[Jabrwock]

Don't forget Stage 4.

I'm not sure what to call it. But it's where the pundits settle on "he was Evil" (with a capital E), and drop the issue, ignoring it until the next massacre.

Basically it's a refusal to acknowledge that a human is capable of such a horrible thing, and instead of trying to figure out WHY, they just settle for labels that shield them from reality. IE if the "Devil Did It", then all they have to do is pray harder next time. They don't have to worry about stuff like motivation, or anything else that was going on his his head.

[Scape]

Cho wasn't borne a homicidal maniac, he was manufactured. We are looking at a laundry list of failures that lead to this massacre. The drug angle is simply the point of ignition. Cho was barely attending classes, he should have been deported for that alone, but that was neglected and he was sent to a mental institution that did a half assed job that did little if any follow up. The end result was he wound up even more isolated and prone to acting out than before. His sense of powerlessness compelled him to do this as he saw his life spiral out of control as a result of a sociopathic system. He was a chemical time-bomb created by a system that is in serious disrepair and perhaps deliberately so.

Add on top of that the reaction of the officials that desperately need to be replaced that failed to use the intercom or email warning systems until 2 hours after the 1st killings. Why did the federal government stop local authorities from going in there for over an hour?

And Psudo, to answer your question why was he in the country in the first place if he wasn't even taking classes? In Canada if a family has to decided between treatment and living on the street we do have social services. The social services has in place a drug plan that pays for prescriptions and they also provided for emergency shelter.

[url=http://www.chspr.ubc.ca/files/data/pharmplantype.htm]Plan C - Social Services

Plan C provides 100% coverage for residents (excluding seniors and those covered under plan B), who have active Ministry of Social Services or Refugee Status medical coverage. Eligibility is determined by Social Services staff. PharmaCare provides direct payment to the pharmacy for 100% of the acceptable drug cost, and 100% of the acceptable dispensing fee. Since the introduction of the interface with the Ministry of Social Services in September, 1995, social workers enter H1/H3 information on-line, and as of November 1, 1995, CareCards no longer display unit codes H2 or X2.[/url]

[Scape]

Psudo wrote:

Scape's point is that we're handing out drugs based on flimsy diagnoses. The cure may be worse than the disease if it makes things sufficiently worse in a sufficiently large proportion of it's users, as he claims.

The Cho killings really got under my skin. I see the initial debate was of course on guns but your correct that as I see it was the methodology of diagnosis that created Cho and that is the crux of my angst. In BC Pharmanet can track drug histories and monitor for possible drug interactions as well as see potential abuse such as multi-doctoring and restrict access as required. No such system is in place in the US. A system modeled on general access to drugs could be made in the interests of stopping the next Cho and pharmacies and drug companies could still be unregulated without creating a huge central system. As our society advances so too will the potential hazards from our drugs, we would be well served to have a system in place to monitor the public health in regard to prescription drug histories.

Psudo wrote:

Scape, which does more towards creating a monster: professionally prescribed meds or forcible homelessness? I think they both pose a serious likelihood of screwing someone up.

That's a really hard question to answer given the subject matter. I know that the system in place in the US is not the same as in Canada so the reality on the street is far different. There is a social safety net in the US but as to how effective it is to the people that use it is open to debate. Some consider that the mother of invention is necessity and that it is important to have that motivation to keep the fire lit in a free market to keep the wheels of commerce rolling. I believe that is a good thing by putting the focus on our ability to adapt and thus hones our survival instincts.

Professionally prescribed meds are dispensed by licensed medical practitioners but that does not guarantee safety for all that use it. They may be motivated to push a certain drug on 'trials' that help with the bottom line that have little or nothing to do with the health of the patient or the end user may end up multi-doctoring and self medicate no matter what the doctors intent. Abuse abounds in any system that can not be subject to some form of a review or audit process. Where as the threat of being evicted and living on the street may be traumatic it is something that can be overcome or at least provisioned for. It is a painful but short term crisis in comparison to a system that either intentionally or unintentionally is creating chemical time-bombs in the form of Cho.

[Psudo]

.

Kjorteo wrote:

I have yet to be convinced that it induces psychotic aggression, that the psychotic tendencies weren't already there (perhaps being why they were given medication in the first place) and the medicine wasn't simply ineffective at stopping them, and in general, that there's truth to this whole claim that we're taking perfectly normal children that would be fine if left alone and turning them into spree killers.

All this (especially the section in bold) begs the question "Do these kinds of violent tendencies result solely from disease, or are they a dark part of human nature present in us all?" If all people have the capability of rationalizing such dark actions to the point of committing them, it's not something that can be treated with mediation. If that's what it is, it's not as simple as disease and cure. It's complexity to the fullest philosophical extent.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. If over-prescription happens, it should be stopped. If not, it shouldn't. Now it's just a matter of determining whether and where it happens. (That's outside the scope of this thread, by the way.)

Kjorteo wrote:

I like being right.

Ha! Don't we all? =]

Kjorteo wrote:

Psudo, you make a fantastic rival. I can't think of anyone I agree with less or who gives better discussion regarding the disagreements.

I'm quoting this solely to revel in the flattery. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Scape wrote:

Cho was barely attending classes, he should have been deported for that alone, but that was neglected and he was sent to a mental institution that did a half assed job that did little if any follow up. [. . .] And Psudo, to answer your question why was he in the country in the first place if he wasn't even taking classes? In Canada if a family has to decided between treatment and living on the street we do have social services. The social services has in place a drug plan that pays for prescriptions and they also provided for emergency shelter.

Heh, at first I thought you were saying I'd asked "Why was he in the country in the first place?" But I've got it now. And I'm completely with you on the immigration angle.

However, saying "In Canada, no one has to answer that question!" completely ignores the point of the question (just as Cho's deportation would have defeated the point of the pharmaceutical issue). My point, that homelessness is not obviously preferable to prescription meds, still stands regardless of Canada's welfare system.

Your comments suggest you have a much broader knowledge of the facts of Cho's case than I. But it is largely composed of your conclusions without supporting evidence. While this doesn't actually prove anything, it does make me wary. For all I know, you're doing exactly what J.J. expected: using this tragedy as a soapbox from which to dispense your preconceived notions.

Scape wrote:

A system modeled on general access to drugs could be made in the interests of stopping the next Cho and pharmacies and drug companies could still be unregulated without creating a huge central system. As our society advances so too will the potential hazards from our drugs, we would be well served to have a system in place to monitor the public health in regard to prescription drug histories.

You mean like the FDA? And since when can any social system be created by a controlled design without becoming centralized?

You're right, the current system does not guarantee proper diagnosis and treatment every time. No system ever will.

It's so strange that I agree with the views you've expressed on immigration, over-prescription of medication, and in general the forces that create and fail to detect crazy shooters, yet your final conclusion about preventing such killing sprees stands absolutely opposed to all the rational logic I know. I can imagine others shrugging and dismissing our conflicting views with "It takes all kinds!" I can't do that. When people trust logic I can't follow, it irks me.

[Scape]

Psudo wrote:

.However, saying "In Canada, no one has to answer that question!" completely ignores the point of the question (just as Cho's deportation would have defeated the point of the pharmaceutical issue). My point, that homelessness is not obviously preferable to prescription meds, still stands regardless of Canada's welfare system.

I agree that doesn't answer the question rather secondary circumstances. I saw that, and upon reflection added the 2nd post.

Psudo wrote:

It's so strange that I agree with the views you've expressed on immigration, over-prescription of medication, and in general the forces that create and fail to detect crazy shooters, yet your final conclusion about preventing such killing sprees stands absolutely opposed to all the rational logic I know. I can imagine others shrugging and dismissing our conflicting views with "It takes all kinds!" I can't do that. When people trust logic I can't follow, it irks me.

How does a system not become centralized yet is able to track? By registering, and not mandatory but rather by choice thus respecting the option of free will.

In BC medical insurance is required by law for all permanent residents in BC. In Canada only BC and Alberta charge premiums for coverage as others still charge via general provincial revenue. That being said you can opt out. How many taxes do you know are voluntary? Almost all stay with the provincial insurance as it is far cheaper in most cases than the alternatives.

The Pharmacare program is separate from MSP and it is the provincial drug program available to all British Colombians who have active MSP coverage. However, it is voluntary to register. If you do not want to use it you don't have to. Also, it costs nothing as it assigns a deductible based on you net income tax. Once you have accumulated you deductible in drug benefits the programs will pay for drugs at point of sale as the program is linked to your care card number. This also shows if there are any potential warning signs from conflicting prescriptions and greatly reduces the problem of abuse of multi-doctoring as no matter where you go in BC every pharmacy is linked to Pharmanet.

Pharmacy's and drug companies are not regulated under this system. They can still charge for services as the free market dictates. The program will only cover the cost from the manufacturer not the wholesaler and covers up to $8.60 for a dispensing fee. Also, the drug companies directly compete with each other thus driving the cost of drugs down.

That being said there are as of 2003 over 24,000 DIN's or drug identification numbers and only 4,900 were deemed as benefits under the program at that point in time. Others are available on either the Reference Drug Program the drug (or drugs) considered to be equally efficacious as other drugs in that category and the most cost effective. Or the Low Cost Alternative Program that references the cost to generic version of a drug. Lastly, there is a Special Authority option that is an exception based upon the authorization of a licensed medical practitioner and that can be your GP and not a specialist.

For someone like Cho that needed coverage he would have coverage under Plan G that is assigned by the medical practitioner. In so doing he is not registered under the pharmacare program nor is he required to do so. When his plan coverage expires after 1 year it does not carry on. Therefore it is not a black hole from which you can't not leave. The same holds true for social services or Plan C and all information is subject to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and you can limit access to your information via a keyword.

To me I see the Cho massacre as an entirely preventable moment of infamy. Yes, there is care in the US but it is uncoordinated, unregulated and easily abused. Yet instead of seeing that glaring problem in need of correction the solution touted is to have everyone to have a gun? I don't want to go to work, or anywhere in public with the guy next to me packing an uzi and it's legal. I don't care if he is a law abiding citizen or not. That's not a solution, it's a fantasy and from my perspective a nightmare. With that solution there is no choice like going to a bar where everyone smokes and your a non-smoker you become a smoker or you leave. That is not a choice.

[Psudo]

Scape wrote:

Yet instead of seeing that glaring problem in need of correction the solution touted is to have everyone to have a gun?

Cho and the VT shootings are the result of multiple failures of government. We agree that immigration failed and that his mental health care failed before he ever fired his gun. Shooting the shooter moments after he opens fire would have reduced the death count perhaps to 2. So prevention failed twice and proper reaction failed once.

Why are you focusing on the medical care aspect to the marginalization or total exclusion of the other failures involved? If immigration had done it's job, the medical issue would never have arisen. If armed campus security had been all over, Cho might not have shot up the campus. Even if he had, he might have been stopped before he killed 30+ people. Why are these arguments less relevant to you than health care? J.J. already explained; you're using this tragedy to advocate your political views.

And I'd still like to know what makes you think mental health is a simple that treatment ensures sanity. The psychology and psychiatry I know of is so radically complex that practitioners with 8 years of college only have enough knowledge to recommend a specialist. People, despite the best care, struggle with their ailments for decades. Stop treating professional care as a cure-all for society's ills. It carries with it an inherent failure rate, and other systems must be in place as safety nets to handle those failures.

[Scape]

Psudo wrote:

So prevention failed twice and proper reaction failed once. Why are you focusing on the medical care aspect to the marginalization or total exclusion of the other failures involved?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Not just guns on campus(which I totally disagree with) but no warning and no reaction plan. He was able to kill at will not once but twice. Never mind stopping him what was done to limit the damage?

Psudo wrote:

J.J. already explained; you're using this tragedy to advocate your political views.

I disagree. I work in the health field so I relate to what I know. I see a tragic and senseless waste. So rather than add to the pile of missed opportunities the only thing left now is to learn from this tragic mistake rather that write this off as some random act of a mad man. Prevention is preferential over intervention as it costs far less and is not as prone to chance. If you fail to plan you plan to fail. It's time to focus on real results and not hyperbole.

Psudo wrote:

Stop treating professional care as a cure-all for society's ills. It carries with it an inherent failure rate, and other systems must be in place as safety nets to handle those failures.

It's not and the social safety net is not to be ignored but the system IS sadly lacking and that all but dwarfs any focus on other systems. It's not just Cho you have to worry about. He is just a tip of a much larger iceberg of madness that has fallen between the cracks of a system with gaps so huge you will be unable to tell the difference between the unstable manufactured from this system and a terrorist cell. The system has become its own worst enemy.

[Psudo]

.

Scape wrote:

Psudo wrote:

So prevention failed twice and proper reaction failed once. Why are you focusing on the medical care aspect to the marginalization or total exclusion of the other failures involved?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Then stick to the immigration angle. It should have prevented the medical angle. If medical care is relevant as a safety net once immigration fails, guns and law enforcement are relevant as the safety net for when medical care fails. Either way, your singular focus on medical care is the definition of inconsistency.

Scape wrote:

Psudo wrote:

J.J. already explained; you're using this tragedy to advocate your political views.

I disagree. I work in the health field so I relate to what I know.

How is that different than the topic of J.J.'s comic? "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nails."

[Scape]

Psudo wrote:

Scape wrote:

Psudo wrote:

So prevention failed twice and proper reaction failed once. Why are you focusing on the medical care aspect to the marginalization or total exclusion of the other failures involved?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Then stick to the immigration angle. It should have prevented the medical angle.

For this instance but what about the other shootings with the same M.O? Not all mass shootings are done by immigrants but all were done by people with proven histories of drug abuse that would be applicable to medical help. Go look up the litany of other mass shootings and find one without a history of drug abuse.

Psudo wrote:

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nails."

He doth protest too much. To say I have an agenda is one thing but to ignore your own is another.

[sasquatch2]

and where does the real insanity lie?

[Psudo]

Scape wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Then stick to the immigration angle. It should have prevented the medical angle.

For this instance but what about the other shootings with the same M.O? Not all mass shootings are done by immigrants but all were done by people with proven histories of drug abuse that would be applicable to medical help.

All? You checked every case?

Sulejman Talovic, who shot up a shopping mall in Salt Lake City in Feb of 2007 killing five before police fatally shot him, has no known history of drug abuse or psychological problems. He was a permanent resident from Bosnia. So, in review, no drug angle, but another immigration angle. Apparently you didn't even check every case in the USA during the past 3 months.

Scape wrote:

Psudo wrote:

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nails."

He doth protest too much. To say I have an agenda is one thing but to ignore your own is another.

Even if you're right and I do have some agenda-driven bias distorting my claims, does that prove your claims reliable or your bias negligible?

Out of curiosity, what do you think my agenda is?

[Scape]

Psudo wrote:

Scape wrote:

Sulejman Talovic, who shot up a shopping mall in Salt Lake City in Feb of 2007 killing five before police fatally shot him, has no known history of drug abuse or psychological problems.

Suljo believes something or someone was controlling his son's mind and he wants police to look into that possibility.

Sounds like his father didn't share that assessment.

Look harder, take a look at just how many shootings are happing over the last 20 years and the pick out the ones that have no drug angle. You do you honestly believe that the number is not growing and is strongly weighted towards drugs? Are you willing to bet your life?

Scape wrote:

Psudo wrote:

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nails."

He doth protest too much. To say I have an agenda is one thing but to ignore your own is another.

Even if you're right and I do have some agenda-driven bias distorting my claims, does that prove your claims reliable or your bias negligible?

About the same as your bias perhaps? Unless your a computer you have ego and thus some agenda. Your point is at a stalemate. Only research that can be verified can reduce the appearance of an agenda but it will never eliminate it as there will always be some angle in which to push.

Psudo wrote:

Out of curiosity, what do you think my agenda is?

Don't know, don't care. I think I recall you stating in some thread your an ardent Bush supporter but as to your own agenda you have played to few cards to make an accurate read. I know you like to play games though.

[Psudo]

Scape wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Sulejman Talovic, who shot up a shopping mall in Salt Lake City in Feb of 2007 killing five before police fatally shot him, has no known history of drug abuse or psychological problems.

Suljo believes something or someone was controlling his son's mind and he wants police to look into that possibility.

Sounds like his father didn't share that assessment.

Did you actually read the article? His father says also says of his son, "he wasn't stupid or mental." and the article doesn't mention psychiatry or drugs at all. He thinks someone or something was controlling his son's mind because the shooting was not in the character he recognized as his son. It's a declaration of abject confusion, not of reasoned analysis. There is no evidence of drugs or psychosis in this case, unless having no friends after moving halfway across the world is symptomatic of psychosis. (hint: It's not.)

Scape wrote:

Look harder, take a look at just how many shootings are happing over the last 20 years and the pick out the ones that have no drug angle. You do you honestly believe that the number is not growing and is strongly weighted towards drugs? Are you willing to bet your life?

More accurately, I'm not willing to bet my life on socialized medicine alone to protect me. Welfare does not perfectly prevent criminal activity; law enforcement, both preventative (immigration) and reactive (guns, security officers) must also have a role. Why do you address only one of a sequence of mistakes? Because it's your pet issue, your agenda.

Other problems with your theory: If availability of medical care or American culture is the issue, how is it that the worst spree killing in modern history was due to career disillusionment in South Korea? Or this whole list of violent events in Europe, where health care programs like you propose are widely available?

The fact I came to a different conclusion than you does not prove a lack of research on my end.

Scape wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Out of curiosity, what do you think my agenda is?

Don't know, don't care. I think I recall you stating in some thread your an ardent Bush supporter but as to your own agenda you have played to few cards to make an accurate read. I know you like to play games though.

If you can't tell what my agenda is, how can I be said to be pushing it? I can tell you advocate universal health care because you keep pushing it over and over. What am I pushing? If you can't tell, the effect of our agendas on the debate are not equal. You're blatantly pushing yours, whereas I'm just trying to make you can see beyond yours. Maybe that's my agenda, removing the blinders from your thinking.

You're right, everyone with an ego has an agenda, myself included. Part of rational thought is the ability to identify truth despite one's ego and wishes, to logically consider possibilities that are not part of your agenda. You are demonstrating difficulty bordering on inability in this regard. Everything must come back to drugs and psychosis because that's all you see. I don't even disagree that drugs and psychosis are a problem; I only disagree that they're the only problem worth addressing.

[Scape]

The potential that the shooting had something to do with a mental history is just dismissed out of hand? Sounds like you have an agenda.

Psudo wrote:

If availability of medical care or American culture is the issue, how is it that the worst spree killing in modern history was due to career disillusionment in South Korea? Or this whole list of violent events in Europe, where health care programs like you propose are widely available?

What culture has the most prolific use of prescription drugs in the last 20 years? The issue is that there will be mass killing in the rest of the world rather we have created a situation here in North America with the Prosac/Ritlin generation that has gone unchecked and there will be far more common mass killing and instances of suicides ere and North America and there is.

Psudo wrote:

The fact I came to a different conclusion than you does not prove a lack of research on my end.

I suspect you failed to check that out a all.

Psudo wrote:

Part of rational thought is the ability to identify truth despite one's ego and wishes, to logically consider possibilities that are not part of your agenda. You are demonstrating difficulty bordering on inability in this regard. Everything must come back to drugs and psychosis because that's all you see. I don't even disagree that drugs and psychosis are a problem; I only disagree that they're the only problem worth addressing.

Do you remember the children of the birth control drug that left children deformed? At the time it was considered 'safe' but once the children were born without limbs it was rather apparent there was something wrong. This time the children are mentally effected so we can't see it physically only in the death rates. If you look at the suicide rates in North America you will see they have gone up considerably. Not all of this is on the shoulders of the ADD generation but with so many new drugs now being used what would you do to address this problem, let people die in the hundreds of thousands every year? That is exactly what is happing right now.

[Scape]

Quote:

What culture has the most prolific use of prescription drugs in the last 20 years? The issue is that there will be mass killing in the rest of the world rather we have created a situation here in North America with the Prosac/Ritlin generation that has gone unchecked and there will be far more common mass killing and instances of suicides ere and North America and there is.

Should read:

What culture has the most prolific use of prescription drugs in the last 20 years? The issue here is in North America the Prosac/Ritlin generation has gone unchecked and there will be far more common mass killing and instances of suicides in North America.

Drugs have to go though trials to be approved. 1st Data Bank assigns the Drug ID #'s and in the US the FDA regulates the drugs that are approved. Our approval goes via Health Canada. The Phamacare program only approves drugs that are shown to be cost effective with a verifiable track record of effectiveness and with ready supplies available. So in effect it adds another buffer of safety to the general public as well as add a means in which to track drug histories.

As for immigration that should also be followed up upon but the rate of suicides and immigration are not linked and the only reason we are talking about this is that Cho chose to do a mass killing rather than kill himself. Had he done so he would have just been another stat and one that has grown in alarming numbers. The only way it gets any time in MSM is when someone like Cho goes off.