Posted by maxx44 on December 6, 2003, at 2:57:56
In reply to Re: A Balanced Alternative View of Xanax » maxx44, posted by Viridis on December 5, 2003, at 3:32:17
this goes to ethics. both mills' 'greatest good for the greatest number' and kant's 'categorical imperative'---kant means 'whould you have your decision made a law of nature?' you are 1, even if not an addict, but the accidental victims demonstrably outnumber you enormously. your ethical issue is simple---do you personally want to make it a 'law of nature' that the interest of 1 supercede that of the many? very human, very tobacco, very drug dealer, very auto maker---but i think you may see kant's point. would you like living at the mercy of 1 person? 9 of 10 benzo addicts, my estimate, should never been scripted long-term. until you've experienced the absolutely common withdrawal effects, finding yourself psyhchotic for the 1st time in life, i must cosider your position erudite. and hope it stays at that. if it quits working, or you feel adverse effects and want off---use the dr. ashton protocol. avoid the madness of rapid withdrawal. regards
poster:maxx44
thread:13781
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20031202/msgs/287088.html