Posted by yxibow on January 21, 2006, at 1:04:18
In reply to Re: Dependance, Benzoz, APs, posted by notfeelingthebest on January 20, 2006, at 14:22:26
> I think the difference between dependancy and addiction is purely political.\
You're entitled to your opinion but it is much more than semantic like I've explained.
> Addiction implies that there is some sort of unhealthy preoccupation with the drug or that it is being used illicity. Addicts are "users" and their "habit" is, like, totally beyond their control (man).
That's true. There is something unhealthy about fake prescriptions for barbiturates, smoking crack cocaine, freebasing PCP, and a whole host of other Category I substances with the possible exception of cannabinoids which may actually have more of a medical value than our current government wants to admit, but that is the only political comment I am making here.
> Dependancy is a softer term, and it implies that the "patient" needs some help from his little buddy Alloseroxoracital(XR)in a cold and unforgiving world.
Sounds like an anti-medication shill if I ever heard one and is heartless to the people who are affected by panic disorder and social anxiety disorder and somehow get caught up in a loop with their benzodiazepine of choice.
> Either way, once you take the dependable/addictive substance away, your body is, like "dude, where's my fix?" Furthermore, quitting an addictive substance cold turkey might result in mild diarreah or nothing at all, while old dependable might throw a temper tantrum or even lead you to terminate.
Quitting cocaine.. hmm... how about PCP ? Crack? Alcohol? Methamphetamines ? Yes, just down some loperamide and all will be fine. Oh good golly miss molly.
> To ease the doctors' and drug companies' financial and legal concerns and lessen the confusion of patients, why not junk the two terms and use "reliance" - its releatively inoffensive sounding. Then again, heroin reliants might complain that their lives have lost a certain romantic quality. Sigh... can't please everyone.
Reliant is yet another word and is misused here also. Type I Diabetics for whom no other treatment has worked, are reliant on insulin. Patients with end stage kidney failure are reliant on dialysis. Heart patients with angina and the like are reliant on pacemakers. Again, a gross disservice to those suffering.
> In the meantime, my GP had no trouble refilling my 2+ years prescription today for a drug upon which I am dependant (at least I assume I am by now), yet was hesitant when I requested a two week trial of another drug because it was known to be "potentially addictive."
Both drugs are conveniently left out in this diatribe.
> Its funny that the poor souls that are given ssri's are told that one of the major benefits of these modern wonder drugs is that they "aren't addictive!" But they still make it clear that you should always taper slowly. Odd. Especially odd if you consider that severe alcoholics are encouraged to quit drinking cold turkey - which is a billion times more dangerous than ending a ten year extremely abusive relationship with, say, valium. Cold turkey withdrawal from the dreaded opiates at best (worst) will give you a bad case of the flu. I personally think that opiate withdrawal has such a bad rep because people are aware that they can act like babies thank's to the fact that they're labelled "addicts." Christ, just rent some DVD's and stay in for a couple of weeks. At least you won't be hallucinating or trying to fly from your roof.
Watch Trainspotting. Watch it again. It's not pretty. And go shoot your heroin if you want.
> I suppose some smarty pants could counter that ssri's have a very low potential for abuse. Considering that I've never heard news report of hoodlums breaking into a pharmacy and stealing Paxil, I'd counter that their potential for abuse is actually zero because they don't do anything (anything useful that is; don't blame me in a couple decades if your eyes suddenly melt, or a generation of babies come out kind of funny).
> "We're not exactly sure how they work, and there haven't been any long term studies, but we still recommend them as a first line of treatment for your disorder."
Well we're starting to get to the Scientology arguments finally...
> Speaking of things that don't work, if you look at the stats for AA, it doesn't actually work. And since when did "once an addict, always an addict" become fact?
And we've got them, folks. Yes, full blown Scientology.
But, I respect others for their own opinions. Just don't push your notfeelingthebest, which more accurately describes this entire diatribe on others. Because its heartless.