It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Medicating The Population - Here's Why

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:32 PM
Now quit it ... take your Prozac and behave....
Prozac I think is Sodium Fluoride ... you know Rat Poison...
next time your at the grocery go look at the table of contents
and then read what Prozac is... its rat poison.

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:03 AM

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by TruthTellist
In my experience, The primary reason (after profits) that so many children and people in general are unnecessarily and over-medicated is to preclude them from firearms ownership.

If I prescribe an anti-psychotic, SSRI or even a benzodiazapine, that person will never be able to own a gun as they will not pass the background checks. I warn all my patients of this fact.

Very interesting OP, TruthTellist. It is indeed a very scary idea you have presented, and one that merits looking at.

I do have a few questions. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "in your experience, the primary to preclude them from firearms ownership"? What have you directly seen that leads you to believe this? Are there any causal facts that lead you to this conclusion?

Secondly, because gun control laws vary by state instead of at the federal level, I'm wondering how this affects your premise that these sorts of prescriptions are meant to control firearms ownership. Can you please tell us what state you practice in so we can look up that state's gun control laws?

Finally, although I haven't researched every state's laws for obvious reasons, I have not found any supporting legislation that SSRIs automatically bar gun ownership. In fact, the only close data I can find between permit applications and mental health histories is in regards to any stays at institutions. I have found nothing that is looking for prescriptions. Lastly, none of what I've seen appears to permanently bar anyone from obtaining a firearm.

Again, interesting OP. If you can tell us what state you live in, that will help us narrow down the facts.

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 03:28 PM

i was told by my doctor they want to take my "protective" behaviour away.

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 03:32 PM
I dont have enough fingers to count the amount of people that have came from the depths of depression to a good promising life from anti-depressant such as SSRI's and MAOI's...
True they hand them out like sweeties when alot of other things could help,exercise,diet etc...but really they are not some conspiracy to *dumb* down the population....

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Lethil]

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 03:49 PM
Laws vary from state to state and you can not have your rights taken away to own a firearm just for being prescribed a SSRI or a Benzo.

The firearms statutes are not uniform; they vary considerably in ownership and/or carry restrictions on the manner in which restricted individuals are defined. Prohibited persons range in various states from those who receive outpatient psychiatric treatment to persons who have been civilly committed to treatment or found not guilty by reason of insanity. Some statutes restrict individuals with a history of alcohol or substance abuse (with different criteria for inclusion in this restricted class). Others have no restrictions; therefore, the federal laws provide the only restrictions prohibiting the sale of firearms to those with a specifically defined history of mental illness and substance abuse. In states with less-restrictive statutes, federal law supersedes state statutes. The Federal Gun Control Act (2) "prohibits the transfer of any firearm to any person an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution." Although we cannot provide an exhaustive review of each state’s statute, the following summary will illustrate the variability.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Digital_Reality]

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by Digital_Reality

Thanks for the source, Digital_Reality. That definitely helps clear things up.

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 04:46 PM
Tell it like it is Doc...
I just watched a video the other day from 2005 about the Codex Alimentarius. I have not done any further research on it yet as the video was a bit mind numbing as well as confirming some beliefs and theory I have about food, chemicals, et al.

Here is the link for those interested in the Codex Alimentarius

[edit on 4-8-2008 by mantic]

[edit on 4-8-2008 by mantic]

[edit on 4-8-2008 by mantic]

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 07:49 AM
I made a fuss a few years ago about having to write prescriptions to the Artificial Corporations that "represent" my patients.

I no longer even File prescriptions in any manner other than as to a Natural Person - DoctorMcauley, another member of ATS also does likewise.

Her Husband lost Tenure after she kicked up a stink at the Codex Meeting in 2007.

So in the early 1990's I started making out prescriptions to the Natural Person and not their company, and the Ontario Government eventually concurred that I was in the Right to do so.

I was trying to establish a Legal Precedent so that other doctors could do the same without fear....

...They haven't.

I was copying a Colleague in the US who was doing the same thing simultaneously. It wasn't my idea.

Several of My friends who moved to Practice in America are coming back to Canada. Most are non-too-happy with HomeLand Security's new "Requirements" - or have become disenchanted with the financially rewarding yet totally heartless American Healthcare System.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by TruthTellist
So in the early 1990's I started making out prescriptions to the Natural Person and not their company, and the Ontario Government eventually concurred that I was in the Right to do so.

Is this a Canadian thing? I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the idea of writing prescriptions to a company versus a person?

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by thrashee

There are two "persons" identified in law. These are "natural-person" and "artificial-person".

A natural-person is defined as "A human being that has the capacity for rights and duties". Note that the word capacity means the ability, but not the obligation for rights and duties.

An artificial-person is defined as "A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom legal rights and duties may attach - e.g. a body corporate". Sometimes an artificial-person may be referred to as a CORPORATION, which is not always the same as an Incorporated Company. These subtle re-definitions are made in Statutes whenever the Government wants to change the meaning of the word.

There are many different types of artificial-persons, each with different duties. Here are a few different types of artificial-persons:

Taxpayer, Resident, Driver, Voter, Citizen, Homeowner, Officer.

Whenever you read any Law or Statute, you must be sure to check the meaning of the word "person" as it applies to that particular law.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 08:26 PM
reply to post by TruthTellist

Thanks for the clarification. So is your OP geared mainly towards Canada, the States, or just to nations in general? I was under the impression that gun ownership in Canada is much less than the US.

As an aside, and hopefully not too off-topic, what you do think of Canadian healthcare versus the States? People against social healthcare always love pointing to the issues plaguing Canada's system, but I see that mostly as propaganda, fear of change, or just right-wing rhetoric.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by thrashee

This Thread is geared primarily towards the United States and Canada.

I am a believer in Socialized Healthcare and disagree strongly with the American Model - any system that allows people to die in it's waiting rooms is a failed one.

In a modern society such a system is a necessity and I am shocked at the indifference of American politicians towards the suffering of their people.

American hospitals provide Healthcare for illegal aliens, yet refuse to do so for their own citizens. This is shameful - especially when it is the American People's Tax dollars that pay for the majority of the treatment given to illegals.

A prime example would be how the American System treats Maternity:

An American family can expect to pay $15k to $40k for the treatments required during the pregnancy and immediately afterward.

An family of illegal Aliens can expect same treatment this for free, whereas the American family is now saddled with debt and is in for financial difficulties.

They will still have to pay for the child's future medical expenses - their illegal counterparts will get the same treatments for free.

This is just one example of what afflicts the American System - which as far as I can tell, is designed so suck as much wealth out of the poeple as possible, while they are at their most desperate. Despicable.

The Immigration/Open Borders problem in the U.S. is a thread unto itself.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by TruthTellist]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in