffering from the lack of housing. Fuller Torrey estimates that 1/3 of the homeless are mentally ill and I have no reason to disbelieve him. Even more are addicted to an illegal substance. We could solve this conundrum once and for all by fully reopening Riverview Hospital in Coquitlam. When I tell my homies what voluntary treatment is all about, there will be a stampede to the Emergency Rooms of this province.
Etc., etc., etc.
I am one of these folks. Check out Legally Bombed.
Agreed.
Indicated for smoking cessation.
DFW's antidepressant?
Don't know much about this one except that its manufacturer said (to its sales reps) words to the effect of "Neurontin for pain. Neurontin for bipolar disorder. Everybody needs 800 mg of Neurontin."
This accords with my own experience. Set me straight on this, please, Sineed. Seroquel, Zyprexa and the like (atypical antipsychotics) are actually major tranquillizers (so says David Healy, author of Mania). Valium, Ativan, etc. are minor tranquillizers. The difference in action of the two types of drugs is very apparent. The minor tranquillizers give better short term relief but are very habit forming and most psychiatrists are reluctant to rely on them. The majors, by contrast, are more of a mid to long term solution.
[thread drift continued]What do you think of Clonapine (sp?) Could that be a good drug for the sleepless and hyper?[/thread drift]
- Viking77
Hi. I thought you said that you were leaving the forum? Hmm, odd. Anyways, you should look up Thomas Szasz like G.muffin suggested. His ideas are an example of libertarianism, I think you'd be suprised to learn about what libertarianism actually is before you label yourself as such. You, like some social-dems in this thread, have taken the paternalistic view that you know best. You know, for instance, that homeless people (who everyone seems to be using interchangably with panhandlers for some reason) don't need houses, they need psychotropic drugs. You are actually infering that the state should "treat" (i.e. lock up and medicate) homeless people. These ideas are profoundly un-libertarian.
I hardly think that Viking77 is the only one poor-bashing in this thread. I think that this is actually a great little set of threads to look at should some savy babbler argue that one's race, class, gender, housing status, etc. do not give specific perspectives on issues.
Speaking of drugs, I was disturbed to learn that Warfarin is also used as rat poison. (sorry, drift)
Absolutely. Their addictiveness is unrelated to their chemical properties, but can be habit-forming anyway. As you'll know, people will find something to abuse.
-Le T, yep, soon as this thread is done. Szasz' ideas are not mainstream, but they are, as you say, an EXAMPLE of one libertarian-type viewpoint. (But one which makes sense in context only if the facilities are state-run, as they are in Canada for example). I don't see how questioning my right to self-identify as libertarian implies that I don't know what it means. That's just bizarre. And to answer another poster, what it "originally" meant is neither here nor there.It means a broad range of things, just as Progressive does. I would suppose it combined classical liberal individualism with free market economics, and nearly always advocates broadly left-wing social ideas. But others disagree.
Nobody at all has poor-bashed on this thread. Once again, having repeated it several times, it is not the "homeless" that need treatment, it is those -what, one-third? - that are sick. Just as nonhomeless people need to be treated. The difference is that the homeless mentally-ill are just that one extra step removed from their support system that others have and may be less likely to end up receiving help.
I've done heroin and seroquel. Chlorpromazine too, but no one asked. In all three cases it was not prescribed and was in the spirit of self medicating. (I have better judgement now thanks,) Clinical uses aside, the latter two drugs pretty well anasthesize you against the pain, physical and mental, and utter despair of life. It just makes it all go away, the good and the bad, so if there aint much good and lots of bad, it's a good deal. There's not really much by way of a buzz, but anything that does that could be considered addictive in a sense. Heroin is of course another matter, but that was a very long time ago. I can see where anti-psychotics can have a street value, but I would be surprised if it was in the same realm of heroin.
As far as statistics of homelessness and mental illness, I'm not as much disputing them as urging caution in interpretation. There are cause and effect loops which I'd say are under-analysed and misunderstood, not to mention shoddy diagnostic and treatment practices involving care (or lack thereof) of those living in poverty.
I took no offense, just wanted to clarify my intentions. And you're right, we are an overmedicated society here in North America. Leon Rosselson, the English songwriter I quote here fairly frequently, had a good song about the phenomenon:
"Pills"
It was on a Monday morning, I was tired, my head was turning,
And I couldn't face the thought of going back to work and so,
I paid a visit to my doctor and he gave me the once over,
Said ’don't worry, we'll soon have you on the go'
Chorus:
You need pills, pills, pills and pills, pills to take the pain away,
Just swallow two three times a day; you'll be as good as new,
And we've got pills to make you happy, pills to pep you up and calm you down,
It's magic what a pill can do
So I took the dose as ordered and my energy was restored,
But I was twitching, I was itching, couldn't keep my body still,
So I twitched right back to see the quack, “oh yes”, he said, “we'll soon cure that,
I'll just prescribe another little pill”
Chorus
Well the twitching soon subsided, but my eyelids wouldn't open,
I was dozy, droopy, drowsy, so I asked the doctor why,
He just took a little look in his now mufti-colored book,
Then he shook me from my slumbers with a cry
Chorus
Now my cupboard's overflowing with the pills that keep me going,
I've got yellow, pink and orange ones; I can't think what they're for
But they look so reassuring I suppose they must be curing me,
I wonder how I ever coped before without…
Chorus
Now the drug firms are delighted and they say I should be knighted,
Cos I keep their profits healthy and they've got a super plan,
To launch a major operation to present me to the nation,
As a fully working model of a well adjusted man
Chorus
We don't really use that terminology so much, the "major" and "minor." Those are two different drug classes that work in different ways. And yes; the benzodiazepines have much more addictive potential than was first thought, though they have therapeutic purposes - if you use a benzo, that doesn't mean you're addicted. And yes; the antipsychotics may be used long term in some people. These newer ones are less likely to cause tardive dyskinesia, but they can make people gain weight and put them at risk of type 2 diabetes.
Not sure what you mean by "clonapine;" do you mean, clonazepam, or clozepine? Or clonidine??
Bullfuckingshit. They gave me that Effexor and fucked my life up. How do you explain that?
Disagree.
Disagree.
Disagree.
Disagree.
You likely had a bad (but predictable) reaction to an SSRI. www.furiousseasons.com has lots of 411 on that. I can't take antidepressants of any stripe for similar reasons.
Two syllables, starts with a C? New atypical. I can't take it with Seroquel --> heart problems.
How old were you when they put you on Effexor? I take it myself with no problem(I'm now 49), but there's been a fairly documented problem with giving the stuff to adolescents...namely, that it tends to make the kids kill themselves(probably do to the hormonal firestorm of that age.)
Also, what else were you on at the time? The docs don't always have a good handle on interactions.
Same as RevolutionPlease. At 20, with Celexa (then Effexor).
(Sorry for the drift, but this discussion should affirm that the issue of mental illness and substance abuse is (1) far too complex an issue to be treated uncritically or without multiple analyses, and (2) unfairly dragged into justifications for not providing monetary support to homeless or impoverished people)
Not really drift, everything you said is perfectly germane to the whole discussion here.
Oops! I meant to say for contributing to the drift as the main topic relates to the anti-pandhandling issue. I feel the discussion is relevant but that likely has much to do with how I am situated (although it appears others feel the same, too).
I was 33 and had no other pharma. Went to the Dr. about some stress and almost died. There's a serious problem.
I'm 43 and a victim of Gord-O's Olympics/Health Care Fiasco. I'm on Seroquel, 150 mg max daily. I can't take SSRIs and many other substances because they make me insane. And nobody, including, frankly, Oldgoat, wants to see me insane. Perhaps especially Oldgoat. I'm not on the street because my Friends & Family won't allow it. I receive a CPP Disability pension of $805.13. My rent is $620. You figure it out. No, I don't qualify for Provincial Gimp. But they'll pay $125 towards my new eyeglasses. God Bless Us, Everyone.