Ban ALL People on Psych Meds from Owning Guns, Driving, & Voting

[presence]

The solution to the insanity: Ban all people on psychiatric medication from owning guns, driving cars or voting for President

Tuesday, December 18, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com


http://www.naturalnews.com/038376_psychiatric_medications_guns_voting.html

(NaturalNews) I know how to stop the next school shooting, save the children and restore some sanity to America. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter, was on medication, we now know. So were previous shooters like the two students at Columbine High School in the 1999 Colorado shooting. Medication makes some people go crazy with violence.

There has been a lot of talk these past few days about banning guns. But the idea of banning guns from all the GOOD people -- the sane, law-abiding citizens of America -- is ludicrous. What really makes sense is banning gun purchases and ownership among mentally MEDICATED people.

Yep. If they're on psychiatric meds, they get no guns. But why stop there? Vehicles are very dangerous metal machines, too, and if people on meds are too dangerous to own guns, they should be too dangerous to operate high-velocity rolling chunks of metal (cars and trucks) on public roadways, no?

That's why I say ban all medicated people from operating motor vehicles. Given that there are currently 32,000 deaths each year in America from motor vehicle accidents, we're talking about saving a thousand times the lives of the children in Sandy Hook!

But why stop there? Electing the wrong President can be just as dangerous as operating a motor vehicle or shooting up a school. The wrong President, you see, can drag a nation into deadly wars, just as we've seen with Bush and Obama. So for those people who are too dangerous to own guns, and too dangerous to drive motor vehicles, they should also be declared too dangerous to VOTE.

Voting, obviously, should be conducted only by someone in a clear state of mind, should it not?

And why even stop there? I think we should ban people on psych drugs from becoming members of Congress. After all, Congress is where the most insane people tend to congregate, and probably at least half of them are on mind-altering meds (and brain-numbing cholesterol drugs). No wonder they can't even read the bills they vote on!

Allowing medicated members of Congress to vote on legislation is a lot like allowing medicated, video-game-playing teenagers to own assault rifles. The outcome is sometimes disastrous...

I'm serious...
This article is only partially satire, by the way.

[brandon]

I say we should ban people people who write for natural news from sitting at the adult table.

[presence]

I say we should ban people people who write for natural news from sitting at the adult table.

Guns, cars and votes should only be commanded by people of sound mind who are NOT subjected to chemical influences. In society today, we don't tolerate people drinking and driving. So why do we tolerate people medicating and voting?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038376_ps...#ixzz2FQ2RfcfI

[KingNothing]

I say we should ban people people who write for natural news from sitting at the adult table.

Agreed completely, though I still think the number of drugged people milling about is disturbing.

[tod evans]

The argument could be, and has been, made that folks on these medications are far more stable than before they started taking the meds.....

[aGameOfThrones]

Anyone who watches Honey Boo Boo or the Chris Matthews show should not be allowed to own guns, vote or drive.

[presence]

The argument could be, and has been, made that folks on these medications are far more stable than before they started taking the meds.....

America's Medicated Army
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...812055,00.html

America’s Medicated Army, 2.0
http://nation.time.com/2012/04/09/am...ated-army-2-0/





One a Day: Soldiers and Suicide in the U.S. Military

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/video/playe...#ixzz2FQ43xrI0

[Natural Citizen]

The solution to the insanity: Ban all people on psychiatric medication from owning guns, driving cars or voting for President

Tuesday, December 18, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com


NaturalNews) I know how to stop the next school shooting, save the children and restore some sanity to America. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter, was on medication, we now know. So were previous shooters like the two students at Columbine High School in the 1999 Colorado shooting. Medication makes some people go crazy with violence.

There has been a lot of talk these past few days about banning guns. But the idea of banning guns from all the GOOD people -- the sane, law-abiding citizens of America -- is ludicrous. What really makes sense is banning gun purchases and ownership among mentally MEDICATED people.

Yep. If they're on psychiatric meds, they get no guns. But why stop there? Vehicles are very dangerous metal machines, too, and if people on meds are too dangerous to own guns, they should be too dangerous to operate high-velocity rolling chunks of metal (cars and trucks) on public roadways, no?

That's why I say ban all medicated people from operating motor vehicles. Given that there are currently 32,000 deaths each year in America from motor vehicle accidents, we're talking about saving a thousand times the lives of the children in Sandy Hook!

But why stop there? Electing the wrong President can be just as dangerous as operating a motor vehicle or shooting up a school. The wrong President, you see, can drag a nation into deadly wars, just as we've seen with Bush and Obama. So for those people who are too dangerous to own guns, and too dangerous to drive motor vehicles, they should also be declared too dangerous to VOTE.

Voting, obviously, should be conducted only by someone in a clear state of mind, should it not?

And why even stop there? I think we should ban people on psych drugs from becoming members of Congress. After all, Congress is where the most insane people tend to congregate, and probably at least half of them are on mind-altering meds (and brain-numbing cholesterol drugs). No wonder they can't even read the bills they vote on!

Allowing medicated members of Congress to vote on legislation is a lot like allowing medicated, video-game-playing teenagers to own assault rifles. The outcome is sometimes disastrous...

I'm serious...
This article is only partially satire, by the way.

The rest of the paper....

This article is only partially satire, by the way. If we're going to talk about banning things in America, let's get serious about the altered mental states being caused by psychiatric drugs, and let's get psych drugs to come with warnings and red flags that preclude people who take those drugs from operating firearms, vehicles or voting booths.

Guns, cars and votes should only be commanded by people of sound mind who are NOT subjected to chemical influences. In society today, we don't tolerate people drinking and driving. So why do we tolerate people medicating and voting?

And if there's any effort to ban guns at all, it needs to be concentrated on those medicated individuals who are not of sound mind.



Mike is spot on in that regard. We need to stop giving Big Pharma a free pass. As well, complicit psychiatrists need to be exposed for their roles.

[tttppp]

Banning people on psych meds from doing stuff will just force them to go off their meds and that could potentially create more problems. I guess this guy doesnt want people on psych meds to work becuase you cant work without a car. Anyways, sounds like a great Obama program.

If you want to ban anything, ban these companies from making drugs loaded with side effects. Put the blame where it belongs.

[Maximilian American]

How are the ban-happy of ya going to enforce such laws? Bigger more intrusive government, probably? Also, the unintended consequences when forcing a prohibition upon another are historically resulting in a more negative and troublesome outcomes. Not worth it.

There is one choice that I think is a good way for a manifestation of our current discussion here and that is realizing that we can study this matter to share and debate, additionally in a method of persuasion in accordance to our values, but leave law and its force strictly to its constitutional delegations.

[Natural Citizen]

How are the ban-happy of ya going to enforce such laws? Bigger more intrusive government, probably?

How would you define "government" as it is right this second? Because the last time I checked these multi-national corporations like monsanto and big pharma seem to be writing the rules as they run amok. Unchallenged because too many people want to sit around and stall with silly memes that accomplish nothing. If more government means that the actual people get to do the talking for a change then I'm all for it.

Far too often folks think they are supporting the free market but they fail to actually look and see that they are the very demand for government controlled markets. That mindset is why we have a merge of corporation and state in the first place. What has happened as a result of this concept is that we have companies like monsanto and big pharma in all of it's glory getting away scott free with what they are doing. It's time for change. They need to be held accountable instead of catered to blindly. We know who speaks for them. The people need to take the initiative to start speaking for themselves and take back their government. They have lost it to these entities and those like them.

[jmdrake]

Add antimalaria drugs (which the army forces soldiers to take) to the list.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/0...quine-041112w/
New concerns rising over antimalaria drug

By Patricia Kime - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 11, 2012 6:22:47 EDT

Navy Sonar Technician (Surface) Seaman Douglas Corrigan placed a Skype call to his wife March 25, 2011, from Rota, Spain, shortly after taking his first dose of the antimalaria medication mefloquine.

Preparing for a mission to a malaria-endemic region, his unit watched a video on the illness, and corpsmen dispensed two drugs: daily-dose doxycycline, and mefloquine, taken weekly.

Corrigan doesn’t remember getting a choice. He received a blister pack of mefloquine and was told it could cause nightmares.

“He told me he didn’t feel good,” recalled Nicki Corrigan, his wife of three years. “He said, ‘I don’t feel like myself anymore.’ It was a really weird thing for him to say.”

Corrigan’s personality changed radically, she said. The straight-laced husband and father began chewing tobacco, drinking and carousing. He climbed outside a three-story building to see whether he would feel fear.

Months later, at home, he was found tiptoeing around his basement, pursuing imagined intruders. He ranted psychotically and complained of daily headaches.

Medical tests showed no traumatic brain injury, nor did doctors believe he had post-traumatic stress disorder. They began suggesting he had a personality disorder or was a malingerer, faking his problems to get out of the military.

Finally, an ear, nose and throat doctor at National Naval Medical Center Bethesda, Md., offered another diagnosis: “multifocal brain stem injury” — brain damage — likely caused by mefloquine.

“He has a lesion. On his brain,” said Nicki, a registered nurse.
Back in the spotlight

Mefloquine has drawn attention since the Army’s former top psychiatrist, retired Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, wrote a column in Time magazine listing it among several drugs that may have induced psychoses in Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, charged in the shootings deaths of 17 Afghan civilians March 11.

But Defense Department concerns about mefloquine date back further — and some close to the issue say the most recent bout of scrutiny, which began with a meeting last Aug. 24-25 of DoD’s Joint Prevention Medicine Group to discuss mefloquine policy, stems from the Corrigan case.

“You have a sailor with permanent brain damage,” said an Army doctor familiar with the debate. “It’s very serious.”

The Navy would not confirm a link between Corrigan and the current DoD review, citing privacy laws. But on Jan. 17, two months before Bales’ alleged spree, the Pentagon’s top doctor, Jonathan Woodson, directed the Army, Navy and Air Force and the commander of Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical to give him all data and policies related to mefloquine.

DoD “wants to ensure each service conducts proper screening, patient education and medical documentation,” said Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Mefloquine was developed under the Army’s malaria drug discovery program, which ran from 1963 to 1976. The Food and Drug Administration approved it for preventive use in 1989 and it was marketed under the brand name Lariam.

But no safety and efficacy reviews were ever done on a normal civilian population. The Army performed tests on prisoners in Illinois and Maryland in 1975 and 1976.

Shortly after commercial use began, anecdotes surfaced about side effects including hallucinations, delirium and psychoses.

According to the FDA, the most common side effects are nausea and vomiting, seen in less than 3 percent of users. Side effects occurring in less than 1 percent include emotional disturbances, seizures, hair loss, headache, tinnitus, pain and fatigue.

A 2004 Veterans Affairs Department memo urged doctors to refrain from prescribing mefloquine, citing individual cases of hallucinations, paranoia, suicidal thoughts, psychoses and more.

That same year, then-Assistant Defense Secretary for Health Affairs Dr. William Winkenwerder ordered a study to assess the rate of adverse side effects associated with antimalaria medications.

He ordered the study after questions arose over its possible role in several murder-suicides at Fort Bragg, N.C., in 2002 and suicides in Iraq among deployed troops.

The Army in 2009 issued a policy listing mefloquine as a third choice behind doxycycline and another antimalarial, chloroquine. DoD followed with a memo later that year stating that doxycylcine and mefloquine may be used in areas where malaria is resistant to chloroquine, but doxycycline is the preferred choice.

The Air Force and the Navy have similar policies, officials said.

The DoD memo says troops given mefloquine must be counseled on its possible effects and must not be suspected of having any mental health concerns.

In 2011, U.S. Central Command and U.S. Africa Command issued memos barring mefloquine use except when doxycycline or another preventive drug called Malarone cannot be taken.

Roche, the manufacturer of Lariam, stopped marketing it in the U.S. in 2008, but it is still available in more than 50 countries. The mefloquine now taken by U.S. troops is a generic version.
Other drugs also have issues

Doxycycline is not without its drawbacks. It can make patients photo-sensitive, causing debilitating sunburn; has a poor compliance rate, since it must be taken daily; and has side effects, including nausea and vomiting.

And Malarone costs much more than the other drugs — about $30 a week, compared with $3 a week for mefloquine and less than 25 cents a week for doxycycline.

Navy Cmdr. Bill Manofsky — who was medically retired in 2004 for PTSD and neurological problems, including loss of balance, that he said were documented in his medical records as mefloquine-related — said if cost concerns are an issue, they shouldn’t be.

He said if DoD wants to protect the troops from malaria as well as mefloquine’s potential side effects, it should ban mefloquine and pay the higher cost of Malarone.

“How much does a .50-caliber round cost? They’re worried about $4 a pill and they’re willing to spend $5 for a round?” he said.

There’s no question malaria poses a risk. In 2011, 124 service members contracted the potentially fatal disease — 91 in Afghanistan, 24 in Africa and nine elsewhere. The year before, 113 troops contracted malaria; one died.

But mefloquine continues to be used in part because it is taken weekly while the alternatives must be taken daily, and some physicians believe that troops are more likely to take a weekly dose.

The services have 90 days to respond to Woodson’s order for details of their mefloquine policies.

Nicki Corrigan and others have contacted lawmakers, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jim Webb, D-Va., to press for congressional hearings.

Douglas Corrigan is currently undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board to determine if he is still fit for military service.

[Dr.3D]

I can't believe I'm seeing a thread with this title on these forums of all places. I thought we are about less government control, not more.
Yes, I know it's something somebody wrote. But wow.... anybody here who believes this is a good idea should change over to being a democrat.

[heavenlyboy34]

Banning people on psych meds from doing stuff will just force them to go off their meds and that could potentially create more problems. I guess this guy doesnt want people on psych meds to work becuase you cant work without a car. Anyways, sounds like a great Obama program.

If you want to ban anything, ban these companies from making drugs loaded with side effects. Put the blame where it belongs.

Only if you're a pro driver. Everyone else can take private or public mass transit/cabs/etc. Just FWIW. Lots of people out there purposely don't drive for numerous reasons.

[heavenlyboy34]

I can't believe I'm seeing a thread with this title on these forums of all places. I thought we are about less government control, not more.
Yes, I know it's something somebody wrote. But wow.... anybody here who believes this is a good idea should change over to being a democrat.

Meh. You find obscene command and control types in both major parties.

[Natural Citizen]

I can't believe I'm seeing a thread with this title on these forums of all places. I thought we are about less government control, not more.
Yes, I know it's something somebody wrote. But wow.... anybody here who believes this is a good idea should change over to being a democrat.

Presence did that on purpose. The article was almost entirely satire. I still challenge folks who make that claim about wanting more government to actually define government as it is righ this minute. The last I checked, the corporations took it over. In my opinion more government equates to re-establishing governing to the actual people instead of continuing to let these multi-national corporations whom our representatives currently speak for keep running amok with it. I cannot believe that some are so complicit with what these pharmaceurical corps and equally complicit psychiatrists have gotten away with lately. Well, assuming that the msm continues successfully with the brainwashing of the the sheep with the old were coming fer yer guns gag. These are the entities that are government right now.

[Dr.3D]

Presence did that on purpose. The article was almost entirely satire. I still challenge folks who make that claim about wanting more government to actually define government as it is righ this minute. Because in my opinion more government equates to re-establishing governing to the actual people instead of these dangerous corporations whom our representatives currently speak for.

Yes, it's true, we need to get true representation. What we have now for the most part has been paid off by corporate lobbyists.

[donnay]

How would you define "government" as it is right this second? Because the last time I checked these multi-national corporations like monsanto and big pharma seem to be writing the rules as they run amok. Unchallenged because too many people want to sit around and stall with silly memes that accomplish nothing. If more government means that the actual people get to do the talking for a change then I'm all for it.

Far too often folks think they are supporting the free market but they fail to actually look and see that they are the very demand for government controlled markets. That mindset is why we have a merge of corporation and state in the first place. What has happened as a result of this concept is that we have companies like monsanto and big pharma in all of it's glory getting away scott free with what they are doing. It's time for change. They need to be held accountable instead of catered to blindly. We know who speaks for them. The people need to take the initiative to start speaking for themselves and take back their government. They have lost it to these entities and those like them.

"You must spread some Reputation around before you can give it to Natural Citizen again."

Education of these horrendous drugs is key. The less people use them the less money Big Pharma gets!!

[Dr.3D]

"You must spread some Reputation around before you can give it to Natural Citizen again."

Education of these horrendous drugs is key. The less people use them the less money Big Pharma gets!!

Makes me wonder who our physicians are really working for.

[donnay]

Makes me wonder who our physicians are really working for.

Oh I know who they were trained by. Check out the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations and their so-called philanthropy organizations. This has everything to do with eugenics then people know.


Flexner Report

That's what the foundations are all about, ladies and gentlemen. Make no mistake about it. The foundation takeover of the "American Medical Schools" followed almost immediately after Gates went to work for Rockefeller. It was fast and it was simple. It took place in three steps.
The first was when Rockefeller and Carnegie together financed the famous Flexner Report of 1910 written by Abraham Flexner, hired by Rockefeller and Carnegie. Flexner traveled all over the country and made a very scholarly analysis of how bad the level of medical education was in America and he was right. He didn't distort it. To my knowledge he didn't distort (any of it). He didn't have to. There were diploma mills. There were a few good schools. But, there were a lot of mediocre schools and there were a lot of bad schools. And people could get a medical degree just by paying enough money and so Flexner brought all of this together in the Flexner Report. It was published by the foundation as a public service and everybody was very much concerned. Something had to be done. You see now, the problem was crystallized with foundation money.
The next step was to solve the problems. Rockefeller and Carnegie then provided the money to solve the problem. They offered tax-free grants. Tremendous infusions of millions and millions of dollars to those selected medical schools that were cooperative and that were willing to go along with the recommendations made by Rockefeller and Carnegie. The ones who weren't willing to submit themselves to the influence of the money didn't get any, and they fell by the wayside. The ones who did go along got this money and were able to build big buildings to attract qualified teachers. They were able to get the necessary equipment, and they became the large medical schools in America today, through Rockefeller and Carnegie money.
Now, there is an old saying that "he who pays the piper calls the tune." And that is exactly what happened. Gates and Flexner, and those whom they appointed, became Board members and consultants for all of these schools. And you can be sure, ladies and gentlemen, that if you are on the Board of Trustees of the school and you are struggling for money and somebody comes to you and says here is 10 million dollars and then they say, however, or by the way, we would suggest that the next time you look for a president we suggest that you look at Mr. Smith, he's a fine, reputable man. You will listen very carefully when they make that suggestion and Mr. Smith becomes the next president.
Mr. Smith listens very carefully when Mr. Gates, Mr. Rockefeller, or Mr. Carnegie say, "now, Mr. Smith, you need people on your teaching staff with these qualifications, and we suggest that you look at Dr. Jones, Dr. Radcliff” and so forth. They all listen. Money has a distinct sound. It is the ruffling of thousand dollar bills. Now there is no corruption there. It is not necessary to set down and say we are going to control the school. We want you to do what we tell you, it is all just very gentlemanly and done gently. But it's done, nevertheless. And so you can be sure that those schools that were willing to cooperate were the ones who got the money. The record indeed shows that this is true. LECTURE BY MR. G. EDWARD GRIFFIN

Flexner was John D. Rockefeller's "stool pigeon" in setting up the takeover of the entire medical school industry by Carnegie Foundation, which was a Rockefeller Foundation subsidiary at that time.......When you say "Carnegie Foundation", you're talking about something that has no substance. It's entirely under the domination of the Rockefellers. .................He (Abraham Flexner) did "The Flexner Report", and this changed the medical schools of the United States from homeopathic, naturopathic medicine, to allopathic medicine -- which was a German school of medicine which depended on the heavy use of drugs, radical surgery, and long hospital stays. That's what we've got today, allopathic medicine."---Eustace Mullins. [Interview 2003] by Tom Valentine

http://www.whale.to/b/flexner_report.html

[Natural Citizen]

"You must spread some Reputation around before you can give it to Natural Citizen again."

Education of these horrendous drugs is key. The less people use them the less money Big Pharma gets!!

Timing is crucial right now too. Especially while everyone is spinning themselves six ways from Tuesday with the gun gag. Not only do we need to address the industries motives but we really need to expose the complicit middlemen. Like the psychiatry and msm who continue to run interference for them. It's amazing that msm actually has folks asking for psychological evaluation now. I swear, you get folks riled up about their guns and you can make them do anything you want them to. Wow. Their just like..."uh...umkay". Gosh. thafug is wrong with people? Jiminy crickets...

[KingNothing]

Banning people on psych meds from doing stuff will just force them to go off their meds and that could potentially create more problems. I guess this guy doesnt want people on psych meds to work becuase you cant work without a car. Anyways, sounds like a great Obama program.

If you want to ban anything, ban these companies from making drugs loaded with side effects. Put the blame where it belongs.

Let's not ban anything. We have enough laws.

[pcosmar]

Let's not ban anything. We have enough laws.

Agreed.
I noticed a bit of sarcasm in the OP. But it makes a very good point.
Guns are not the problem. And if you want to address the problem,, look at Big Pharma and the War on Drugs.

They both promote the problems.

[pcosmar]

double post glitch

[donnay]

Let's ban politicians whose intent is to not follow the constitution!

[tttppp]

Let's not ban anything. We have enough laws.

I wasnt suggesting we do. I was saying thats better than banning the actual users from doing anytning. What I would do is place higher taxes on the crap that screws people over to encourage them to not create problems in the first place.

[tttppp]

Only if you're a pro driver. Everyone else can take private or public mass transit/cabs/etc. Just FWIW. Lots of people out there purposely don't drive for numerous reasons.

Not if you live where I live. There is not mass transit everywhere. And even in places that have it, its extremely inconvienient.

[PaulConventionWV]

The argument could be, and has been, made that folks on these medications are far more stable than before they started taking the meds.....

They didn't kill anyone until after they started the meds, usually, so that theory is questionable at best.

[tod evans]

They didn't kill anyone until after they started the meds, usually, so that theory is questionable at best.

I'm certainly not lobbying for psych medication, but crazy folks have done crazy stuff long since before I was born....I've gotta wonder if there'd be more or less instances of crazy behavior without this type of drugs...

Back in my Navy days I tried both Thorazine and Haldol just to experience the effects and good God! How anybody can even function while on those type of meds is beyond me....Folks really do have to be built differently than I am if they can take that stuff.

Which of course leads back to how crazy were they before the meds?

[cbrons]

I say we should ban people people who write for natural news from sitting at the adult table.

Not all psychiatric medications are associated with increased risk of suicidality or homicidality. (LOL). I have yet to hear one thing reported from Natural News that wasn't utter hogwash/fear mongering/sheer idiocy, but admittedly I have not read much from them.