![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by boB on April 3, 2000, at 0:16:06
Drugs are good. Let's take drugs and be happy.
Seriously though, can anybody steer me toward information
on the psychopharmacology of commonly used illegal drugs.
I have read several of the "Drugs and Behaviour 101" texts,
which are required reading for most college sophmores, and
find some illegal drugs listed among the groups of drugs included
on the Dr. Bob site, but I am looking for more detailed studies.
It is my hunch that we can explain, in pscyhopharmaceutical terms,
what people are unwittingly trying to do to themselves with
"street drugs" - boost serotonin? boost norepenephrine?
Treat ADD?I would like to get beyond moralistic and legalistic approaches,
and beyond literature designed primarily to persuade against illegal drug
use and find out why people are so attracted to these outlawed
pharmaceuticals.My bias? I think criminal attitudes toward violence, promiscuous sexuality
and gang affiliation, passed along by a growing prison population are doing
as much or more harm to society as illegal drugs such as those taken
by Gov. George Bush (but not since his dad was president) and by
Pres. Clinton (who didn't inhale).
Posted by saint james on April 3, 2000, at 17:39:49
In reply to Let's take drugs, posted by boB on April 3, 2000, at 0:16:06
> Drugs are good. Let's take drugs and be happy.
>
> Seriously though, can anybody steer me toward information
> on the psychopharmacology of commonly used illegal drugs.James here...
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/psychoactives.shtml The facts are here, quotations from the Merck guide, ect
http://www.maps.org/ Quality research into illicet drugs and their positive uses.
J
Posted by Dr. Fried on April 4, 2000, at 0:33:26
In reply to Re: Let's take drugs, posted by saint james on April 3, 2000, at 17:39:49
Try reading Huxley, Cohen, Hoffmann, Shulgin, Ott etc.. And watch what you say or do on the internet.
Posted by Phil on April 4, 2000, at 5:33:41
In reply to Re: Let's take drugs, posted by saint james on April 3, 2000, at 17:39:49
James, Interesting talk on Maps featuring DR. Weil.
Posted by KarenK on April 4, 2000, at 9:21:46
In reply to Let's take drugs, posted by boB on April 3, 2000, at 0:16:06
My late ex-husband had a similar philosophy. Several pdocs diagnosed him as bipolar in his many stays at rehab. He didn't want to become addictive to lithium. In the meantime, I don't think he missed one street drug and believe me, he kept current. He died of a drug overdose May 5, 1998, trying to bring himself out of a manic state.
Posted by boB on April 5, 2000, at 19:48:48
In reply to Re: Let's take drugs, NOT, posted by KarenK on April 4, 2000, at 9:21:46
> My late ex-husband had a similar philosophy. Several pdocs diagnosed him as bipolar in his many stays at rehab. He didn't want to become addictive to lithium. In the meantime, I don't think he missed one street drug and believe me, he kept current. He died of a drug overdose May 5, 1998, trying to bring himself out of a manic state.
Karen, sorry about your late husband. My sincere condolances. I doubt, however, if he used street drugs he was making an informed choice about the etiology of hypermania and psychoparmaceutical agents that might resolve the condition.
Your response to my post hints at what I believe to be a fundamental element of a collective social fascination with drugs. I am talking about a narrowminded tendency to stereotype. Even the best educated practitioners of medicine have reduced the variety of human conditions to a nomenclature, which becomes a model they must stereotype whatever real-world condition they encounter to conform with.
In your case, your stereotyped me in the model of your late husband, presuming that I am advocating uninformed recreational use of street drugs, when instead I am searching for common conditions that might lead to the use of both legal and illegal neurotropic substances.
Read "Power to Harm" It is the account of how Prozak's maker beat litigation in the civil trial stemming from the Standard Gravieur mass shooting in Louisville, Ky.
The trial was held before much data was available on serotonin syndrome, and the maker allegedly paid the plaintif not to introduce evidence of the drug makers prior misdemeanors or their incomplete FDA testing process.
I've heard strong anecdotal information suggesting that a large number of recent mass shootings, and workplace killings have involved people on SSRIs. The standard apologetic is that these drugs are given to the people most likely to snap, but the drugs don't always work.
How many people die each year on the highway trying to be happy? Cars are deadly and often misused, but we let people use them recreationally, even if they are a leading contributor to global warming.
Yes, yes, many of those deaths are alcohol related.
I am not an advocate of taking street drugs. I am making a rude comparison, and confronting the drug culture represented in this discussion with its dark underside.
Maybe Lithium would have saved your husband's life. Maybe lifestyle choices no therapist dared recommend would have helped.
Maybe cultural forces are driving pervasive depression and anxiety.
My perspective is that most neurochemistry reseach is funded for the purpose of developing new drugs and not with the intent of explaining things that might require our society to collectively make an admission of guilt.
It seems to me, psychopharmacology and gentic explanations of deviate personality are all the rage, while study of environmental and experiential factors is increasingly taboo.
I trust most readers of this site are adults and will not be harmed by my barbed humor, and I think humor makes it easire to swallow a difficult pill.I doubt if your husband shared my philosophy entirely or he would not have been taking so many drugs. He probably shared some of your philosophy, or you would likely have not married each other. If he were like me, he would be doing what I am doing, and the risk would be one of offending vested interests in the drug war, not dying as a result of the drugs.
Posted by Cam W. on April 5, 2000, at 21:14:25
In reply to Let's not stereotype, posted by boB on April 5, 2000, at 19:48:48
When I was researching my paper on LSD for a psych class (pre-internet days) I found a number of studies (one using actually good research methods) on the use of LSD in chronic alcohol addiction. The LSD gave the alcoholics insight into their addiction and showed them the consequences thereof. Compared to standard treatments, the alcoholics who underwent LSD therapy were more likely to quit drinking altogether over a five year (I believe) follow-up. Believe it or not, I was trying to prove how harmful LSD really was, but I kept coming across success stories in its clinical use in several studies (many used poor scientific technique, though).I too, like bob, am not advocating the uncontrolled use of regulated self medicants, but lets not throw away the baby with the bath water. Sure many of these drugs have a terrible downside when not used properly, but if used therapeutically in a controlled environment, they may be of some clinical value. Further research into their clinical uses needs to be done. - Cam W.
Posted by Dr. Fried on April 5, 2000, at 23:48:25
In reply to Re: Example of Street Drug as Therapeutic Agent, posted by Cam W. on April 5, 2000, at 21:14:25
It seems ironic to me that the same politicians backing the "War on Drugs" are also in bed with the tobacco companies. It doesn't make much sense. A lot of your hallucinogens effect serotonin in some way, as far as I know unknown at the present. I think I read somewhere that imipramine blocks LSD and therefore they share a common receptor, I think the imipramine causing a much weaker agonist(?) response. The SSRI's are primarily effecting serotonin, and some of the atypical neuroleptics block a particular type of serotonin receptor. It would be interesting to know if the atypical neuroleptics block the effects of some of the more common hallucinogens.
Ibogaine, I have heard, is effective in interupting addiction. Of course any of these hallucinogens would aggravate people with a tendency towards mania or psychosis in all likelihood. But, if you put a group of pot heads next to a group of people on paxil and you were too far away to smell them, I think you would have trouble telling them apart. It also troubles me that with the greenhouse effect everybody seems to be burning up gas in their cars like there is no tommorow. And would it suprise anyone if the new drugs of abuse are mostly electronic?
Posted by Dr. Fried on April 6, 2000, at 0:11:15
In reply to Re: Example of Street Drug as Therapeutic Agent, posted by Dr. Fried on April 5, 2000, at 23:48:25
I have been on Paxil and have smoked marijuana and I can tell you they have nothing in common. You are the one whose head is full of commonplace misconceptions.
Posted by Sorry on April 6, 2000, at 0:16:33
In reply to Re: Let's read about drugs., posted by Dr. Fried on April 4, 2000, at 0:33:26
I meant to put the name in the Subject field, sorry.
Posted by bob (not boB, but on his side anyway) on April 6, 2000, at 11:29:06
In reply to above not was not written by Dr. Fried, posted by Sorry on April 6, 2000, at 0:16:33
After reading Cam's post, I just wanted to chime in to say that bob (me) and boB aren't the same person, just in case people were wondering. I've been staying out of this thread to avoid confusion, but I guess I'm in it now.
Personally, I agree with what my fellow boB (and others) has (have) been putting forward here. I can't say that I'm for the legalization of *all* illicit drugs, but there are definitely a few (like marijuana) that have come up against interests like the Tobacco Lobby and lost the battle (even though, if you've ever seen the WWII documentary Hemp for Victory, marijuana certainly helped us win the war!).
More importantly, tho, is how the scientific community has not just been constrained by cultural biases, it has swallowed them whole and made them their own when it comes to these substances. The whole fervor over studying the medicinal uses of marijuana is perhaps the best example. The sort of pariah status that researchers in this area have had to fight against shows just how value-laden scientific work is, despite all claims to its objectivity.
I guess what concerns me most, given that we just left behind us what many have called the Decade of the Brain (in terms of medical research and advancement of understanding), is that our increased knowledge about brain function is not being applied to what these substances might be able to contribute. I keep hearing about how the "next generation" of meds like TCAs and SSRIs are going to be so much "cleaner" because we're beginning to understand which receptors in the brain are responsible for specific changes in behavior *and* gaining the pharmaceutical expertise in targetting meds to narrower ranges of receptors as well. If that truly is the case, then it stands to reason (well, if you're not worrying about getting re-elected, that is) that all substances with powerful psychoactive properties should be examined to see if they, too, can be cleaned up or at least be useful in creating cleaner meds along the same lines of action.
my two cents,
bob
Posted by saint james on April 6, 2000, at 11:35:34
In reply to Re: Example of Street Drug as Therapeutic Agent, posted by Cam W. on April 5, 2000, at 21:14:25
>
> When I was researching my paper on LSD for a psych class (pre-internet days) I found a number of studies (one using actually good research methods) on the use of LSD in chronic alcohol addiction.James here....
This kind of research goes on at www.maps.org, Cam. Check it out.
james
Posted by Cam W. on April 6, 2000, at 16:53:49
In reply to Re: Example of Street Drug as Therapeutic Agent, posted by saint james on April 6, 2000, at 11:35:34
James - Thanks for the info, I'm about 10 years (at least) behind on this area. Much obliged. - Cam W.
Posted by Elizabeth on April 6, 2000, at 22:16:28
In reply to Re: Example of Street Drug as Therapeutic Agent, posted by Dr. Fried on April 5, 2000, at 23:48:25
> I think I read somewhere that imipramine blocks LSD and therefore they share a common receptor, I think the imipramine causing a much weaker agonist(?) response.
Not imipramine, but the SSRIs and especially the MAOIs.
Posted by KarenK on April 7, 2000, at 7:56:20
In reply to Let's not stereotype, posted by boB on April 5, 2000, at 19:48:48
I was conveying an experience of my own. I was not judging anyone. I'm sorry if it came off that way.
Posted by Sheik Abhul on April 9, 2000, at 1:50:27
In reply to Re: Let's not stereotype, posted by KarenK on April 7, 2000, at 7:56:20
Does anyone know the pharmacology of cannabis?
Posted by Cam W. on April 9, 2000, at 9:47:51
In reply to Re: Let's not stereotype, posted by Sheik Abhul on April 9, 2000, at 1:50:27
> Does anyone know the pharmacology of cannabis?
Abhul - Scott gave a great site earlier in this thread.
www.maps.org
Click on marijuana and follow the various links. I'm sure you won't be able to remember where you started after a half-hour or so ;^)
- Cam W.
Posted by bob on April 9, 2000, at 11:41:46
In reply to Re: Let's not stereotype, posted by Cam W. on April 9, 2000, at 9:47:51
> Click on marijuana and follow the various links. I'm sure you won't be able to remember where you started after a half-hour or so ;^)
Hmmm ... so, can getting lost in hyperspace, if the contents of the pages are pleasant enough, create a virtual version of getting stoned? And if so, will such virtual entertainment sites contain banner ads for on-line junkfood stores that will deliver, in case you get the munchies? Hmmm ... better living through virtual chemistry....
(...already scheming ...),
bob
Posted by someone on April 9, 2000, at 14:05:38
In reply to Let's take drugs, posted by boB on April 3, 2000, at 0:16:06
Just a quickie.
In the UK, a few high profile politicians have come out saying they "did inhale", and there is currently a big debate on whether the decrimilize cannabis, and down grade Ecstacy (we have gradings' of a, b & c. cannabis is currently b or c (dependent of strength of thc content) and Ecstacy is a). This is to try and give more time etc to deal with the more harmful sides of drug use. I think this is the correct way to go... Give more money and time to deal with serious addiction issues, and also the whole dealer / drug wars problems.
I smoke cannabis frequently (most days infact), & have done for a number of years. i've also used ecstacy for the past 8 years, even though over the past few years it's only every couple of months. I know that, while on e, I am happier and brighter than I can ever be, but I alkso know I'll crash at some point that week, and everyone I know says the same. Maybe the highs are simply worth it.
As for cannabis - I find this is just about the only thing that manages to relax me, and slow my brain down enough to chill out.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.