Also laws against heroin and cocaine made it easy for police to shoot a Black man, "He had super powers from the drugs so I had to use this massive handgun with the most potent load to stop him from killing everyone in town."
Dr. Szasz was absolutely right on. I can't think of one thing that I disagree with on. We all have the right to die when and how we personally chose to. The use of drugs is certainly a personal choice. I love this man
IF YOU EVER SEE SOMEONE SAY THOMAS SZASZ WAS A SCIENTOLOGIST YOU CAN SAVE YOURSELF SOME RESEARCH BC HE ONLY SHARED SIMILAR VIEWS ON PSYCHIATRY HE WASN’T A MEMBER OF SCIENTOLOGY. PEOPLE COMMENT THAT TO TRY TO DISCREDIT HIM.
Taking drugs yes, but also people who take it are 100 % responsible for the actions they do why under the influence of drugs. Legalizing drugs does not mean, that you are not responsible for your own actions.
But how come someone who is prescribed antipsychotics doesn’t get a dui when they get into an accident? Because they have a tolerance and it no longer makes them sleepy? The same thing goes for someone who is addicted to illegal drugs that can make you tired...they have a tolerance and no longer have problems with drowsiness. It doesn’t matter though because it isn’t prescribed so they get a DUI. Even if you have a prescription for seroquel, take one after abstaining for a month, fall asleep and get into an accident, it still won’t be a DUI. So legalizing will add more responsibility bc if you are in an accident bc of antipsychotics it’s your responsibility to take it everyday, if not than stay off the road....but right now it’s not your responsibility in a legal sense. It’s so damn complicated I think if they legalized drugs and one wanted to be able to drive they could have a test where they see what dose of whatever drug you wish to drive on first starts showing signs of impairment so if you ever get into an accident they can test your levels and make sure they are under what you agreed to. Or just make it so the levels in your blood need to be at a certain level for everyone so you simply just can’t drive on certain substances. Idk or just give people DUIs like alcohol end of story.
Involuntary intoxication [cf.Peter Breggin] by psychiatrists,causes people to do shootings/stabbings (desperate things). Contrast that,of course,with a thief who steals to get drug money (Drugs he bought himself)That would seem to be voluntary intoxication.
@@RonaldVaughan People kill each other without drug influence. It is a cop out defense. Who do you know stole to get drugs ? Bankers, doctors, lawyers... Police use drugs too and get them free by making traffic stops. And an undercover cop who finally busts a drug dealer could easily recover 30 40 50 thousand dollars in cash. 10,000 bucks are turned over to the evidence locker and 30,000 is in his pocket. Police NEED crime to make a paycheck.
@@buzzl1ghtyear400 Someone who is attacked by a criminal and was struck in the head with a hammer might get away and find his car. He ma then start having a brain bleed and pass out at the wheel and cause a collision. How many years should he serve? Barry Oakley, bassist for The Allman Brothers t-boned a city bus while riding his new motorcycle. His friends all said he was a bad driver in a car too. But at the scene he was up and walking and talking. He refused being taken to the hospital and got a ride home- 4 or 5 hours later he complained of a headache and dropped dead from brain bleed Medics cannot force anyone to go to emergency room unless they clearly are confused or cannot walk etc. The head injury caused his thinking to be muddled and anything he did after that was not his normal train of thought. Riding a motorcycle was a mistake and refusing to be checked by a doctor was possibly influenced by brain injury. At home we do not know what he was doing but probably displayed abnormal behaviors that most people do not know how to deal with. How much can you fault him?
First problem: "adolescent who are treated responsibility, will act responsibly" To be responsible, which is to be effective in a particular situation, one must have the neurobiological capacity to do so and the experience/training to recognize the situation and appreciate the consequences of the possible choices in the context of their short and long term goals. This depends if there was a graduated level of responsibility given to a child in concert with the observation that the child understands the challenge of a situation and the right way to think through that particular situation. Children achieve milestones as they are developing, parents teach children the skills and societal standards by which their choices will be judged. Just as with walking safely or being ready to ride a bicycle, parents assess a child's capacity and, if the relationship is healthy, the child is given increasing responsibility and freedom. Szasz is an intelligent individual with some serious intellectual blind spots which prevent him from seeing that all individual's are not the same. There is a biology to substance dependence that his argument about infantalism does not appreciate. His statement about drugs being illegal because they require prescriptions sounds like the overdramatic splitting of many of my borderline and histrionic patients who care more about winning the argument than about a balanced perspective that leads to the best outcomes.
I believe you may be over-analyzing. Being responsible at ones age level is the meaning. That is, not handing car keys to a 5 year old for instance. How did you come up with "responsible" being the same for all? The "biology" you mention can be applied to foods as well. You are still under the spell of the "evils of drugs" campaign and having a "War" with a "Drug Czar" which is government nonsense. Intellectual blind spot could be what you have for missing his point and not understanding the nature of drugs. Not understanding that drug laws are only 100 years old.. Physicians must buy a license from the DEA to be able to write prescriptions! What is wrong with that picture? Everything. One must have a perspective to be able to balance it. You are laboring under myths, stereotypes and probably do not know that drug laws were passed to enable law enforcement officers to legally kill blacks. Those that must win arguments I would commonly recognize as sociopath/narcissist and a complete waste of time trying to treat such a patient. The causes of addictions are many. Bad parenting can be an early trauma which leads to escapism later in life. Escape through drugs, alcohol, food, crime... Good parenting by adults does not lead to behaviors unacceptable from children. The doctor's first comments included something about being unprepared to raise a child is the most irresponsible thing one can do did it not? The rest of his talk was based on responsible people and their actions. You equate the miscreants with normal, intelligent human beings. Many of those miscreants are also the governments creations in that they are the end result of government meddling in lives of citizens.
cravinbob Dear Bob, You are obviously an intelligent individual who has come to certain conclusions, many of which I do not agree with, based upon your experience and, presumably, those conclusions serve your important goals. Your statement about my "intellectual blind spot" makes an assumption that I am not aware of something that you are. But I could be coming to a different conclusion than you being fully aware of many of the same pieces of information as you have simply because my objectives are different. Psychiatric medications, like anything, can be used appropriately or inappropriately. Like any tool, a medication needs to be applied in the proper circumstance and the proper amount and for the proper length of time. Psychiatry, in the 50s, saw a dramatic effect of psychotrophic medications on asylum patients for whom nothing previously made an impact. We have gone through a period where that limited solution was over-applied. Talk therapies were no where near as effective then, but have since evolved to be more problem focused and individual oriented. Today, at the better clinics, one would receive a combination of medication and therapy. Unfortunately, a few generations of psychiatrists are not particularly schooled in psychotherapy and insurance does not cover more than a very abreviated form of therapy and medications are still the predominant treatment and psychiatry lacks a cohesive model of psychopathology. But although there are those who profit from this situation, a great number of very compassionate individuals are working feverishly to remedy the situation. Pockets of very balanced, extremely competent and humane treatment exist. All the best, kg
Dear Chance, First, tell me what an overanalysis is? There is only analysis which is well thought through and analysis which is not. Secondly, where is your analysis? Have we been reduced to squabbles that mimic children: "He is to." "He is not." "He is to." Please clarify those points in which you align with Szasz which I don't so that I can understand your position besides simply your affinity if you wish to make a rational argument. Or are you or someone you know simply disgruntled that their issues were not resolved through psychiatry. Many have had that experience, but that does not make Szasz right. The field is evolving, but the answers for my own disappointment do not lie in the Szasz arguments, but rather in the lack of a brain-based model for psychiatric treatment and the lack of a system of funding to provide what is not considered state-of-the-art care, which is a combination of integrated talk therapy with whatever medication may be required. For the majority of individuals a medication may be unnecessary if the individual is receiving competent psychotherapy. Meanwhile, medication are almost never a sufficient treatment alone. A psychiatrist who embraces the current "medical model" is a sham. Psychiatrist cannot assess the value of their medication treatments without a deep knowledge of their patients. I hope to hear more detail regarding your opinion on what Szasz and you agree on.
Again, as I thought I once replied to this, you are basically saying his talk shows his "blind spots" because he does not speak on a case by case basis. That would take years for him so make his very valid point that you missed. Alcohol is legal and we all know someone who should not drink while the majority who do use alcohol have no problems from its use. People who have anxiety disorders often drink which is called "self-medicating". There is no cure for those disorders but there are treatments and alcohol is not the best one but it is helpful. The vilification of drinking and driving has increased anxiety in the public at large. One drink will get you a DUI so a home-bound person becomes more so with no thanks to the greedhead bastards at MADD. I can drive after 2 or 3 drinks better than most sober drivers. As far as "the field evolving" and your not defining "psychiatric treatment" you over-analyzed something that was not even the topic. Again, Nixon classified certain drugs to be of no value what-so-ever, Schedule 1 drugs, narcotics, in which he included marijuana which is not a narcotic. One cannot evolve in something he is not allowed to research because of one tyrannical sociopath that our moronic society elected to the highest office. (And yes, he was a crook) For a good take on "psychiatric treatment" search youtube for "The Appointments of Dennis Jennings"...
I appreciate his pointing out the weakness in the central argument of activists for drug "legalization," who do not challenge the infrastructure of government control. The "medical marijuana" proponents claim that marijuana should be legal (or less illegal) because it is less harmful than "hard" drugs, like cocaine. This is demagogic, paternalistic, pseudoscience. We've had "medical cocaine" and "medical amphetamines" for a long time. How has that worked out?
+Nicolas Martin the idea that marijuana is less harmful than hard drugs is not pseudoscienceit's trueI have seen no evidence that prescribing cocaine has not worked
+robinsss We have seen no evidence that prescribing hasn’t worked other than mass incarceration and the abolition of the traditional right to self-medicate. Oh, and the trampling of civil liberties and the enormous number of people with undertreated chronic pain. SWAT raids work if you think the government should control medicine. The Holocaust worked if you were a Nazi. www.scribd.com/doc/124468873/Physicians-and-the-war-on-drugs-the-case-for-legalization-by-Benson-B-Roe-M-D-FACS
Nicolas Martin the reason we have mass incarceration is not because doctors prescribe cocaine to some it's because we criminalized a drug that became popular I agree we should legalize but prescribing cocaine is not the cause of our problems
Have you ever noticed the ironies that result from the drug issue in America? For example, the many, many persons that agree with the government's claim that recreating for the purpose of feeling good is a crime. They obviously don't criminally recreate. But one must wonder why they are such huge fans of sobriety? Considering that it's obvious that sobriety is not working out so well for them...that is, mentally speaking! This is true, any way you slice it...because even if they're correct in their perception of the effects from the use of illicit drugs, then it's a good thing that they don't use drugs because already they possess minds that think that feeling good, due to recreating is a crime All teachers & educators hope that the things they say will stimulate the minds of their pupils...because that's a good thing. It's a thing that stimulants never fail to do! How do you think that comments like this one get written?
News flash! Those in government use drugs and drink to excess and those who don't get high from power and cash. Plus they are learned and consummate liars. Nothing to brag about. We The People have power over government and that fact is long lost. None of us has ever spent more than 4 seconds with a candidate for office let alone an hour or two but we go vote for them. We now have empirical evidence that school children are not taught how to think or critical thinking but only told what to think. And that it is their "feelings" that matter! What you see happening in America today is all the forerunners to socialism. Democrats are behind it and think this through before rejecting what I have just said.
The end of American experiment came when the citizens became subjects of the therapeutic state. The transformation can be largely tied to the Progressive Era, when Americans were convinced that the state should protect individuals from themselves. Both Right and Left have come to thoroughly embrace this denial of personal responsibility and liberty. A conservative will argue passionately for his right to own a gun, accepting that guns kill many innocent people. In the next breath he will argue that he should be denied access to a drug because he might misuse it, becoming an "addict" or worse. (In the therapeutic state, people don't misuse drugs, they "abuse" drugs. It's a tactical use of language. Who says that people "abuse" cars, cigarettes, or firearms?)
Narcotics prohibition laws are persecution. Abraham Lincoln said it best in this country's first attempt at prohibition (brought to us of course by Christians) that prohibition constitutes pre-crime and when you arrest a man for the prohibition of alcohol you are essentially arresting him for crimes he has not yet committed. Abraham Lincoln representing the state of Illinois against the women's Christian auxiliary who were claiming alcohol forces their husbands to beat them.
how come someone who is prescribed antipsychotics doesn’t get a dui when they get into an accident? Because they have a tolerance and it no longer makes them sleepy? The same thing goes for someone who is addicted to illegal drugs that can make you tired...they have a tolerance and no longer have problems with drowsiness. It doesn’t matter though because if it isn’t prescribed they get a DUI. Even if you have a prescription for seroquel, take one after abstaining for a month, fall asleep because of lowered tolerance and get into an accident, it still won’t be a DUI. So legalizing will add more responsibility bc if you are in an accident bc of antipsychotics it’s your responsibility to take it everyday, if not than stay off the road....but right now it’s not your responsibility in a legal sense. It’s so damn complicated I think if they legalized drugs and one wanted to be able to drive they could have a test where they see what dose of whatever drug you wish to drive on first starts showing signs of impairment so if you ever get into an accident they can test your levels and make sure they are under what you agreed to. Or just make it so the levels in your blood need to be at a certain level for everyone so you simply just can’t drive on certain substances. Idk or just give people DUIs like alcohol end of story.
thoughts on the idea of using abstinence as a way to regulate drug use? he mentions it around 19:43. From what we know about abstinence taught for sexuality and drug use tells us this method is in fact counter productive. you are never going to stop people from trying things or doing things that are taboo. The best you can do is teach them all the consequences of their choices and actions. Secondly I wonder what Dr. Szasz would say about the fentanyl/opiod crises now. If a person is free to purchase an incredibly lethal drug and chooses to use it as they please with no regulation on how much or where they can purchase it and then uses it maliciously, for example lacing other non lethal drugs with it, Dr. Szasz would have no problem with this since it is just someone buying a drug because they want it. In the capitalist dream he speaks of, any person would be free to do this. In reality peoples freedoms stop when they impair the freedoms or safety of another. We have all these laws and regulations surrounding this because we value the general health and safety of society. He may have a point in that the pharma industry has hijacked this to their benefit but he should be attacking their practices and the ignorance and lack of education on this issue of the general population.
man absintence helped me thats for sure - now i watch my friends who all got unhealthy in both mind and body - it's crazy when i see or talk to them how much they degenerated - I'm glad i practiced abstinence bc it allowed me to exercise my discipline - and the results have been amazing haha
The thing is, that they'll mske fentanyl illegal. Or herion. But people can drink alcohol all they want to tho. An when they get caught drinking in public they get put in jail. The whole system is hypocritical. You either wanna protect the citizens or you don't. You can't be one sired like that and expect people not to get bothered. They'll sell Adderall to little kids all day long. But if someone gets caught with cocsine that's not okay? If there gonna make certain drugs illegal then they need to be responsible with the way they handle drugs aswell. No accountability for all these doctore selling addictive drugs to people everyday. But as soon as a citizen gets caught with illegal drug. They get yesrs in prison? If the government is gonna be holding citizens accountable then they need to stand on the same ground there forcing citizens to stand on aswell. An we see this happening more an more as time goes on. The government can do whatever the fuck they want too, but let citizens do the same things aj well get prison time. There trying to slowly take our freedom away. Big government is destroy7ny America. Soon they'll be telling us what to do in every aspect of our lives, while they just do whatever wicked things they want too. It's already happening now. You don't want people getting addicted to bebsos an opiates? Then stop handing them out like candy over made up Dam disorders too people. The government isn't trying to stop the war on drugs. They are part of the drug problem themselves. A huge part of it. They only thriw people in prison over illegal drugs because they want control. It's not to keep anyone safe. Government doeswnt care about our safety. All these criminals in big pharma an these drug dealing doctors just do whatever they want too. An no punishment. It goes both ways. You don't want people selling an doing illegal drugs, then don't do it your dam self. Because wether a drug is illegal or not doesent change the ingredients.
Ok.i shall say i dont agree totally with dr.Szasz.But i will agree totally how the goverment plays with people and their addictions.state versus human mind.its all a game
Fanatic like the entire US population prior to the 20th Century. Fear of drugs is the dangerous fanaticism that has destroyed the lives of tens of millions.
I disagree with him in so many ways. He is a wide open capitalist and could care less about people who cannot handle drugs. And no one starts smoking because it makes them feel good, the do it to fit in or be cool. Most people I have talked to got sick and gphad a sore throat when they first started. I have lost 4 family members in the last three years due to smoking. All of them said they wish they could have stopped.😢
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
"It is a noble & worthy cause to take up the fight against Psychiatry"
- Thomas Szasz
That explanation about how drug laws where to protect you from frauds, but now to protect you from yourself! That's why this man is a ledgend
Also laws against heroin and cocaine made it easy for police to shoot a Black man, "He had super powers from the drugs so I had to use this massive handgun with the most potent load to stop him from killing everyone in town."
Dr. Szasz was absolutely right on. I can't think of one thing that I disagree with on. We all have the right to die when and how we personally chose to. The use of drugs is certainly a personal choice. I love this man
John Leduc me too man
Legally yes, but not morally.
The government certainly has the rights. They do what they want to an get away with it.
IF YOU EVER SEE SOMEONE SAY THOMAS SZASZ WAS A SCIENTOLOGIST YOU CAN SAVE YOURSELF SOME RESEARCH BC HE ONLY SHARED SIMILAR VIEWS ON PSYCHIATRY HE WASN’T A MEMBER OF SCIENTOLOGY. PEOPLE COMMENT THAT TO TRY TO DISCREDIT HIM.
Glad SOMEBODY spoke the truth....
Drop the caps
The only legal torture in the world
this guy is a fuc'king genius
I love him! :D
I'm dx and struggled with this and the system, but listening to him helped me so much.
Thank you Thomas Szasz.
nice to see him healthy ... and ambitious
mental health would be unbalance without your philosophies and outstanding insights.
thank you
I can’t believe I’ve never heard of this man until today he’s saying exactly what I’ve been laughed at for saying...for years.
Very helpful. Thank you. Awesome talk!
Great man.
Taking drugs yes, but also people who take it are 100 % responsible for the actions they do why under the influence of drugs. Legalizing drugs does not mean, that you are not responsible for your own actions.
But how come someone who is prescribed antipsychotics doesn’t get a dui when they get into an accident? Because they have a tolerance and it no longer makes them sleepy? The same thing goes for someone who is addicted to illegal drugs that can make you tired...they have a tolerance and no longer have problems with drowsiness. It doesn’t matter though because it isn’t prescribed so they get a DUI. Even if you have a prescription for seroquel, take one after abstaining for a month, fall asleep and get into an accident, it still won’t be a DUI. So legalizing will add more responsibility bc if you are in an accident bc of antipsychotics it’s your responsibility to take it everyday, if not than stay off the road....but right now it’s not your responsibility in a legal sense. It’s so damn complicated
I think if they legalized drugs and one wanted to be able to drive they could have a test where they see what dose of whatever drug you wish to drive on first starts showing signs of impairment so if you ever get into an accident they can test your levels and make sure they are under what you agreed to. Or just make it so the levels in your blood need to be at a certain level for everyone so you simply just can’t drive on certain substances. Idk or just give people DUIs like alcohol end of story.
Involuntary intoxication [cf.Peter Breggin] by psychiatrists,causes people to do shootings/stabbings (desperate things). Contrast that,of course,with a thief who steals to get drug money (Drugs he bought himself)That would seem to be voluntary intoxication.
Correct.
@@RonaldVaughan People kill each other without drug influence. It is a cop out defense. Who do you know stole to get drugs ? Bankers, doctors, lawyers... Police use drugs too and get them free by making traffic stops. And an undercover cop who finally busts a drug dealer could easily recover 30 40 50 thousand dollars in cash. 10,000 bucks are turned over to the evidence locker and 30,000 is in his pocket.
Police NEED crime to make a paycheck.
@@buzzl1ghtyear400 Someone who is attacked by a criminal and was struck in the head with a hammer might get away and find his car. He ma then start having a brain bleed and pass out at the wheel and cause a collision. How many years should he serve?
Barry Oakley, bassist for The Allman Brothers t-boned a city bus while riding his new motorcycle. His friends all said he was a bad driver in a car too. But at the scene he was up and walking and talking. He refused being taken to the hospital and got a ride home- 4 or 5 hours later he complained of a headache and dropped dead from brain bleed Medics cannot force anyone to go to emergency room unless they clearly are confused or cannot walk etc. The head injury caused his thinking to be muddled and anything he did after that was not his normal train of thought. Riding a motorcycle was a mistake and refusing to be checked by a doctor was possibly influenced by brain injury. At home we do not know what he was doing but probably displayed abnormal behaviors that most people do not know how to deal with. How much can you fault him?
He is the most eloquent spokesman of freedom since Jefferson.
Very true.
Szasz was more consistent than Jefferson. RIP.
he is the man!
together we will destroy psychiatry
No we won't. There not ginna listen to us unless we force it.
Peter Hitchens, please listen to Dr Szazs!!!
The big problem I see with Szasz's argument is;
How to make irresponsible adults into responsible ones?
(both abstract and practical)
First problem: "adolescent who are treated responsibility, will act responsibly" To be responsible, which is to be effective in a particular situation, one must have the neurobiological capacity to do so and the experience/training to recognize the situation and appreciate the consequences of the possible choices in the context of their short and long term goals. This depends if there was a graduated level of responsibility given to a child in concert with the observation that the child understands the challenge of a situation and the right way to think through that particular situation. Children achieve milestones as they are developing, parents teach children the skills and societal standards by which their choices will be judged. Just as with walking safely or being ready to ride a bicycle, parents assess a child's capacity and, if the relationship is healthy, the child is given increasing responsibility and freedom. Szasz is an intelligent individual with some serious intellectual blind spots which prevent him from seeing that all individual's are not the same. There is a biology to substance dependence that his argument about infantalism does not appreciate. His statement about drugs being illegal because they require prescriptions sounds like the overdramatic splitting of many of my borderline and histrionic patients who care more about winning the argument than about a balanced perspective that leads to the best outcomes.
I believe you may be over-analyzing. Being responsible at ones age level is the meaning. That is, not handing car keys to a 5 year old for instance. How did you come up with "responsible" being the same for all?
The "biology" you mention can be applied to foods as well. You are still under the spell of the "evils of drugs" campaign and having a "War" with a "Drug Czar" which is government nonsense.
Intellectual blind spot could be what you have for missing his point and not understanding the nature of drugs. Not understanding that drug laws are only 100 years old.. Physicians must buy a license from the DEA to be able to write prescriptions! What is wrong with that picture? Everything.
One must have a perspective to be able to balance it. You are laboring under myths, stereotypes and probably do not know that drug laws were passed to enable law enforcement officers to legally kill blacks. Those that must win arguments I would commonly recognize as sociopath/narcissist and a complete waste of time trying to treat such a patient.
The causes of addictions are many. Bad parenting can be an early trauma which leads to escapism later in life. Escape through drugs, alcohol, food, crime... Good parenting by adults does not lead to behaviors unacceptable from children. The doctor's first comments included something about being unprepared to raise a child is the most irresponsible thing one can do did it not? The rest of his talk was based on responsible people and their actions. You equate the miscreants with normal, intelligent human beings. Many of those miscreants are also the governments creations in that they are the end result of government meddling in lives of citizens.
cravinbob
Dear Bob, You are obviously an intelligent individual who has come to certain conclusions, many of which I do not agree with, based upon your experience and, presumably, those conclusions serve your important goals. Your statement about my "intellectual blind spot" makes an assumption that I am not aware of something that you are. But I could be coming to a different conclusion than you being fully aware of many of the same pieces of information as you have simply because my objectives are different. Psychiatric medications, like anything, can be used appropriately or inappropriately. Like any tool, a medication needs to be applied in the proper circumstance and the proper amount and for the proper length of time.
Psychiatry, in the 50s, saw a dramatic effect of psychotrophic medications on asylum patients for whom nothing previously made an impact. We have gone through a period where that limited solution was over-applied. Talk therapies were no where near as effective then, but have since evolved to be more problem focused and individual oriented. Today, at the better clinics, one would receive a combination of medication and therapy. Unfortunately, a few generations of psychiatrists are not particularly schooled in psychotherapy and insurance does not cover more than a very abreviated form of therapy and medications are still the predominant treatment and psychiatry lacks a cohesive model of psychopathology. But although there are those who profit from this situation, a great number of very compassionate individuals are working feverishly to remedy the situation. Pockets of very balanced, extremely competent and humane treatment exist.
All the best, kg
Yeah, definitely an over-analysis... What Szasz says is true
Dear Chance, First, tell me what an overanalysis is? There is only analysis which is well thought through and analysis which is not. Secondly, where is your analysis? Have we been reduced to squabbles that mimic children: "He is to." "He is not." "He is to." Please clarify those points in which you align with Szasz which I don't so that I can understand your position besides simply your affinity if you wish to make a rational argument. Or are you or someone you know simply disgruntled that their issues were not resolved through psychiatry. Many have had that experience, but that does not make Szasz right. The field is evolving, but the answers for my own disappointment do not lie in the Szasz arguments, but rather in the lack of a brain-based model for psychiatric treatment and the lack of a system of funding to provide what is not considered state-of-the-art care, which is a combination of integrated talk therapy with whatever medication may be required. For the majority of individuals a medication may be unnecessary if the individual is receiving competent psychotherapy. Meanwhile, medication are almost never a sufficient treatment alone. A psychiatrist who embraces the current "medical model" is a sham. Psychiatrist cannot assess the value of their medication treatments without a deep knowledge of their patients. I hope to hear more detail regarding your opinion on what Szasz and you agree on.
Again, as I thought I once replied to this, you are basically saying his talk shows his "blind spots" because he does not speak on a case by case basis. That would take years for him so make his very valid point that you missed. Alcohol is legal and we all know someone who should not drink while the majority who do use alcohol have no problems from its use. People who have anxiety disorders often drink which is called "self-medicating". There is no cure for those disorders but there are treatments and alcohol is not the best one but it is helpful. The vilification of drinking and driving has increased anxiety in the public at large. One drink will get you a DUI so a home-bound person becomes more so with no thanks to the greedhead bastards at MADD. I can drive after 2 or 3 drinks better than most sober drivers.
As far as "the field evolving" and your not defining "psychiatric treatment" you over-analyzed something that was not even the topic. Again, Nixon classified certain drugs to be of no value what-so-ever, Schedule 1 drugs, narcotics, in which he included marijuana which is not a narcotic. One cannot evolve in something he is not allowed to research because of one tyrannical sociopath that our moronic society elected to the highest office. (And yes, he was a crook)
For a good take on "psychiatric treatment" search youtube for "The Appointments of Dennis Jennings"...
Intelligent and funny! RIP.
True healer love him
I appreciate his pointing out the weakness in the central argument of activists for drug "legalization," who do not challenge the infrastructure of government control. The "medical marijuana" proponents claim that marijuana should be legal (or less illegal) because it is less harmful than "hard" drugs, like cocaine. This is demagogic, paternalistic, pseudoscience.
We've had "medical cocaine" and "medical amphetamines" for a long time. How has that worked out?
+Nicolas Martin the idea that marijuana is less harmful than hard drugs is not pseudoscienceit's trueI have seen no evidence that prescribing cocaine has not worked
+robinsss
We have seen no evidence that prescribing hasn’t worked other than mass incarceration and the abolition of the traditional right to self-medicate. Oh, and the trampling of civil liberties and the enormous number of people with undertreated chronic pain. SWAT raids work if you think the government should control medicine. The Holocaust worked if you were a Nazi.
www.scribd.com/doc/124468873/Physicians-and-the-war-on-drugs-the-case-for-legalization-by-Benson-B-Roe-M-D-FACS
Nicolas Martin
the reason we have mass incarceration is not because doctors prescribe cocaine to some
it's because we criminalized a drug that became popular
I agree we should legalize but prescribing cocaine is not the cause of our problems
+robinsss
Physicians are first-line supporters and enforcers of drug controls. They work with the DEA.
Nicolas Martin
the subject is prescribing drugs
not the doctors allegiance to the gov't
he is king
God is king our leaders say.... Sad.
Have you ever noticed the ironies that result from the drug issue in America?
For example, the many, many persons that agree with the government's claim that recreating for the purpose of feeling good is a crime. They obviously don't criminally recreate. But one must wonder why they are such huge fans of sobriety? Considering that it's obvious that sobriety is not working out so well for them...that is, mentally speaking!
This is true, any way you slice it...because even if they're correct in their perception of the effects from the use of illicit drugs, then it's a good thing that they don't use drugs because already they possess minds that think that feeling good, due to recreating is a crime
All teachers & educators hope that the things they say will stimulate the minds of their pupils...because that's a good thing. It's a thing that stimulants never fail to do!
How do you think that comments like this one get written?
News flash! Those in government use drugs and drink to excess and those who don't get high from power and cash. Plus they are learned and consummate liars. Nothing to brag about.
We The People have power over government and that fact is long lost. None of us has ever spent more than 4 seconds with a candidate for office let alone an hour or two but we go vote for them.
We now have empirical evidence that school children are not taught how to think or critical thinking but only told what to think. And that it is their "feelings" that matter!
What you see happening in America today is all the forerunners to socialism. Democrats are behind it and think this through before rejecting what I have just said.
@@cravinbobyeah exactly.
Who was the first speaker?
The end of American experiment came when the citizens became subjects of the therapeutic state. The transformation can be largely tied to the Progressive Era, when Americans were convinced that the state should protect individuals from themselves. Both Right and Left have come to thoroughly embrace this denial of personal responsibility and liberty. A conservative will argue passionately for his right to own a gun, accepting that guns kill many innocent people. In the next breath he will argue that he should be denied access to a drug because he might misuse it, becoming an "addict" or worse. (In the therapeutic state, people don't misuse drugs, they "abuse" drugs. It's a tactical use of language. Who says that people "abuse" cars, cigarettes, or firearms?)
Guns dont kill people tho. People kill people. With all sorts of diffrent weapons.
Well actually prohibition of other things , alcohol etc. would be worse than legalizing drugs. Also addictive is a myth.
many ppl are addicted - They lack the will to admit it to themselves so try to call the whole thing a myth.
Narcotics prohibition laws are persecution.
Abraham Lincoln said it best in this country's first attempt at prohibition (brought to us of course by Christians) that prohibition constitutes pre-crime and when you arrest a man for the prohibition of alcohol you are essentially arresting him for crimes he has not yet committed.
Abraham Lincoln representing the state of Illinois against the women's Christian auxiliary who were claiming alcohol forces their husbands to beat them.
how come someone who is prescribed antipsychotics doesn’t get a dui when they get into an accident? Because they have a tolerance and it no longer makes them sleepy? The same thing goes for someone who is addicted to illegal drugs that can make you tired...they have a tolerance and no longer have problems with drowsiness. It doesn’t matter though because if it isn’t prescribed they get a DUI. Even if you have a prescription for seroquel, take one after abstaining for a month, fall asleep because of lowered tolerance and get into an accident, it still won’t be a DUI. So legalizing will add more responsibility bc if you are in an accident bc of antipsychotics it’s your responsibility to take it everyday, if not than stay off the road....but right now it’s not your responsibility in a legal sense. It’s so damn complicated
I think if they legalized drugs and one wanted to be able to drive they could have a test where they see what dose of whatever drug you wish to drive on first starts showing signs of impairment so if you ever get into an accident they can test your levels and make sure they are under what you agreed to. Or just make it so the levels in your blood need to be at a certain level for everyone so you simply just can’t drive on certain substances. Idk or just give people DUIs like alcohol end of story.
Stimulants & sedatives. That is all they are. Wakey wakey.
❤❤❤
thoughts on the idea of using abstinence as a way to regulate drug use? he mentions it around 19:43. From what we know about abstinence taught for sexuality and drug use tells us this method is in fact counter productive. you are never going to stop people from trying things or doing things that are taboo. The best you can do is teach them all the consequences of their choices and actions.
Secondly I wonder what Dr. Szasz would say about the fentanyl/opiod crises now. If a person is free to purchase an incredibly lethal drug and chooses to use it as they please with no regulation on how much or where they can purchase it and then uses it maliciously, for example lacing other non lethal drugs with it, Dr. Szasz would have no problem with this since it is just someone buying a drug because they want it. In the capitalist dream he speaks of, any person would be free to do this. In reality peoples freedoms stop when they impair the freedoms or safety of another.
We have all these laws and regulations surrounding this because we value the general health and safety of society. He may have a point in that the pharma industry has hijacked this to their benefit but he should be attacking their practices and the ignorance and lack of education on this issue of the general population.
It’s called test kits. There are cheap one use tests that can test for fentanyl
man absintence helped me thats for sure - now i watch my friends who all got unhealthy in both mind and body - it's crazy when i see or talk to them how much they degenerated - I'm glad i practiced abstinence bc it allowed me to exercise my discipline - and the results have been amazing haha
The thing is, that they'll mske fentanyl illegal. Or herion. But people can drink alcohol all they want to tho. An when they get caught drinking in public they get put in jail. The whole system is hypocritical. You either wanna protect the citizens or you don't. You can't be one sired like that and expect people not to get bothered. They'll sell Adderall to little kids all day long. But if someone gets caught with cocsine that's not okay? If there gonna make certain drugs illegal then they need to be responsible with the way they handle drugs aswell. No accountability for all these doctore selling addictive drugs to people everyday. But as soon as a citizen gets caught with illegal drug. They get yesrs in prison? If the government is gonna be holding citizens accountable then they need to stand on the same ground there forcing citizens to stand on aswell. An we see this happening more an more as time goes on. The government can do whatever the fuck they want too, but let citizens do the same things aj well get prison time. There trying to slowly take our freedom away. Big government is destroy7ny America. Soon they'll be telling us what to do in every aspect of our lives, while they just do whatever wicked things they want too. It's already happening now. You don't want people getting addicted to bebsos an opiates? Then stop handing them out like candy over made up Dam disorders too people. The government isn't trying to stop the war on drugs. They are part of the drug problem themselves. A huge part of it. They only thriw people in prison over illegal drugs because they want control. It's not to keep anyone safe. Government doeswnt care about our safety. All these criminals in big pharma an these drug dealing doctors just do whatever they want too. An no punishment. It goes both ways. You don't want people selling an doing illegal drugs, then don't do it your dam self. Because wether a drug is illegal or not doesent change the ingredients.
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito; indeed, he did.
Ok.i shall say i dont agree totally with dr.Szasz.But i will agree totally how the goverment plays with people and their addictions.state versus human mind.its all a game
What are his Opinion on the creation of the Israel Jewish state then and the fight
between Palestinien and the Occupiers Jewish Zionist state ?
This guy is talking shit
¿The Right to Take Drugs? Fanatic libertarian
Fanatic like the entire US population prior to the 20th Century. Fear of drugs is the dangerous fanaticism that has destroyed the lives of tens of millions.
I disagree with him in so many ways. He is a wide open capitalist and could care less about people who cannot handle drugs. And no one starts smoking because it makes them feel good, the do it to fit in or be cool. Most people I have talked to got sick and gphad a sore throat when they first started. I have lost 4 family members in the last three years due to smoking. All of them said they wish they could have stopped.😢
A capitalist trying to not sell you drugs or unnecessary treatments 🤔
How's he build that bottom line with a crap business model like that? Lol.
@@josephwhittaker442your understanding of capitalism is warped. You describe crony capitalism heavily enabled by government. Know the difference
@@captplanut How am I describing that? My comment could describe a snake oil salesman, and that doesn't take cronyism or the government.