Prescription Medication Knowledge Base » Wheezing Cough And Flovent » Advair. My father died after taking this drug for 1 month.

Advair. My father died after taking this drug for 1 month.

Question:

I don’t know if it is because of Advair or not, but my father went into V-Fib 1 month after taking advair. He was very happy with the way he felt being on Advair, but never mentioned anything about the warnings. I just noticed that the warnings say that Advair can change heart rhythm. That is exactly what happened to my father. He never had heart problems before, in fact, his Dr has commented before that he has a very strong heart. I’m not sure where to go with this. I just want to make sure that everyone takes these warnings seriously. Please be careful. Having this happen to my father has been very difficult. Dave

Response:

It may have been a cumulative effect was he taking something else before Advair. Many asthma sufferers take a form of steroids and albuterol and heart problems are frequent. My best wishes to you and your family and thanks for a difficult reminder. Lane

Response:

Your comments can be true. However, since being on Advair, he hasn’t used his inhaler, and he hasn’t taken prednisone for quite some time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It may have been a cumulative effect was he taking something else before Advair. Many asthma sufferers take a form of steroids and albuterol and heart problems are frequent. My best wishes to you and your family and thanks for a difficult reminder. Lane

Response:

It is always difficult to know if a drug side effect is responsible or not. The PDR lists the same 101 side effects for every drug. While I was takng "anyoldmycin" my stocks plunged, my car wouldn’t start and I cut myself shaving. Was all this caused by "anyoldmycin"? Unfortunately it takes a very long time to decide which – if any – ofthe 101 side effects are "real" and requires withdrawal of a medication. The ingredients in Advair are quite common ones and seem to help many persons. Murray Grossan, M.D. http://www.ent-consult.com http://www.TinnitusRelief.net http://www.emedicine.com/ent/topic516.htm

Response:

Many people find Advair and Flovent disagreeable immedeiately. So they switch to Pulmicort, which, conversely, is not for everyone. These two are both powerful and effective steroids. Address:http://www.consumerlawpage.com/article/asthma.shtml Changed:9:56 PM on Friday, November 8, 2002

Response:

Author: admin on
Category: Wheezing Cough And Flovent
Tags: 1

Prescription Medication Knowledge Base » Singulair And Flovent » Foradil

Foradil

Question:

Hi, I have severe Asthma – My doctor has prescribed Foradil – The product helps me some of the time but I still find myself short of breath on a lot of occasions. Does anyone know of any product that is just as strong and may be more effective than Foradil Thanks in Advance Any advice would be appreciated Ron

Response:

I have severe Asthma – My doctor has prescribed Foradil – The product helps me some of the time but I still find myself short of breath on a lot of occasions. Does anyone know of any product that is just as strong and may be more effective than Foradil Thanks in Advance Any advice would be appreciated Ron

Foradil is a new long lasting beta2 agonist bronchodilator drug; somewhat similar to Serevent. However you should also be prescribed a preventor drug, usually a steroid inhaler, like the Pulmicort Turbuhaler [my favorite] or Flovent]. These drugs treat the underlying bronchial inflammation. Info on Foradil [pdf download] & Pulmicort at: http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/what/pi.html http://www.twistclickinhale.com/ Pulmicort Turbuhaler Ellis

Response:

Hi, I desperately need a link or info on side effects on this product. I have taken Foradil for a little over a month and it has worked wonders almost right away, but I ended up getting a lot of the side effects, the worst and most annoying being really bad twitches in my legs, up to every few minutes when I was on the twice a day inhalation. My doctor cut me back to 1 inhalation a day which has lessened the effects but not gotten rid of them completely and I am still faced with heart palpitations. This is not listed as a side effect but I am noticing increasingly bad foot cramps in the leg that is more twitchy and I get them at night, coincidentally I take my one dose at night. I talked to a pharmacist who doesn’t carry it, but he said it is uncommon to get muscle cramps from long acting bronchildialtors, any info would be greatly appreciated. P.S. I have reacted with foot and leg cramps from other asthma meds and it all started again shortly after starting this one. Otherwise I never experience them.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I desperately need a link or info on side effects on this product. I have taken Foradil for a little over a month and it has worked wonders almost right away, but I ended up getting a lot of the side effects, the worst and most annoying being really bad twitches in my legs, up to every few minutes when I was on the twice a day inhalation. My doctor cut me back to 1 inhalation a day which has lessened the effects but not gotten rid of them completely and I am still faced with heart palpitations. This is not listed as a side effect but I am noticing increasingly bad foot cramps in the leg that is more twitchy and I get them at night, coincidentally I take my one dose at night. I talked to a pharmacist who doesn’t carry it, but he said it is uncommon to get muscle cramps from long acting bronchildialtors, any info would be greatly appreciated. P.S. I have reacted with foot and leg cramps from other asthma meds and it all started again shortly after starting this one. Otherwise I never experience them.

Here’s a link: http://www.virtualdrugstore.com/asthma/formoterol.html Formoterol (Foradil, United States and Canada) Excerpt: "Side Effects Formoterol or Foradil can affect the cardiovascular system, especially in high doses." You could try another long-acting bronchodilator; Serevent inhaler or theophylline SR (TheoDur). You could also try increasing steroid inhaler or adding Accolate/Singulair, and not using a long-acting bronchodilator. Foradil is not available in the US, and Canadian law restricts drug information to patients, so its hard to find detailed info. Foradil is also used in the UK and many other countries. Here’s a link on Serevent, a similar drug: http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/salmet.htm salmeterol (Serevent) Excerpt: "Adverse Reactions: Adverse reactions to salmeterol are similar in nature to reactions to other selective beta2-adrenoceptor agonists, i.e., tachycardia; palpitations; immediate hypersensitivity reactions, including urticaria, angioedema, rash, bronchospasm (see WARNINGS; headache; tremor; nervousness; and paradoxical bronchospasm (see WARNINGS)." Ellis

Response:

Author: admin on
Category: Singulair And Flovent
Tags: 1

Prescription Medication Knowledge Base » Venlafaxine Effexor » EFFEXOR

EFFEXOR

Question:

Anyone have any experience with Effexor. I’ve tried Prozac, Paxil, Wellbutrin. None of them work well. Thanx!

See earlier comments. Effexor, although some people have good experiences with it, is not a first choice in treating PAD. Philip

Response:

Anyone have any experience with Effexor. I’ve tried Prozac, Paxil, Wellbutrin. None of them work well. Thanx! See earlier comments. Effexor, although some people have good experiences with it, is not a first choice in treating PAD. Philip

Hi…I have been on Effexor (was on) XR for a month. At first, it seemed to lift a bit of my depression and worry, but after, my anxiety became really bad. I seemed to become almost "hypo-manic", and my sleep was WORSE then it ever had been. I could fall asleep fairly easy, but would wake up VERY early, feeling really "hung-over". I really had alot of hope for this drug, but I guess everbody does <g. Well..back to the drawing board…. Peace… James

Response:

Anyone have any experience with Effexor. I’ve tried Prozac, Paxil, Wellbutrin. None of them work well. Thanx!

Response:

Anyone have any experience with Effexor. I’ve tried Prozac, Paxil, Wellbutrin. None of them work well. Thanx!

I was on venlafaxine (Effexor) for about 3 months. It worked great for my depression and pain, however the only side effect was sexual dysfunction, so I discontinued it for that reason. Can’t say it worked on any of my anxiety because I’m on clonazepam (Klonopin) for that, but I know it didn’t cause any increase in anxiety either. My dosage was 75 mg bid (twice daily). My dose of clonazepam is really low, almost subtherapeutic, 0.5 mg bid. Good Luck, Chris

Response:

hi all my doc suggested today that i go off clonazepam and start taking effexor as she is not happy with me being on clonazepam for indefinitely. i have tried many SSRI and was as sick as a dog and had anxiety like 24 hours a day for a long time. what has your experience of effexor been??? also how long does it take to taper off clonazepam??? thanks a lot kim

Does clonazepam work for you? If so, don’t switch meds but doctors. Effexor is not an SSRI but close enough. *If* you should decide to try Effexor do *not* stop clonazepam at the same time as you risk experiencing both Effexor initial side effects (including worsening of anxiety) and clomazepam withdrawal symptoms. Tapering off of clonazepam takes as long as it takes depending on how high the dose is and how you’ve been taking it. Diminishing the dose with one fourth or less every two weeks or so is a good pace as a rule but YMMV. But once again: if clonazepam works well, why fix something that isn’t broken? Philip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – hi all my doc suggested today that i go off clonazepam and start taking effexor as she is not happy with me being on clonazepam for indefinitely. i have tried many SSRI and was as sick as a dog and had anxiety like 24 hours a day for a long time. what has your experience of effexor been??? also how long does it take to taper off clonazepam??? thanks a lot kim

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh this is stoopid medicine your doc is a benzophobe and believes that effexor is less addictive or dependency causing then a benzo-it isn’t. It has to be weaned on and weaned off and is not less toxic a compound then clonazepam. If the Klonopin helps you then why tamper with what works-find another doc if possible effexor is a very good medication in more comprehensive in its ability then ssri’s similar to tca’s-in low doses it works well for loads of people-its main side effect is gastrointestinal and increased levels of anxiety similar to the ssri’s I wouldn’t hesitate to use it if it is indicated or in conjunction with klonopin if needed but your doc’s reasoning for using it is downright wrong LM

Response:

I was put on Effexor and it help me as far as the depression, I started on 150 mg and then my doc put me on Clonazepam (klonapin) .5 mg a day half in the morning and half at night. At the same time he increased my Effexor to 225 mg and to be honest I think the Klonapin is helping better because it takes care of my anxiety to a point and without anxiety I am not depressed…….lol I think Effexor works but I am going to talk my doc into lowering the effexor and increasing the klonapin…

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For me it helped less with the panic/anxiety part. Had to supplement it with klonopin. It takes about 2-6 weeks to work. Less sexual side effects for me than paxil — "Oh dear, I think you’ll find reality’s on the blink again." — Marvin The Paranoid Android : hi everyone. I need your help . I was on PAXIL CR for a year for panic : attacks but had to be taken off of it cause it was raising my liver : enzyme level too high. So my doctor changed my medication to EFFEXOR. : Does anyone know anything about this medicine? Any bad side effects to : it? How long will it take for it to work? Well any information would be : helpful and much appreciated. Thanks so much. Tony : : : : : :

Response:

keep in mind that the two meds treat different symptoms of anxiety. the effexor is good for the obsessive worries, "rumination" as my therapist calls it. the nagging thoughts in the back of your head that won’t leave you alone. benzos don’t help much with those, but they relieve the physical symptoms, the fear, the dumping of adrenaline, etc. i think you have a good combo there (i’m on both as well). :-) -kelly

Response:

hi everyone. I need your help . I was on PAXIL CR for a year for panic attacks but had to be taken off of it cause it was raising my liver enzyme level too high. So my doctor changed my medication to EFFEXOR. Does anyone know anything about this medicine? Any bad side effects to it? How long will it take for it to work? Well any information would be helpful and much appreciated. Thanks so much. Tony

Response:

For me it helped less with the panic/anxiety part. Had to supplement it with klonopin. It takes about 2-6 weeks to work. Less sexual side effects for me than paxil — "Oh dear, I think you’ll find reality’s on the blink again." — Marvin The Paranoid Android

: hi everyone. I need your help . I was on PAXIL CR for a year for panic : attacks but had to be taken off of it cause it was raising my liver : enzyme level too high. So my doctor changed my medication to EFFEXOR. : Does anyone know anything about this medicine? Any bad side effects to : it? How long will it take for it to work? Well any information would be : helpful and much appreciated. Thanks so much. Tony : : : : : :

Response:

Author: admin on
Category: Venlafaxine Effexor
Tags: Venlafaxine Effexor

Prescription Medication Knowledge Base » Prozac Effexor » Anybody get reverse effects from meds?

Anybody get reverse effects from meds?

Question:

My domestic partner has been put on anti-depressants multiple times. In the cases of Paxil, Prozac and Effexor, they put him to sleep, made him cranky and even more depressed. Serzone made him stoned. Most recently, he’s been put on lithobid and neurontin. The neurontin made him paranoid, depressed, and it gave him panic attacks and the lithobid is acting sort of like speed on him. We’re totally at a loss on how to treat this now since we’re almost out of drugs to try. We do have him going to a psychiatrist who is seeing him tomorrow on an emergency basis since he just lost his job due to the neurontin giving him panic attacks. So, there it is. I myself am taking Prozac and I’m fine on it, so it just baffles me as to what’s happening. Has anybody else had such strange reactions to medications? Jeff — http://www.serv.net/~santa

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My domestic partner has been put on anti-depressants multiple times. In the cases of Paxil, Prozac and Effexor, they put him to sleep, made him cranky and even more depressed. Serzone made him stoned. Most recently, he’s been put on lithobid and neurontin. The neurontin made him paranoid, depressed, and it gave him panic attacks and the lithobid is acting sort of like speed on him. We’re totally at a loss on how to treat this now since we’re almost out of drugs to try. We do have him going to a psychiatrist who is seeing him tomorrow on an emergency basis since he just lost his job due to the neurontin giving him panic attacks. So, there it is. I myself am taking Prozac and I’m fine on it, so it just baffles me as to what’s happening. Has anybody else had such strange reactions to medications? Jeff

It’s called a paradoxical reaction, but I’ve never heard of this reaction to so many different medications. BTW, Serzone made me stoned too. It totally deactivates one particular liver enzyme. I’m really glad you’re getting in to see a psychiatrist. He really needs someone with expertise. good luck, Larry

Response:

I’m not a physician, but I used to sell psych meds. And I study. Paradoxical effects to meds are not surprising. Several doctors told me that it is impossible to tell how any one person is going to react to drugs before they try them. For example, in the SSRI class, they often recommend that a patient take a week’s worth (or longer, depending on physician) of one of them, see if they agree with your system, and if not, switch. There are quite a few: Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Paxil, Luvox. Effexor is an SNRI, so it’s in another class. Take your doctor’s advice, and if it’s not working for you, find a doctor you are compatible with. Hope that helps.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My domestic partner has been put on anti-depressants multiple times. In the cases of Paxil, Prozac and Effexor, they put him to sleep, made him cranky and even more depressed. Serzone made him stoned. Most recently, he’s been put on lithobid and neurontin. The neurontin made him paranoid, depressed, and it gave him panic attacks and the lithobid is acting sort of like speed on him. We’re totally at a loss on how to treat this now since we’re almost out of drugs to try. We do have him going to a psychiatrist who is seeing him tomorrow on an emergency basis since he just lost his job due to the neurontin giving him panic attacks. So, there it is. I myself am taking Prozac and I’m fine on it, so it just baffles me as to what’s happening. Has anybody else had such strange reactions to medications? Jeff — http://www.serv.net/~santa

Yes, but not to anti-psychotics…. only to benzodiazepines. You mention two drugs here of the AP class and I wonder if there is an interaction effect – might look at Dr. Koops interaction chart: http://www.ccgp.org/consumers/body_drkoop.htm Squiggles

Response:

Benzos are very safe meds when it comes to adverse effects and side-effects. Anti-psychotics are exactly the opposite.. dangerous side-effects, also they cause brain damage. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, but not to anti-psychotics…. only to benzodiazepines. You mention two drugs here of the AP class and I wonder if there is an interaction effect – might look at Dr. Koops interaction chart: http://www.ccgp.org/consumers/body_drkoop.htm Squiggles

Response:

Hi Jeff, Welcome to the ng. My domestic partner has been put on anti-depressants multiple times. In the cases of Paxil, Prozac and Effexor, they put him to sleep, made him cranky and even more depressed. Serzone made him stoned.

Perhaps, an MAOI like Parnate would be effective. It is energizing for some people. Most recently, he’s been put on lithobid and neurontin. The neurontin made him paranoid, depressed, and it gave him panic attacks and the lithobid is acting sort of like speed on him.

There are idiosyncratic reactions to meds. IOW,individual responses. We’re totally at a loss on how to treat this now since we’re almost out of drugs to try. We do have him going to a psychiatrist who is seeing him tomorrow on an emergency basis since he just lost his job due to the neurontin giving him panic attacks. So, there it is. I myself am taking Prozac and I’m fine on it, so it just baffles me as to what’s happening. Has anybody else had such strange reactions to medications?

Perhaps, a consultation with a Psychopharmocologist may be helpful. If there is a teaching or university hospital in your area, call them and request a consulation. At any rate, there are newer mood stabilizers which may be effective for him. Also the MAOIs are also effective for dpression, although there are dietary restricyions involving tyramine containing foods. I can email you further info if you desire. Here is some info on Trileptal: http://bipolar.about.com/health/bipolar/msub7-oxcar.htm Oxcarbazepine – Trileptal Oxcarbazepine, an anticonvulsant related to Carbamazepine (Tegretol), has been in use in Europe in treating manic depression and is now beginning to be used in the United States, though not yet officially approved for such usage by the FDA. Oxcarbazepine/Trileptal General Information A short summary of information currently available regarding this medication and the major warnings associated with its use. Experience with Oxcarbazepine (Trileptal) From the About Bipolar Disorder Forum, community members share their experiences with taking this anticonvulsant drug for treatment of manic-depressive illness. Side Effects From our Side Effects Library, a listing of the registered side effects of Trileptal. DrugFAQs: Trileptal (oxcarbazepine) From PharmInfoNet, a series of questions and answers including special warnings and general precautions, how to take the medication, some side effects information and more. Oxcarbazepine Preliminary monograph from Lexi-Comp, Inc., has some pretty detailed pharmacological information, including implications for pregnancy/breast-feeding, kidney patients, interactions with other medications, and other important material. A Treatment for Epilepsy This page combines oxcarbazepine (Trileptal) and carbamazepine (Tegretol), but notes two side effects that are less common with Trileptal. Has a side effects chart and answers to 18 frequently asked questions. From U.K.’s Norfolk Mental Health Care. Trileptal: Another New Choice for Partial Onset Epilepsy This summary from PharmInfo Net includes clinical study results and a brief look at how the medication is thought to operate to control seizures. Trileptal Approved By FDA Reporting on the U.S. FDA’s approval of Trileptal for the treatment of partial epileptic seizures as monotherapy in adults or adjunctive therapy (used in combination with other anti-epileptic drugs) in adults and children as young as four years old. Drug Name: Trileptal (oxcarbazepine) Tablets http://www.centerwatch.com/drugs/dru599.htm The following information is obtained from various newswires, published medical journal articles, and medical conference presentations. Company: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Approval Status: Approved January 2000 Treatment for: Adjunctive & monotherapy in adults; adjunctive therapy for children ages 4-16 with partial epileptic seizures General Information Trileptal, an anticonvulsant or antiepileptic drug (AED), was approved for use as an adjunctive and monotherapy for the treatment of partial seizures in adults with epilepsy and for the adjunctive treatment of partial seizures in children, ages 4-16, with epilepsy. It is the first AED to be approved as a monotherapy in several years. 2.3 million Americans have been diagnosed with epilepsy. This year, 181,000 more Americans (children and adults) will develop epilepsy and seizures. Clinical Results Recent trials include 6 multi-center randomized double blind controlled trials that were conducted to determine the effectiveness of the drug. 4 of the studies investigated the drug as a monotherapy. Participants in these trials ranged from 8 to 66 years old. Two of the studies tested the drug as an adjunctive therapy. In studies in which the drug was compared to a placebo, patients given the drug lasted significantly longer without having certain seizures than did those patients not taking the drug. Furthermore, a higher dosage of the drug yielded a significantly longer period before the patient demonstrated specific seizure symptoms. In addition, two trials, one in which patients were ages 15-66 and the other in which patients were ages 3-17, examined Trileptal as an adjunctive therapy. Every patient in these trials was on 1-3 concomitant Anti-Epileptic Drugs. In both studies, dosage was increased over a period of two weeks until the patient reached the assigned dose or experienced an intolerance to the dosage. Results of the pediatric trial indicated that compared to a placebo, patients taking the study medication experienced over 25% greater reduction of frequency of partial seizures. In the adult study, the reduction of frequency of partial seizures for those taking the study drug at the lowest dose was over 18% greater than those taking the placebo, while at the highest dose was over 42% greater than those taking the placebo. Side Effects The most common side effects include, but are not limited to: * Headache * Somnolence or fatigue * Dizziness * Viral Infection * Nausea Some patients also exhibited hyponatremia (low serum sodium levels). Most patients who developed this side effect, were asymptomatic. In clinical trials, patients whose treatment was discontinued due to hyponatremia, generally experienced normalization of serum sodium within a few days without additional treatment. Some additional side effects were associated with the central nervous system (CNS). These include: * Psychomotor slowing * Difficulty with concentration * Speech or language problems * Coordination abnormalities In clinical trials, patients’ discontinuation of therapy due to these CNS side effects was dose related when the drug was used as an adjunctive therapy; higher dosages increased the discontinuation rate. No discontinuation of treatment due to similar side effects was found when the drug was used as a monotherapy. Contraindications: Trileptal should not be used in patients with a known hypersensitivity to oxcarbazepine or to any of its components. Mechanism of Action The pharmacological activity of Trileptal (oxcarbazepine) is primarily exerted through the 10-monohydroxy metabolite (MHD) of oxcarbazepine- The precise mechanism by which oxcarbazepine and MHD exert their antiseizure effect is unknown; however in vitro electrophysiological studies indicate that they produce blockade of voltage-sensitive sodium channels, resulting in the stabilization of hyperexcited neural membranes, inhibition of repetitive neuronal firing, and dimunition of propagation of synaptic impulses. These actions are thought to be important in the prevention of seizure spread in the intact brain. In addition, increased potassium conduction and modulation of high-voltage activated calcium channels may contribute to the anticonvulsive effects of the drug. No significant interactions of oxcarbazepine or MHD with brain neurotransmitter or modulator receptor sites have been demonstrated. (from FDA Label) Literature References For more information about epilepsy, visit the official web site of the Epilepsy Foundation, a non-profit volunteer agency devoted to research, education, advocacy, and services in the community for people with epilepsy and their families: www.efa.org or visit Epilepsy-International.com, where you can find out about everything from dates of international conferences about epilepsy to a list of countries where Trileptal is available. Additional Information This is what the Epilepsy Foundation says to do and not to do if you encounter a person having an epileptic seizure: What To Do: * Look for medical identification. * Protect from nearby hazards. * Loosen ties or shirt collars. * Protect head from injury. * Turn on side to keep airway clear unless injury exists. * Reassure as consciousness returns. * If a single seizure lasted less than 5 minutes, ask if hospital evaluation wanted. * If there are multiple seizures, or if one seizure lasts longer than 5 minutes, call an ambulance. * If person is pregnant, injured, or diabetic, call for aid at once. What Not To Do: * Don’t put any hard implement in the mouth. * Don’t try to hold tongue. It can’t be swallowed. * Don’t try to give liquids during or just after seizure, * Don’t use artificial respiration unless breathing is absent after muscle jerks subside, or unless water has been inhaled. * Don’t restrain.

Response:

Paxil, Prozac, Effexor, Serzone, lithium, and Neurontin work by different mechanisms. Six drugs, and six paradoxical reactions is quite extraordinary. I always check the literature before I reply to questions such as this, and the only reference to paradoxical reactions comes from "other adverse effects reported during clinical trials". In other words, reported in less than 1% of subjects. There is absolutely nothing on Medline, and only case reports in Google searches. You’re far more likely to experience paradoxical rage on benzodiazepines than you are to experience paradoxical depression on SSRIs, or activation on lithium, according to the literature. Neurontin has a more variable effect than the other meds. Its is the common experience of sufferers of depression to do what is known as cycling through the meds, because of the high rate of reverse repsonse and adverse reactions and intolerable side effects, and its a lot of what is written about here..

Paradoxical reactions are but one type of adverse effect. the issue here wasn’t adverse effects per se, but one specific type thereof. dont mislead this poster by suggesting this very common experience is

rare… It is rare. your being bipoalr is no excuse for behaving badly…

You’re the one behaving badly. And for the 300th time, I’m not bipolar. I consider myself to be on the bipolar spectrum because I have had induced dysphoric mania, but that is an exclusionary factor for the formal diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Check the differential diagnosis section at the end of the diagnostic criteria at http://www.mentalhealth.com Reactions to meds is excluded.

Response:

Paxil, Prozac, Effexor, Serzone, lithium, and Neurontin work by different mechanisms. Six drugs, and six paradoxical reactions is quite extraordinary.

not necessarly…. i had the same experience…… i tried.. wellbutrin….. serzone….. and a good couple others i cant remember and they all gave me reactions that were immediate and negative…… in my case, i needed a mood stabiliser. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I always check the literature before I reply to questions such as this, and the only reference to paradoxical reactions comes from "other adverse effects reported during clinical trials". In other words, reported in less than 1% of subjects. There is absolutely nothing on Medline, and only case reports in Google searches. You’re far more likely to experience paradoxical rage on benzodiazepines than you are to experience paradoxical depression on SSRIs, or activation on lithium, according to the literature. Neurontin has a more variable effect than the other meds. Its is the common experience of sufferers of depression to do what is known as cycling through the meds, because of the high rate of reverse repsonse and adverse reactions and intolerable side effects, and its a lot of what is written about here.. Paradoxical reactions are but one type of adverse effect. the issue here wasn’t adverse effects per se, but one specific type thereof. dont mislead this poster by suggesting this very common experience is rare… It is rare. your being bipoalr is no excuse for behaving badly… You’re the one behaving badly. And for the 300th time, I’m not bipolar. I consider myself to be on the bipolar spectrum because I have had induced dysphoric mania, but that is an exclusionary factor for the formal diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Check the differential diagnosis section at the end of the diagnostic criteria at http://www.mentalhealth.com Reactions to meds is excluded.

– on and on and on and on it goes like tears from a star; like tears from a star .. on and on and on it shows just how fragile we are; how fragile we are… ~~ blessed am i to dwell in this beautiful temple ~~

Response:

Author: admin on
Category: Prozac Effexor
Tags: Prozac Effexor

Prescription Medication Knowledge Base » Side Effects Of Zoloft » social anxiety and depression

social anxiety and depression

Question:

Does anyone know of a good med or combination of meds for social anxiety and depression. I was on paxil for 6 months and gained 50 lbs and felt like I was on sleeping pills. It worked great except for the unbearable side effects. Zoloft made me aggressive and mean. Serzone made me confused and not able to think straight at work. I’m on wellbutrin now with ativan, but the wellbutrin makes me too anxious. Anyone have any suggestions that have worked for them? The main things is that I cannot gain any more weight!

Response:

Perhaps try adding in a little Celexa to what you’re already on? I haven’t used it, but from what I hear, once you get used to it, it seems to be the most side effect free SSRI, and many report weight management okay with it. –Frel. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Does anyone know of a good med or combination of meds for social anxiety and depression.

Response:

Dear Babydoll, It is almost impossible for anyone to "know" what med or med combo will work for you without the side-effects you are trying so hard to avoid. That is the unfortunate part of meds, you just don`t know what will work unless you go on them, it is all trial and error. There is one thing that is quite effective for Social anxiety and it has no side-effects , and that is cognitive behavioral therapy. Take care Jackie ~*~I am the master in my fate; I am the captain of my soul~*~

Response:

Author: admin on
Category: Side Effects Of Zoloft
Tags: Side Effects Of Zoloft

Prescription Medication Knowledge Base » Zoloft Xanax » What is the most effective treatment for BiPolar Depression?

What is the most effective treatment for BiPolar Depression?

Question:

Lamictal

Response:

Worn_Out, you seem to be feeling a little better, are you? hopefully

Response:

I am doing better. My wife says I am talking more & I have started kidding with my 24 year old daughter, again. I think the tofranil is helping & I am on my third week on testosterone injections. I have decided that bi-polar disorder is forever. I woke up this morning in very bad shape, but have gotten over it. Somehow we must all manage to survive because the bad times come and go and if things are bad now, they WILL get better. Thanks Worn_Out, you seem to be feeling a little better, are you? hopefully

Before you buy.

Response:

What % of manic depressives commit suicide?

I have heard that one in five commit suicide, but I wouldn’t swear by it. I hope you find a treatment that works for you. The future brings us the hope of new drugs and new treatments. Web Page at: www.robertpo.com For email replies remove the ****

Response:

What % of manic depressives commit suicide? I have heard that one in five commit suicide, but I wouldn’t swear by it. I hope you find a treatment that works for you. The future brings us the hope of new drugs and new treatments. Web Page at: www.robertpo.com For email replies remove the ****

I’ve seen studies that showed that 1 in 5 bipolars who refused treatment committed suicide. But…these were bipolars sick enough that they had been hospitalized, that’s where they were found for the study. Also, it stands to reason that those who refuse treatment are sicker with more personality problems than average. Also, these were people who were hospitalized in public hospitals, which again indicates that they were sicker…someone in a private hospital probably has been able to work until recently, and hasn’t alienated or shoved away family and friends yet. Still, taking your meds and working with your doctor is the best way to keep from getting worse…and worse can be very, very bad.

Response:

Paxil worked for me. Not to high though-Reached an even – level of comfort. It sounds like you have to find a MD (preferably, a psychopharmacologist) who knows how to mix different combinations of drugs. Don’t lose hope, though. If you do you start asking questions about suicide, and you might have to live it all again in the next life. At this point, paying for drugs is a bigger problem for the long haul than taking them. Any advice? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – After 13 years with BiPolar Disorder I have yet to find effective treatment for its depression. What is the most effective treatment for BiPolar Depression? What % of manic depressives commit suicide? Before you buy.

Response:

At this point, paying for drugs is a bigger problem for the long haul than taking them. Any advice?

I have been started on Tofranil/Imipramine and my pharmacy dispensed it in its generic form. Instead of paying a copay of $7.00 for the name brand I pay $2.00 for the generic. The book, "The Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs", shows that the name brand would be $.62/pill and the generic would be $.05/pill (the book was published in 1990). If this is still true, a great deal can be saved by buying generic, if possible. The book, "The Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs", by Jack M. Gorman, MD. is the best help in this area that I have found. If you can find a recent edition, I highly reccomend it. Good luck! Before you buy.

Response:

Drop trou Nihil You know you get a spanking for saying bad stuff like that. Bend over, ten whacks with the leather strap. 1 *[SMACK]* ( oouch) 2 *[WACK]* (stop) 3 *[CRACK]* ( I take it back, please stop) Let those warm yer buns a while, I’ll fix you a few fresh ones in a bit. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes After 13 years with BiPolar Disorder I have yet to find effective treatment for its depression. What is the most effective treatment for BiPolar Depression? Personally, I think that Doctor Kevorkian, whom I consider to be a Saint, has the best treatment.

Response:

Everyone is different. Tell me what you’ve tried, kay? Also, let me know what your additional symptoms are, etc. Have you had partial relief with certain drugs? There may be treatments that are better for BPI and treatments that are better for BPII. A lot of people take different drug cocktails, as I’m sure you know. A friend of mine is on lithium AND neurontin, among other things. I’ve been on lots of diff. stuff simultaneously: buspar, trazodone, klonopin, prozac, lithium, depakote, and neurontin are the bulk of the things I’ve been on. Are you taking an antidepressant and a mood stabilizer? -bpkittycat – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – After 13 years with BiPolar Disorder I have yet to find effective treatment for its depression. What is the most effective treatment for BiPolar Depression? What % of manic depressives commit suicide? Before you buy.

Response:

I am now on Tofranil and Lithobid. I have had about 35 ECT treatments (unilateral and bilateral). I have been on: Xanax Elavil Dexedrine Anafranil Welbutrin Buspar Tegretol Librium Valium Effexor Prozac Tofranil Librium Eskalith Ritalin Nardil Serzone Pamelor Parnate Paxil Prozac Risperdal Zoloft Xanax Thyroid Hormone Testosterone I appreciate your interest. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Everyone is different. Tell me what you’ve tried, kay? Also, let me know what your additional symptoms are, etc. Have you had partial relief with certain drugs? There may be treatments that are better for BPI and treatments that are better for BPII. A lot of people take different drug cocktails, as I’m sure you know. A friend of mine is on lithium AND neurontin, among other things. I’ve been on lots of diff. stuff simultaneously: buspar, trazodone, klonopin, prozac, lithium, depakote, and neurontin are the bulk of the things I’ve been on. Are you taking an antidepressant and a mood stabilizer? -bpkittycat

Before you buy.

Response:

Worn Out- I can see why you are frustrated I’ve forgotten what Tofranil is for. Antipsychotic? Antidepressant? MAOI or Tricyclic? What symptoms do you have the most trouble with? I seem to be depressed a lot, and have had depression for most of my life, and "only" a few major manic episodes. I suffer from migraines as well, and hope that the neurontin that I’ve just started will help in preventing the attacks (mania and migraine). I am wondering what you have tried and what you know about diet and how it affects mood. I would suggest, if you are not already doing so, to severely cut down on all carbohydrates, have lots of protein, and consume 3T of flax seed oil every day. Always use olive oil when you can, too (like in salad dressings, for dipping bread in, etc.). These new drugs for seizures are supposed to work for many treatment-resistant patients. check out the Neurontin facts posted earlier today if you haven’t already. Good luck, and I hope you get some good advice and new ideas from others… -bpkittycat – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am now on Tofranil and Lithobid. I have had about 35 ECT treatments (unilateral and bilateral). I have been on: Xanax Elavil Dexedrine Anafranil Welbutrin Buspar Tegretol Librium Valium Effexor Prozac Tofranil Librium Eskalith Ritalin Nardil Serzone Pamelor Parnate Paxil Prozac Risperdal Zoloft Xanax Thyroid Hormone Testosterone I appreciate your interest. Everyone is different. Tell me what you’ve tried, kay? Also, let me know what your additional symptoms are, etc. Have you had partial relief with certain drugs? There may be treatments that are better for BPI and treatments that are better for BPII. A lot of people take different drug cocktails, as I’m sure you know. A friend of mine is on lithium AND neurontin, among other things. I’ve been on lots of diff. stuff simultaneously: buspar, trazodone, klonopin, prozac, lithium, depakote, and neurontin are the bulk of the things I’ve been on. Are you taking an antidepressant and a mood stabilizer? -bpkittycat Before you buy.

Response:

After 13 years with BiPolar Disorder I have yet to find effective treatment for its depression. What is the most effective treatment for BiPolar Depression? What % of manic depressives commit suicide? Before you buy.

Response:

re: question #1: that’s the question, all right re: question #2: between 15 & 20% (some confusion, apparently, about whether this means *all* people with bipolar or just the untreated ones). What about the undiagnosed ones, then? I interpolate all this to indicate that the figure refers to all bipolars. — Deep – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – After 13 years with BiPolar Disorder I have yet to find effective treatment for its depression. What is the most effective treatment for BiPolar Depression? What % of manic depressives commit suicide? Before you buy.

Response:

: After 13 years with BiPolar Disorder I have yet to find effective : treatment for its depression. : : What is the most effective treatment for BiPolar Depression? There is no most effective treatment, it varies with the circumstances and individual. Passage of time usually brings with it some relief of symptoms. : : What % of manic depressives commit suicide? It is higher for untreated sufferers……15-20% if I recall correctly. nm : : : Before you buy. :

Response:

Author: admin on
Category: Zoloft Xanax
Tags: Zoloft Xanax

Prescription Medication Knowledge Base » Do Xanax And Zoloft Hinder Libido » Help for a New Sufferer Please

Help for a New Sufferer Please

Question:

Dear Steve, I’d like to add something to Mark’s good advice. You seem to have a case similar to mine in that your panic/terror lasts for days, in my case it can last for weeks. The only medicine that has ever touched it was xanax. Without xanax I am a candidate for suicide. I am only on 2mg a day, plus an anti depressant Serzone. You’ll probably need an anti-depressant, but if your case is severe enough an anti-depressant/anti-anxiety combination drug won’t touch your panic. It’s like those shampoos with the conditioner all-in-one, the shampoo washes out the conditioner!!!! Please, for your sake, if you have the option, find a doctor who will prescribe an anti-depressant (shampoo) and xanax (conditioner). I went the route your doctor wants you to travel and I’ve deteriorated through so much wait and let’s see that I can’t even work right now, I can’t leave the house. DISCLAIMER: This is my personal experience, but I brought it up since most panic attacks from what I’ve read here last up to 20 minutes, while mine last days and weeks, and yours last days… well, for too long I’ve let doctors put a small round circular band-aid (you know the kind) on a huge gaping wound. I’ve suffered more than anyone should have to . Most of us do, most of us are under medicated. It’s like we pay the doctor to keep us off medicine. Anyway, I am not you, and you are not me, but it never hurts to get a second opinion if you can afford it. If I’ve said anything in ignorance, someone please correct me. You Have My Very Best Wishes, Ashley ~*~*~*~ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve been a closet panic disorder, OCD vicitim most of my life. But lately it’s gotten much worse I started seeing a therapist last year. Initially, his advice of breathing exercises and such really worked. So much so I stopped seeing him. But 6 weeks ago, I had a horrible reaction after taking my first pill of an antibiotic (Levaquin) and wound up in the ER with just about every panic symtpom you could imagine. They didn’t subside for days. Finally, after the doctors shook their heads, I went to see my therapist and he had me try Xanax, which got me back to 70% of what I used to be. I was able to wean off of it after a week, but a few weeks later I fell right back into the gutter. I went back on the remaining Xanax I had, breaking the pills in half, until I could see my therapist. Now I am on a schedule to see him every week, and he wants me off the Xanax and on Zoloft instead. A day after my last Xanax, I already feel very anxious again. I’m also very concerned about going on Zoloft, as I read all the horror stories about it on the net. Can anyone offer any advice. After my reaction the the single levaquin antibiotic pill, I’m worried about trying anything new. Plus, now I don’t know what to do about my anxious state now that I am in-between meds. My therapists doesn’t want me on Xanax because it’s very addiciting. But I also here the Zoloft has lots of problems, and it takes a while to work. I’ve tried breathing exercises, and they help a bit, but not anywhere near enough. Thanks in advance for your help.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve been a closet panic disorder, OCD vicitim most of my life. But lately it’s gotten much worse I started seeing a therapist last year. Initially, his advice of breathing exercises and such really worked. So much so I stopped seeing him. But 6 weeks ago, I had a horrible reaction after taking my first pill of an antibiotic (Levaquin) and wound up in the ER with just about every panic symtpom you could imagine. They didn’t subside for days. Finally, after the doctors shook their heads, I went to see my therapist and he had me try Xanax, which got me back to 70% of what I used to be. I was able to wean off of it after a week, but a few weeks later I fell right back into the gutter. I went back on the remaining Xanax I had, breaking the pills in half, until I could see my therapist. Now I am on a schedule to see him every week, and he wants me off the Xanax and on Zoloft instead. A day after my last Xanax, I already feel very anxious again. I’m also very concerned about going on Zoloft, as I read all the horror stories about it on the net. Can anyone offer any advice. After my reaction the the single levaquin antibiotic pill, I’m worried about trying anything new. Plus, now I don’t know what to do about my anxious state now that I am in-between meds. My therapists doesn’t want me on Xanax because it’s very addiciting. But I also here the Zoloft has lots of problems, and it takes a while to work. I’ve tried breathing exercises, and they help a bit, but not anywhere near enough. Thanks in advance for your help.

Steve, It’s common to fear new meds (I do) when you have an anxiety disorder. But Zoloft has a good track record for anxiety/panic. You may not have any side effects at all or you may have bad enough side effects that you quit the Zoloft, it depends on your personal chemistry. As I see it, you have 2 choices: 1) take the Zoloft and see what happens (it could be very good) or 2) find a new therapist that’s not scared to perscribe Xanax. Calling Xanax "addictive" is not quite accurate. Users develop a "dependency" on Xanax. Which means that there’s a period of initial tolerance where you have to increase your dose a few times until you find a good level, it also means that you can’t quit cold turkey without withdraws. The user of an addictive drug wants to keep increasing the dose of the drug because the tolerance keeps getting stronger. The user also craves the drug, which usually doesn’t happen with Xanax. I’ve been on Xanax for more than a year and have never had a craving for it. I’ve even reduced my dose a bit and had some withdraws, but never a craving. BTW, if you take Zoloft long enough, you won’t be able to quit it cold turkey without risking some kind of withdraws. You have to wean off both Xanax and Zoloft (or most any drug that crosses the blood brain barrier). Also, you need to wean onto Zoloft at about half the rate you would if you were taking it for depression, this will reduce any side effects (anxiety sufferers are more sensitive to side effects). God bless, Mark Before you buy.

Response:

I’ve been a closet panic disorder, OCD vicitim most of my life. But lately it’s gotten much worse I started seeing a therapist last year. Initially, his advice of breathing exercises and such really worked. So much so I stopped seeing him. But 6 weeks ago, I had a horrible reaction after taking my first pill of an antibiotic (Levaquin) and wound up in the ER with just about every panic symtpom you could imagine. They didn’t subside for days. Finally, after the doctors shook their heads, I went to see my therapist and he had me try Xanax, which got me back to 70% of what I used to be. I was able to wean off of it after a week, but a few weeks later I fell right back into the gutter. I went back on the remaining Xanax I had, breaking the pills in half, until I could see my therapist. Now I am on a schedule to see him every week, and he wants me off the Xanax and on Zoloft instead. A day after my last Xanax, I already feel very anxious again. I’m also very concerned about going on Zoloft, as I read all the horror stories about it on the net. Can anyone offer any advice. After my reaction the the single levaquin antibiotic pill, I’m worried about trying anything new. Plus, now I don’t know what to do about my anxious state now that I am in-between meds. My therapists doesn’t want me on Xanax because it’s very addiciting. But I also here the Zoloft has lots of problems, and it takes a while to work. I’ve tried breathing exercises, and they help a bit, but not anywhere near enough. Thanks in advance for your help.

Response:

Author: admin on
Category: Do Xanax And Zoloft Hinder Libido
Tags: Do Xanax And Zoloft Hinder Libido

Prescription Medication Knowledge Base » Weight Gain A Side Effect Of Zoloft » anti-depressants that don't mess up your Sex Life

anti-depressants that don't mess up your Sex Life

Question:

Deb, When I first started Zoloft, I had migraines for about the first two weeks. My Dr. told me tha this is a very common side effect of Zoloft and does subside after about two weeks….It was very very hard those first two weeks, but I managed to survive it, and after that, was fine….to this day, don’t know how I did survive it ;o)…. Robin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Corna I forget the name of the one that gave me the headache so severly, but I have been on the prozac and the elavil, the prozac was a low dosage so I did not have much problem with that one but the one that gave me the headache…. shish that one you might as well called me a zombie! But I am going to see a new dr for my depression and wanted to get some great advice before talking it over with him deb/fl Hell o Deb, What type of antidepressants are you on that effect your sexlife. I ask because I have know sexual urges at all and I know that a big part of it is that I am in constant pain which just shrivels up all of my sexualness period, but I am also on Prosac. Do you know anything about that drug? Thanks, Erica Glynn Cona

I am in no way a physician or any other type of medical professional. I am just speaking from personal experience or information gained during my treatment or research ;o). Remove NOSPAM from the above email address to contact me.

Response:

Yikes! Migraines for two weeks?!?!?! How awful for you. I take 150 mgs of Zoloft daily and my experience has been good. No headaches. No decrease at all in either sexual desire or the ability to achieve orgasm (my lover has always said I am the most orgasmic woman he’s ever known… I attribute this to his skill <g). Also, the Zoloft has not unduly affected my appetite, which is good since I run to the underweight side anyway. Prozac and Paxil both killed my appetite completely. Of course, everyone is affected differently.

Response:

One of the most reported side effects of Prozac (or any SSRI) is that of sexual dysfunction. The higher the dose, the more likely you will experience this side effect. So….if RSD does cause sexual dysfunction…and…the large amount of Prozac you are taking causes sexual dysfunction… Well, it seems like you’re dealing with a double whammy. Hope you are able to take something like Viagra to overcome this! Sue – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The prozac was prescribed by Dr. Robert L. Knobler, One of the foremost authorities in RSD and neurological diseases. If you care to dispute that with him, feel free to do so. He is an MD, Phd, psychiatrist and the professor of neurology at the Thomas Jefferson College Of Medicine. In Philadelphia, Pa. Julio This is pure nonsense. A very large percentage of all people taking Prozac report diminished or absent interest in sex, or delayed or absent orgasm. This is more likely to occur on large doses, and 80 mg./day is a large dose. Make sure that the prescribing MD knows what he/she is doing. Normally, only psychiatrists know enough about the kind of conditions that justify very large doses of Prozac. Tim Miller I am up to 80Mg of Prozac a day, and the doctor said; "it’s not the prozac that dampens the sex drive." He went on to say that due to RSD affecting the lymbic system and the brain stem, (Primitive brain) That dampens the sex drive, and the ability to have an effective erection. My neighbors have the audacity to call me a hard man. LOL Julio It seems that no 2 people react the same to any given anti-depresant. I’ve tried a half dozen or so and can’t take any of them for one reason or another. a few really psycotic reactions convinced me that the whole class of meds probably was not a good thing for me. So far, none of my doctors has managed to convince me otherwise and believe me, they’re NOT likely to. That said, My partner takes Wellbutrin with very few unwanted side effects and only a little damping of the sex drive. (Of course, with a stiff neck and bad shoulders…. but that’s another story) Good luck Ty

Response:

Deb, I’m not a Pharmacist, but I did take Prozac on two different occasions, and do know some. A dose of 60mg daily of Prozac is a good healthy dose. Many people start off at 20mg and stay there for a long time or indefinitely. Also Prozac can take 6-8 weeks before it starts working, so you may not have given it enough time. Remember, that 6-8 weeks is an average…some may respond faster, while others take longer to respond. May I ask, who Rx’ed the Prozac to you? Someone else just posted about higher doses should really only be Rx’ed by a Psychiatrist who knows all about the drugs. On the other hand, Prozac just may not have been the drug for you. I have been on different Antidepressants (AD’s) over the years, be it for pain, depression, or both (some of the AD’s are also used to treat pain…Elavil, the other tricyclics, ad a new one out called Effexor, which is what I take now….). Some have worked well, while others didn’t do a thing. Paxil didn’t work at all for me, while Zoloft worked well, but stopped working completely after about two years, even after increasing the dose. Hope this has helped some…please email me off list if I can help you with anythihng else, or you just want to chat, vent, whatever ;o)…. Robin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Julio Nice neighbor hahaha I took prozac once and I didn’t think it seemed to help me much at all as I recall it was only 60mg but I took it for two months and still was in my black mood I wonder if maybe I needed a higher dosage… thanks for the input deb/fl I am up to 80Mg of Prozac a day, and the doctor said; "it’s not the prozac that dampens the sex drive." He went on to say that due to RSD affecting the lymbic system and the brain stem, (Primitive brain) That dampens the sex drive, and the ability to have an effective erection. My neighbors have the audacity to call me a hard man. LOL Julio It seems that no 2 people react the same to any given anti-depresant. I’ve tried a half dozen or so and can’t take any of them for one reason or another. a few really psycotic reactions convinced me that the whole class of meds probably was not a good thing for me. So far, none of my doctors has managed to convince me otherwise and believe me, they’re NOT likely to. That said, My partner takes Wellbutrin with very few unwanted side effects and only a little damping of the sex drive. (Of course, with a stiff neck and bad shoulders…. but that’s another story) Good luck Ty

Response:

One anti depressant that isn’t supposed to affect libido is Wellbutrin….. Robin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – K Once you find that anti-depressant that doesn’t suppress the libido, give me a call. Uh … wait. Once you find that anti-depressant that doesn’t suppress libido, give me a month or two to switch, and then call me. Still intellectually interested in the abstract idea db I was on zoloft, with a similar problem, and they put me on Luvox, which apparently has less affect on sexual functioning, although they’ve only tested it on *men*. Better, but still not what it was… Libido’s not as much of a problem as the climax issue. I’ve used up lots of batteries…. K. Yikes !!! Nope I think I would rather be happy and not sexually deprived hahaha thanks for your info deb/fl Well Celexa is supposed to be good for that… i am on it and it really did snap me out of my depression BUT despite what the "they say" my libido has definitely been affected along with the ability to climax, which is pretty damn depressing. You may want to try it, everyone is different and it’s supposed to have fewer side affects.

Response:

Joani I read your post and had to giggle thanks for the uplifting post and I couldn’t agree with you more even at 44 Your the best deb/fl

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have been taking Elavil and Zoloft. 100mg. Elavil and 100 mg of Zoloft….taken the Elavil longer, about ten years! So…the dry mouth is really, really a problem because I also have Sjrogren’s! I may be 65….but…I Am Not Dead! If you get my meaning…but..it is hard to find a "friend" at my age…so in the long run, I guess not having any isn’t to bad a problem. But I sure do Miss It!!!! Joani

Response:

K Once you find that anti-depressant that doesn’t suppress the libido, give me a call. Uh … wait. Once you find that anti-depressant that doesn’t suppress libido, give me a month or two to switch, and then call me. Still intellectually interested in the abstract idea db

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was on zoloft, with a similar problem, and they put me on Luvox, which apparently has less affect on sexual functioning, although they’ve only tested it on *men*. Better, but still not what it was… Libido’s not as much of a problem as the climax issue. I’ve used up lots of batteries…. K. Yikes !!! Nope I think I would rather be happy and not sexually deprived hahaha thanks for your info deb/fl Well Celexa is supposed to be good for that… i am on it and it really did snap me out of my depression BUT despite what the "they say" my libido has definitely been affected along with the ability to climax, which is pretty damn depressing. You may want to try it, everyone is different and it’s supposed to have fewer side affects.

Response:

Corna I forget the name of the one that gave me the headache so severly, but I have been on the prozac and the elavil, the prozac was a low dosage so I did not have much problem with that one but the one that gave me the headache…. shish that one you might as well called me a zombie! But I am going to see a new dr for my depression and wanted to get some great advice before talking it over with him deb/fl

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hell o Deb, What type of antidepressants are you on that effect your sexlife. I ask because I have know sexual urges at all and I know that a big part of it is that I am in constant pain which just shrivels up all of my sexualness period, but I am also on Prosac. Do you know anything about that drug? Thanks, Erica Glynn Cona

Response:

I have been taking Elavil and Zoloft. 100mg. Elavil and 100 mg of Zoloft….taken the Elavil longer, about ten years! So…the dry mouth is really, really a problem because I also have Sjrogren’s! I may be 65….but…I Am Not Dead! If you get my meaning…but..it is hard to find a "friend" at my age…so in the long run, I guess not having any isn’t to bad a problem. But I sure do Miss It!!!! Joani

Response:

The only anti-depressants that I’ve tried were the tricyclics (but I went through over a half-dozen of them) and in anything near an effective dosage, libido wasn’t the only problem — every one of them (and the others I suppose too) are psycho-active drugs and every one of them produces personality changes, after all, they ARE psycho-active drugs. The common side-effects are loss of libido, a general tranquilizing effect (that can be quite severe), and a sometimes separate loss of "will-power". And several of them also have cardiac side effects too. I also found that with Elavil (amytriptaline ?sp?) that the dry-mouth was intolerable in the dosage I required (100 mg). Norm

Response:

Howard thanks a million for your input! deb/fl

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you don’t mind a male entering this discussion – I tried four or five anti-depresants before I found one that works without negatively affecting my sex life or having negative side effects. Zoloft killed my sex drive and so did one or two others. For me Wellbutrin works well (no pun). Howard Aloha! Oh my! Is this a chicken and egg question? Our pain causes depression which will surpress the libido which is even more depressing. So start on the assumption that once the anti-depressant helps get the pain under control maybe the libido will have a chance to do its thing again. At least, I think so. Maybe not. Alohas! Suse (*_*) -**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?a ****- Search and Read Usenet Discussions in your Browser – FREE –

Response:

Ty thanks for the input I know I have alot of side affects from different ones.. weight gain to headaches etc and I was just trying to get all the imput possible before asking the dr for another type. deb/fl

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It seems that no 2 people react the same to any given anti-depresant. I’ve tried a half dozen or so and can’t take any of them for one reason or another. a few really psycotic reactions convinced me that the whole class of meds probably was not a good thing for me. So far, none of my doctors has managed to convince me otherwise and believe me, they’re NOT likely to. That said, My partner takes Wellbutrin with very few unwanted side effects and only a little damping of the sex drive. (Of course, with a stiff neck and bad shoulders…. but that’s another story) Good luck Ty

Response:

Julio Nice neighbor hahaha I took prozac once and I didn’t think it seemed to help me much at all as I recall it was only 60mg but I took it for two months and still was in my black mood I wonder if maybe I needed a higher dosage… thanks for the input deb/fl

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am up to 80Mg of Prozac a day, and the doctor said; "it’s not the prozac that dampens the sex drive." He went on to say that due to RSD affecting the lymbic system and the brain stem, (Primitive brain) That dampens the sex drive, and the ability to have an effective erection. My neighbors have the audacity to call me a hard man. LOL Julio It seems that no 2 people react the same to any given anti-depresant. I’ve tried a half dozen or so and can’t take any of them for one reason or another. a few really psycotic reactions convinced me that the whole class of meds probably was not a good thing for me. So far, none of my doctors has managed to convince me otherwise and believe me, they’re NOT likely to. That said, My partner takes Wellbutrin with very few unwanted side effects and only a little damping of the sex drive. (Of course, with a stiff neck and bad shoulders…. but that’s another story) Good luck Ty

Response:

This is pure nonsense. A very large percentage of all people taking Prozac report diminished or absent interest in sex, or delayed or absent orgasm. This is more likely to occur on large doses, and 80 mg./day is a large dose. Make sure that the prescribing MD knows what he/she is doing. Normally, only psychiatrists know enough about the kind of conditions that justify very large doses of Prozac. Tim Miller – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am up to 80Mg of Prozac a day, and the doctor said; "it’s not the prozac that dampens the sex drive." He went on to say that due to RSD affecting the lymbic system and the brain stem, (Primitive brain) That dampens the sex drive, and the ability to have an effective erection. My neighbors have the audacity to call me a hard man. LOL Julio It seems that no 2 people react the same to any given anti-depresant. I’ve tried a half dozen or so and can’t take any of them for one reason or another. a few really psycotic reactions convinced me that the whole class of meds probably was not a good thing for me. So far, none of my doctors has managed to convince me otherwise and believe me, they’re NOT likely to. That said, My partner takes Wellbutrin with very few unwanted side effects and only a little damping of the sex drive. (Of course, with a stiff neck and bad shoulders…. but that’s another story) Good luck Ty

Response:

It seems that no 2 people react the same to any given anti-depresant. I’ve tried a half dozen or so and can’t take any of them for one reason or another. a few really psycotic reactions convinced me that the whole class of meds probably was not a good thing for me. So far, none of my doctors has managed to convince me otherwise and believe me, they’re NOT likely to. That said, My partner takes Wellbutrin with very few unwanted side effects and only a little damping of the sex drive. (Of course, with a stiff neck and bad shoulders…. but that’s another story) Good luck Ty

Response:

Each antidepressant is a little different, and individual reactions differ, but Luvox is very similar to Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and others. It is prescribed less often because it is more likely to cause problems with nausea, and it is only labled for obsessive-compulsive disorder, though this is stricly a marketing ploy. Tim Miller – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was on zoloft, with a similar problem, and they put me on Luvox, which apparently has less affect on sexual functioning, although they’ve only tested it on *men*. Better, but still not what it was… Libido’s not as much of a problem as the climax issue. I’ve used up lots of batteries…. K. Yikes !!! Nope I think I would rather be happy and not sexually deprived hahaha thanks for your info deb/fl Well Celexa is supposed to be good for that… i am on it and it really did snap me out of my depression BUT despite what the "they say" my libido has definitely been affected along with the ability to climax, which is pretty damn depressing. You may want to try it, everyone is different and it’s supposed to have fewer side affects.

Response:

I was on zoloft, with a similar problem, and they put me on Luvox, which apparently has less affect on sexual functioning, although they’ve only tested it on *men*. Better, but still not what it was… Libido’s not as much of a problem as the climax issue. I’ve used up lots of batteries…. K. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yikes !!! Nope I think I would rather be happy and not sexually deprived hahaha thanks for your info deb/fl Well Celexa is supposed to be good for that… i am on it and it really did snap me out of my depression BUT despite what the "they say" my libido has definitely been affected along with the ability to climax, which is pretty damn depressing. You may want to try it, everyone is different and it’s supposed to have fewer side affects.

Response:

Prozac is well-known to reduce sexual interest, interfere with orgasm, etc. Same is true for other members of Prozac family, including Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, probably Effexor. Celexa might be better. Not clear yet. Other antidepressants don’t interfere with sexual interest, but the "tricyclic antidepressants" do often cause weight gain. Elavil, Tofranil, Pamelor, and others. (These are brand names. They have all gone generic, but the generics are harder to spell. amitriptylene is one of them. nortriptylene is another. imipramine is a third.) Antidepressants that don’t often cause weight gain and don’t normally interfere with sexual interest include Serzone and Wellbutrin, also Remeron, but watch out for weight gain, and trazadone (brand name is Desyrel). Maybe a few others I didn’t think of. There is a recent trend to help chronic pain sufferers with Depakote and Neurontin, particularly Neurontin. It’s labeled as an anticonvulsant, but has several good psychiatric uses. HTH. Tim Miller – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hell o Deb, What type of antidepressants are you on that effect your sexlife. I ask because I have know sexual urges at all and I know that a big part of it is that I am in constant pain which just shrivels up all of my sexualness period, but I am also on Prosac. Do you know anything about that drug? Thanks, Erica Glynn Cona

Response:

Hell o Deb, What type of antidepressants are you on that effect your sexlife. I ask because I have know sexual urges at all and I know that a big part of it is that I am in constant pain which just shrivels up all of my sexualness period, but I am also on Prosac. Do you know anything about that drug? Thanks, Erica Glynn Cona

Response:

If you don’t mind a male entering this discussion – I tried four or five anti-depresants before I found one that works without negatively affecting my sex life or having negative side effects. Zoloft killed my sex drive and so did one or two others. For me Wellbutrin works well (no pun). Howard – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Aloha! Oh my! Is this a chicken and egg question? Our pain causes depression which will surpress the libido which is even more depressing. So start on the assumption that once the anti-depressant helps get the pain under control maybe the libido will have a chance to do its thing again. At least, I think so. Maybe not. Alohas! Suse (*_*) -**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?a ****- Search and Read Usenet Discussions in your Browser – FREE –

Response:

Hello Everyone I hope you all are having a pain free day.. My question is can anyone give me advice about anti-depressants that do not mess up your sexual urges? Thanks deb/fl

Response:

Aloha!
Oh my! Is this a chicken and egg question?
Our pain causes depression which will surpress the libido which is even more depressing.
So start on the assumption that once the anti-depressant helps get the pain under control maybe the libido will have a chance to do its thing again. At least, I think so. Maybe not.
Alohas! Suse (*_*) -**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?a ****- Search and Read Usenet Discussions in your Browser – FREE –

Response:

Thanks Suse I was also under this impression however I have heard that they have new meds on the market that help with that problem I have seen the commercials on tv about it and just wondered if anyone from the group had tried any of them and how they thought they worked compared to the conventional anti-depressants deb/fl

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Aloha! Oh my! Is this a chicken and egg question? Our pain causes depression which will surpress the libido which is even more depressing. So start on the assumption that once the anti-depressant helps get the pain under control maybe the libido will have a chance to do its thing again. At least, I think so. Maybe not. Alohas! Suse (*_*) -**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?a ****- Search and Read Usenet Discussions in your Browser – FREE –

Response:

Well Celexa is supposed to be good for that… i am on it and it really did snap me out of my depression BUT despite what the "they say" my libido has definitely been affected along with the ability to climax, which is pretty damn depressing. You may want to try it, everyone is different and it’s supposed to have fewer side affects.

Response:

Yikes !!! Nope I think I would rather be happy and not sexually deprived hahaha thanks for your info deb/fl

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well Celexa is supposed to be good for that… i am on it and it really did snap me out of my depression BUT despite what the "they say" my libido has definitely been affected along with the ability to climax, which is pretty damn depressing. You may want to try it, everyone is different and it’s supposed to have fewer side affects.

Response:

Author: admin on
Category: Weight Gain A Side Effect Of Zoloft
Tags: Weight Gain A Side Effect Of Zoloft

Prescription Medication Knowledge Base » Discontinue Use Of Zoloft In Lewy Body Caus » Scott Weiser Related Discussions

Scott Weiser Related Discussions

Question:

ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS! Living in the UK, I frequently unsubscribe from rec.boats.paddle because there’s too much which isn’t relevant to the UK paddler. When I resubscribe (as I did last month), I’m always delighted when I find that Scott Weiser is still winding up paddlers, especially in the US. Best wishes

What a compliment. Many thanks…. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS!

Living in the UK, I frequently unsubscribe from rec.boats.paddle because there’s too much which isn’t relevant to the UK paddler. When I resubscribe (as I did last month), I’m always delighted when I find that Scott Weiser is still winding up paddlers, especially in the US. Best wishes Keith — |/| |_ |_) |_) / / canoeing instead of climbing when I | | |__ | | / __/ realised I could swim but not fly!"

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s all well and good to say that you, one individual boater, does no identifiable harm, but this ignores the impacts of scale, and when a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand boaters use the area, the cumulative impacts become significant. Just look at the Grand Canyon. yes – and that’s why most public lands that incur use impacts are placed in management plans. These plans seek to find the right balance – though I’ll admit it can be arbitrary – especially when it comes to mulltiple-use determinations. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation. indeed. the ‘public’ is the government. All land public or private is regulation by Federal, State, and local laws that prevent land-owners from using their land when the impacts of such use affect the public. If you don’t believe this.. try something like a 1000 head feed-lot on your property… or placer mining… or eve condos… none of these will you do without a ‘permit’ and the government decides on behalf of the public if your proposal is ‘in the public interest’. Some folks of late consider these ‘takings’ but underlying ‘public interest’ concept is intact.

This is true, and I’ve never denied the validity of properly constructed land-use law, but *restricting* a property owner’s use to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public is substantially different from *appropriating* his property for the use of the public. But this is true ONLY IF the 100 cattle *do* damage the riverbank. Such impacts are not really comparative in nature. Negative impacts cause by paddlers are not "better", or "less negative" impacts simply because they are caused by a paddler instead of a cow, they stand on their own, and when those impacts are unnecessary to begin with, they are that much more improper. hmmm.. they *are* comparative in terms of impacts… whether it is recreation, farming, mining.. all of these distill down to impacts that can be quantified in terms of water quality, habitat destruction, etc.

Yes, but an unnecessary impact is an unnecessary impact, no matter how small it may be. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Cattle may cause negative impacts, which can be mitigated by proper management practices, but cattle are *necessary* impacts in most cases, because they are what pay the taxes and create the profits that are used to continue to preserve the area. It’s all well and good to say "cattle-free in 2003" or whatever (though this mostly applies to federal lands) but the bills have to get paid somehow. I suppose when paddlers fork over the thousands of dollars a year to pay the taxes and maintain the property, then I’ll consider allowing them to trespass. Until then, their impacts, however slight, are *not necessary* to the preservation of the resource, and therefore they are justifiably banned. "can be mitigated by proper management practices" leaves it up to the landowner whoever that happens to be at a given time. this does not work when money is involved. Many landowners justify the destruction of the land they own for ‘economic benefits’. You are not unilaterally entitled to un-regulated economic activity just because you own the land. Your activity has to be compatible with the ‘public interest’ as there is hardly anything (economic) you can do on your property that won’t ultimately affect the public. There are thousands and thousands of local, state, federal laws that restrict you every which way from Sunday. You may consider recreation not necessary – the public may think otherwise – the same goes for what you think is ‘necessary’. If you public disagrees with you then you may be restricted.

Absolutely correct, but the fact that the government may regulate my activities in the public interest has no nexus to my ability to regulate YOUR activities on my land. As we have seen, even the government recognizes the impacts of recreationalists on public waters and has chosen to regulate them as well. I’m not sure what your point is. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’? Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that species and habitat may have been impacted by landowners is a broad generalization and an irrelevant comparison. In my case this is not the case, as is true in many other places, and you cannot claim that your impacts are legitimate merely because other impacts occur. Your impacts stand alone, on their own merits, and you are not excused by the bad behavior of others. Using your logic, you should be able to toss beer cans on the bank, leave rubbish around and cut down trees for firewood just because somebody else does so somewhere else. That’s fallacious logic at best. I follow the consistency argument and agree but behavior is governed by law whether it occurs on private or public property – though different laws may apply depending on the behavior – for instance some usually can be arrested for ’speeding on your property’ because the law does not apply to private property.

I don’t understand. You seem to be contradicting yourself. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around. This is simply not true. No one said that the riparian zone would become ‘devoid’ of life, and while wildlife may become habituated to some degree, the stresses of human intrusion *remain* to negatively affect populations and vigor. And that wildlife you may see, which may be habituated, ignores those "shy" species, which are in the majority, which may indeed leave the area altogether, or may simply begin a gradual decline. Our federal lands are managed for *multiple* use with the recognition that humans *will* have impacts, and those impacts are balanced against the benefits which accrue to the public. Factually, from a political point of view, it would be highly desireable to simply forbid human access to *most* wilderness areas in order to preserve the habitat, but it’s politically impossible to do so, so we instead try to mitigate the impacts we do have. That’s why permit systems are cropping up on more and more rivers. The impacts of scale have become clear and limitations are required to preserve the resource. Indeed – with respect to ‘wilderness designation’, it’s not the paddlers or recreation folks or environmentalists that are fighting it.. it’s the folks that want to build roads and use motors. Impacts from recreation are easily mitigated.. you employ a permit system and if an area has eagle nests.. then you close it off entirely. The right fringe/landowner rights movement is trying to strike down all of these laws.. they want it all wide open … so that power boats, ski doos, etc can you AND the impacts ARE comparative. 100 canoes CAN and ARE compared to 100 ski-doos. One single four-wheel drive can severly damage a trail… and it has become recognized that hikers can do but it’ll take a 1000 of them… so you permit the use.. no 4-wheel and only 10 hikers per day.. etc etc

True, but largely irrelevant. You do prove my point however that mitigating and preventing impacts is a legitimate method of preserving the resource. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is. Public officials don’t make the decisions, wrong… if the public doesn’t like the court decision they’ll change the law. The ‘law’ is determined by the legislature which consists of publically-elected officials. the Courts do. No amount of feverish desire in pursuit of the almighty dollar can prevent me, or someone else from filing a suit in court claiming an improper taking of private property for public use without just compensation. That’s the purpose of the Constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the infringements of the rights of the individual by the public. yep…but even the constition can be ammended if the people want it.

True, and when you succeed in repealing the Fifth Amendment, get back to me. While you are technically correct, you must recognize that private property ownership and the prohibitions against the government exproprating property without compensation are one of the core beliefs of our nation, and it’s simply not credible that the vast majority of the public, *who are property owners*, will tear up the Constitution simply to suit a *small number* of boating recreationists who aren’t satisfied with the public … read more »

Response:

It’s all well and good to say that you, one individual boater, does no identifiable harm, but this ignores the impacts of scale, and when a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand boaters use the area, the cumulative impacts become significant. Just look at the Grand Canyon.

yes – and that’s why most public lands that incur use impacts are placed in management plans. These plans seek to find the right balance – though I’ll admit it can be arbitrary – especially when it comes to mulltiple-use determinations. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation.

indeed. the ‘public’ is the government. All land public or private is regulation by Federal, State, and local laws that prevent land-owners from using their land when the impacts of such use affect the public. If you don’t believe this.. try something like a 1000 head feed-lot on your property… or placer mining… or eve condos… none of these will you do without a ‘permit’ and the government decides on behalf of the public if your proposal is ‘in the public interest’. Some folks of late consider these ‘takings’ but underlying ‘public interest’ concept is intact. But this is true ONLY IF the 100 cattle *do* damage the riverbank. Such impacts are not really comparative in nature. Negative impacts cause by paddlers are not "better", or "less negative" impacts simply because they are caused by a paddler instead of a cow, they stand on their own, and when those impacts are unnecessary to begin with, they are that much more improper.

hmmm.. they *are* comparative in terms of impacts… whether it is recreation, farming, mining.. all of these distill down to impacts that can be quantified in terms of water quality, habitat destruction, etc. Cattle may cause negative impacts, which can be mitigated by proper management practices, but cattle are *necessary* impacts in most cases, because they are what pay the taxes and create the profits that are used to continue to preserve the area. It’s all well and good to say "cattle-free in 2003" or whatever (though this mostly applies to federal lands) but the bills have to get paid somehow. I suppose when paddlers fork over the thousands of dollars a year to pay the taxes and maintain the property, then I’ll consider allowing them to trespass. Until then, their impacts, however slight, are *not necessary* to the preservation of the resource, and therefore they are justifiably banned.

"can be mitigated by proper management practices" leaves it up to the landowner whoever that happens to be at a given time. this does not work when money is involved. Many landowners justify the destruction of the land they own for ‘economic benefits’. You are not unilaterally entitled to un-regulated economic activity just because you own the land. Your activity has to be compatible with the ‘public interest’ as there is hardly anything (economic) you can do on your property that won’t ultimately affect the public. There are thousands and thousands of local, state, federal laws that restrict you every which way from Sunday. You may consider recreation not necessary – the public may think otherwise – the same goes for what you think is ‘necessary’. If you public disagrees with you then you may be restricted. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’? Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that species and habitat may have been impacted by landowners is a broad generalization and an irrelevant comparison. In my case this is not the case, as is true in many other places, and you cannot claim that your impacts are legitimate merely because other impacts occur. Your impacts stand alone, on their own merits, and you are not excused by the bad behavior of others. Using your logic, you should be able to toss beer cans on the bank, leave rubbish around and cut down trees for firewood just because somebody else does so somewhere else. That’s fallacious logic at best.

I follow the consistency argument and agree but behavior is governed by law whether it occurs on private or public property – though different laws may apply depending on the behavior – for instance some usually can be arrested for ’speeding on your property’ because the law does not apply to private property. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around. This is simply not true. No one said that the riparian zone would become ‘devoid’ of life, and while wildlife may become habituated to some degree, the stresses of human intrusion *remain* to negatively affect populations and vigor. And that wildlife you may see, which may be habituated, ignores those "shy" species, which are in the majority, which may indeed leave the area altogether, or may simply begin a gradual decline. Our federal lands are managed for *multiple* use with the recognition that humans *will* have impacts, and those impacts are balanced against the benefits which accrue to the public. Factually, from a political point of view, it would be highly desireable to simply forbid human access to *most* wilderness areas in order to preserve the habitat, but it’s politically impossible to do so, so we instead try to mitigate the impacts we do have. That’s why permit systems are cropping up on more and more rivers. The impacts of scale have become clear and limitations are required to preserve the resource.

Indeed – with respect to ‘wilderness designation’, it’s not the paddlers or recreation folks or environmentalists that are fighting it.. it’s the folks that want to build roads and use motors. Impacts from recreation are easily mitigated.. you employ a permit system and if an area has eagle nests.. then you close it off entirely. The right fringe/landowner rights movement is trying to strike down all of these laws.. they want it all wide open … so that power boats, ski doos, etc can you AND the impacts ARE comparative. 100 canoes CAN and ARE compared to 100 ski-doos. One single four-wheel drive can severly damage a trail… and it has become recognized that hikers can do but it’ll take a 1000 of them… so you permit the use.. no 4-wheel and only 10 hikers per day.. etc etc The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is. Public officials don’t make the decisions,

wrong… if the public doesn’t like the court decision they’ll change the law. The ‘law’ is determined by the legislature which consists of publically-elected officials. the Courts do. No amount of feverish desire in pursuit of the almighty dollar can prevent me, or someone else from filing a suit in court claiming an improper taking of private property for public use without just compensation. That’s the purpose of the Constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the infringements of the rights of the individual by the public.

yep…but even the constition can be ammended if the people want it. If I were to do as I suggest, *something* would happen, either the trespassers would be arrested, or *I* would be arrested for "illegally" preventing them from trespassing, or they would file a suit, or I would. And as soon as the matter comes to court, the LAW rules, and I am quite confident in the strength of my legal case.

Like I said… if the law in Colorado was rigidly enforced along the lines that you suggest… and paddlers were kicked off of the major streams.. you could expect the law to change – regardless of how the courts feel. When you have a law like they have in Colorado and it’s not enforced.. there is a message in it. Federal Laws can force changes in Colorado law also – and do all the time. In the end… in a democracy… "rights" are decided by the people. You have no "right" to economic activity or even landowner rights if the public that votes disagrees with you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Correct, and the point is that *somebody* just might own such places, and you could lose the access in a heartbeat due to the malefactions of one or two individual paddlers. yep – actually this is more common that most folks either know or will admit. In Virginia – The Cowpasture River ( not great whitewater but a really beautify mountain river) is essentially off-limits. Others include Back Creek and the Jackson. Had a little old lady point a long-barreled 45 at our group on the Bullpasture. She wanted us off of "her damned land" NOW! People have been arrested in the past and many others are "warned" by local landowners before they even put in. Interestingly, we *used* to be able to get permission from the landowner group for a number of years and then suddenly we were refused. Not because we had done anything wrong – we ALWAYS sought permission and ALWAYS were polite – but because 1 landowner out of dozens didn’t want ANYBODY and didn’t care whether they were polite or respectful or anything else. End of story. All of years of carefully trying to not step on anyones toes went for naught. Um….I think this qualifies as a "broad generalization" of the type which Richard was objecting to when applied to paddlers, so I guess I have to object to it when applied to "landowners". After all, my purpose is not to develop or destroy the resource, it’s to protect it from the damage caused by public use. yep, i erred in the generalization. there is a link however. I don’t buy your ‘protection’ argument. I’ve paddled hundreds of rivers in 30 years of boating and damage, if any, is miniscule compared to cattle, 4 wheelers, local trash dumps, roadside dumps, fishermen – believe it of not!, logging, farming, and industry.

This may be true elsewhere, but the fact that others may cause more damage does not reduce the impacts which boaters cause, and since whatever those impacts are are unnecessary, it’s perfectly proper to prevent them. Actually, of late, many rivers have been saved from damage by pointing out that they are used significantly for recreation. also interesting is that once a River becomes officially protected and becomes a destination for paddlers – the localities reap economic benefit AND the river then becomes essentially off-limits to single-minded proposals that *would* damage it.

If economic benefits were the only criteria perhaps this would be valid. You do make a valid point that public awareness of the particular value of a particular river can be helpful in protecting the resource, but far too often the negative impacts of public access do more harm than good. It’s all well and good to say that you, one individual boater, does no identifiable harm, but this ignores the impacts of scale, and when a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand boaters use the area, the cumulative impacts become significant. Just look at the Grand Canyon. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation. I don’t think it is a ‘delicate balance’ at all. In most cases, it is fairly clear what the landowners intentions are.. you can see it in the way they take care of ( or not ) the land. Recreation does not harm the land on near the same scale as say cattle. A hundred cattle can totally ruin a river bank and turn a clean stream into a mess. A 100 paddlers – even if they all urinated in unison wouldn’t even come close.

But this is true ONLY IF the 100 cattle *do* damage the riverbank. Such impacts are not really comparative in nature. Negative impacts cause by paddlers are not "better", or "less negative" impacts simply because they are caused by a paddler instead of a cow, they stand on their own, and when those impacts are unnecessary to begin with, they are that much more improper. Cattle may cause negative impacts, which can be mitigated by proper management practices, but cattle are *necessary* impacts in most cases, because they are what pay the taxes and create the profits that are used to continue to preserve the area. It’s all well and good to say "cattle-free in 2003" or whatever (though this mostly applies to federal lands) but the bills have to get paid somehow. I suppose when paddlers fork over the thousands of dollars a year to pay the taxes and maintain the property, then I’ll consider allowing them to trespass. Until then, their impacts, however slight, are *not necessary* to the preservation of the resource, and therefore they are justifiably banned. I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’?

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that species and habitat may have been impacted by landowners is a broad generalization and an irrelevant comparison. In my case this is not the case, as is true in many other places, and you cannot claim that your impacts are legitimate merely because other impacts occur. Your impacts stand alone, on their own merits, and you are not excused by the bad behavior of others. Using your logic, you should be able to toss beer cans on the bank, leave rubbish around and cut down trees for firewood just because somebody else does so somewhere else. That’s fallacious logic at best. If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around.

This is simply not true. No one said that the riparian zone would become ‘devoid’ of life, and while wildlife may become habituated to some degree, the stresses of human intrusion *remain* to negatively affect populations and vigor. And that wildlife you may see, which may be habituated, ignores those "shy" species, which are in the majority, which may indeed leave the area altogether, or may simply begin a gradual decline. Our federal lands are managed for *multiple* use with the recognition that humans *will* have impacts, and those impacts are balanced against the benefits which accrue to the public. Factually, from a political point of view, it would be highly desireable to simply forbid human access to *most* wilderness areas in order to preserve the habitat, but it’s politically impossible to do so, so we instead try to mitigate the impacts we do have. That’s why permit systems are cropping up on more and more rivers. The impacts of scale have become clear and limitations are required to preserve the resource. Those impacts are just as present on Boulder Creek, though to a lesser degree. The difficulty is that many jurisdictions are relying upon the *** snip legal rambling **** Pity I don’t own such a parcel…..I could bring this thing to a head quite quickly…. The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is.

Public officials don’t make the decisions, the Courts do. No amount of feverish desire in pursuit of the almighty dollar can prevent me, or someone else from filing a suit in court claiming an improper taking of private property for public use without just compensation. That’s the purpose of the Constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the infringements of the rights of the individual by the public. If I were to do as I suggest, *something* would happen, either the trespassers would be arrested, or *I* would be arrested for "illegally" preventing them from trespassing, or they would file a suit, or I would. And as soon as the matter comes to court, the LAW rules, and I am quite confident in the strength of my legal case. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

Correct, and the point is that *somebody* just might own such places, and you could lose the access in a heartbeat due to the malefactions of one or two individual paddlers.

yep – actually this is more common that most folks either know or will admit. In Virginia – The Cowpasture River ( not great whitewater but a really beautify mountain river) is essentially off-limits. Others include Back Creek and the Jackson. Had a little old lady point a long-barreled 45 at our group on the Bullpasture. She wanted us off of "her damned land" NOW! People have been arrested in the past and many others are "warned" by local landowners before they even put in. Interestingly, we *used* to be able to get permission from the landowner group for a number of years and then suddenly we were refused. Not because we had done anything wrong – we ALWAYS sought permission and ALWAYS were polite – but because 1 landowner out of dozens didn’t want ANYBODY and didn’t care whether they were polite or respectful or anything else. End of story. All of years of carefully trying to not step on anyones toes went for naught. Um….I think this qualifies as a "broad generalization" of the type which Richard was objecting to when applied to paddlers, so I guess I have to object to it when applied to "landowners". After all, my purpose is not to develop or destroy the resource, it’s to protect it from the damage caused by public use.

yep, i erred in the generalization. there is a link however. I don’t buy your ‘protection’ argument. I’ve paddled hundreds of rivers in 30 years of boating and damage, if any, is miniscule compared to cattle, 4 wheelers, local trash dumps, roadside dumps, fishermen – believe it of not!, logging, farming, and industry. Actually, of late, many rivers have been saved from damage by pointing out that they are used significantly for recreation. also interesting is that once a River becomes officially protected and becomes a destination for paddlers – the localities reap economic benefit AND the river then becomes essentially off-limits to single-minded proposals that *would* damage it. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation.

I don’t think it is a ‘delicate balance’ at all. In most cases, it is fairly clear what the landowners intentions are.. you can see it in the way they take care of ( or not ) the land. Recreation does not harm the land on near the same scale as say cattle. A hundred cattle can totally ruin a river bank and turn a clean stream into a mess. A 100 paddlers – even if they all urinated in unison wouldn’t even come close. I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’? If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around. The difficulty is that many jurisdictions are relying upon the

*** snip legal rambling **** Pity I don’t own such a parcel…..I could bring this thing to a head quite quickly….

The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is. Absolutely correct, and only by dialog between landowners and river users can such conflicts be peacefully and properly resolved with benefit to everyone.

I actually agree with the basic premise that no one is guanranteed access to private land because they are engaging in what they perceive as a ‘noble’ activity. Usually, it’s scumballs who cloak themselves with the ‘noble activity’ and then abuse the landowner. We’ve seen it with hunting and to some extent with boating. I’ve always subscribed to the idea that if someone owns the land that *I* need to *ask permission* and if they refuse – they refuse. It is their right. It burns my butt when 99 paddlers are polite and ask permission and then Mr asshole waltz’s in and screws it up for everybody. Folks from the ‘big’ cities are often the worst offenders. For some odd reason, I’ve never been able to understand they think they are ‘entitled’ to treaspass once in the rural landscape. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am willing to conceed to Scott that there is a valid interest in these dicussions on this newsgroup, but I do wish I could make the "NOT weiser" boolean search request work on my newsreader client. The problem I have with these posts is that Scott seems to be preoccupied with preaching legal findings and citing past relevant rulings to paddlers that are responding back with statements like "If I can paddle it, the river is navigable!" and "Just try to stop me!". Reading these threads is like sitting in a nicely furnished living room watching an acclaimed vet scold his dog by using the following phrase…"Sparky, the reason you should not urinate on the carpet is because the acidic nature of your fluid excrement has an adverse effect on both the optical appearance of this synthetic-based floor covering and also tends to react unpleasantly with the olfactory processes of myself and my house guests. Please, Sparky, give me a reason why I should not confine you to your pre-designated travel container." Whereas, the more intelligent vet, the person that learns through careful observation would say "Bad Dog, go to your box.", realizing that dogs do not make for good argument.

ROTFLMAO. What a hoot….I had not thought to compare kayakers to untrainable dogs. I sort of thought by presenting the evidence in (hopefully) a manner which the average adult could understand, that people would discover the logic involved themselves and make good decisions based upon that knowledge. I’ve had quite a bit of evidence that this is indeed the case. While you may tire of repetition (as I do), there is a constant stream of people who *don’t* understand and might like to who deserve to be informed of the controversy and the facts surrounding it so that they, too, can make informed decisions. My suggestion is that those who know the material and have made the decision, one way or the other, simply skip the threads altogether and allow those who *are* interested debate the matter with me in peace and quiet. Unfortunately, those who have seen the material cannot seem to control themselves and insist on insulting me and interrupting valid and interesting conversations among others. It’s a lot like a high-school student running into a class full of 8th graders and shouting "Hey, teach, shut the **ck up! I’ve heard all this before and you annoy me!" Why can’t those who don’t like the nature of the discussion simply switch off and go for a paddle and leave those who wish to discuss alone? I suspect it’s because such people are violently opposed to my particular argument and see it as dangerous, and decide to do whatever they can to disrupt the flow of information. It’s a lame attempt at censorship, nothing more, and I’ll tell you here and now it won’t work. I guess what I am trying to say here is that the best communicators are the ones that can tailor a response, argumentative or otherwise, to the intended audience. Make your point and make it clear. There is nothing wrong with being a highly intelligent, well versed, individual, but make no mistake…a highly- intelligent, well-versed idiot is still an idiot. Finally, Scott, if you feel the need to reply to this posting, I will assume that you deem me a colleague worth engaging with in meaningful debate. If your words truly express your feelings about me…

I think you have made a trenchant statement of fact, and I appreciate your candor. I hope that my reply is likewise informative. We agree more than we disagree, but I have a policy about "Shut the **ck UP!" threads, which is that I reply to them with whatever degree of politeness is called for until those posting to the thread….shut the **ck up. Then I return to the adult debates about access issues and the law with those who wish to discuss the issue. When nobody cares to discuss it anymore, then the thread dies and I retreat to my place under the bridge for a time, until some event stimulates me to begin again, for a new crop of paddlers who may be in need of enlightenment. (Your Previous Posting) <CLIP If you don’t like the course of the conversation, then toddle off and start one of your own instead of sniping at the adults who are having an interesting discussion. You sound like a three-year-old who’s whining and throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy is ignoring you. <CLIP …then why do you bother post a reply, I personally do not waste my time reasoning with someone that sounded like a spoiled three-year-old.

It’s not for *their* benefit, it’s for the benefit of others, and for my own amusement. If you do repond and I do not, please do not feel bad. Sometimes I go out and paddle instead of talking about it in this newsgroup.

Good plan. BTW- I apologize for the YELLING in my first post, it was uncalled for.

No problem, I’m a very forgiving kind of guy. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

Hey, hey. We should be counting our blessings. Suppose Mr. Weiser owned the put-in to the Ocoee or Chatooga?

Correct, and the point is that *somebody* just might own such places, and you could lose the access in a heartbeat due to the malefactions of one or two individual paddlers. Paddlers need to know about folks like him AND how he thinks. Mr. Weiser is representative of many ‘landowner rights’ advocates some of whom also belong to the ‘Wise Use’ groups. They usually not only want to keep paddlers off the rivers but they want to develop their land in any way they please even if it destroys natural resources.

Um….I think this qualifies as a "broad generalization" of the type which Richard was objecting to when applied to paddlers, so I guess I have to object to it when applied to "landowners". After all, my purpose is not to develop or destroy the resource, it’s to protect it from the damage caused by public use. Some folks think if they own land that it ‘ALL MINE’ and I can do with it what I want while others see themselves as temporary stewards responsible for passing the land on to others to also will practice stewardship.

It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation. It is a significant movement and unless paddlers and others become involved and pay attention – you’ll see more and more rivers placed off-limits. I’m amazed that if Colorado Law is what Mr. Weiser sez it is that ANY rivers out there can be accessed legally. Something doesn’t fit. I wonder how popular rivers fare on the access issue in that state.

The difficulty is that many jurisdictions are relying upon the Attorney General’s opinion of the effects of changing the definition of "premises", including the state Department of Natural Resources, which leads to inconsistent enforcement of the law and a misunderstanding of the law itself. The issue is still unresolved because no case has been brought to overturn the AG’s opinion and confirm the Emmert Court’s decision. I hope it won’t come to that, because such a ruling would *shut down* public recreational use of most of the important recreational waters of the state, including the Number section of the Arkansas, which, while most of it is on BLM or Forest Service land, is criss-crossed by private "inholdings", any one of which could choose at any time to prohibit trespass and thereby destroy the ability to complete the float at all, since there’s no way to egress at the closed properties. This is why I propose a system which allows the state to, in this example, *condemn* a recreational easement if necessary to assure continued access to the entire run. But the essential part is that the state must *pay for* the access. After all, commercial whitewater recreation on the Arkansas is a multi-million dollar industry, which makes that easement quite valuable. I’ve suggested before the possibility that a landowner who owns a strip of land under the river somewhere in the middle of the popular section could simply take photos of every commercial raft which passes by in a season, identify the outfitter, count the number of heads and send them a bill at, say, $5.00 a head for a "trespass fee." I imagine this would get the attention of the recreational community rather quickly. Pity I don’t own such a parcel…..I could bring this thing to a head quite quickly…. The thread has been excellent raising awareness and I’ll bet more than a few now realize how important it is to contribute/join the AWA who works on behalf paddlers on access issues.

Absolutely correct, and only by dialog between landowners and river users can such conflicts be peacefully and properly resolved with benefit to everyone. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

Shut Up, Shut up, Shut Up!!! For the love of God people please stop this nonesense. Like everyone else I give a damn but I’m F%#$ing tired of seeing all these lame Wesier posts. Dear lord have mercy on our souls!! T.J.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey, hey. We should be counting our blessings. Suppose Mr. Weiser owned the put-in to the Ocoee or Chatooga? Paddlers need to know about folks like him AND how he thinks. Mr. Weiser is representative of many ‘landowner rights’ advocates some of whom also belong to the ‘Wise Use’ groups. They usually not only want to keep paddlers off the rivers but they want to develop their land in any way they please even if it destroys natural resources. Some folks think if they own land that it ‘ALL MINE’ and I can do with it what I want while others see themselves as temporary stewards responsible for passing the land on to others to also will practice stewardship. It is a significant movement and unless paddlers and others become involved and pay attention – you’ll see more and more rivers placed off-limits. I’m amazed that if Colorado Law is what Mr. Weiser sez it is that ANY rivers out there can be accessed legally. Something doesn’t fit. I wonder how popular rivers fare on the access issue in that state. The thread has been excellent raising awareness and I’ll bet more than a few now realize how important it is to contribute/join the AWA who works on behalf paddlers on access issues.

I will go against the spirit of my original post and add a few more coals to the fire. Larry, you make a good point here. It is important that people reading this newsgroup realize the opinions of Scott and landowners like him. I do admit that I skimmed over the legal content of your posting pretty lightly, because I myself (speaking only for myself) do not give much consideration to written law while paddling. Not to say that I am a scofflaw, I just rely on simple common sense and judgement when leaving the city for a relaxing paddling trip. In my opinion, many access laws are on the books for liability reasons. There is a certain river here in the Southeast, that is officially banned from access. I have been told by local law enforcement officials that they do not particularly mind paddlers on the river, nor do they bother them if the right attitude is excercised by the group. The law was enacted to protect the state in the event of an unforseen accident. When I paddle, I paddle until told not to. If a local landowner expresses their concern in my paddling, I respect their wishes. If I should get arrested and am legally "in the wrong", I pay my fine and do not visit that particular area again. This approach has not failed me yet. Mutual respect goes quite a long way here in the Southeast. Maybe things are different in Colorado, I really do not know. I am not saying we should feel that we have the right to paddle anywhere. I am simply saying that 9 times out of ten, if you are not making a problem for anyone, people usually do not make problems for you. If Mr. Weiser’s family property on Boulder Creek contains a fence to control livestock, and by Colorado law they have a right to maintain that fence, then I would say paddling that section does impose a problem on someone, so it shold be avoided. It is quite possible that if there was no need for the fence, the Weisers may not care if their property is paddled across, who knows, it does not really matter. If I am paddling down a "legal" creek and a trout fisherman has inadvertantly snagged his line across the river, I wait, or help, or get out and walk around. I do not care who is or is not supposed to be there. (enough rambling, I will try to make my point here.) I am willing to conceed to Scott that there is a valid interest in these dicussions on this newsgroup, but I do wish I could make the "NOT weiser" boolean search request work on my newsreader client. The problem I have with these posts is that Scott seems to be preoccupied with preaching legal findings and citing past relevant rulings to paddlers that are responding back with statements like "If I can paddle it, the river is navigable!" and "Just try to stop me!". Reading these threads is like sitting in a nicely furnished living room watching an acclaimed vet scold his dog by using the following phrase…"Sparky, the reason you should not urinate on the carpet is because the acidic nature of your fluid excrement has an adverse effect on both the optical appearance of this synthetic-based floor covering and also tends to react unpleasantly with the olfactory processes of myself and my house guests. Please, Sparky, give me a reason why I should not confine you to your pre-designated travel container." Whereas, the more intelligent vet, the person that learns through careful observation would say "Bad Dog, go to your box.", realizing that dogs do not make for good argument. I guess what I am trying to say here is that the best communicators are the ones that can tailor a response, argumentative or otherwise, to the intended audience. Make your point and make it clear. There is nothing wrong with being a highly intelligent, well versed, individual, but make no mistake…a highly- intelligent, well-versed idiot is still an idiot. Finally, Scott, if you feel the need to reply to this posting, I will assume that you deem me a colleague worth engaging with in meaningful debate. If your words truly express your feelings about me… (Your Previous Posting) <CLIP If you don’t like the course of the conversation, then toddle off and start one of your own instead of sniping at the adults who are having an interesting discussion. You sound like a three-year-old who’s whining and throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy is ignoring you.

<CLIP …then why do you bother post a reply, I personally do not waste my time reasoning with someone that sounded like a spoiled three-year-old. If you do repond and I do not, please do not feel bad. Sometimes I go out and paddle instead of talking about it in this newsgroup. BTW- I apologize for the YELLING in my first post, it was uncalled for. SYOTR (well maybe 99.9% of you) -Craig

Response:

From, Mick "Better to be paddlin’ hard than hardly paddlin’ "

Response:

I think it’s kind of funny. Near the beginning of the great return of Weiser, everyone was more or less agreeing with him. Now he’s isolated himself against the NG again by posting more to this newsgroup on a few days than I have since I’ve started looking at it.

Of course, the slingers of insults who *start* the threads have *nothing* to do with it…..not… If only the "vocal minority" were able to leave well enough alone, then perhaps these pyrotechnic offshoots wouldn’t happen, but of course, unable to audit their conduct, they just *have* to get a dig in there. Well, poke me and I poke right back. You want it to stop, you stop it. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

Hey, hey. We should be counting our blessings. Suppose Mr. Weiser owned the put-in to the Ocoee or Chatooga? Paddlers need to know about folks like him AND how he thinks. Mr. Weiser is representative of many ‘landowner rights’ advocates some of whom also belong to the ‘Wise Use’ groups. They usually not only want to keep paddlers off the rivers but they want to develop their land in any way they please even if it destroys natural resources. Some folks think if they own land that it ‘ALL MINE’ and I can do with it what I want while others see themselves as temporary stewards responsible for passing the land on to others to also will practice stewardship. It is a significant movement and unless paddlers and others become involved and pay attention – you’ll see more and more rivers placed off-limits. I’m amazed that if Colorado Law is what Mr. Weiser sez it is that ANY rivers out there can be accessed legally. Something doesn’t fit. I wonder how popular rivers fare on the access issue in that state. The thread has been excellent raising awareness and I’ll bet more than a few now realize how important it is to contribute/join the AWA who works on behalf paddlers on access issues.

Response:

I apologize in advance, but there really is no diplomatic way to state this… ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS!

Thank you for that trenchant commentary. I am a kayaker. I view and post to this newsgroup in order to keep abreast of new happenings in the sport I love.

And access debates have nothing to do with your sport? Boy, are you deluded. And just what makes you think that anyone else is obliged to give a rodent’s fundamental orifice about why YOU choose to participate here or what YOU like or want? When I see three postings (or threads) involving a river access issue, I think "Good debate, there have been some valid issues presented here". When I see thirty posts, mostly by one individual, I think "These (expletive’in) people have nothing better to do with their time."

Well, I do rather enjoy jousting with the fine folks here…and the Netwits too. It’s my time to waste though, so what’s your beef? Remember, I only post in reply to a query or discussion from someone else who, axiomatically, *is* interested in the subject. Please, If you are absolutely hot-and-bothered to the point that you are treating this news group like your own personal chat-room, I understand…But keep it private, e-mail is really an ideal medium for this type of thing. Don’t clog this otherwise interesting group with twenty different post that are essentially the same in content.

Clog the group? Have you ever heard of a concept called the "delete" key? How about the "down arrow" key? Both of them will allow you to completely bypass any discussion which might cause consternation and confusion in your tiny mind. There’s and even better one….it’s called the "OFF" switch. Use it in good health, but USE it. If the posts are the same in content, it’s because others keep asking the same questions, and as long as they do, I’ll keep responding to them because it’s the polite thing to do. For the record, Yes, I do now know that Scott Weiser(sp?) is very familiar with private domain laws in Colorado and he would prefer that kayakers show a little more respect towards his family’s legal wishes. I also know that there are a lot of disrespectful boaters out there that believe once the water droplet leaves the cloud, it is there God-given right to use it at their convenience. Well folks, these are things I learned in the first few posts. I can see both sides of the argument, but really do not give a flying (expletive)!

And so you would impose your will on everyone else, some of whom might be interested, simply because you don’t have the wit to skip a thread. How very altruistic of you. If you have any other opinions that you think I am interested in past that point, know that I am not. If any of you involved in this thread think of any other gems that need to be discussed pertaining to this topic. Please, WRITE YOUR (EXPLETIVE’IN) CONGRESSMAN OR SHUT THE (EXPLETIVE) UP!

Let me see if I can put this delicately……No. If you don’t like the course of the conversation, then toddle off and start one of your own instead of sniping at the adults who are having an interesting discussion. You sound like a three-year-old who’s whining and throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy is ignoring you. Grow up and act like an adult. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You know, I agree with just about everything Scott said in this post. Nobody forces you to read every article on the newsgroup. Just skip over the threads you don’t like. I know we’ve gone over this subject a zillion times, but apparently we keep getting new people in the group who are not aware of the differences in access laws from place to place. Some of these people want argue with Scott, but it really won’t do them any good–they can’t change the laws of the state of Colorado. They do, however, learn from the exchanges. And for every person who posts in the thread, there are at least ten who are reading it and learning from it. If paddlers improve their behaviour wrt access, then maybe some irate landowners who have the power to block access to put-ins or even to the entire river may decide that paddlers aren’t so bad. If these threads improve our collective behaviour enough that the closure of just one river is avoided, then it will be worthwhile.

Well said. I do take issue with one of Scott’s statements, though. Remember, I only post in reply to a query or discussion from someone else who, axiomatically, *is* interested in the subject. Scott, you were the first poster on this subject. So one out of the dozens of your posts was NOT a repy. (OK, I may be picking at straws there, but read on.) Also, just the other day, you replied to a post that was completely unrelated (i.e. had nothing to do with access), and did so in a manner that seemed (to me) aimed at starting another big thread. Hence, you do not ONLY post to reply to questions about access, although I would agree that the vast majority of your posts are valid replies. If you had said that you "usually" or "generally only reply… then I would have no argument with your statement.

Well, you’ve got me there. I admit to priming the pan from time to time, but you can hardly blame me when the flash occurs. It’s possible for everyone to simply ignore my flashy lures, but it’s also highly unlikely, as I have discovered, and so I take advantage of that phenomenon to stimulate debate, and this has been another interesting and lively debate, and, as you so succintly said, some people learned something new. Whether they like what they learned, or agree with it is unimportant, what’s important is that they have had their horizons expanded, which is *always* a good thing. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I apologize in advance, but there really is no diplomatic way to state this… ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS! I am a kayaker. I view and post to this newsgroup in order to keep abreast of new happenings in the sport I love. When I see three postings (or threads) involving a river access issue, I think "Good debate, there have been some valid issues presented here". When I see thirty posts, mostly by one individual, I think "These (expletive’in) people have nothing better to do with their time." Please, If you are absolutely hot-and-bothered to the point that you are treating this news group like your own personal chat-room, I understand…But keep it private, e-mail is really an ideal medium for this type of thing. Don’t clog this otherwise interesting group with twenty different post that are essentially the same in content. For the record, Yes, I do now know that Scott Weiser(sp?) is very familiar with private domain laws in Colorado and he would prefer that kayakers show a little more respect towards his family’s legal wishes. I also know that there are a lot of disrespectful boaters out there that believe once the water droplet leaves the cloud, it is there God-given right to use it at their convenience. Well folks, these are things I learned in the first few posts. I can see both sides of the argument, but really do not give a flying (expletive)! If you have any other opinions that you think I am interested in past that point, know that I am not. If any of you involved in this thread think of any other gems that need to be discussed pertaining to this topic. Please, WRITE YOUR (EXPLETIVE’IN) CONGRESSMAN OR SHUT THE (EXPLETIVE) UP! By the way, if any of you would like to paddle this weekend, let me know Let me out of this concrete jungle, -Craig "no playboat yet" Geist

You better watch out buddy … you started a new possible deadly feud here … you better know that Mr. Weiser is a very fast typist, commands the English language like no other, is an expert of all laws of the king’s land, he is a sharp shooter (he is also a gunsmithlike expert) and a land "king size" owner. You are doomed my friend! Scotty will beam your tired sorry paddling ass up! PS: I really felt sorry for the incident and for the two idiots that went after Mr. Weiser’s mother but this is to much! Fred Fred Mechini Visit my homepage http://pluto.njcc.com/~fmec/Welcome.html A WEB PAGE DEDICATED TO OLYMPIC SPRINT KAYAK

Response:

You know, I agree with just about everything Scott said in this post. Nobody forces you to read every article on the newsgroup. Just skip over the threads you don’t like. I know we’ve gone over this subject a zillion times, but apparently we keep getting new people in the group who are not aware of the differences in access laws from place to place. Some of these people want argue with Scott, but it really won’t do them any good–they can’t change the laws of the state of Colorado. They do, however, learn from the exchanges. And for every person who posts in the thread, there are at least ten who are reading it and learning from it. If paddlers improve their behaviour wrt access, then maybe some irate landowners who have the power to block access to put-ins or even to the entire river may decide that paddlers aren’t so bad. If these threads improve our collective behaviour enough that the closure of just one river is avoided, then it will be worthwhile. I do take issue with one of Scott’s statements, though. Remember, I only post in reply to a query or discussion from someone else who, axiomatically, *is* interested in the subject.

Scott, you were the first poster on this subject. So one out of the dozens of your posts was NOT a repy. (OK, I may be picking at straws there, but read on.) Also, just the other day, you replied to a post that was completely unrelated (i.e. had nothing to do with access), and did so in a manner that seemed (to me) aimed at starting another big thread. Hence, you do not ONLY post to reply to questions about access, although I would agree that the vast majority of your posts are valid replies. If you had said that you "usually" or "generally only reply… then I would have no argument with your statement. -Paul

Response:

I apologize in advance, but there really is no diplomatic way to state this… ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS! I am a kayaker. I view and post to this newsgroup in order to keep abreast of new happenings in the sport I love. When I see three postings (or threads) involving a river access issue, I think "Good debate, there have been some valid issues presented here". When I see thirty posts, mostly by one individual, I think "These (expletive’in) people have nothing better to do with their time." Please, If you are absolutely hot-and-bothered to the point that you are treating this news group like your own personal chat-room, I understand…But keep it private, e-mail is really an ideal medium for this type of thing. Don’t clog this otherwise interesting group with twenty different post that are essentially the same in content. For the record, Yes, I do now know that Scott Weiser(sp?) is very familiar with private domain laws in Colorado and he would prefer that kayakers show a little more respect towards his family’s legal wishes. I also know that there are a lot of disrespectful boaters out there that believe once the water droplet leaves the cloud, it is there God-given right to use it at their convenience. Well folks, these are things I learned in the first few posts. I can see both sides of the argument, but really do not give a flying (expletive)! If you have any other opinions that you think I am interested in past that point, know that I am not. If any of you involved in this thread think of any other gems that need to be discussed pertaining to this topic. Please, WRITE YOUR (EXPLETIVE’IN) CONGRESSMAN OR SHUT THE (EXPLETIVE) UP! By the way, if any of you would like to paddle this weekend, let me know Let me out of this concrete jungle, -Craig "no playboat yet" Geist

Response:

Author: admin on
Category: Discontinue Use Of Zoloft In Lewy Body Caus
Tags: Discontinue Use Of Zoloft In Lewy Body Caus

Prescription Medication Knowledge Base

Discuss the issues around popular medications

Advair. My father died after taking this drug for 1 month.

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Foradil

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

EFFEXOR

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Anybody get reverse effects from meds?

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

social anxiety and depression

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

What is the most effective treatment for BiPolar Depression?

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Help for a New Sufferer Please

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

anti-depressants that don't mess up your Sex Life

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response: