Financial Aid and Drug Convictions APWide World Pat.docx

Financial Aid and Drug Convictions
AP/Wide World
Patricia Perry displays a brochure for
the John W. Perry Fund, named for her
son, which provides scholarships for
students denied financial aid because of
a drug conviction.
A college education is a major ambition of many high school
students in the U.S., and the number of
prospective college students has expanded tremendously over
the last several decades. Yet, at the same time,
tuition costs have also swelled. As both the demand for a
college degree and the cost of attaining one have
expanded, many families have had difficulty financing higher
education.
To meet that burden, many students rely on financial aid, which
can take many forms. In some instances, it is
provided by individual colleges to incoming students, on the
basis of either demonstrated need or exceptional
merit. A large portion of financial aid, however, comes from the
federal government. Through a variety of
programs, the government doles out grants and loans to millions
of students each year. [See 1998 College
Tuition Costs]
Before receiving money distributed by the federal government,
students must meet certain conditions. Mostly,

those conditions involve a student's financial situation. Students
are obligated to provide detailed information
about their family's financial assets, and the government
calibrates the amount of aid given to meet financial
need. But financial aid also sometimes depends on non-financial
considerations. Often those considerations
aim at promoting or discouraging certain types of behavior or
activities. For example, partly as a means to
promote military service, the federal government gives special
eligibility to veterans.
Usually those provisions are uncontroversial, but a recently
imposed condition for financial aid has aroused
contention: Students with drug convictions cannot receive aid.
Since 1998, federal law has held that students
with any adult drug conviction, regardless of its severity, lose
access to federal aid. Although the law was not
immediately enforced, it is now fully acknowledged and
vigilantly applied. Since its inception, however, the law
has attracted debate over its fairness.
Proponents of the provision say that it sends an important
message to students: Respect the law, or do not
expect to benefit from government programs. Conditioning
financial aid on keeping a clean record holds
students accountable for their actions and denies special
privileges to those unwilling to play by the rules,
proponents argue.
Attaching financial aid to an absence of drug convictions also
counteracts the cultural tendency to regard
javascript:void(0);�

youthful drug use leniently, supporters declare. Increasingly,
they say, people associate drug experimentation
with the experience of going to college. Refusing to finance the
education of convicted drug users is a way to
counter benign notions of drug use, proponents argue.
Tying aid to avoiding drug convictions will also rescue kids
from the perils of drug use, proponents insist. By
creating a strong incentive to stay away from drugs--because
students know even a minor infraction can
jeopardize educational opportunities--the law will convince
students not to experiment with drugs, proponents
say.
Critics of attaching financial aid to students' drug records, on
the other hand, characterize the policy as
misguided and unfair. Punishing students with drug convictions
by cutting off financial aid has a far greater
impact on less affluent students, who are much more likely to
depend on financial aid, opponents assert. A
policy that is inherently harsher on students with less money is
unacceptably unfair, they say.
Jeremy Eagle
The new provision is also racially biased, critics contend. Under
the current criminal justice system, which some
observers characterize as racist, African-Americans and Latinos
are far more likely to receive drug convictions,
despite rates of drug use roughly equivalent to those of whites.
Conditioning financial aid on avoiding drug
convictions, opponents argue, extends a racial bias that
pervades the criminal justice system into the realm of

education.
Denying aid to students with drug convictions makes little
sense, opponents argue, when students convicted of
more destructive crimes remain eligible for aid. There is no
justification for imposing a punishment on petty drug
users while exempting people convicted of crimes like murder
or assault, critics assert.
Finally, critics say that the provision undermines its own goals.
Higher education, they say, tends to alleviate the
factors that encourage drug use, like unemployment and
poverty. Students with drug problems stand to benefit
the most from a college education, opponents contend, so
denying them the opportunity to receive one only
reinforces drug use.
Should financial aid be linked to drug convictions? Does the
current policy discourage drug use or reinforce its
causes?
Financial Aid and the Federal Government
The federal government provides a substantial portion of the
financial aid given to college students every year in
the U.S. Its involvement in financing higher education,
however, is only about 60 years old. Throughout that
period, the federal government has funded programs for a
variety of reasons, including bolstering the economy,
helping needy families and strengthening national defense.
The first federally financed student aid program was established
by the 1944 Servicemen's Readjustment Bill,
popularly referred to as the GI Bill. Passed as World War II

(1939-45) drew to a close, the bill offered funds to
veterans seeking higher education or job training. The bill's
purpose was to boost the national economy by
increasing the number of qualified workers.
The next federal student aid program, established by the 1958
National Defense Education Act, was intended
as a tool of national security. That law implemented a student
loan program for students pursuing programs in
math, science or modern languages. Its justification emerged
largely in the context of the U.S.'s Cold War rivalry
with the Soviet Union: The government sought to ensure that
the scientists designing the country's national
security infrastructure enjoyed training superior to that of their
Soviet counterparts.
The federal financial aid legislation with the most lasting
impact is the Higher Education Act (HEA), originally
enacted in 1965. The HEA deals with many facets of higher
education, including financial aid. Title IV of the
HEA declares the government's commitment to helping students
and families finance a college education.
Under the umbrella of Title IV, the government runs several aid
programs that give grants and loans to students
for a variety of reasons. Those programs include Perkins Loans,
Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grants, Work-Study Programs and others.
The HEA must be reauthorized by Congress every five years.
Each round of examination and reauthorization
typically results in some changes to the law, sometimes
substantial. Accordingly, the HEA reflects the evolving
priorities of lawmakers.
Barring Aid to Students with Drug Convictions

In 1998 Congress added a provision to the HEA that continues
to spark controversy. The amendment, written
by Rep. Mark Souder (R, Ind.), withholds money under any
federally funded aid program from students
convicted as an adult of any drug-related crime. The provision
states: "A student who has been convicted of any
offense under any federal or state law involving the possession
or sale of a controlled substance shall not be
eligible to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance under this
title."
Under the Souder amendment, a student becomes ineligible for
aid for one year after the first drug offense, two
years after the second and indefinitely after the third. Eligibility
may be restored if a student completes a drug
rehabilitation program. The law takes effect only if a student is
convicted as an adult. (That does not mean the
student must be older than 18 at the time of conviction, because
in some cases minors are tried and convicted
as adults). [See 2002 Financial Aid Restriction Affects Minors
Tried as Adults (sidebar)]
The Education Department initially had problems enforcing the
new provision. On the application to receive
federal aid for the 2000-01 school year, the question regarding
prior drug convictions was worded in what many
considered a confusing way, and 279,044 applicants left that
question blank. The Education Department,
confident that the bulk of the omissions reflected confusion
over the question rather than a desire to evade it,
treated blank responses as negative answers.
However, in the application for the 2001-02 school year, the
drug conviction question was reworded and
applicants were specifically instructed not to leave it blank.
Applicants who fail to answer the question are now

denied aid. Statistics released by the Education Department in
January 2002 show that more than 43,000
applicants were denied aid for the 2001-02 school year on the
basis of drug convictions.
Opponents of the Souder provision have mobilized against it. In
2000, Reps. Barney Frank (D, Mass.) and
Bobby Scott (D, Va.) introduced bills reversing the 1998
provision. Both of those bills died in committee, but
Frank and Scott continue to vocally oppose the law.
Activists opposing the Souder amendment have also directed
their attention to college campuses. A few college
administrations have decided to contribute funds to compensate
for aid denied to their students on the basis of
the Souder amendment. For example, in April 2002, Yale
University in New Haven, Conn. announced that it will
offer supplemental aid to students denied funding on the basis
of convictions for drug possession. Students
receiving those supplements will be required to complete a drug
rehabilitation program. However, the money will
not be available to students convicted of selling drugs.
Supporters Praise Tying Aid to Drug Record
Students receiving financial assistance from the government
should understand that they are expected to act in
a responsible and lawful manner, supporters proclaim. Making
federally funded aid conditional on avoiding drug
convictions merely asserts that message, they say. There is no
reason, proponents argue, for the government
to facilitate the education of individuals who flout the nation's
drug laws. "It's not a particularly harsh policy,"

says Rep. Ric Keller (R, Fla.). "It's just a good, common sense
decision to enforce the law that's on the books."
The 1998 provision to the HEA sends another important
message to students, supporters assert: Federal
financial aid is a privilege, not a right. Students should have to
earn the government's help, and the standards
for qualifying for aid should be designed by the government,
they say. Supporters reject the notion that students
are entitled to government aid and urge prospective students to
act in a manner that will earn them help for
college.
"I believe it is completely legitimate and justifiable for
Congress to restrict access to federal aid for those with
substance abuse problems," says Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas). "To
do otherwise would support the erroneous
notion that people have a right to taxpayer funds regardless of
their actions."
Conditioning financial aid on keeping a clean record does more
than reward the right behavior; it protects
taxpayers from funding wrongdoers, supporters say.
Government resources, which derive from the public's
taxes, should not in anyway subsidize drug use, the source of
many social ills, supporters say.
"We have a finite amount of resources," says Keller. "Would
you rather spend money on someone who's a
crack dealer, investing in his education, or some poor kid who
wants to try and be a doctor?"
Denying aid to students with drug convictions affects not only
the specific students seeking financial aid,
proponents say, but also helps shape social attitudes. Some
observers warn of a growing atmosphere of

permissiveness with regard to experimentation with drugs. By
denying aid to convicted drug offenders,
supporters say, the government loudly reaffirms the importance
of stomping out drug use.
"Despite the fact that drug use is a violation of federal law and
certainly an impediment to learning, American
culture treats drug use as an acceptable part of the college
experience," says Souder. "By temporarily
suspending financial aid for students convicted of drug crimes,
the law sends a clear message: Actions have
consequences, and using or selling drugs will ruin your life."
By attaching concrete and severe consequences to even mild
drug use, proponents say, the financial aid policy
will deter many students from experimenting with drugs. By
stopping students at the threshold of drug use, the
financial aid policy will protect untold numbers of young people
from falling into drug abuse, supporters assert.
According to proponents, the no-drug-convictions provision of
the HEA will also help people who have already
developed drug problems. Since applicants can restore their aid
eligibility by entering drug treatment programs,
the law offers powerful incentives to encourage drug users to
seek help, proponents insist. By convincing
students who might otherwise continue to use drugs to enter
treatment, the financial aid policy has the potential
to dramatically decrease drug use, supporters conclude.
Critics Say Aid Policy Is Discriminatory
Linking federal financial aid to avoiding drug convictions,
opponents declare, accomplishes little good but does
much harm. Most immediately, they say, the policy is
discriminatory against students from lower-income

families. Wealthier students rely far less on financial aid; in
many cases, they do not even apply for it, critics
point out. Therefore, the 1998 provision affects only those who
cannot afford to pay for college, opponents say.
Wealthier students enjoy another advantage under the 1998
provision, opponents contend. When arrested on
drug charges, wealthier students are more likely to avoid a
conviction, since they tend to have access to better
legal representation, opponents argue. Less affluent students
lack such resources, and are far more likely to be
convicted on drug charges, they contend. As a result, poor
students are more likely to have their eligibility
revoked, whether or not they are more likely to use drugs.
In addition to favoring the economically advantaged, critics say,
the no-drug-convictions provision introduces a
racial bias into financial aid decisions. Opponents cite studies
showing that African-Americans and Latinos
suffer substantially higher rates of convictions on drug charges,
though their rates of usage are comparable to
those of whites. For example, according to the Civil Rights
Leadership Council, blacks account for 59% of drug
convictions, despite constituting only 13% of drug users.
Given the evidence that minorities face discrimination that
increases their likelihood of receiving drug
convictions, financial aid policy ought to guard against
reinforcing such discrimination, critics say. Conditioning
financial aid on staying conviction-free, they say, guarantees
that minorities will suffer further on the basis of
preexisting biases against them.
"Studies show that rates of drug use are equivalent in white and

black communities, but minority neighborhoods
are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement," argues
Corey Barbour, legislative director of the U.S.
Students Association, a civil rights advocacy group. "This
introduces the racial bias we know exists in law
enforcement and the judicial system into higher education,
compounding the inequities that already exist there."
Furthermore, adding the punishment of losing financial aid to
drug convictions grossly distorts the country's
message on crime, critics say. The policy pointlessly elevates
drug crimes to a uniquely severe status in the
eyes of the government, critics contend, since no other criminal
behavior, including the most heinous, results in
loss of financial aid. It makes little sense, they say, to attach
greater consequence to petty drug crimes than to
crimes involving violence or large-scale destruction. "It's
unprecedented. You can commit rape, murder, arson,
and still be eligible for financial aid," says Shawn Heller,
national director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a
group that lobbies for rethinking U.S. drug policy.
Critics also argue that attaching financial aid to an absence of
drug convictions is hugely counterproductive. If
the goal of that policy is actually to stop drug use, opponents
assert, it makes little sense to keep drug users out
of college. "Education is the best antidote we have to most of
our social ills," says George Prince, the president
of Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass. "Why do you want to
exclude people from the education system when
trying to keep them in the system in the most important thing
you can do?"
Individuals at risk of developing drug problems are much less
likely to reform themselves if kept away from
higher education, critics say. Denying drug users a college

education simply reinforces the factors that
contribute to drug use, critics insist: poverty, unemployment,
social alienation and resentment of authority.
"This country must begin to take seriously whether its priority
is going to be the rehabilitation or the permanent
disenfranchisement of young people," says Jeffrey Johnson, an
official at the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil
rights organization. "The HEA's new provision serves
as yet another barrier to poor and minority students who are
attempting to create a future for themselves by
attaining a college degree. Our focus should be on
empowerment, not discouragement."
Reversing the Souder Provision?
For the time being, the future of the Souder amendment--and the
general principle of denying aid to students
with drug convictions--is unclear. There has not yet been the
sort of groundswell usually necessary to reverse
recently enacted legislation, political analysts say. Still,
activists continue to target the Souder amendment for
criticism, so its survival is far from guaranteed, they say.
One important question, observers say, is what impact
grassroots activism will have on the attitudes of
lawmakers. Civil rights groups and student organizations around
the country have rallied against the 1998
provision. Much of the criticism of the current law is being
voiced by college administrations and student
governments. More than three dozen student governments have
endorsed a resolution calling for a repeal of
the Souder provision. That resolution has also been endorsed by
the United States Student Association and the
Association of Big Ten Schools.

However, some observers doubt that Congress will be swayed
by such gestures. They point to the widely held
view that policies perceived as "tough on crime" will earn
popular support, while appearing "soft" will cost a
politician valuable backing. It is always the safer bet, some
observers assert, to stick with a policy that can be
packaged as stringently anti-crime.
But other analysts question the soundness of those assumptions.
The future of tying federal financial aid to
clean drug records will depend largely on underlying attitudes
regarding drug policy, most observers agree.
Over the last several years, policy experts note, support for
aggressive anti-drug policies has begun to wane,
and many people now characterize those policies as futile and
counterproductive. Exasperation with
unsuccessful drug policies, some observers predict, will make it
easier for lawmakers to reverse the Souder
provision. [See 1998 Drug Policy]
If that support resurges, on the other hand, then the connection
between aid and drug convictions will probably
stay in place, observers say. But if support for those policies
continues to erode, the current policy of denying
financial aid on the basis of drug convictions may be rethought.
In the meantime, most observers are keeping a close watch on
how enforcement of the revised HEA plays out.
It is not yet clear how many students in the long term will lose
out on aid they would otherwise have received. It
is also not clear what kinds of offenders will suffer most. Public
response to the Souder amendment, some

analysts say, will hinge on whether, in practice, it excludes only
hard-core drug pushers or punishes hard-
working students who have committed minor offenses.
Bibliography
"Department of Education Cites Pressure to Modify Restrictions
on Financial Aid." Coalition for Higher
Education Act Reform. August 15, 2001. April 23, 2002:
<www.raiseyourvoice.com>.
Forbes, Daniel. "Students Fight Drug-War Dragnet." Rolling
Stone. March 14, 2002. April 22, 2002:
<www.mapinc.org/drugnews>.
Ginsky, Jake. "Smoke a Joint, Lose Your Loan." Mother Jones.
May 18, 2000. April 22, 2002:
<www.motherjones.com>.
Montgomery, Alicia. "Bush to Once-Busted Students: Do as I
say." Salon. April 20, 2001. April 27, 2002:
<www.salon.com>.
Souder, Mark. "Actions Have Consequences." USA Today (June
13, 2000): A16.
Zabriskie, Phil. "Students vs. the Drug War." Rolling Stone.
March 15, 2001. April 23, 2002:
<www.raiseyourvoice.com>.
Additional Source
Additional information about drug policy can be found in the
following source:
Treback, Arnold and Zeese, Kevin. The Great Issues of Drug

Policy. New York, N.Y.: Drug Policy Foundation,
1990.
Contact Information
Information on how to contact organizations that are either
mentioned in the discussion of financial aid and drug
convictions or can provide additional information on the subject
is listed below:
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 210
Washington, D.C. 20036
Internet: www.ssdp.org
Partnership for a Drug-Free America
405 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1601
New York, N.Y. 10174
Telephone: (212) 922-1560
Internet: www.drugfreeamerica.org
Key Words and Points
For further information about the ongoing debate over elderly
driver restrictions, search for the following words
and terms in electronic databases and other publications:
Brandi Mitock Safe Drivers Act
55 Alive
Driver safety
Sen. Tom Hayden

Record URL:
http://www.2facts.com/article/i0701050
Financial Aid and Drug Convictions. (2002, May 10). Issues &
Controversies On File. Retrieved Dec 20, 2010, from
Issues & Controversies database.
http://www.2facts.com/article/i0701050�
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Xw1LCKACE
Eckhart Tolle: What is the purpose of mental illness?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lagC4l7SO0
*
“No drug can mend a broken heart,

fill an empty life, or teach parents
how to love their children.”
Preston, John in: ”Child and Clinical
Psychopharmacology.2006
*
PSYCHOTROPICSAntianxiety Drugs
Antidepressants
Antipsychotics
Antimanics
*
ANXIETY DISORDERS
Panic disorder
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Social anxiety disorder
Specific phobias
Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)
*

Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
*
Antianxiety Drugs
History:
1830: Chloral Hydrate – induces sleep within 30 minutes
(“Mickey Finn”)
1882:Paraldehyde - used to treat DTs
Bromide Salts – used for sleep and anxieties
*
Barbiturates
1864 – Adolf von Baeyer synthesized malonic acid and
urea – barbituric acid –
3000 compounds have been synthesized and 50 have been
marketed
barbiturates have been recommended for 77 different
disorders
( Reinisch & Sanders,1982)

*
*
Benzodiazepines
Five primary effects:
a) hypnotic
b) anxiolytic
c) anti-seizure
d) muscle relaxant
e) amnestic
*
rodrigoedipo.files.wordpress
Long-acting drugs
Valium,
Librium,
Dalmane,
Tranxene

*
Intermediate-acting drugs:
Restoril
Ativan
Klonopin
ProSom
*
Short-acting Benzodiazepines:
Versed
Xanax
Halcion
*

When Santa Barbara County Sheriff's deputies raided Michael
Jackson's Neverland Ranch in 2003, drug and drug-related
paraphernalia was found in droves.
Below is the list of discovered items:
- A vial of powerful sedative, Versed
- Several IV bags containing "a milky white fluid, located in a
small cardboard box on top of the bathtub." Propofol and other
anesthesias are milky white.
- A vial of Promethazine, an antihistamine with strong sedative
effects
- A bottle of Alprazolam, a generic for Xanax
- A bottle of Percocet, a painkiller
- A syringe
- A vial containing Demerol
- Numerous loose pills outside bottles
- A bottle of Prednisone, a steroid
- Ery-tab, an antibiotic
- Filled prescriptions for Xanax
- Prescription for Alprazolam
- Oxygen tanks
- IV stands
Massive Drug Raid At Neverland Revealed…

http://perezhilton.com/2009-07-10-massive-drug-raid-at-
neverland-revealed
*
When benzodiazepine drugs are in the vicinity of GABA
receptors, the action of GABA is increased.
Facilitation of GABA produces a greater inhibition and a
decreased activity level in the neurons involved.
*
NONBENZODIAZEPINE
SEDATIVE-HYPNOTICS AND ANTIANXIETY DRUGS
Zolpidem (Ambien)
Buspirone (BuSpar)
Beta blockers (Tenormin, Lopressor, Inderal)
*

Date Rape drugsRohypnol – flunitrazepam – long acting
benzodiazepine – 10 times stronger than Valium
Known as “roofies”, “R2”, “Mexican Valium”
*
*
Mass overdose of students blamed on date rape drug
“A dozen American students have been hospitalized after having
their drinks spiked, possibly with the date-rape drug rohypnol,
at a freshers party in Washington state.
Police discovered partygoers in various states of consciousness
on Saturday night after they kicked down the door of a house in
the small town of Roslyn, near Seattle, after reports of a
possible overdose. “
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/69934,news-comment,news-

politics
*
Date Rape Drugs continuedGHB – gamma-hydroxybutyrate
a potent sedative depressant
a body building aid
used for sexual enhancement
*
http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/ghb.aspLow doses:
Euphoria
Decreased inhibitions
High Doses:
Extensive muscle relaxation Disorientation
Sleepiness and lethargy
Confusion
Loss of coordination and balance Heart rate and respiration
lower Impaired learning and memory Overdose:
Headache
Nausea and vomiting Hallucinations

Seizures
Amnesia
Respiratory depression
Loss of consciousness,
coma,
and possibly death
*
Party drug GHB is addictive
Published on : 16 May 2010 - 5:30am | By Belinda van Steijn
“A growing number of young Dutch people are signing
themselves into a drug clinic to kick their addiction to the party
drug GHB (Gamma Hydroxybutyric acid). The drug, which was
initially considered to be relatively innocent, has since been
found to be extremely addictive.”
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/party-drug-ghb-addictive
*
AntidepressantsFirst Generation antidepressants
MAOIs – monoamine oxidase inhibitors
Nardil, Parnate
TCAs – tricyclic antidepressants
Elavil, Tofranil

*
Antidepressants continued
Second Generation antidepressants
SSRIs – Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft
SNRIs – Effexor, Edronax
Third generation antidepressant–
Remeron, Serzone
*
GENERATIONS OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATIONS
First-generation drugs (Thorazine, Prolixin, Haldol, Mellaril,
Navane, Stelazine)
Second-generation drugs (Clozaril, Loxitane, Zyprexa,
Risperdal, Geodon)
Third-generation drugs (Abilify)
*

TYPICAL AND ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS
First-generation antipsychotic drugs are called typical
antipsychotics because they can induce movement-control
problems (Parkinson’s-like symptoms).
Second-generation and third-generation antipsychotics are
called atypical antipsychotics because they do not induce this
side effect.
*
EVIDENCE FOR THE DOPAMINE HYPOTHESIS OF
SCHIZOPHRENIA
Parkinson’s-like side effects when treated with first-
generation antipsychotics indicate that dopamine
levels have changed
Drugs that are most effective in treating schizophrenia are the
ones that most effectively block dopamine
Overdose in an anti-Parkinson’s drug produces
schizophrenic-like symptoms
*

*
MEDICATIONS FOR MANIA
OR BIPOLAR DISORDER
Lithium carbonate
Valproate (Depakote)
Risperidone (Risperdal)
Ziprasidone (Geodon)
Combination of Zyprexa and Prozac (Symbyax)
*
*
Psychotropics
(“moving closer to a normal state”)
trop – to turn toward
Drugs for treating schizophrenia and Mood Disorders
1

THE BIOMEDICAL MODEL OF
MENTAL ILLNESS
Mental disorders are caused by abnormal biochemical processes
in the brain.
Genetic evidence for the biomedical model
2
SYMPTOMS OF SCHIZOPHRENIA
Schizophrenic patients are “split off” or “broken off” from a
firm sense of reality.
positive symptoms of schizophrenia:
delusional thinking,
hallucinations (usually auditory),
dulled emotions,
inappropriate verbal expressions,
odd body postures (catatonia).
3
ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUG TREATMENT
First-generation antipsychotic drugs:
Thorazine, Haldol, Mellaril,
Stelazine
Second-generation antipsychotic drugs:
Clozaril, Zyprexa, Risperdal
Third-generation antipsychotic drugs:

Abilify
4
SIDE EFFECTS OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS
First-generation drugs: Parkinson-like symptoms, tardive
dyskinesia
Clozaril: Agranulocytosis in 1-2 percent of patients
Zyprexa and Risperdal: Significant weight gain and
development of diabetes, dementia among elderly patients
5
ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS AND THE BRAIN
In general, antipsychotic drugs are altering the level of
stimulation of dopamine-sensitive receptors in the brain.
Subtypes of dopamine-sensitive receptors are differentially
affected by various antipsychotic drugs.
Third-generation antipsychotic drugs stabilize (modulate) the
level of D2 receptors
6

Psychiatrists, Children and Drug Industry’s Role
“When Anya Bailey developed an eating disorder after her 12th
birthday, her mother took her to a psychiatrist at the University
of Minnesota who prescribed a powerful antipsychotic drug
called Risperdal.”
By GARDINER HARRIS, BENEDICT CAREY and JANET
ROBERTS
Published: May 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/health/10psyche.html?fta=
y
7
“In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration received reports of
at least 29 children dying and at least 165 more suffering
serious side effects in which an antipsychotic was listed as the
“primary suspect.” That was a substantial jump from 2000,
when there were at least 10 deaths and 85 serious side effects
among children linked to the drugs. Since reporting of bad drug
effects is mostly voluntary, these numbers likely represent a
fraction of the toll.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/health/10psyche.html?page
wanted=4&fta=y
8
Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx, says he sees
many children on antipsychotic drugs who do not need them.
Poor Children Likelier to Get Antipsychotics

DUFF WILSON
Published: December 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/health/12medicaid.html?e
m
9
10
ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS
First-generation antidepressant drugs:
MAO-inhibitors (Nardil, Parnate),
tricyclic drugs (Tofranil, Elavil)
Second-generation antidepressant drugs:
SSRIs (Prozac, Celexa, Paxil,
Zoloft)
Third-generation antidepressant drugs:
Cymbalta, Remeron, Effexor
11
ANTIDEPRESSANTS AND NEUROTRANSMITTERS
MAO-inhibitors raise functioning levels of norepinephrine and
serotonin.

SSRIs raise functioning levels of serotonin.
Third-generation antidepressants raise functioning levels of
norepinephrine and serotonin.
12
DRUGS FOR OTHER TYPES OF
MENTAL DISORDERS
Mania and bipolar disorders: Lithium, Depakote, Symbyax,
Abilify
Autism: Risperdal
Mild depression: St. John’s wort
13
ISSUES IN MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
Social effects of deinstitutionalization
Psychiatric drugs and civil liberties
Impact of health insurance coverage policy
14

http://www.crazymeds.us/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage
15
www.forumsextreme.com/imgs1/Funny_Pictures_Ge...
16

Financial Aid and Drug Convictions APWide World Pat.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Financial Aid and Drug Convictions APWide World Pat.docx

Similar to Financial Aid and Drug Convictions APWide World Pat.docx (19)

More from voversbyobersby

More from voversbyobersby (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Financial Aid and Drug Convictions APWide World Pat.docx