Posted by Sir Four at 6:49am Jun 26 '11I'm just thinking about one of the many ways in which our drug policies don't make sense. Benzodiazepines (Xanax, Klonopin, Valium, etc.) are frequently prescribed for anxiety--in fact they seem to be the common, go-to class of drug for this issue. However, speaking from personal experience (and observation), these are not really very good drugs at all. The first problem is that it's quite difficult to reach a therapeutic dose without inducing significant fatigue. Too low a dose and you don't feel any effect. Too high, and you just want to go to sleep. I suppose this is great for people with late-evening anxiety attacks plus insomnia, but for most real-world scenarios this is not desirable at all.
Secondly, benzos are habit-forming and lead to drug-seeking behaviors, hence the robust black market for them. People also develop a tolerance for them, and seek higher doses.
Thirdly, benzos have some nasty side-effects (other than fatigue) such as short-term memory loss and problems with concentration (which can persist for months after ceasing to take the drug). And withdrawal following cesation of regular use can be a bitch, or so I've read. Apparently, rebound anxiety is a major issue as well (which is sort of self-defeating).
Millions of prescriptions are written for these drugs each year, despite their limited upsides and serious downsides. It leads me to the question: is this the best our pharmaceutical companies can do?
Then I think about how marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, considered to have no therapeutic benefit at all. While I agree that marijuana can be habit-forming, is it really any more so than benzos? Are the drawbacks any worse? Could not specific doses be formulated to help individuals deal with issues such as anxiety? Honestly, I'm no pot expert (never used it). But it just strikes me as insane that, on the one hand, we prescibe millions of doses of a drug with limited value and significant side-effects, but another drug is classified in the same category as heroin, though it's clear that this drug may provide new avenues for the medical community to explore in the treatment of various illnesses (mental and otherwise).
Secondly, benzos are habit-forming and lead to drug-seeking behaviors, hence the robust black market for them. People also develop a tolerance for them, and seek higher doses.
Thirdly, benzos have some nasty side-effects (other than fatigue) such as short-term memory loss and problems with concentration (which can persist for months after ceasing to take the drug). And withdrawal following cesation of regular use can be a bitch, or so I've read. Apparently, rebound anxiety is a major issue as well (which is sort of self-defeating).
Millions of prescriptions are written for these drugs each year, despite their limited upsides and serious downsides. It leads me to the question: is this the best our pharmaceutical companies can do?
Then I think about how marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, considered to have no therapeutic benefit at all. While I agree that marijuana can be habit-forming, is it really any more so than benzos? Are the drawbacks any worse? Could not specific doses be formulated to help individuals deal with issues such as anxiety? Honestly, I'm no pot expert (never used it). But it just strikes me as insane that, on the one hand, we prescibe millions of doses of a drug with limited value and significant side-effects, but another drug is classified in the same category as heroin, though it's clear that this drug may provide new avenues for the medical community to explore in the treatment of various illnesses (mental and otherwise).