Posted by skills on July 2, 2002, at 8:10:22
Why if almost all benzodiazepines are non-specific why do people report that different benzo's have such a significant differences in their effects. Xanax is in theory no more of an AD than Valium, Librium or Temazepam. BDZ's may vary in potency but fundamentally they, with the exception of Zopiclone which is though t be more selective than other BDZ's, target exactlly the same receptors and therefore have exactlly the same effects. Therefore surely an acute anxiety sufferer would do better to take a long half-life BZD like chlorodiazepoxide than they would aprazolam(Xanax)as along term nedication which will mean higher blood concerntrations of the required BZD for longer. It seems that apralozam, lorazepam et al. are more suitable as an immediate anti-panic/anoxylitic rather than a long term BZD. I know with the long half life BZD's there is a higher potential for addiction, but this argument seems fruitless in an instance when BZD's are the only long term medical solution anyway. Also if someone has become dependant on a short half-life BZD and wishes to discontinue use of the medication surely it would be more sensible to switch them to a long half-life BZD so the withdrawal is more controlled and blood levels less varied resulting in a far more comfortable time had by the person involved? Peace
poster:skills
thread:111184
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020628/msgs/111184.html