Posted by JahL on August 24, 2001, at 9:54:28
In reply to Re: Temgesic, posted by jojo on August 23, 2001, at 23:37:46
> > The various "races" aren't really as easily distinguishable as all that. In the USA, at least, most "black" people really have some "white" ancestry, for example. I was always in favour of the melting pot idea (i.e., the "races" aren't distinguished, we're all just human beings), but that's become unfashionable lately. :-P
> That's why I put the word "race" in quotes. Whatever scientific meaning that it may posses is statistical and says nothing about the individual, but it does refer to one's chance of possessing certain genes, which has an effect on their disease susceptibility
Hi jojo. It's not a mental illness but sickle-cell anaemia, which mainly affects 'black' people is an example that springs to mind.
>and drug response, and is more than just being a fast or slow metabolizer. As to individual drug response, the proof is still in the pudding, as they say.
> BTW, it sounds like you and JahL (don't know about Neal) would make really lousy heroin addicts.How do you mean? In terms of actual response or ability to handle side-effects (which wouldn't bother me if the stuff actually worked)?
>Do either of you know if you respond to amphetamine with euphoria.
No. Over time I sniffed the equivalent of yr average speed factory (*never* again) and all it did was make me talk crap & stay up days on end for clubbing purposes. MDMA is the only drug-illegal or otherwise-that's ever made me feel euphoric. And that only worked for a yr or so.
>There was an article some years ago about that being a predictor of one's chance of responding to imipramine vs amitriptylene, if one was going to respond to one of them.
I've read (& forgotten) something similar.
Which did lack of euphoria predict? Amitript. is one of the few TCAs I didn't try.Thanks,
J.
poster:JahL
thread:75246
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010822/msgs/76213.html