Posted by Chairman_MAO on March 12, 2006, at 1:26:01
In reply to Re: Many people fear MAOI's...., posted by bassman on March 11, 2006, at 19:53:27
These clinicians suffered from a profound lack of insight, then. What other rationale is there for using methadone (a long-acting opioid) in treating dependency? Why do people tend to find Wellbutrin XL, Concerta, etc. more tolerable than the IR forms? Why is it that cigar smokers tend to have an easier time quitting than cigarette smokers? What about those who take cocaine via IV vs. buccally?
Pharmaceutical companies are not exactly known for their scruples. Methaqualone was supposedly the "non-addictive" barbiturate replacement, and yet it is almost universally preferred by drug abusers! Heroin was billed as the non-habit-forming morphine.
Diazepam could be more addictive for some given that it is more lipophilic, so it kicks in faster and is more psychologically reinforcing. However, in practice its multiple active metabolites probably make up for this. Upjohn simply made it all up, just like Eli Lilly completely fabricated the "chemical imbalance" rationale for Prozac's efficacy.
Any user of benzodiazepines for round-the-clock anxiolysis will naturally take however many doses per day necessary to maintain consistent blood levels. By Upjohn's argument, heroin would not induce dependence--unlike methadone. Absurdity!
poster:Chairman_MAO
thread:618332
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060310/msgs/619193.html