More about drugs
and mental processes

By JOHN HARVEY

WOULD like to address

some comments to Dr. Alex

Guest’s article on psycho-
pharmacologic drugs in the Aug.
30 issue of the Tribune.

In an issue of not too long
ago the Tribune ran a feature
that predicted what life would
be like in the immediate and
distant future. One of the pre-
dictions mentioned the date on
which “personality transform-
ing drugs” would be available,
and by implication this was an
event to be welcomed. I would
like Dr. Guest to bear that in
mind as I comment on his ar-
ticle because he must realize
that the readers of the Tribune
regard its articles as more au-
thoritative than those in daily
newspapers, which are rather
suspect, particularly where they
deal with the products of poten-
tial advertisers.

Consequently statements he
makes carry more weight than
merely his medical opinion be-
cause of the nature of the paper
in which they appear. He there-
fore has a double responsibility
to his readers to verify the
statements he makes beyond
question or, if that is impos-
sible, then to qualify what he
says.

For example, in the Aug. 30
issue he makes the flat state-
ment that “the psychopharma-
cologic drugs can only decrease
mental processes.” Where is the
authority for such a statement?

What the doctor has done in
his article is mix up two sub-
jects into one. He states that

THE CREDIT "GAME

=

A reader takes issue
with author of Tribune article
on psychopharmacology

-new drugs have been developed

“to treat mental stresses occur-
ring in normal people in their
everyday lives.” He points out
that these so-called tranquilliz-
ers are no answer to the social
and economic problems, and
their effect on people. Undoubt-
edly he is correct in that
opinion.

Setting aside those people
who are just “upset” in an emo-
tional sense from those who suf-
fer what might be called, for
want of a better term, from
pure mental illness, illness that
occurs now in all societies re-
gardless of environment, he says
this: “The efficacy of these
drugs has not been proved, and
it is certainly not known what
the long-term effects of the
chemicals will be on the men-
tal processes of the user.”

Now either the long-terms ef-
fects of the chemical on the

mental process is not known or .

it is known and the chemicals
“can only decrease mental pro-
cesses.” Which is it, Dr. Guest?

Further on in his article Dr.
Guest issues a condemnation of
the drugs. He says they “merely
dull our sense, distort and
cloud our reasoning.”

The use of the word “merely”
in that sentence when applied
to the dulling of human senses
and the clouding of human rea-
son makes me pause to wonder
just how concerned Dr. Guest
is with human problems. He
states the widespread use of
these drugs by doctors then he
casually remarks that they
“merely,” if you please, dull
our senses and distort our rea-

son. In the name of Appollo, Dr.
Guest, if what you say. is true
would it “disturb” you to dem-

‘onstrate a little more human in-

dignation about it than “mere-
ly” recording what you say are
the effects of the drugs?

I began reading Dr. Guest’s
column in the Tribune with
more than casual interest when
it first appeared because it is
not often one finds a doctor
who is prepared to write for a
left-wing paper. After reading
the column in the issue of Aug.
30 I will take whatever he says
with a fat pinch of salt despite
the authority of the journal in
which it appears.

In fact the more I think about
the article the more remarkable
I find it that anyone is allowed
to be so obtuse and callous ih,
of all things, a column on hu-
man health. As well, how does
the doctor explain the contra-
diction between the various
statements he makes on the new
chemicals in his column? And
how does the Tribune explain
the fact that in one issue it is
hailing the use of “personality”
transforming drugs and then
condemning them in the issue
of Aug. 30?

I would suggest in all serious-
ness that if the Tribune cannot
make a thorough study of this
subject and come to some defini-
tive conclusions, or come to the
conclusion that such definitive-
ness is as yet impossible, that it
should leave this subject entire-
ly alone. There are enough ama-
teurs doing enough damage in
this subject without the Tribune
contributing its share’ of con-
fusion.

Merchants of debt at work —

ONSUMER credit is no

longer a sales tool; it is,

more typically, the purpose
of the sale,

The dealer can make more
money on credit than he does
on the goods, says Consumer
Reports in its September issue.
There are all sorts of opportuni-
ties for profit.

First, there is the interest
“pack.” Most dealers finance
their installment contracts with
a lender—a bank or sales fin-
ance company. The lender may
charge the dealer, say, 1214%
true annual interest — but the
dealer may charge his customer
1414%, - 18%, 24%, or more.
The difference is generally used
to. establish a special “dealer
reserve” held by the lender to
protect him from loss in case
the customer defaults. The

dealer collects it as profit after
the account is paid off.

There are more plums: insur-
ance, for example. The contract
may include premiums for life,
accident, or disability insur-
ance.

Other possibilities for profit
are late payment charges, collec-
tion fees, the possibility of more
and higher interest should the
borrower have to refinance the
loan, and pre-payment charges
in case the borrower pays ahead
of time.

Few signers of installment
contracts realize how complete-
ly they are pledging their total
resources. Lenders and sellers

take less risk than one might
suppose, for they can go to court.
to collect even after they repos-
-ses the goods bought on the in-
stallment plan if they don’t get
-all that was due on a resale.

Installment buying constitutes

a growing burden on American
families. Currently, 14144% of
disposable family income is tied
up in debt repayments.

One sign of trouble is the
bankruptcy rate. It has risen
rapidly over the last 20 years,
and the percentage of family
bankruptcies also has risen. To-
day, more than 90% of the
bankruptcies are consumer ra-
ther than business failures.

Another increasing trend is
the use of a second mortgage to

pay off consumer debt. By this.

means a family liquidates its
home equity, built up over the
years, to meet short-term finan-
cial needs. A high price may be
paid for such a loan; though the
interest rate may be only 6%
to 12%, other costs like broker-
age fees, finder’s fees, and in-
vestigation costs often are
charged.

—From RWDSU Record.

4

“eve
CLINIC

J. $. Wallace

Don’t tell my mother
That I’m half of a horse in a pantomime
Don’t tell my mother I’m a sham
But if you must tell my mother.
That I’m half of a horse in a pantomime
Don’t tell my mother.
Which half of the horse I am. - -
(English Music Hall)

. ci

AVE just re-read The Yellow Briar by Patrick se
Canadian classic if ever there was one. Su! d
i couldn’t have written it when he was aroun she!

eighties; did he keep it for years before finding a pub

Also read two stand-out detectives: In the Heat of
Night, by John Ball, the notable story of a Negro dé jillet
in the segregated South, and Petrova 38: a Soviet ni
by Julian Semyonov. The villain is deep dyed; the 4 pal

men (as I twice observed) humanitarian. Never min
tics; it’s outstanding. . |

Then the absorbing story of Francis Chicheste®
told. He made the earliest record as a long distanc?, !
plane solo flyer. Thirty years later he won a solo 54
vessel race across the Atlantic. :

In his sea plane flights, around 1920, he encoun” !
at one stage over the Tasman Sea an airship which vy
there, or shouldn’t have been. He was so impress ial
he lends credence to later stories of flying saucer: ne
opened my eyes to what I think is the true explanatl0 5
sea serpents (most of them, anyway), Loch Ness mon
Ogopago, flying saucers, etc. Back in the Twenties I
a monotonous motor trip and fighting to keep awake m
denly I saw, stretching across the highway ahea Os
the unmistakable head, neck, and shoulders of a h fica
but none of the rest of it was there. I think it is sign!

]| that in the days of sailing vessels people saw sea ser
when asleep on their feet; in the days of horses ! oe

. in the days of airships Chichester saw one. !?
think it is true to say no one saw flying saucers unt tof
the first Sputnik. For me that settles most of the Say!
of “things that go bump in the night”... if not 4 leg
way: why no photos? ‘

ors®

September 24, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE~