567
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
567 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19118 readers
2461 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He's a big believer in the whole "keeping people on drugs isn't the fix" kind of thinking. It's short-sighted and ignorant of the fact that a lot of people on them have a net benefit to function in society.
What he is proposing is something far more stupid akin to "Well look at me. I've never needed these drugs, and I'm totally fine. WTF, people?"
If you want a country that is doing the proper work to stop jumping to long-term prescriptions as problem solvers, I'm all for that. DO NOT confuse that with these dumb shit he's suggesting though.
He THINKS he's fine because he lives in a bubble with other people who are willing to accept and normalize his unmedicated issues at great personal cost. And now, instead of being kicked to the roadside or reckoning with the idea of "maybe I'm the asshole here", he plans to make the whole US into his safe space so he doesn't have to be confronted with an idea outside his sphere.
Yes, but he THINKS he is.
Except he looks like a reanimated corpse and sounds like a frog that died on a log in a bog.
I agree with the principal sentiment. Except for schizophrenia and other illnesses involving acute psychosis, drugs shouldnt be the permanent solution.
But this requires access to proper psychotherapy, which needs to be part of a consistent concept of slowly reducing the drugs as the condition gets better.
Also this requires a society, where people have enough agency to remove the causes of psychological distress from their life. People getting anxieties is perfectly normal, if they are in constant fear to not be able to pay their bills. People getting depressed is perfectly normal, if they are expected to work a dead end job for the rest of their lifes, etc.
I see none of that coming from the direction of any politician.
EDIT: Wow. People get offended by the idea not to pump people full of drugs for the rest of their lifes, when therapy is a viable alternative. Seriously why do you want people to suffer instead of providing proper healthcare including proper access to therapy and creating life conditions that aren't designed to make people sick? I never thought this to be controversial.
No, not just for "schizophrenia and other illnesses involving acute psychosis".
My brain literally does not properly process dopamine. Adderall, Ritalin, Strattera, etc help this. No matter how much my stress in life is reduced, I still need meds like these to function properly.
Yeah, without psychiatric grade stimulants I simply cannot function properly. Not just in a “industrialized society” way, but also in a “cooking, cleaning, regulating my emotions, regulating my behavior…” way. Without these meds I would need disability support, with them I’m able to support my household
Ah, but you make an exception for one of the most harmful kinds of perscription drugs that comes with severe side effects often far worse than the symptoms they're meant to treat. It's different because psychotic people scaaaaryyy I suppose?
It is different because there is no alternative to reliably prevent psychosis afaik.
Why the hell do you get offended by the idea to minimize use of psychatric drugs where possible and to continue use where necessary?
There's no alternative to reliably treat many other psychiatric issues. And antipsychotics are often not worth the extremely debilitating side effects.
If someone has a liver, heart, or kidney problem, and need drugs to fix a deficiency - no problem.
But if it's the brain you suggest not using drugs?
"Hey, person with a heart arrhythmia. Just get over it!"
Again nowhere did i say that. The precondition is always that therapy is available and working. But therapy is expensive and requires individual therapists. Making and selling psychiatric drugs can be done as an efficient business. And the companies doing so are such great benevolent entities that they have paid record sums in compensations for victims of them pushing the drugs. This includes often families where the drugs lead to psychosis, suicide, homicide, adverse health problems...
The very fact that psychiatric drugs can be advertised on TV in the US is complete madness. But i guess if you are a dealer or addict, nuance is easy to ignore.
Therapy is great. For some of us it’s necessary but not sufficient. If a medication can help me, it should be my right to decide if I want it as a permanent part of my treatment plan for as long as it helps.
You just agree because it comes from a maga nutjobs mouth.
"You're just depressed because life sucks, get over it"
I really wonder why you get offended by "We should try to minimize the use of psychatric drugs, where therapy is a viable alternative"?
Do you prefer taking drugs with potentially severe side effects for the rest of your life? Do you want people to die, because some life event outside their control prevents them from accessing drugs like SSRIs or Benzodiazepines that can be deadly if quit cold turkey?
Nothing of that has to do with maga nutjobs. On the contrary it should be basic human decency to find and provide the least harmful treatment.
What you said here wouldn't ruffle nearly as many feathers, because IMHO in your other post you buried the lede.
It's definitely good to say that we need better access to therapy, and to improve societal conditions, since many people would be healthier with those instead of drugs. We'd all benefit!
Then there's proposals by hardcore wingnuts like RFK that...are unreasonable to the point of doing outright harm. You just got confused for the latter, I guess. I wasn't sure about your first comment, either.
Yeah, you want to start with making it so I can live a full life without Adderall? Awesome, I’m all for it, start by building a robust and accessible public transportation network that allows for intercity and intracity transportation conveniently at all times of day, because trust me you do not want be driving unmedicated. Then you’re gonna need to solve the unable to maintain employment without meds problem. And even if you do all that I’ll fight you taking my meds tooth and nail because I feel seriously disabled without them and would much rather go without hearing aids than without adderall.
He's an ex drug addict.