pharmacy, The Inquisition againsy dopamine should be STOPPED and fast.

The Inquisition againsy dopamine should be STOPPED and fast.

Author	Message
kbraue #1 / 7	The Inquisition againsy dopamine should be STOPPED and fast. Oh boy, the dopamine manifesto Again!! It's getting boring. ZZZZZZ Soon I'll be able to quote it. Really it's not behavior control, or wanting to deprive you of a buzz. It's just that ya'll (with very few exceptions) are so NonProductive while you're wasted. Notice some {filter} which don't immediately impair productivity (eg caffeine and nicotine) are available OTC. If most people were good for {filter}while they were buzzed, no one would have noticed that they were having a good time, and there would have been no regulation. Then there is that whole class of uppers that tends to make you mean while you are on them. We don't need any more bad tempers. hehehe Hoosier Pharmer Quote: > The article suggests that > > > {filter}ion results from an increase in dopamine activity: "It is thought > > > that all habit-forming {filter} affect the dopamine (DA) system in the brain > > > either directly as DA agonists, or by enhancing DA release, or by acting > > > on other neurons responding to different neurotransmitters, which synapse > > > upon this DA system to activate it." The benzodiazepines are explicitly > > > included in this explanation: > The generality that dopamine is "the" "culprit" of "drug {filter}ion" is not a > scientific problem but a socio-religious problem which arose in the extreme > form of Protestantism cultivated in North-America. > I doubt that bouddhist scientists,for example,would ever have invented this > typically protestant notion of "drug" and "drug {filter}ion". > Our judeo-christian societies have been very keen at Inquisition and trying > to,authoritarily,control the mind and the behaviour of others. > As Dr Thomas Szasz nicely pointed in his book "The Manufacture of Madness" and > Philosopher Michel Foucault in his many books on how human beings enjoy > controlling other human beings,inquisitional behaviours are not extinct. > Just think of an obvious example,in your type of society:President Clinton. > The Spanish Inquisition tracked the devilry(diablerie)in a concept called > "witch". > The Nazi Inquisition tracked devilry in a concept called "Jew". > The new "Drug Gestapo" is tracking devilry within the very fabric of our own > synapses through a concept called the "drug {filter}" and a molecule called > "dopamine". > All these behaviours are Inquisitions.The concept under scrutiny changes,but > the behaviour stays the same through the centuries. > All Inquisitions have tried to "eradicate" a devilry from the body or the > mind of human beings.Past devilries have been the "witch",the "Jew",the "Gay" > and the last one is the "drug {filter} + dopamine". > Dopamine is one of the MOST IMPORTANT molecule in our brain because it serves > the purpose to stimulate: > Action > Motivations > Our desire of Freedom > Without dopamine,never we could maintain our structure because we would lose > motivation.We would stop acting in exoreality and become zombies. > Attacking dopamine is like trying to lobotomise people because dopamine is the > ESSENCE of an animal WILL to fight for SURVIVAL. > Dopamine IS the molecule of survival. > So the new Gestapo against dopamine is a highly politically sensitive subject > because controlling,by law,dopamine is just,simply stated,CONTROLLING THE > SURVIVAL INSTINCT of we,human beings. > The Dopamine Inquisitors are the most dangerous Inquisitors ever because,if > they succeeded in their monstruous quest,it would mean that mankind would be > dispossed of this very molecule which induces Resistance to Tyranny. > No external self-proclaimed "authority" has the right to manipulate our > dopamine activity. > This is a basic freedom which ought to be put in the Declaration of the Rights > of Man. > Regards, > Claude > - Hoosier Pharmer's Home http://www.*.com/ ~kbrauer/html%20files Pharmacist's Rant http://www..com/ ~kbrauer/html%20files/pharmacistsrant.htm Alan Keyes! What a guy! http://www.**.com/
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT

ltj #2 / 7	The Inquisition againsy dopamine should be STOPPED and fast. Quote: > Really it's not behavior control, or wanting to deprive you of a buzz. It's just > that ya'll (with very few exceptions) are so NonProductive while you're wasted. > Notice some {filter} which don't immediately impair productivity (eg caffeine and > nicotine) are available OTC. There are other {filter} that improve productivity and concentration: ritalin, dexedrine, etc...and they are certainly not OTC! So your argument is, at best, only partially true. Even the US Air Force has used Desoxyn (methamphetamine - good luck getting an Rx for that!) to keep fighter pilots alert when flying on long missions. Which shows just how quickly the "Zero Tolerance/Just Say No" gov't philosophy fades away when a multi-million dollar aircraft is on the line. BTW, I'm not necessarily defending the "Dopamine {filter}" idea. I don't know enough to comment. Quote: > If most people were good for {filter}while they were buzzed, no one would have > noticed that they were having a good time, and there would have been no > regulation. This is historically NOT true. The origins of American drug regulation can be traced to California in the late 1800's, when there was a great backlash against {filter}-smoking Chinese immigrant workers. Ironically, much of the outrage stemmed from the fact that the Oriental "drug-fiend coolies" were such hard and tireless workers on western railroad construction and in many other industries. The bottom line was that the Chinese workers were making the white workers look bad. So what did the whites do to punish the Orientals, give them more {filter}? No way, they passed laws restricting the use of smoking {filter} (which was used by the coolies in much the same way as Europeans use beer). This vindictive crusade led indirectly to the Harrison Narcotics Act, etc....... The bottom line SHOULD be that if someone is unproductive (for whatever reason) the remedy (dismissal, etc.) should simply be decided by the employer (and NOT the federal drug police). Quote: > ..... We don't need any more bad tempers. I think we can agree on that! LTJ
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT

Davedude #3 / 7	The Inquisition againsy dopamine should be STOPPED and fast. What an excellent rejoinder deflating the original premise to absolute nothing. I agree: testing for {filter}, and finding that the applicant has used weed sometime in the past 30 days means nothing. Quote: >This is historically NOT true. The origins of American drug regulation can >be traced >to California in the late 1800's, when there was a great backlash against >{filter}-smoking Chinese immigrant workers. Ironically, much of the outrage >stemmed from >the fact that the Oriental "drug-fiend coolies" were such hard and tireless >workers on >western railroad construction and in many other industries. The bottom line >was that >the Chinese workers were making the white workers look bad. So what did the >whites do >to punish the Orientals, give them more {filter}? No way, they passed laws Quote: >restricting >the use of smoking {filter} (which was used by the coolies in much the same way >as >Europeans use beer). This vindictive crusade led indirectly to the Harrison >Narcotics >Act, etc....... >The bottom line SHOULD be that if someone is unproductive (for whatever >reason) the >remedy (dismissal, etc.) should simply be decided by the employer (and NOT >the federal >drug police).
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT

kbraue #4 / 7	The Inquisition againsy dopamine should be STOPPED and fast. Quote: > > Really it's not behavior control, or wanting to deprive you of a buzz. It's just > > that ya'll (with very few exceptions) are so NonProductive while you're wasted. > > Notice some {filter} which don't immediately impair productivity (eg caffeine and > > nicotine) are available OTC. > There are other {filter} that improve productivity and concentration: ritalin, dexedrine, > etc...and they are certainly not OTC! Nah, they come under the class of {filter} that often cause bad tempers. (Speed heads are the last ones you would want to have robbing your pharmacy.) The {filter}narc heads are so much more mellow. Quote: > So your argument is, at best, only partially > true. Even Even???? Military medicine is not top notch, as far as the patient is concerned, kinda like HMO medicine, only worse. Quote: > the US Air Force has used Desoxyn (methamphetamine - good luck getting an > Rx for that!) to keep fighter pilots alert when flying on long missions. Which shows > just how quickly the "Zero Tolerance/Just Say No" gov't philosophy fades away when a > multi-million dollar aircraft is on the line. Guess the aircraft was worth more than the pilot.... Quote: > BTW, I'm not necessarily defending the "Dopamine {filter}" idea. I don't know > enough to comment. > > If most people were good for {filter}while they were buzzed, no one would have > > noticed that they were having a good time, and there would have been no > > regulation. > This is historically NOT true. The origins of American drug regulation can be traced > to California in the late 1800's, when there was a great backlash against > {filter}-smoking Chinese immigrant workers. Might have had much more to do with the fact that about 20 % of the U.S. population was {filter}ed to the narcs in the various snake oils that were peddled as cure alls at that time. This was a problem throughout the country, not just in selected areas of the west. Quote: > Ironically, much of the outrage stemmed from > the fact that the Oriental "drug-fiend coolies" were such hard and tireless workers on > western railroad construction and in many other industries. The bottom line was that > the Chinese workers were making the white workers look bad. So what did the whites do > to punish the Orientals, give them more {filter}? No way, they passed laws restricting > the use of smoking {filter} (which was used by the coolies in much the same way as > Europeans use beer). This vindictive ? Quote: > crusade led indirectly to the Harrison Narcotics > Act, etc....... > The bottom line SHOULD be that if someone is unproductive (for whatever reason) the > remedy (dismissal, etc.) should simply be decided by the employer (and NOT the federal > drug police). Nah, it's hard to fire anyone these days, unless it is for their religion. Whaddaya think of employer drug testing, by the way??? Quote: > > ..... We don't need any more bad tempers. > I think we can agree on that! > LTJ Hoosier Pharmer Hoosier Pharmer's Home http://www.*.com/ ~kbrauer/html%20files Pharmacist's Rant http://www..com/ ~kbrauer/html%20files/pharmacistsrant.htm Alan Keyes! What a guy! http://www.**.com/
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT

kbraue #5 / 7	The Inquisition againsy dopamine should be STOPPED and fast. Quote: > What an excellent rejoinder deflating the original premise to absolute nothing. > I agree: testing for {filter}, and finding that the applicant has used weed > sometime in the past 30 days means nothing. If it means nothing, why do private employers waste their money by screening for it??? Don't tell me they are worried about the feminization of their male employees...... Quote: > >This is historically NOT true. The origins of American drug regulation can > >be traced > >to California in the late 1800's, when there was a great backlash against > >{filter}-smoking Chinese immigrant workers. Ironically, much of the outrage > >stemmed from >the fact that the Oriental "drug-fiend coolies" were such hard > and tireless >workers on >western railroad construction and in many other > industries. The bottom line >was that >the Chinese workers were making the > white workers look bad. So what did the >whites do >to punish the Orientals, > give them more {filter}? No way, they passed laws > >restricting >the use of smoking {filter} (which was used by the coolies in much > the same way > >as >Europeans use beer). This vindictive crusade led indirectly to the > Harrison >Narcotics > >Act, etc....... > >The bottom line SHOULD be that if someone is unproductive (for whatever > >reason) the >remedy (dismissal, etc.) should simply be decided by the employer > (and NOT > >the federal >drug police). You could argue that coke is great because the Peruvians can do just fine by chewing small amounts of Coca leaves (getting homeopathic size doses), all day. But comparing that kind of thing to a big ol' snort is not valid at all. Same goes for EtOH. But we all know that for the average doper, more is better. For that reason, they, for the most part, are unproductive drains on society. A whole lot of them are self medicating mental illness, and would probably get more done while on a different and more efficiently regulated form of therapy, in which they have some idea of the dose of drug they are getting. -- Hoosier Pharmer Hoosier Pharmer's Home http://www.*.com/ ~kbrauer/html%20files Pharmacist's Rant http://www..com/ ~kbrauer/html%20files/pharmacistsrant.htm Alan Keyes! What a guy! http://www.**.com/
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT

ltj #6 / 7	The Inquisition againsy dopamine should be STOPPED and fast. Quote: > Might have had much more to do with the fact that about 20 % of the U.S. population was > {filter}ed to the narcs in the various snake oils that were peddled as cure alls at that > time. This was a problem throughout the country, not just in selected areas of the west. Well, it' true that most so-called "patent medicines" contained generous amounts of morphine and/or {filter}; and were not labelled as such. This situation led to the passage of the Pure cooking.net">food and Drug Act in 1906, which madated labelling and purity standards. I only wish that the gov't would have left it at that, as far as drug regulation is concerned. I think that gov't drug regulation has been about as successful as {filter} prohibition; it's just gone on for a lot longer and caused a lot more harm. The 20% of the population, that you mention as being patent medicine {filter}s, were for the most part, much better off than today's {filter} (especially once the labelling issue was resolved). {filter}s in need of morphine, {filter}, and cannibis (for whatever reason) could obtain.high-quality, low-cost {filter} at the neighborhood pharmacy, general store or even from the Sears catalogue! There was no need for a prescription or an HMO card. And more importantly, there was no army of drug enforcement zealots in search of victims and their property. Consequently, most of these {filter}s were able to lead relatively normal lives: holding jobs, raising families, etc. For those {filter}s who had drug-related problems, these could be handled as private medical matters, and NOT as public police inquisitions. Quote: > Nah, it's hard to fire anyone these days, unless it is for their religion. > Whaddaya think of employer drug testing, by the way??? I'm generally against it. But I think that for certain occupations where the physical safety of others is at risk (like transportation) it might be justified. I don't think anybody wants their airline pilot or bus driver on LSD! On the other hand, I think it's interesting that many software companies (for example, ORACLE and MICROSOFT) actually have corporate policies that PROHIBIT drug testing. Or.....you might say that explains a lot about Windows95 ;-) LTJ
Sat, 14 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT

Page 1 of 1

[ 7 post ]