![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by PatJ. on January 23, 2001, at 17:46:26
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy(MDMA)Kiss your brain goodbye, posted by dennis on January 22, 2001, at 2:36:42
> SSRIs such as celexa will make ecstacy not work as good. Let me make a suggestion though, dont do mdma at all! MDMA will cause permanent brain damage, it will basicly burn off your nerve endings for your seritonin system which will leave you with anxiety and depression for the rest of your life, if you have to do drugs stick with good old harmless marijuana, but dont ever do ecstacy, that is my advise and if your wise you will take it, if your not wise then your brain will get burned and you will suffer the consequences.
*****
Harmless marijuana? I think not. It causes reproductive problems and lung cancer for 2 things.
Posted by kazoo on January 24, 2001, at 2:52:08
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy(MDMA)Kiss your brain goodbye, posted by KissDemon on January 22, 2001, at 9:41:13
> A message to Kazoo. I came here seeking information not a lecture nor an uneducated one at that. I am well aware of the effects of ecstasy however you reply did not educate on any new information in regards to my question. I do not ry to put people down especially when they are asking for help I would hope on a board like this the same could be said of all people. Apparently some of us would rather judge than help.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I apologize for my harsh message, and regrettably you misinterpreted my intention. Apparently "shock value" has little to no meaning to those who are just too smart, and hip, to comprehend the historical value of a hideous event directly linked to your inquiry. I was not judgmental, contrary to what you say, and, if anything, did you a favor by exposing the direct relationship between a specific violent event and that cheap-thrill drug you so genuinely defend.I am not in the position to offend your sensibility regarding how you (and others) abuse their brain. The fact that you find this need to take MDMA indicates to me the presence of a deeper, more serious underlying problem that can hardly be addressed, or helped, with CELEXA.
You may interpret, or misinterpret (which ever the case may be) these timely words, because, quite frankly, it falls on deaf ears anyway, so why do I bother in the first place? I know a losing situation when confronted with one.
It's your brain ... you only have one ... try to respect it.
You may rest assured, however, that I will not respond to this genre of posting in the future.
k
Posted by KissDemon on January 24, 2001, at 12:29:29
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy(MDMA)**Da Capo » KissDemon, posted by kazoo on January 24, 2001, at 2:52:08
> > A message to Kazoo. I came here seeking information not a lecture nor an uneducated one at that. I am well aware of the effects of ecstasy however you reply did not educate on any new information in regards to my question. I do not ry to put people down especially when they are asking for help I would hope on a board like this the same could be said of all people. Apparently some of us would rather judge than help.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I apologize for my harsh message, and regrettably you misinterpreted my intention. Apparently "shock value" has little to no meaning to those who are just too smart, and hip, to comprehend the historical value of a hideous event directly linked to your inquiry. I was not judgmental, contrary to what you say, and, if anything, did you a favor by exposing the direct relationship between a specific violent event and that cheap-thrill drug you so genuinely defend.
>
> I am not in the position to offend your sensibility regarding how you (and others) abuse their brain. The fact that you find this need to take MDMA indicates to me the presence of a deeper, more serious underlying problem that can hardly be addressed, or helped, with CELEXA.
>
> You may interpret, or misinterpret (which ever the case may be) these timely words, because, quite frankly, it falls on deaf ears anyway, so why do I bother in the first place? I know a losing situation when confronted with one.
>
> It's your brain ... you only have one ... try to respect it.
>
> You may rest assured, however, that I will not respond to this genre of posting in the future.
>
> k************
I am very happy to see this response from you. I very much appreciate and understand your concern about people abusing there brain, yes I do admit it is abusing my brain. I however was offended by some remarks in the original message but would like to take this chance to apoligize to you as well. I have a choice to make i just came to this board for information so I can make an educated one atleast. Thanks for the concern though.
[error]
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 0:02:39
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy(MDMA)**To Kazoo, posted by KissDemon on January 24, 2001, at 12:29:29
> I very much appreciate and understand your concern about people abusing there brain... I however was offended by some remarks in the original message but would like to take this chance to apoligize to you as well.
Thanks for cooling down, and good luck,
Bob
Posted by Vince on January 26, 2001, at 13:32:00
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy-forget the pot, too, posted by dennis on January 24, 2001, at 15:43:13
>
> > Harmless marijuana? I think not. It causes reproductive problems and lung cancer for 2 things.
>
> reproductive problems was a myth, marijuana does not cause reproductive problems, lung cancer, yes, it could cause lung cancer, but in the real world it doesnt, this is because people on average dont smoke more than one joint per day, while tobacco smokers smoke 20-40 cigarettes per day, if you do a lot of research on marijuana it becomes clear that it really is a harmless drug with significant medical value. But you dont want to hear that do you, you would rather just keep on believeing the old myths.
I, myself, do not believe that pot is harmless. My first episode of depression came after I'ld been smoking pot for a couple of months back in the late sixties. I was in my early twenties. I've never regained a fulness of life at anytime since.Vince
Posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 19:31:07
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy(MDMA)Kiss your brain goodbye » KissDemon, posted by kazoo on January 22, 2001, at 2:14:20
>
> Ponder this: MDMA was the drug Manson "et al" was on when they butchered Sharon Tate (and her unborn child), Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger and Prince Voytek Frykowski of Poland on August 9, 1969 at 10036 North Cielo Drive in Los Angeles. Now you're considering mixing that brain-rot poison with an SSRI? Not very bright, Sonny-Boy. Let us know what happens at the next Rave.
>
> (God give me strength to understand the logic behind such inane inquires!)
>
> kazooJames here.....
I've taken a huge amount of MDMA, MDA, and others
during a period that ended 15 yrs ago. No brain rot. I would agree that mixing MDMA with AD's is not a good idea. Manson was reported to be on LSD, not MDMA. This also proved to be false. It
would be impossible to do the many complex things that happened during these murders while on LSD (or MDMA). Junk science and disinformation. Thye simple fact is Manson is crazy and always was. Urban Legends said it was the drugs.James
James
Posted by kazoo on January 26, 2001, at 23:47:34
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy(MDMA)Kiss your brain goodbye, posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 19:31:07
> >
> > Ponder this: MDMA was the drug Manson "et al" was on when they butchered Sharon Tate (and her unborn child), Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger and Prince Voytek Frykowski of Poland on August 9, 1969 at 10036 North Cielo Drive in Los Angeles. Now you're considering mixing that brain-rot poison with an SSRI? Not very bright, Sonny-Boy. Let us know what happens at the next Rave.
> >
> > (God give me strength to understand the logic behind such inane inquires!)
> >
> > kazoo
>
> James here.....
>
> I've taken a huge amount of MDMA, MDA, and others
> during a period that ended 15 yrs ago. No brain rot. I would agree that mixing MDMA with AD's is not a good idea. Manson was reported to be on LSD, not MDMA. This also proved to be false. It
> would be impossible to do the many complex things that happened during these murders while on LSD (or MDMA). Junk science and disinformation. Thye simple fact is Manson is crazy and always was. Urban Legends said it was the drugs.
>
> James
>
> JamesThank you, James, for sucker-punching me into this stupid thread (and topic), something I said I wouldn't do.
Let me just say that I have my information, and you have yours. Mine is based in a factual reality of which I am certain of, and is not a result of huge amounts of worthless, hippy drugs that only produce silly twaddle 15 years later.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2001, at 9:38:57
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy(MDMA)Kiss your brain goodbye, posted by kazoo on January 26, 2001, at 23:47:34
> this stupid thread (and topic)
> silly twaddle
Anything more like this, and I'll need to block you. At least for a while. You're an old-timer, how about setting a good example? :-)
Bob
Posted by PatJ. on January 27, 2001, at 14:10:25
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy-forget the pot, too, posted by Vince on January 26, 2001, at 13:32:00
Harmless marijuana? I think not. It causes reproductive problems and lung cancer for 2 things.
> >
reproductive problems was a myth, marijuana does not cause reproductive problems, lung cancer, yes, it could cause lung cancer, but in the real world it doesnt, this is because people on average dont smoke more than one joint per day, while tobacco smokers smoke 20-40 cigarettes per day, if you do a lot of research on marijuana it becomes clear that it really is a harmless drug with significant medical value. But you dont want to hear that do you, you would rather just keep on believeing the old myths.
> I, myself, do not believe that pot is harmless. My first episode of depression came after I'ld been smoking pot for a couple of months back in the late sixties. I was in my early twenties. I've never regained a fulness of life at anytime since.
>
> VinceThanks Vince for telling your exerience on pot. I agree with you as I tried it before. It just made me eat a lot and anxious.
Dear Dennis,
The research I have read says that the harmfullness of marijuana compared to cigarettes is harmful many, many times more-a ridiculously high number. So, it can cause cancer for 1 joint a day even. There are lots of people who smoke more than a joint a day, too: The "potheads." I believe the reliable research that it is also harmful reproductively and I won't take that chance because I don't want to abuse my body that way. People who love the effects of this drug may be in denial of its harmfullness. Better to love oneself over the love of a harmful drug. Those addicted to alcohol and other chemically dependent persons are often in denial of the harmfullness of the harmful drug of their choice, too. Marijuana also impairs functioning in many ways and people who use it should also be careful driving so they don't hurt anyone including themselves. Calling proven and valid imperial research a myth can be a form of denial. I have read the research well and many times. I won't take my chances with any of these illegal drugs, not only because they are illegal, but because they certainly are very harmful-the truth will set you free so take care of yourself well by not killing yourself slowly on the "shit."
Live long and healthily. Don't assume (assumptions make an -ass- out of -u-and-me-.) that you know what I want to believe. I happen to be extremely broad-minded. Your touchiness (exemplified by your personal assumption toward me) about it tends to make it seem as if you may be in denial, if I may be very frank with you. Maybe you could work out your problems without pot and with a counselor.P.S.The drug lords are rich enough and promoting these harmful drugs is a favor to them, too. Try seeing the movie Traffic and you will find out the truth of these drugs. Is truth what you seek?
Posted by dennis on January 27, 2001, at 21:13:08
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy-No myth but denial, posted by PatJ. on January 27, 2001, at 14:10:25
Hey, guess what, I'm high right now as I type this, but look at it this way, forget about the research for a minute and come back to the real world, in the real world potheads have children, they never get lung cancer, and they dont crash into anything driving there car either. And just to make it clear if it wasnt, I dont promote illegal drugs, I only promote marijana. Cigarettes kill millions of people, marijuana kills zero people, those are some research facts for you, but if you had to smoke one of them you would smoke tobacco cigarettes? Is that what your saying? I think you do your research by watching movie sir, thats hollywood, not reality, and also I was exactly right when I said you want to keep on believeing the old myths, because you still believe it even though its not true, you see its only been 5 years since they figured out how marijuana works in the brain there has been NEW research saying that marijuana doesnt cause reproductive harm. You are typical anti-drug person who doesnt know what hes talking about, you put all the drugs into one group(the illegals) and you talk about them together like they are all the same when they are all very different drugs.
I love you
Dennis
Posted by kazoo on January 28, 2001, at 1:25:27
In reply to Re: please be civil » kazoo, posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2001, at 9:38:57
> > this stupid thread (and topic)
>
> > silly twaddle
>
> Anything more like this, and I'll need to block you. At least for a while. You're an old-timer, how about setting a good example? :-)
>
> Bob^^^^^^^^^
Ok.
My apologies to James.
("Old-Timer") kazoo
Posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 2:52:53
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by kazoo on January 28, 2001, at 1:25:27
> Ok.
> My apologies to James.
> ("Old-Timer") kazooJames here....
Thanks !
Posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 3:51:44
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy-No myth but denial, posted by PatJ. on January 27, 2001, at 14:10:25
Governor's Drug Policy Advisory Group - Report and Recommendations is at http://www.governor.state.nm.us/drug_policy/drug_policy.htm
It seems to have sifted thru the disinformation about pot and recomended the state stop wasting
money on busting pot smokers, acnowlaging that the "war on Drugs" failed a long time ago and these monies would be better spent on treatment.
All of this after hearing from doctors, lawyers, researchers, the DEA, ect.As to 1 joint a day causing cancer; many can quote the first line from a study but never read any further. All studies on pot are done with gov. pot, which has the lowest THC content of
all pot. No one would pay for it. Of course, to acheive a high one would have to smoke much more of it, the studies are based on THC dose. Low THC and high THC pot have the same amount of cancer causing tars, ect. Of course the studies show a higher cancer causing potential ! You have to smoke tons of the gov. pot to get high. All the while taking in smoke and cancer causing by products. If you would compare gov pot to street pot the amount of pot needed to get high is orders of magnitude less as is the cancer potential. Also the studies use "joints" which produce the higest cancer causing by products.
Pipes and bongs are better. What you are not told
is that by vaporization, all by products are burned off, thus no smoke, particulate matter, no cancer causing products and only THC (and other canibinoids). Vaporzation equipment is illegal, of course, which is too bad. Those who can get medical pot legally many times have to use gov pot, thus the gov is exposing them to health risks
due to the amount of pot they must consume to achive desired effects. Why smoke a bag of gov pot when a half bowl of "Northern Lights" will do the trick, with less smoke and nasty by products ? Why make smoking equipment that takes the helth risks away totally ? Why ? So they can fund studies that prove it is "evil weed". The health risks of 1 beer are far greater than a joint.rant, rant, rant. I am not saying pot is totaly harmless for everyone or that there are soem who should not smoke it or have trouble with it. I am saying read these studies instead of quoteing "what you heard" and then read other respected researchers crits of them. The gov. studies use methodology so flawed even a high school student can blow holes in them. You can start at http://www.maps.org
James
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2001, at 9:55:16
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy-No myth but denial, posted by dennis on January 27, 2001, at 21:13:08
> You are typical anti-drug person who doesnt know what hes talking about
What is it with this thread? Please be civil, or I'll have to block you. Thanks,
Bob
PS: Follow-ups, if any, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Posted by maribeth on January 28, 2001, at 13:35:22
In reply to Re: please be civil » dennis, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2001, at 9:55:16
> > You are typical anti-drug person who doesnt know what hes talking about
>
> What is it with this thread? Please be civil, or I'll have to block you. Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
> PS: Follow-ups, if any, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
James, thank you first for providing some much needed insight. Thanks to you also Dr. Bob
I am leaving this comment in this thread as I THINK is fits. As I have shared before
I work in a dual diagnosis client environment. Further up the postings there was some discussion
as to which "mind altering chemicals" Charles Manson might have under
at the time of the Tate/Labianca murders. Was it the drugs or was his behavior impaired due
to his mental status? I have read quite a bit and heard a speaker or two
wax knowledegable on this topic and I will gladly share print outs and info. However,I
think the rather "bottom line" thinking is that Manson was/is your basic dualer.
Probably popped hallucniogens like M&M and had a fairly long standing mental illness
(read "crazy as a loon!) This is what keeps us in business. Maribeth
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:53:45
In reply to Re: please be civil » dennis, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2001, at 9:55:16
> > You are typical anti-drug person who doesnt know what hes talking about
>
> What is it with this thread? Please be civil, or I'll have to block you. Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
> PS: Follow-ups, if any, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Dear Dr. Bob,
Thank you. Pat
Posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 22:11:36
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by maribeth on January 28, 2001, at 13:35:22
> James, thank you first for providing some much needed insight. Thanks to you also Dr. Bob
> I am leaving this comment in this thread as I THINK is fits. As I have shared before
> I work in a dual diagnosis client environment. Further up the postings there was some discussion
> as to which "mind altering chemicals" Charles Manson might have under
> at the time of the Tate/Labianca murders. Was it the drugs or was his behavior impaired due
> to his mental status? I have read quite a bit and heard a speaker or two
> wax knowledegable on this topic and I will gladly share print outs and info. However,I
> think the rather "bottom line" thinking is that Manson was/is your basic dualer.
> Probably popped hallucniogens like M&M and had a fairly long standing mental illness
> (read "crazy as a loon!) This is what keeps us in business. Maribeth
>james here....
i would agree with you. I see his drug use as a sympyom of his crazyness and this use no doubt made him much worse.
james
Posted by Rzip on January 28, 2001, at 23:19:03
In reply to Re:Celexa and Ecstasy-No myth but denial, posted by dennis on January 27, 2001, at 21:13:08
Dennis,
The DSM-IV defines substance abuse mainly on socially unacceptable usage and continuous usage despite obvious consequences. So, if you still choose to continue the illegal drug intake despite (or because) of the societal violation; then I would kindly suggest that you take an insightful look at why you are doing this.
Here is the way I see it, if you continue the substance abuse, you will become (or are) dependent upon it. The DSM-IV defines drug dependence mainly upon the criteria that one spends a great deal of time obtaining the drug; and one can not quit despite the wish to do so (hence: the dependence labelling). So, that is the chemical dependence pathway that you are heading toward.
I am however writing more out of concern for the psychological aspect of your actions. The same criteria that defines Substance Abuse also carry weight in the underlying psychological reasoning for your actions. So the question I would ask of you is why do you feel the need to go against society and its rules and regulations.
Personally, I do not like to mingle totally into societal scenes either. I am very unconvential and I am very proud of it. I love attention. But I don't abuse chemical substances because those are very agonizing ways to self-destruct. I do not even use Nutrasweet because it is an artifical chemical: Aspirtame (sp?). So, I am just suggesting that perhaps you can think of better and more legal ways to call attention to yourself in the current societal mass?
- Rzip
Posted by dennis on January 28, 2001, at 23:58:52
In reply to Use despite legal consequences; (DSM-IV) » dennis, posted by Rzip on January 28, 2001, at 23:19:03
"agonizing ways to self-destruct, call attention to yourself in the current societal mass, abuse chemical substances, Substance Abuse, go against society and its rules and regulations"
Give me a break!
Posted by Rzip on January 29, 2001, at 1:33:53
In reply to Re: Use despite legal consequences; (DSM-IV), posted by dennis on January 28, 2001, at 23:58:52
> "agonizing ways to self-destruct, call attention to yourself in the current societal mass, abuse chemical substances, Substance Abuse, go against society and its rules and regulations"
>
> Give me a break!First of all, you took my post completely out of context and then you put it in quotes?!? That's wrong.
Second, this is not an unbounded e-mail exchange service. There is a supportive and civility element to the purpose of this site.
Bottom-line, I did not write that e-mail for it to be thrown back a me, in such random context.
Perhaps I am just tired, but I just did not feel like biting my tongue on this once again. In the past, I have selected to just ignore and forgive those who have not been very "helpful" in their replies.
- Rzip
Posted by Rzip on January 29, 2001, at 1:47:09
In reply to Re: Use despite legal consequences; (DSM-IV), posted by dennis on January 28, 2001, at 23:58:52
You know what Dennis, I am going to apologize for posting mainly because it was stupid of me to do so. A quarter of the reasoning for posting was probably due to personal reasons (I just wanted to show-off new knowledge/understanding or something). The other three-quarters were well-intended. But since you do not see it that way, I am sorry that I posted.
I am not doing well tonight. Too lonely and gullible. Ah! Tomorrow will be a new day. The weekend went way too fast.
Posted by dennis on January 29, 2001, at 2:25:14
In reply to Re: Use despite legal consequences; (DSM-IV) » dennis, posted by Rzip on January 29, 2001, at 1:47:09
You are right, after reviewing my post I agree it was wrong for me to do that and I am sorry. You just dont seem to get it, and it upsets me, you say substance abuse, this is not substance abuse, this is light marijuana use, all illegal drugs are not the same, I do not use other illegal drugs and I discourage there use, but maybe your right, maybe Im just a drug addict and dont know it yet because Im in denile, I dont feel like a drug addict, but I guess I could be, and I have really done a lot of research on pot and I dont think its harmful, but I guess I could be wrong, I dont know, I really dont know anything for sure, Im just some stoner who believes what hes doing is just fine, but like I say I could be wrong. Sorry for posting that though your right that was pretty fucked up and I appologize, I am gonna have to stop coming to this board for awhile or something because Im making all sorts of trouble now.
Posted by dennis on January 29, 2001, at 2:52:41
In reply to Re: Use despite legal consequences; (DSM-IV) » dennis, posted by Rzip on January 29, 2001, at 1:33:53
yes, that was very uncivil of me, that was downright nasty even, your absolutely right, we must be civil when we speak to each other and I was not, I can see how my post would upset you, I guess I was not thinking at the time, I assure you I will be civil in the future, or I will say nothing at all.
Posted by dennis on January 29, 2001, at 22:09:04
In reply to Re: Use despite legal consequences; (DSM-IV), posted by dennis on January 29, 2001, at 2:52:41
I am really very sorry. I guess I never thought about it enough to realize that being civil is very important. I hope you will accept my apology.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.