Posted by Chairman_MAO on March 2, 2006, at 17:18:32
In reply to whoa » Chairman_MAO, posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 16:14:31
I would that, if one is going to bother to take a drug for psychological purposes, one would want to take the most effective and least toxic drug there is. Opioid drugs have a safety record of thousands of years; death by overdose without concomitant use of CNS depressants is rare, even among IV heroin users. They are not teratologic in any way, and they certainly cannot cause tardive dyskineisa or neuroleptic malignant syndrome (not to mention dysphoria, lack of vitality, etc)! They do have adverse effects, but virtually all of them can be treated (testosterone supplementation, diet adjustment for constipation, stimulants for sedation, etc). The worst thing the proagandists say about them is that they are addictive, which is irrelevant because addiction is a behavior. It is the property of a person, not a drug.
Of course I believe that one is free to prefer haloperidol to morphine if they so choose, but I have yet to meet such a person. If a dopamine blocker is all that works, of course it makes sense to use it. We are all supposed to have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Quite often the doses of dopamine blocking drugs necessary to completely suppress the disorder leave the patient barely able to live life. If you have ever taken an antipsychotic drug in sufficient doses, you probably know that they can be like wearing a mental straightjacket. The effect of those drugs is strikingly similar to the effect of lobotomy. Many people who otherwise could live rich, fulfilling lives if properly medicated are denied access to opioids/stimulants/etc because of pharmacological calvinism. Have you ever tried to do heavy academic work while on an antipsychotic drug?
What I meant by my "Rich and privileged" statement is more specifically that they can afford a doctor who is not afraid of prescribing controlled substances in appropriate doses if need be. These doctors often cost a lot not because they are unscrupulous drug dispensers, but because it is only worth putting their licenses on the line for huge sums of money. The more they make, the better lawyers they can hire in the event some government idiot sanctions them for properly treating pain (money also allows them to be peers with those in power). I believe the main reason we have suicide in this country is that too many doctors do not treat pain properly!
You may think that I am off my rocker, but the brute fact is that opioid drugs ARE antipsychotic/antimanic/antipanic/antidepressant. I have spoken to many schizophrenics and others with psychotic disorders who told me that opioids completely stopped the voices/hallucinations.
In addition to opioids, high-potency benzodiazepines are also effective antipsychotics in many cases. barbiturates were freely prescribed for mania years ago. Opioids were routinely prescribed for depression, as were amphetamine. Do you really think that those drugs didn't work and that the so-called "modern" psych drugs, by contrast, are vastly more effective? Come on.
NOTE: opioids, etc. are by no means a panacea. Most people find them unpleasant to take, just as most people find antidepressants unpleasant to take. Most people find an intravenous shot of morphine dysphoric, overly sedating, and nauseating. When people LIKE them it is because they are KILLING PAIN. The notion of a non-abusable mood elevator, anxiolytic, or potent analgesic is absurd. MAOIs can often produce a better high than many typical drugs of abuse; the only reason they are on the uncontrolled market is because of all of the untoward side effects you have to tolerate.
Is it not perverse to want to use a drug with a higher toxicity when one has a lower toxicity? Assuming this is a chronic condition, the notion that dependence has to be avoided is absurd.
poster:Chairman_MAO
thread:613775
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060227/msgs/615056.html