Judge deciding if stores must post to...

Judge deciding if stores must post tobacco apology

There are 8 comments on the Cleveland.com story from Dec 26, 2012, titled Judge deciding if stores must post tobacco apology. In it, Cleveland.com reports that:

A federal judge will soon decide whether your next tank of gas or bottle of soda comes with a free apology from the Marlboro man and Joe Camel.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Cleveland.com.

Duh Moment

Winnipeg, Canada

#1 Dec 26, 2012
An apology for how many deaths? Yeah that will be REAL sincere. Sorry they got caught like all criminals.
HumanSpirit

Alachua, FL

#2 Dec 26, 2012

Why does the judiciary overlook the Mental Health Industry who has racked up more deaths, mass murders and created the instability in society by pharmacutical mind drugs . Is it that the court has been caught up in forced drugging particularly of children and is hiding the reasons of who has done what in the curtain of harm to America. How about the Statin drugs along with plavix and Metoprolol from the pharmacutical and cardiology departments or is it just a ALEC frame of mind.

I'm not a smoker either.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3 Dec 27, 2012
HumanSpirit wrote:
I'm not a smoker either.
But you ARE an ignorant believer in all things conspiracy.
BEE ESS

Winnipeg, Canada

#4 Dec 28, 2012
smokingwillie wrote:
<quoted text>
But you ARE an ignorant believer in all things conspiracy.
Translation: DUH!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5 Dec 29, 2012
BEE ESS wrote:
<quoted text> Translation: DUH!
You are right. Bee stings cause more verificable deaths per years than tobbacco. Smoke will keep bees away.
HumanSpirit

High Springs, FL

#6 Dec 29, 2012
smokingwillie wrote:
<quoted text>
But you ARE an ignorant believer in all things conspiracy.
Psychiatry: An industry of death

&fe ature=youtube_gdata_player

Psychiatry No Science

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

-------

Death, violence and mind drugs

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

------
HumanSpirit

High Springs, FL

#7 Dec 29, 2012
Psychiatric Diagnosis: Too Little Science, Too Many Conflicts of Interest [i]

Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D.

Harvard University

Snip:

The Concerns

There is a lot of pain and suffering in the world, and it is tempting to believe that the mental health community knows how to help. It is widely believed, both by mental health professionals and the general population, that if only a person gets the right psychiatric diagnosis, the therapist will know what kind of measures will be the most helpful. Unfortunately, that is not usually the case, and getting a psychiatric diagnosis can often create more problems than it solves, including a lifetime of being labeled, difficulties with obtaining affordable (or any) health insurance (due to now having a pre-existing condition), loss of employment, loss of child custody, the overlooking of physical illnesses and injuries because of everything being attributed to psychological factors, and the loss of the right to make decisions about one’s medical and legal affairs. The creation and use of psychiatric diagnosis, unlike, for instance, psychiatric drugs, is not overseen by any regulatory body, and rarely does anyone raise the question of what role the assignment of a psychiatric label has played in creating problems for individuals.[ii]

The Problematic History

These serious limitations have not prevented the authors of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), sometimes known as “the therapist’s Bible,” from making expansive claims about their knowledge and authority and wielding enormous power to decide who will and will not be called mentally ill and what the varieties of alleged mental illness will be. The DSM’s current edition is called DSM-IV-TR, and it was preceded by the original DSM (in 1952), then DSM-II (1968), DSM-III (1980), DSM-III-R (Third Edition Revised)(1987), DSM-IV (1994), and DSM-IV-TR (2000). The DSM-V is currently in preparation and slated for 2013 publication. Each time a new edition appears, the media ask whichever psychiatrist is the lead editor why a new edition was necessary, and like clockwork, each editor replies that it was because the previous edition really wasn’t scientific (Caplan, 1995). And each time a new edition appears, it contains many more categories than does the previous one. For instance, DSM-III-R contained 297 categories, and DSM-IV contained 374 (Caplan, 1995).

I served as an advisor to two of the DSM-IV committees, before resigning due to serious concerns after witnessing how fast and loose they play with the scientific research related to diagnosis (Caplan, 1995). The DSM is widely used, not only in the mental health system, but also in general medical practice, in schools, and in the courts. I have been involved since 1985 in trying to alert both therapists and the public to the manual’s unscientific nature and the dangers that believing in its objectivity poses. Since then, I have watched with interest a national trend toward gradually increasing openness to the idea that psychiatric diagnosis (A)is largely unscientific,(B)is highly subjective and political, and (C)can cause untold harm, ranging from the patients’ lowered self-confidence to loss of custody of children to loss of health insurance (because any psychiatric label can be considered evidence of a pre-existing condition) to loss of the right to make decisions about their medical and legal affairs.

More of this article:

http://awpsych.org/index.php...
HumanSpirit

High Springs, FL

#8 Dec 29, 2012
Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness

Every so often Al Frances says something that seems to surprise even him. Just now, for instance, in the predawn darkness of his comfortable, rambling home in Carmel, California, he has broken off his exercise routine to declare that “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he’s taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that “these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.” For the first time in two days, the conversation comes to an awkward halt.

Pasted from < http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv... ;

There are no genetic tests, no brain scans, blood tests, chemical imbalance tests or X-rays that can scientifically/medically prove that any psychiatric disorder is a medical condition.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Vote Trump for President 44 min Donald 2
Democrats are liars 2 hr concerned neighbor 3
Terry McAuliffe to leave the Democratic Party 5 hr wanda 2
No Clue 6 hr Dude 1
A no vote Jul 25 turd detector 2
Klinton and Koone Jul 24 Mike Jersey 2
The final Ukrops knife in backs of their loyal ... Jul 23 bona fide 3

Richmond Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richmond Mortgages