ADV-NEWS, RIP VAN WRINKLE
Question:
Chesucat wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Hannibal wrote: > I find if I inhale my food while driving, I get indigestion!;-) I have > fallen asleep at the wheel before when I driving from Jacksonville, FL. to > Nashville, TN. It was after midnight and I was driving a two-lane back > road and there was not a soul on the highway but me, or so I thought, and > I went into a trance-like state periodically awaken when I would hit the > rumble strips. Eventually a small town police officer pulled me over for > weaving and that WOKE me up. The nice officer told me where there was a > all-night c-store open, so I could get some coffee!
Of course, you’ve read Cymbal’s post about the new law being passed that says a person who falls asleep at the wheel and injures some with his car, goes to prison. The driver must have been awake for 24 hours and be aware that he is driving while drowsy. (Or that might not have been a Cymbal post, I might have read it in the newspaper on Wednesday. Cymbal, please confirm.) A friend once told me that he was driving at night while sleepy. He had windows open and could hear the quiet whine of the car engine. At one point he abruptly realized that he could no longer hear the hum, which alerted him to the fact that he was asleep. He immediately pulled over and had a nap. I remember once getting up at 4:00 a.m. on a Friday morning, doing a whack of typing for work, going to the office at 9:00 a.m., and leaving at about 1:30 p.m. I then went straight to my favourite car rental agency, rented a car, and drove to the casino about an hour and a half away. After blowing my money by about 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, I hopped in the car and began the drive back home. About 35 miles into the trip I found I was falling asleep. I was too inexperienced then to pull over and have a nap, so I struggled to stay awake for another five miles until I came to a drive-through, where I spent some of my precious last $20 on a jumbo Coke. I gulped down the drink, and the caffeine rush made me alert enough so I could drive the rest of the way home. > I okay around a few people and wide open spaces!
So find a park somewhere secluded, like the park near where I live, where a few people walk their dogs from time to time, on leashes, but not many other people go. You might have to hunt around on a map for a park that most other people don’t know about. Being there might desensitize you to the presence of other people enough that you can handle slightly denser crowds later on. > I have been bitten > numerous times by dogs when I was kid, I was hyper-active and I would pull > on the dogs’ ears, so I have a healthy respect for them. There is this > old ‘Rott’ next door, every time I go out to the backyard that dog would > jump at the fence and snarl, grunt, and bark at me in a very aggressive > manner. I will not mow the area grass between our house and the > neighbor’s house if their ‘Rott’ is out in the backyard. I wait until > they have him in the house or garage. But, mostly, I get along with dogs, > even though I like cats!
A contact of mine has a Rottweiller. He is friendly, but every time I make eye contact with him he gives me this goofy look, as if he’s wondering what’s going on in my head. The dog’s owner insists that he’s wondering where I’ve hidden the food. I’m a cat person too. I’ve recently grabbed lots of pictures of kittens. Tell me if you want me to email you some. Hannibal
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Chesucat wrote: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Hannibal wrote: >>I find talking to a passenger keeps me more alert, especially if I’ve >>been driving for longer than an hour without a break. When I first >>started driving I was told not to smoke while I drove, but I ignored >>that, and found that smoking while driving never caused a problem. > <snipped> > I like to talk to myself when I am driving! I drink my Pepsi when I > drive, but I notice that I don’t eat and drive like I did in the past. > I don’t drive very much anymore, I don’t like getting out of the house and > around people. On nice cool days, I like to walk and I always try to go > for a walk at night.
Eating can be done on automatic pilot too, but then you don’t really enjoy the food. If you have to get somewhere in a hurry and your appetite is interfering with your ability to drive, I guess it’s okay to chomp on something while driving, but I don’t like to do it. Once I ate a whole pizza while on an hour and a half drive to the casino. I kept eating until I got distracted enough to hit the rumble strip on the freeway, and then I stopped. It’s something I’ve never done again and never intend to. How strong is your agoraphobia? Are you okay in a one-acre park with maybe five other people walking their dogs, or is even that too much for you. I find that with things like agoraphobia, desensitization works. I have a moderate fear of large dogs, especially when they’re not on a leash, but making some effort to be around dogs has decreased the fear I feel. On the other hand, avoiding the stimulus seems to strengthen the fear when you encounter it, so if you never go out then you’ll be that much more uncomfortable when you do. Before she was fired, my sz coworker complained that one person in the office was engaged in a constant psychic battle with her. I told her I didn’t understand, and she said: "I know you don’t. You do it too." She then put out her cigarette and went back upstairs, and I never saw her again. Some people are sensitive to psychic energies, I suppose, and being around people bothers them for that reason. I have to make a confession here that, when I am around groups of men in their late teens and early 20s, I become uncomfortable and my body becomes stiff and unnatural. This doesn’t happen with lone individuals or groups of older men, or around women. Hannibal
Response:
Never convicted of sex crime, but man still must register as offender Howie Padilla, Star Tribune Published August 7, 2003 A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a Minnesota law that required a man to register as a sex offender even though he has not been convicted of a sex crime. Minnesota’s sex offender registration law and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s interpretation of it "turn reason and fairness on its head," wrote Judge C. Arlen Beam, who nonetheless concurred in the unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. Brian Gunderson was charged in 1998 in St. Louis County with first-degree criminal sexual conduct after a woman he met in a bar accused him of rape, the ruling said. Gunderson denied raping her but admitted they had a "physical altercation." Tests supported his version of events, and the rape charge was dismissed. As part of a deal with prosecutors, Gunderson pleaded guilty to a new complaint charging him with third-degree assault. He was sentenced to 15 months in prison, which was stayed, and three years probation. Less than a year later, the ruling said, Gunderson violated his probation and was sent to prison. While in custody, he was told he would have to register as a sex offender under a state law that requires it whenever someone is convicted of a sex offense "or another offense arising out of the same set of circumstances." After registering, Gunderson sued the Corrections commissioner. He argued he should not have to register because the original rape charge had been dismissed and the assault statute under which he was convicted was not covered by the registration statute. But the Appeals Court panel said it agreed with the Minnesota Supreme Court’s reasoning in a 1999 decision upholding the law. The Minnesota court ruled that a defendant who was charged with a sex crime but pleaded guilty to a lesser charge included in the same complaint had to register. Gunderson also argued that the registration statute violated his constitutional rights if it required him to register as a sex offender even though he was never convicted of sex crime. The court rejected that argument, finding that the registration law is regulatory, not punitive, in nature, and that it serves a legitimate state interest, that is, to keep track of known potential sex offenders. Minneapolis defense attorney Fred Bruno said the decision surprised him because for years attorneys have asked to have new complaints drawn up in plea agreements to avoid forcing their clients who were not convicted of a sex crime to register. "I thought we were home free," Bruno said Wednesday night. "I guess not."
Response:
New warnings about anti-depressants raise old fears of a link to suicide Gardiner Harris, New York Times Published August 7, 2003 PILL07 Warnings by drug regulators about the safety of Paxil, one of the world’s most widely prescribed anti-depressants, are reopening seemingly settled questions about a whole class of drugs that also includes Prozac and Zoloft. Doctors are just beginning to react to the finding — reported first by British drug authorities in June and then endorsed days later by the Food and Drug Administration — that unpublished studies about Paxil show that it carries a substantial risk of prompting teenagers and children to consider suicide. Because the studies also showed that Paxil was no more effective than a placebo in treating young people’s depression, the regulators recommended that doctors write no new Paxil prescriptions for patients younger than 18. Experts say the suicide risk is highest in young patients’ first few weeks on the drug. The concern that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which are known as SSRIs and include Paxil and drugs like it, could cause suicide had been weighed, and rejected, by regulators a dozen years ago. Almost no one suggests that Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil and their cousins are unsafe for most adults, although studies have shown them to be only modestly effective. Still, the warnings have the early critics saying they feel vindicated. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have uncovered evidence that they say shows drugmakers withheld evidence of the SSRIs suicide risk from regulators. And the findings have unsettled some of the very experts who had absolved SSRIs of a link to suicide. Of the 10 U.S. specialists who, as members of an FDA panel in 1991, formally cleared the drugs of any ties to suicide in 1991, seven now say the new information would prompt them to reconsider that decision. "In 1991, we said there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support a link between these drugs and suicide," said Jeffrey Lieberman, a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of North Carolina and a member of the panel. "Now there is evidence, at least in children, and I wouldn’t rule out that it’s in adults, too." The FDA is considering whether to impose new restrictions on the use of the anti-depressants. The agency’s warning emphasized that younger patients "should not discontinue use of Paxil without first consulting their physicians," adding, "it is important that Paxil not be abruptly discontinued." While the regulators’ warnings cite only Paxil, many experts on the 1991 panel said all SSRIs act similarly, so concerns about one could apply to all. The drug’s manufacturers, which sell billions of dollars of SSRIs every year, have responded with caution to the warnings. They maintain that there is no proof that the drugs have a link to suicidal thinking in young patients, and they point out that the FDA in the past found no merit in such claims. "We’re trying right now to look at this issue with the FDA and come up with an understanding together of what the data mean," said Philip Perera, medical director of GlaxoSmithKline, the British company that makes Paxil. Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft, said its drug is different from Paxil and has passed all FDA safety evaluations, including one as recently as June 12. Eli Lilly & Company, the maker of Prozac, said its drug does not cause suicides. So far, there is little evidence that the warnings have affected doctors’ prescribing practices. Teenagers and children account for about 5 percent of SSRI prescriptions, and companies that track the industry have detected no falloff in sales.
Response:
Illinois outlaws tongue-splitting, except by doctors Associated Press Published August 7, 2003 SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Best to keep your mouth shut. Splitting your tongue without a doctor or a dentist could land you in jail in Illinois. Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday signed into law a measure that restricts the practice of tongue-splitting. For those who are bored with simple piercings and tattoos, cutting the tongue to make it forked may be the next step. Some who have had the procedure done say they do it for shock value, while others say it’s a spiritual experience. The legislation would bar anyone but doctors and dentists from performing the procedure. Offenders could face up to a year in jail. But supporters of the law say the practice is dangerous and could lead to infection. Rep. David Miller, a Chicago Democrat and a dentist, predicted few professionals will perform tongue-splitting. He said he understands the value of individual rights but thinks many people don’t understand the risks, so officials will choose “safety over cosmetics.”
Response:
Stearns County inmate died from drinking glass cleaner Published August 7, 2003 FOLEY, MINN. — The results of an autopsy on a Stearns County inmate who died while being housed in the Benton County jail show the man died from drinking glass cleaner. Authorities said Ryan Dwight Mosher, 27, died June 15 of acute methanol intoxication after drinking the cleaner. Authorities don’t know if Mosher was trying to kill himself or was trying to get high from the chemical. Benton County sheriff’s officials said the cleaner had poison warnings clearly stating on the container and that it could be fatal or cause blindness if swallowed. The jail has since replaced the glass cleaner with a mixture of vinegar and water.
Response:
Insanity defense hard to prove in Minnesota Paul Gustafson, Star Tribune Published August 7, 2003 It is difficult in any state for mothers such as Mine A. Ener, who was charged Tuesday in St. Paul with murdering her 6-month-old daughter, to use postpartum depression as the basis for an insanity defense, experts say. But nowhere is an insanity defense more difficult to win than in Minnesota, which uses a 19th-century British standard known as the M’Naghten rule. It says only people who do not know right from wrong or who do not understand the nature of their acts can be found not guilty by reason of mental illness. That means it would be almost impossible to use postpartum depression as a defense in Minnesota unless the depression caused severe psychotic reactions such as delusional beliefs, said Eric Janus, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul. Because M’Naghten sets standards only for what a person understood, it does not take into consideration illnesses such as postpartum depression, which is considered an impairment of mood, Janus said. According to a criminal complaint, Ener told police she killed her daughter, Raya Donagi, because the girl had Down syndrome, Ener felt the infant’s situation was hopeless and she did not want her to go through life suffering. Ener also said she had been contemplating suicide for the past two to three weeks. Ener appeared in Ramsey County District court briefly Wednesday and was granted a three-week continuance to hire a private attorney. Ener looked dazed but paused to make eye contact with five family members, including her husband, Ron Donagi, before being led back to jail. She is being held on $500,000 bail and agreed to waive speedy trial rules. She is scheduled to be back in court Aug. 27. Family members declined to comment. Outdated law? Sigmund Freud was 12 years old when the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the M’Naghten rule in 1868. Since then, modern psychology and psychiatry came into being, and their practitioners often take the witness stand in courtrooms to offer expert testimony. But the M’Naghten rule, the product of an 1843 British murder case, is still the law in Minnesota. Experts agree it is the most difficult of several insanity standards used across the country. In Minnesota, said Bruce Hanley, a Minneapolis criminal defense attorney, "you see very few insanity defenses tried, and very few succeed. I’ve been practicing law for 28 years, I have asserted it probably five times, and I have never been successful with a jury." About half of the states use insanity standards that permit a finding of not guilty for people who commit crimes because of an "irresistible impulse" — those who could not stop themselves from committing a crime due to mental illness even when they knew it was wrong. Other than defense lawyers, the most outspoken critics of the M’Naghten rule in Minnesota have been judges. In fact, the Minnesota Supreme Court said 30 years ago that M’Naghten "should have been discarded with the horse and buggy." Prosecutors who defend the rule say that asking whether M’Naghten is based on outdated science is the wrong question. "I actually agree that M’Naghten doesn’t reflect the way that modern psychology thinks about mental illness. M’Naghten isn’t answering a mental health question. It’s answering the question of when should society hold somebody criminally responsible for an act," said Paul Scoggin, managing attorney of the Hennepin County attorney’s office violent crimes division. "There are a bunch of interests M’Naghten is serving that psychologists don’t have to care about. They are societal . . . moral questions rather than psychiatric," Scoggin said. Although they’re often critical of M’Naghten, state judges agree that it’s out of their hands. The state Supreme Court has consistently ruled that only legislators can change M’Naghten, which is now embodied in a state law. And legislators have shown little interest in doing that. Former state Sen. Allan Spear, a Minneapolis DFLer who served as Crime Prevention Committee chairman for 18 of his 28 years in the Senate, said suggestions to look at other insanity standards have seldom come up, and gone nowhere when they were made. Expanding the Minnesota insanity standard to include "irresistible impulses" as a defense "is not the fight I would pick right now," Spear said. Critics abound In 1989, Peggy Ann Barsness, a 24-year-old woman with the mental capacity of a 13-year-old who suffered from postpartum depression and alcoholism, abandoned her infant daughter in their Burnsville home and went to visit her fianc
