Commercials for Drugs: Ablixa, Epiphanix?

We recently watched the movie Side Effects. It was good, I recommend it.

The DVD had links to extra stuff, including two "drug" commercials. But the links didn't work: a message said that was because it was a rental DVD: you have to buy the commercial DVD to view the extra features.

One commercial was for "Ablixa", the antidepressant featured in the movie. The other drug, I think, may have been "Epiphanix", which I found on Youtube? I'm not sure, but here is Epiphanix anyway. Warning: it's probably not for the squeamish:



     

Guns, drugs and psychos

All-or-nothing solutions like banning guns or drugs don't work

The all or nothing crowd keeps insisting that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and all guns banned.

As for the use of antidepressant drugs by so many mass-shooters, I see some people are saying it's wrong to criticize antidepressant drugs, because such drugs help so many people.

Both arguments are too extreme, by taking an all or nothing approach. A more thoughtful approach is needed, and the following two blog posts seem to understand this. Here are the links, with some excerpts:

Anti-depressant drugs and mass killers

[...] There's nothing wrong with most of these drugs. Anti-depressant drugs such as Prozac and Zoloft have helped millions of people cope with depression. They are useful tools when used for adults who do not have severe mental disorders but they are no good for kids with serious problems.

[...]

The only solution is to identify sociopaths at an early age when it becomes obvious that they are anti-social, write hideous blood-thirsty plays and poems and kill cats. At that point they need to be put on anti-psychotic drugs not anti-depressants and, if the anti-psychotics don't curb their sociopathic behavior, then they need to locked up in loony bins. [...]

I've seen the use of antidepressant drugs in every mass shooting case I've read about. To acknowledge that is not to criticize the use of antidepressants, but to acknowledge that perhaps they are being misused when prescribed to people with serious mental illness problems.

Quote of the Day: Cesare Beccaria

[...] Consider the shootings in Germany in 2002, or the shootings in Scotland in 1996. (I apologize for not mentioning the Osaka school massacre of 2001 that left eight dead, but that was performed with a knife.) Our international critics should inquire as to why schools are always attacked by predatory psychos, regardless of how strict the firearm regulations are, as opposed to, let us say, police departments. Do this nonsense in a shopping mall and you will find citizens firing back, which is why shopping mall slaughters are unheard of. Universities like Virginia Tech, ironically, are gun free zones. A lot of good that does.

Indeed. "Gun Free Zones" are hunting grounds for psychopathic predators. In our past history, such large mass shootings have not occurred. We didn't have "gun fee-zones" back then, and we let citizens arm themselves as the 2nd amendment allows for.

We also didn't dispense anti-depressant drugs like candy to disturbed young people. Young people are still learning about self control; many have anger issues. Teens have raging hormones and are often too immature to handle their feelings constructively. Add to that deep mental problems, and then give them antidepressant drugs that lift their inhibitions... it's a recipe for disaster.

But rather than banning antidepressants (or refusing to look at their roll in these shootings), we could focus more on identifying people with serious mental problems, and getting them the appropriate help.

Instead of taking guns away from law abiding citizens, couldn't more be done to keeps guns out of the hands of psychopaths? Yet precisely because no system would be able to eliminate every possibility of danger, citizens must retain the right to arm themselves.

Whether it's guns or antidepressants, it's not the objects themselves that cause the problems, but the context they are used in. The answers lie in deeper examination of causes and effects in those contexts, not giving in to the all or nothing demands of the short-sighted.


Update 04-22-07: Now there have been copy-cat shootings and inspired incidents. I know the media has a responsibility to report the news, but endless coverage and over-publicity of the killers who do these crimes can be a problem in of itself.



Various groups want to use shooting tragedies to advance numerous causes, but isn't it ultimately about identifying truly mentally disturbed people, and intervening BEFORE they go on a murderous rampage?




The guy was nuts; call it mental illness or call it evil, that is the bottom line. How we can recognize and contain such dangerous killers before they act, in an open and free society like ours? That is the real problem we have to solve.
     

Gun Control & antidepressant drugs = Massacres

Of course the V-Tech shootings are the main news topic today. And with this tragic story are more calls for gun control.

Neal Boortz has a post on Virginia Tech and Gun Control today that fills in some important gaps left out by the MSM:

This is undoubtedly the worst school shooting, high school, college or otherwise, in the history of our country. There are some facts, however, about some of these school shootings of which you probably are not aware. Do you know, for instance, that at least three shootings in high schools were stopped by civilians with guns? Civilians, not law enforcement. In one case a civilian was traveling past a school when he saw children running from the building. One told him that there was a student inside shooting people. The civilian pulled his gun, ran in side, and confronted the student. The student put down the gun and surrendered. In another case a high school vice-principal heard that there was a student in the hallways with a gun. He sprinted a half-mile to his car. He had a gun in his car so he had to park off campus. He then sprinted back with the gun to confront the student. Lives saved.

There have been many other cases where civilians with guns have prevented further carnage at the hands of killers. The media isn't fond of reporting these episodes because they don't contribute to the cause of gun control.

The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never. In all the years of press releases and statements from the Brady anti-gun organization there has never been one single gun control plan presented that would take the guns out of the hands of criminals. This is the oddity of gun control. Only law abiding people are going to abide by gun control laws. Criminals are not. The anti-gun lobby, and that includes much of the media, will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others.

(bold emphasis mine) When the MSM reports stories about citizens stopping criminals with guns, they often report that the gunman was "overpowered" or "restrained" by citizens - without mentioning those citizens had used guns.

People want more gun control laws thinking it's going to make them safe. But such laws can't and don't keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS.



Tammy Bruce, in chapter 5 of her book "The New American Revolution", examines gun control arguments in depth. Many of the arguments for gun control claim to be based on increasing the law-abiding publics survival odds against a maniac. Tammy said about that:

[...] This in and of itself acknowledges that not only do gun laws not keep the innocent safe, they do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Let's get real here - the only thing that would increase the survival odds for the law-abiding public is if they were able to shoot back at any maniac shooting at them. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) We saw a demonstration of that principle in action yesterday. If even only one of those citizens had been armed, dozens of people might still be alive today.

Murdering maniacs aren't exactly interested in being law-abiding, any more than criminals are. Removing OUR ability to protect ourselves does not make US safer.

Pat and I were talking about this at breakfast this morning, you can read more about his thoughts on the matter, which are much like my own, here: The massacre

Was shooter Cho Seung Hui pushed over
the edge by powerful antidepressant drugs?

Also not being mentioned enough by the media, is that in all the school shootings we hear about, the shooters had been on anti-depressant drugs, including the shooter yesterday. Our citizens have had guns for the past 200 years. It's only in more modern times that school shootings have become increasingly common. And a common factor in those shootings and other other mass shootings is antidepressant drugs. Does anyone think that is a mere coincidence? Instead of banning guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, shouldn't we be looking at the rampant prescribing of dangerous psychiatric drugs?


Related Links:

Breaking News updates at Hot Air

Why You Should Own a Gun

Prescription drugs are connected to school shootings and other violence, yet more drugs are touted as the solution