|
||
|
|||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Monday, June 9, 2014
Sunday, June 8, 2014
JUNE 8 v 36 TWELVE STEPPING WITH POWER IN THE PROVERB
But those who fail to find me harm themselves;
all who hate me love death.”
STEP 1 - We admitted we were powerless over ourselves and our addictions - that our lives had become unmanageable.
The Proverb says it all . I know many who have lived but never really lived at all . Living life without purpose is why some of us get caught up in addiction . We see life as useless and whats the point of us being here . There is nothing but fear , pain , and sorrow . For a long time that is the way I felt . Step one for me was life or death , and as far as I was concerned my life was dead and there was nothing good about it at all . Living was something I despised and at the lowest point , I was faced with a choice , get busy living or get busy dieing .Finding God lead me to purpose and for the first time In my life I found purpose and felt joy . Life for me now is challenging but awesome and I am so grateful too God and those brothers and sisters who helped me find my way out of death into this marvelous life .
John 8 ;32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
By Joseph Dickerson
But those who fail to find me harm themselves;
all who hate me love death.”
STEP 1 - We admitted we were powerless over ourselves and our addictions - that our lives had become unmanageable.
The Proverb says it all . I know many who have lived but never really lived at all . Living life without purpose is why some of us get caught up in addiction . We see life as useless and whats the point of us being here . There is nothing but fear , pain , and sorrow . For a long time that is the way I felt . Step one for me was life or death , and as far as I was concerned my life was dead and there was nothing good about it at all . Living was something I despised and at the lowest point , I was faced with a choice , get busy living or get busy dieing .Finding God lead me to purpose and for the first time In my life I found purpose and felt joy . Life for me now is challenging but awesome and I am so grateful too God and those brothers and sisters who helped me find my way out of death into this marvelous life .
John 8 ;32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
By Joseph Dickerson
Saturday, June 7, 2014
A Fix Special Report—The Maddening State of Addiction Research Funding
With not enough funding to go around, young (and some old) innovators are being swept aside for supposedly "tried and true" researchers and scientists. Who decides this and at what cost to society?
THE FIX
By Kathleen Phalen Tomaselli
06/05/14
In Virginia, a small company has developed a serotonin blocker that deters alcoholics from wanting to drink. It sits on the shelf awaiting funding for its next level of required testing.
In California, as The Fix reported earlier this week, a vaccine for heroin addiction that in animal tests completely blocks the drug from reaching the brain, languishes in the laboratory without support.
Meanwhile, research funding for hugely promising alternative addiction treatments such as neurofeedback technology and NAD (massive doses of a Niacin derivative) is barely in the game. And forget about promising studies of socialized animal and human behavior modes that tend to prevent addictive behavior in the first place. Or deeper research into tobacco addiction, or validation that drug harm-reduction programs seem to be working so well in a NYC non-profit rehab center.
Most of us understand that substance addiction and alcoholism is a major social, health, and economic issue. The costs to the economy alone in health care, productivity loss, crime, drug enforcement and incarceration are estimated to be more than $500 billion a year - and that number is from a study ten years ago. In response, only a tiny percentage of this is spent every year by all players - government, private Pharma companies and foundations - on developing and testing a variety of would-be miracle cures (or even just helpful medications or processes).
In the substance abuse funding game there are gamemakers - those who decide which projects are worthy of the awarded dollars - and competitors: researchers vying for limited funds. The gamemakers come from the public and private sector and ultimately determine whether a competitor moves forward or gets denied.
This article is an inside peek at how that game is played and who gets to be the winners and who the losers.
THE BIG PICTURE
First, it’s folly to think that every brilliant idea gets funded. What’s more, it may take decades for a scientist’s theory to take flight. Some projects, inventions or new discoveries will forever remain scribbled tomes given the realities of how the human species wants to spend its money.
According to the report "Ending the Drug Wars," released May 7 by the London School of Economics Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy, “In spite of a significant body of evidence that drug-related health services are a very good investment for society, they remain woefully underfunded and unavailable.”
In today’s cash-strapped research arena, it is the novel ideas that most often are relegated to the slush pile of the never-funded.
“Funding is in a bad situation," says Keith Humphreys PhD, professor of psychiatry at Stanford University. “The NIH (National Institute of Health) generally funds about 90% of all the world’s addiction research. And the NIH is straining under the fiscal environment. It’s particularly tough for younger investigators when there is a decrease in available funds.”
Statistically, with epidemics of addiction to heroin, meth, prescription drugs and designer drugs playing havoc in various areas of the country, much less the world, there has never been a greater need to fund innovative research and novel concepts related to substance abuse. And there’s the rub. With much at stake in the research funding game - careers, political policies and amounts of funding dollars - players from every quarter are struggling with each other for position and voice, including organization leaders, scientists, activists and politicians. As a result, conflicting ideologies, intense competition and narrowly held perspectives are holding research dollars hostage… and innovation at bay.
Let’s look at the federal programs. The largest, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the NIH, is working with a drastically reduced budget - 25% less than a decade ago. In 2013 researchers vied for their part of a $141.3 million actual 2013 budget. Until 2003 the NIH research budget was rapidly doubling but flattened out until 2008 when the Great Recession forced a dramatic tightening just as substance abuse was spreading. Demands for research dollars soon far outpaced what was available.
In this tight climate, NIDA has opted for caution and familiarity over innovation. Seasoned scientists have been given the advantage in competition, with a greater percentage of the purse now going to those with a solid research history, placing more dollars in fewer hands. “There is concern across the board in the research arena with a decreasing budget,” says Jack Stein, PhD, director of NIDA's Office of Science Policy and Communications. “There is no doubt: those with experience have a better edge…unfortunately wonderful grant requests have come in that could not get funded because of budgets.”
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) has an even smaller budget: Out of 530 applications last year, 166 were funded for $55,291,978.
Some history: Federal money for research was plentiful after World War II. And until the 1980s, scientists found support and funding for novel ideas. Take Jim Topolski, PhD, research associate professor at the Missouri Institute of Mental Health, a unit of the University of Missouri, St. Louis.
Back in the mid-1980s Topolski worked for the Missouri Department of Mental Health. There was little competition for grants. While his first grant request - to study substance abuse services for the homeless - was not funded, his second, which was aimed at reducing waiting times for people with AIDS who needed substance abuse treatment, was awarded funding. Over the years he has been successful with many of his grant requests, especially with funds from The U.S. Dept. of Health's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
These days Topolski, like others, finds himself competing for less money from both SAMSHA and NIH.
Another segment of funding derives from private research dollars. These come from private foundations, investors, pharmaceutical manufacturers and the alcohol industry. Biopharmaceutical research companies - working in collaboration with academia, government researchers, and patient organizations - have 20 new substance abuse drugs or vaccines being considered for financing, according to a report released in May by the Pharmaceuticals Research and Manufacturers of America Assn (PhRMA), an industry advocacy group.
One drug hungry for financing is AD04, licensed by ADIAL in Charlottesville, VA. A serotonin blocker, it has shown in Phase II trials of 283 patients to dramatically reduce the craving for alcohol. AD04 was initially studied at the University of Virginia and University of Texas and funded through the NIAAA. Then ADIAL licensed the technology. “We’re a small biotech pharmaceutical manufacturer,” says William Stilley, CEO. “We raised under $10 million initially. We are ready to go into Phase III trials, and we are seeking funding.” Stilley says the company will most likely be a financial or strategic partner. “It is getting harder and harder to get funding.”
Those frustrated with research funding ask: what about funding more grants with less money? Would there be room for new ideas? Without it, what happens to innovation given that there is hardly a way for creative approaches to demonstrate effectiveness without funds to produce peer-reviewed studies?
The gorilla in the room around this question turns out to be the ideology of the decision makers. “There are ideological constraints tied to what gets funded," says Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance in New York City. An example? The tendency to fund "abstinence only" programs and the war on drugs at the expense of drug prevention research. "There is not a lot of evidence of what works because it does not get studied. Today, kids lose their drug virginity before their sexual virginity. What’s the needle exchange of today?"
With not enough funding to go around, young (and some old) innovators are being swept aside for supposedly "tried and true" researchers and scientists. Who decides this and at what cost to society?
THE FIX
By Kathleen Phalen Tomaselli
06/05/14
In Virginia, a small company has developed a serotonin blocker that deters alcoholics from wanting to drink. It sits on the shelf awaiting funding for its next level of required testing.
In California, as The Fix reported earlier this week, a vaccine for heroin addiction that in animal tests completely blocks the drug from reaching the brain, languishes in the laboratory without support.
Meanwhile, research funding for hugely promising alternative addiction treatments such as neurofeedback technology and NAD (massive doses of a Niacin derivative) is barely in the game. And forget about promising studies of socialized animal and human behavior modes that tend to prevent addictive behavior in the first place. Or deeper research into tobacco addiction, or validation that drug harm-reduction programs seem to be working so well in a NYC non-profit rehab center.
Most of us understand that substance addiction and alcoholism is a major social, health, and economic issue. The costs to the economy alone in health care, productivity loss, crime, drug enforcement and incarceration are estimated to be more than $500 billion a year - and that number is from a study ten years ago. In response, only a tiny percentage of this is spent every year by all players - government, private Pharma companies and foundations - on developing and testing a variety of would-be miracle cures (or even just helpful medications or processes).
In the substance abuse funding game there are gamemakers - those who decide which projects are worthy of the awarded dollars - and competitors: researchers vying for limited funds. The gamemakers come from the public and private sector and ultimately determine whether a competitor moves forward or gets denied.
This article is an inside peek at how that game is played and who gets to be the winners and who the losers.
THE BIG PICTURE
First, it’s folly to think that every brilliant idea gets funded. What’s more, it may take decades for a scientist’s theory to take flight. Some projects, inventions or new discoveries will forever remain scribbled tomes given the realities of how the human species wants to spend its money.
According to the report "Ending the Drug Wars," released May 7 by the London School of Economics Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy, “In spite of a significant body of evidence that drug-related health services are a very good investment for society, they remain woefully underfunded and unavailable.”
In today’s cash-strapped research arena, it is the novel ideas that most often are relegated to the slush pile of the never-funded.
“Funding is in a bad situation," says Keith Humphreys PhD, professor of psychiatry at Stanford University. “The NIH (National Institute of Health) generally funds about 90% of all the world’s addiction research. And the NIH is straining under the fiscal environment. It’s particularly tough for younger investigators when there is a decrease in available funds.”
Statistically, with epidemics of addiction to heroin, meth, prescription drugs and designer drugs playing havoc in various areas of the country, much less the world, there has never been a greater need to fund innovative research and novel concepts related to substance abuse. And there’s the rub. With much at stake in the research funding game - careers, political policies and amounts of funding dollars - players from every quarter are struggling with each other for position and voice, including organization leaders, scientists, activists and politicians. As a result, conflicting ideologies, intense competition and narrowly held perspectives are holding research dollars hostage… and innovation at bay.
Let’s look at the federal programs. The largest, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the NIH, is working with a drastically reduced budget - 25% less than a decade ago. In 2013 researchers vied for their part of a $141.3 million actual 2013 budget. Until 2003 the NIH research budget was rapidly doubling but flattened out until 2008 when the Great Recession forced a dramatic tightening just as substance abuse was spreading. Demands for research dollars soon far outpaced what was available.
In this tight climate, NIDA has opted for caution and familiarity over innovation. Seasoned scientists have been given the advantage in competition, with a greater percentage of the purse now going to those with a solid research history, placing more dollars in fewer hands. “There is concern across the board in the research arena with a decreasing budget,” says Jack Stein, PhD, director of NIDA's Office of Science Policy and Communications. “There is no doubt: those with experience have a better edge…unfortunately wonderful grant requests have come in that could not get funded because of budgets.”
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) has an even smaller budget: Out of 530 applications last year, 166 were funded for $55,291,978.
Some history: Federal money for research was plentiful after World War II. And until the 1980s, scientists found support and funding for novel ideas. Take Jim Topolski, PhD, research associate professor at the Missouri Institute of Mental Health, a unit of the University of Missouri, St. Louis.
Back in the mid-1980s Topolski worked for the Missouri Department of Mental Health. There was little competition for grants. While his first grant request - to study substance abuse services for the homeless - was not funded, his second, which was aimed at reducing waiting times for people with AIDS who needed substance abuse treatment, was awarded funding. Over the years he has been successful with many of his grant requests, especially with funds from The U.S. Dept. of Health's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
These days Topolski, like others, finds himself competing for less money from both SAMSHA and NIH.
Another segment of funding derives from private research dollars. These come from private foundations, investors, pharmaceutical manufacturers and the alcohol industry. Biopharmaceutical research companies - working in collaboration with academia, government researchers, and patient organizations - have 20 new substance abuse drugs or vaccines being considered for financing, according to a report released in May by the Pharmaceuticals Research and Manufacturers of America Assn (PhRMA), an industry advocacy group.
One drug hungry for financing is AD04, licensed by ADIAL in Charlottesville, VA. A serotonin blocker, it has shown in Phase II trials of 283 patients to dramatically reduce the craving for alcohol. AD04 was initially studied at the University of Virginia and University of Texas and funded through the NIAAA. Then ADIAL licensed the technology. “We’re a small biotech pharmaceutical manufacturer,” says William Stilley, CEO. “We raised under $10 million initially. We are ready to go into Phase III trials, and we are seeking funding.” Stilley says the company will most likely be a financial or strategic partner. “It is getting harder and harder to get funding.”
Those frustrated with research funding ask: what about funding more grants with less money? Would there be room for new ideas? Without it, what happens to innovation given that there is hardly a way for creative approaches to demonstrate effectiveness without funds to produce peer-reviewed studies?
The gorilla in the room around this question turns out to be the ideology of the decision makers. “There are ideological constraints tied to what gets funded," says Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance in New York City. An example? The tendency to fund "abstinence only" programs and the war on drugs at the expense of drug prevention research. "There is not a lot of evidence of what works because it does not get studied. Today, kids lose their drug virginity before their sexual virginity. What’s the needle exchange of today?"
The Unhappy Side of Anti-Depressants
SSRI's can aid in depression and recovery, but users also become dependent and there can be major withdrawal symptoms. So where's the healthy balance?
careful . . . Shutterstock
By Jeaneane Swanson
06/03/14
Share on facebookShare on twitter | More Sharing ServicesShare
Are People Who Take Anti-Depressants Really Sober?
Sobriety: Better Than Prozac!
Zoloft Put the Pleasure in My Sobriety
Ketamine As An Anti-Depressant?
What are the negative side effects of Suboxone?
Use of antidepressants in the US has skyrocketed in recent years, with one in ten people taking them. While depression is often misdiagnosed, the fact remains that more patients are demanding them and more physicians are prescribing them. The most commonly used antidepressants are SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
Many people stop taking their antidepressants for a variety of different reasons. First, SSRIs have been shown not to work for mild cases of depression. Often, people will experience side effects, common ones being restlessness, nausea, sexual problems, and GI upset. Sometimes people who have taken an SSRI for a long time will become “immune” to its effects, and it stops working.
While it’s routine for doctors to advise patients about these things, it’s less common for a doctor to talk about the “withdrawal” effects associated with not only SSRIs, but with all antidepressant drugs and prescription psychiatric medications. Counseling patients about the possible discontinuation syndrome is imperative, especially for dual diagnosis addicts who are at risk for relapse of both depression and addiction.
Short-acting medications, such as paroxetine (Paxil) and venlafaxine (Effexor) are more likely to cause discontinuation symptoms than longer-acting medications, such as fluoxetine (Prozac).
Not “withdrawal,” but still unpleasant
Some statistics state that about half of patients taking SSRIs will experience “withdrawal” effects - over a million people. Sam Ball, President and CEO of CASAColumbia, estimates that number to be lower, at about 20 to 25 percent of patients. Medically speaking, this is not a true “withdrawal” and is instead referred to as SSRI discontinuation syndrome. Severe discontinuation symptoms, Ball says, “come for a minority of patients, particularly for those who abruptly stop taking [their antidepressants].”
As with any medication taken regularly, one's body adapts. Coming off the medication is going to require a recalibration period. However, SSRIs are not technically addictive. “It would be a misinterpretation to call it an addiction,” Ball says. “Physiologic dependence is really different from drug addiction. In drug addiction, you often times have that physiologic dependence, but you have other symptoms,” including craving and drug-seeking behavior. Confusing the issue puts addicts with depression at an even greater risk, especially when taking these medications could literally mean the difference between life and death.
Symptoms of SSRI discontinuation vary considerably among people due to individual differences. They also depend on how long a patient has been taking the medication, the choice of medication, and most importantly, how long the taper is. Abruptly stopping an antidepressant leads to the worst possible outcome; taking lower and lower doses on a weekly or monthly regimen, also called tapering, affords the best results.
According to the book, SSRI discontinuation symptoms include nausea, headache, dizziness, chills, body aches, paresthesia (tingling), insomnia, and electric shock-like sensations; psychological symptoms; and in rare cases, auditory and visual hallucinations, extrapyramidal symptoms (problems with movement), and mania/hypomania.
Go on a number of online forums, however, and you’ll find everything from benign to hellish, and short- to very long-term symptoms. A popular web site for SSRI discontinuation syndrome, called Surviving Antidepressants, offers peer support; the second most visited topic is how to quit, or taper, effectively. Says the administrator in an email, “There are hundreds of thousands of patient postings all over the Web about the difficulties of quitting psychiatric medication and benzos, even under a doctor’s supervision.” The administrator adds that there are dozens of sites like this, set up to help confused patients figure out how to best taper based on other people’s experiences.
Another site, Beyond Meds, talks about the particularly “harsh” withdrawal from lamotrigine (Lamictal), an anti-epileptic that is sometimes used as a mood stabilizer to treat bipolar disorder, or as an add-on drug to treat unresponsive major depressive disorder. Discontinuation symptoms of extreme mood changes, irritability bordering on rage, and a general feeling that you are “going crazy” seem to be common among those who do experience a severe syndrome. Larissa Mooney, director of the UCLA Addiction Medicine Clinic, makes no mention of the withdrawal, only that she has used lamotrigine successfully for the treatment of bipolar depression and to help prevent mood episodes in patients with bipolar disorder, and that she has “found that it is often well tolerated.” She adds: “Though you can read almost anything on the Internet, Lamictal is not associated with a classic “discontinuation syndrome” like the SSRIs/SNRIs. However, its dose should also be tapered rather than stopped abruptly.”
SNRIs, or serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, help keep both more serotonin and norepinephrine around in the brain. The two most commonly prescribed ones are venlafaxine (Effexor) and duloxetine (Cymbalta). According to online groups, going off Effexor too quickly can cause horrible dreams.
All this being said, most symptoms are mild and short-lived. In the case of more severe symptoms, the antidepressant can simply be restarted, followed by more cautious tapering. “It really depends on the specific medication and the half-life of the medication,” Mooney says. “Short-acting medications, such as paroxetine (Paxil) and venlafaxine (Effexor) are more likely to cause discontinuation symptoms than longer-acting medications, such as fluoxetine (Prozac).” The syndrome is more common when medications are stopped abruptly or when the taper occurs too quickly, she adds; slowly tapering off medication helps to minimize the risk of these symptoms. Sometimes, substituting a short-acting antidepressant with a longer-acting one helps minimize symptoms, too.
SSRI's can aid in depression and recovery, but users also become dependent and there can be major withdrawal symptoms. So where's the healthy balance?
careful . . . Shutterstock
By Jeaneane Swanson
06/03/14
Share on facebookShare on twitter | More Sharing ServicesShare
Are People Who Take Anti-Depressants Really Sober?
Sobriety: Better Than Prozac!
Zoloft Put the Pleasure in My Sobriety
Ketamine As An Anti-Depressant?
What are the negative side effects of Suboxone?
Use of antidepressants in the US has skyrocketed in recent years, with one in ten people taking them. While depression is often misdiagnosed, the fact remains that more patients are demanding them and more physicians are prescribing them. The most commonly used antidepressants are SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
Many people stop taking their antidepressants for a variety of different reasons. First, SSRIs have been shown not to work for mild cases of depression. Often, people will experience side effects, common ones being restlessness, nausea, sexual problems, and GI upset. Sometimes people who have taken an SSRI for a long time will become “immune” to its effects, and it stops working.
While it’s routine for doctors to advise patients about these things, it’s less common for a doctor to talk about the “withdrawal” effects associated with not only SSRIs, but with all antidepressant drugs and prescription psychiatric medications. Counseling patients about the possible discontinuation syndrome is imperative, especially for dual diagnosis addicts who are at risk for relapse of both depression and addiction.
Short-acting medications, such as paroxetine (Paxil) and venlafaxine (Effexor) are more likely to cause discontinuation symptoms than longer-acting medications, such as fluoxetine (Prozac).
Not “withdrawal,” but still unpleasant
Some statistics state that about half of patients taking SSRIs will experience “withdrawal” effects - over a million people. Sam Ball, President and CEO of CASAColumbia, estimates that number to be lower, at about 20 to 25 percent of patients. Medically speaking, this is not a true “withdrawal” and is instead referred to as SSRI discontinuation syndrome. Severe discontinuation symptoms, Ball says, “come for a minority of patients, particularly for those who abruptly stop taking [their antidepressants].”
As with any medication taken regularly, one's body adapts. Coming off the medication is going to require a recalibration period. However, SSRIs are not technically addictive. “It would be a misinterpretation to call it an addiction,” Ball says. “Physiologic dependence is really different from drug addiction. In drug addiction, you often times have that physiologic dependence, but you have other symptoms,” including craving and drug-seeking behavior. Confusing the issue puts addicts with depression at an even greater risk, especially when taking these medications could literally mean the difference between life and death.
Symptoms of SSRI discontinuation vary considerably among people due to individual differences. They also depend on how long a patient has been taking the medication, the choice of medication, and most importantly, how long the taper is. Abruptly stopping an antidepressant leads to the worst possible outcome; taking lower and lower doses on a weekly or monthly regimen, also called tapering, affords the best results.
According to the book, SSRI discontinuation symptoms include nausea, headache, dizziness, chills, body aches, paresthesia (tingling), insomnia, and electric shock-like sensations; psychological symptoms; and in rare cases, auditory and visual hallucinations, extrapyramidal symptoms (problems with movement), and mania/hypomania.
Go on a number of online forums, however, and you’ll find everything from benign to hellish, and short- to very long-term symptoms. A popular web site for SSRI discontinuation syndrome, called Surviving Antidepressants, offers peer support; the second most visited topic is how to quit, or taper, effectively. Says the administrator in an email, “There are hundreds of thousands of patient postings all over the Web about the difficulties of quitting psychiatric medication and benzos, even under a doctor’s supervision.” The administrator adds that there are dozens of sites like this, set up to help confused patients figure out how to best taper based on other people’s experiences.
Another site, Beyond Meds, talks about the particularly “harsh” withdrawal from lamotrigine (Lamictal), an anti-epileptic that is sometimes used as a mood stabilizer to treat bipolar disorder, or as an add-on drug to treat unresponsive major depressive disorder. Discontinuation symptoms of extreme mood changes, irritability bordering on rage, and a general feeling that you are “going crazy” seem to be common among those who do experience a severe syndrome. Larissa Mooney, director of the UCLA Addiction Medicine Clinic, makes no mention of the withdrawal, only that she has used lamotrigine successfully for the treatment of bipolar depression and to help prevent mood episodes in patients with bipolar disorder, and that she has “found that it is often well tolerated.” She adds: “Though you can read almost anything on the Internet, Lamictal is not associated with a classic “discontinuation syndrome” like the SSRIs/SNRIs. However, its dose should also be tapered rather than stopped abruptly.”
SNRIs, or serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, help keep both more serotonin and norepinephrine around in the brain. The two most commonly prescribed ones are venlafaxine (Effexor) and duloxetine (Cymbalta). According to online groups, going off Effexor too quickly can cause horrible dreams.
All this being said, most symptoms are mild and short-lived. In the case of more severe symptoms, the antidepressant can simply be restarted, followed by more cautious tapering. “It really depends on the specific medication and the half-life of the medication,” Mooney says. “Short-acting medications, such as paroxetine (Paxil) and venlafaxine (Effexor) are more likely to cause discontinuation symptoms than longer-acting medications, such as fluoxetine (Prozac).” The syndrome is more common when medications are stopped abruptly or when the taper occurs too quickly, she adds; slowly tapering off medication helps to minimize the risk of these symptoms. Sometimes, substituting a short-acting antidepressant with a longer-acting one helps minimize symptoms, too.
Man Murders Drinking Buddy Over Last Beer
Rather than go to the nearest supermarket, Ocala native Daniel Trent took matters into his own hands last month during an argument with his drinking buddy over the last beer. He stabbed both 56-year-old Mark Durham and the man’s dog to death because Durham “didn’t want to share it. He wanted it for himself.”
The two men had been drinking copious amounts of Natural Ice that night at Trent’s house, with both men downing about 20 beers each. After initially denying the murder to police, he later admitted that when Durham claimed the last beer and refused to leave, he stabbed the man twice with a kitchen knife. However, he claimed it was in self-defense because Durham stabbed him first and that he only killed the dog after a dying Durham asked him to. In a gross understatement, he admitted that he “should have stopped drinking.”Trent was ultimately charged with second-degree murder and held without bond.
By McCarton Ackerman
06/04/14
Prosecutor Calls Addicts ‘Crack Hoes’ on Facebook Page
A Florida prosecutor apologized earlier this month after a Facebook post which referred to drug addicts as “crack hoes.” Kenneth Lewis, an assistant state attorney for Orange and Osceola County, was overwhelmingly slammed for his post which read: "Happy Mother's Day to all the crack hoes out there. It's never too late to turn it around, tie your tubes, clean up your life and make difference to someone out there that deserves a better mother."
Lewis apologized for his “poor choice of words,” but showed a lack of remorse by claiming he intended for the post to be only visible to his Facebook friends. The post still remains active on his page. Florida natives also objected to his lack of punishment. Lewis’ boss, Ninth Circuit State Attorney Jeff Ashton, called the remarks “offensive and dehumanizing,” but said that a punishment couldn’t be issued because his office did not have a social media policy.
06/04/14
Prosecutor Calls Addicts ‘Crack Hoes’ on Facebook Page
A Florida prosecutor apologized earlier this month after a Facebook post which referred to drug addicts as “crack hoes.” Kenneth Lewis, an assistant state attorney for Orange and Osceola County, was overwhelmingly slammed for his post which read: "Happy Mother's Day to all the crack hoes out there. It's never too late to turn it around, tie your tubes, clean up your life and make difference to someone out there that deserves a better mother."
Lewis apologized for his “poor choice of words,” but showed a lack of remorse by claiming he intended for the post to be only visible to his Facebook friends. The post still remains active on his page. Florida natives also objected to his lack of punishment. Lewis’ boss, Ninth Circuit State Attorney Jeff Ashton, called the remarks “offensive and dehumanizing,” but said that a punishment couldn’t be issued because his office did not have a social media policy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)