Apologies for not linking as a comment, but I thought it was too lengthy.

Your points are well placed. Several psychotropics are in fact now heavily marketed to "treat" something that was originally just a side effect of its intended purpose. To add to your rant, I will point to the fact that of all the psychotropics commonly used with adults (excluding ADHD meds), none have been studied in children and adolescents outside of pharmaceutical companies in-house research, with the exception of the recent federal study on Prozac. Certainly these companies are in a good position to conduct their own research, particularly when it comes to generating funding, but there is great concern over conflicts of interest when it comes to publishing null, or worse yet, negative findings. GlaxoSmithKline is currently facing lawsuits in NY and Britain for this concerning what they have known but avoided publishing about suicide rates connected with Paxil.

A lack of good data should not preclude prescribing for a child when there is a clear need, the physician has clinical experience in this treatment, and the child exhibits a positive response. The physician, parents, and child can weigh the risks and continue to monitor. But prescribing on a massive scale, as if it is common knowledge that these drugs perform as advertised and have no ill effects, is far different. This is compounded by the fact that the pharmaceutical companies often are in possession of data that suggests no effects or sometimes negative effects.

Mass screening for mental illness is only as beneficial as the integrity of the screen and the quality of the subsequent feedback/treatment. We already have depression days and anxiety days where every clinic, pharmacy, dentist, etc. hands everyone a questionnaire and then makes recommendations. These seem to have really improved our collective understanding of just how complicated the underlying causes of such symptoms can be (if undetected, please note sarcasm).

But back to children. Despite the lack of data, these meds are being prescribed in great quantities to what was previously an untapped market. Keep in mind there are no longitudinal studies of these meds over 20/30/40 years for their effects on adult brains/physiology/psychology, not to mention their impact on still developing children and adolescents. Worse yet, we are a long way from knowing what impact long-term pharmacotherapy of the sort might have on the children of those individuals. In fact we will probably be several generations into those effects before we begin to have a grasp on it.

My heart has been troubled of late by a certain lack of familiarity and application of several important, erudite expressions in the English language. Therefore, I implore you, make great effort to insert the phrases "the bee's knees" and "the cat's pajamas" into as many of your conversations as possible. The time is long overdue for their return to popularity. For those of you skilled at the use of these idoms and seeking something more daring, perhaps you could try out the lesser known variations: "the flea's eyebrows" and "the sardine's whiskers." Others are certain to look upon you as jaunty and smashing.

Fans of dance offs, cheer offs, and drum offs unite, for the anticipation is over.

On August 24, MGM will finally release to DVD what might be the greatest film of this genre...Roller Boogie (1979). Have mercy on your souls if you are unfamiliar with this timeless masterpiece. The film stars Jim Bray, an actual roller skating champion, and Linda Blair, in an oft overlooked dramatic role. You know the plot. A kind roller rink owner ("Just let the kids skate!") is squeezed out by rich corporate goons looking to demolish the place and build a strip mall. Rich girl and poor roller disco stud fall in love and then set out, along with their crazy gang of roller skating misfits to save the rink. Why? So that they can compete in the big roller boogie contest, of course. Picture Saturday Night Fever on wheels, although sans Bee Gees and Travolta's angst leaves much to be desired. Still memorable are the screenshots of gigantic portable cassette players, a scene of thwarting the bad guys with a fruit fight, and of course, all the boogie (read, ass shot) action.

I see this article about a pet kangaroo that saves its owner's life when a tree branch fell on him during a storm. It went and got help. At first I feel happy. I think, we all need kangaroos. It could go places with you, always have your back. Then I think, evolution has reached a precarious place when kangaroos are saving stupid people. I mean come on, are you going to lay down your life for your kangaroo? Well are you?