»Addictivity of psychiatric drugs is played down«

Francesca Allan:

And we have no problem if people want to take psychotropic drugs, provided that their consent is informed consent. That means being aware that most of these drugs are debilitating and highly adddictive

please tell me of one anti-psychotic drug that is considered physically addictive.

posted by The ONEder Man

in-my-opinion.org -> Politics -> Psychiatry and Anti-Psychiatry -> Addictivity of psychiatric drugs is played down

The ONEder Man:

Francesca Allan:

please tell me of one anti-psychotic drug that is considered physically addictive.

Any drug in the atypical neuroleptic category (e.g. Risperdal) is highly addictive. When you try to withdraw from them, you experience rebound psychosis and become more unstable than you were prior to taking the drug. I can refer you to scientific studies in this regard if you'd like to read them. Also, all of the tranquillizing drugs (eg. Ativan, Valium) are addictive. The SSRI antidepressants (eg. Prozac, Zoloft) could also be called addictive because they are very hard to withdraw from.

posted by Francesca Allan

Francesca Allan:

Any drug in the atypical neuroleptic category (e.g. Risperdal) is highly addictive.

and the FDA has not made these schedule drugs why?

Francesca Allan:

Also, all of the tranquillizing drugs (eg. Ativan, Valium) are addictive

these are controlled, but they are not anti-psychotics

posted by The ONEder Man

I know where you live. I will send a rape commando -- knn

The ONEder Man:

Francesca Allan:

Any drug in the atypical neuroleptic category (e.g. Risperdal) is highly addictive.

and the FDA has not made these schedule drugs why?

Francesca Allan:

Also, all of the tranquillizing drugs (eg. Ativan, Valium) are addictive

these are controlled, but they are not anti-psychotics

The FDA is slowly being forced to change the labels on many psychotropics. You may have noticed that advertising for these drugs has changed recently. I'm not sure what "schedule" means. Is that an FDA category? And I never claimed the tranquillizers Ativan and Valium were anti-psychotics. I referred to all psychiatric drugs as psychotropics because they affect mental activity. BTW, anti-psychotic is a misnomer -- no drug on earth "fixes" psychosis. Risperdal and all the rest are actually major tranquillizers that depress the entire central nervous syndrome.

posted by Francesca Allan

Francesca Allan:

I'm not sure what "schedule" means. Is that an FDA category?

yes one of the five controlled drug classes in the US. in which none of the "anti-psychotics" (and i put them in quote because that is what we call them where i work) are controlled or considered addictive

Francesca Allan:

And I never claimed the tranquillizers Ativan and Valium were anti-psychotics. I referred to all psychiatric drugs as psychotropics because they affect mental activity

true but i didn't ask for all psychiatric drugs, just the anti-psychotic because I cannot think of one that is controlled because of it's addictiveness

you are part of that special interest group and you don't know what a schedule drug is? that's not an insult but a true question.. I learned something new, I guess

posted by The ONEder Man

The ONEder Man:

Francesca Allan:

I'm not sure what "schedule" means. Is that an FDA category?

Francesca Allan:

And I never claimed the tranquillizers Ativan and Valium were anti-psychotics. I referred to all psychiatric drugs as psychotropics because they affect mental activity

As you know, the FDA is an American organization. I'm Canadian and I haven't heard the term "schedule" used in that context. Did you know that over 50% of the FDA's funding comes from pharmaceutical manufacturers? Whether or not the FDA posts adequate warnings for various drugs has a lot to do with how much drug companies pay them. Dr. Peter Breggin has done a lot of research on the brain damage that antipsychotics cause. And I know from painful personal experience how awful they are to try and get them out of your system.

posted by Francesca Allan

Francesca Allan:

As you know, the FDA is an American organization

canada has one as well, just called controlled drugs which we use that term more often than scheduled but it is our more offical term.

en.wikipedia.org…

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is Canada's federal drug control statute. Passed in 1996, it repeals the Narcotic Control Act and Parts III and IV of the Food and Drug Act and establishes eight Schedules of controlled substances and two Classes of precursors. It provides that "The Governor in Council may, by order, amend any of Schedules I to VIII by adding to them or deleting from them any item or portion of an item, where the Governor in Council deems the amendment to be necessary in the public interest."

The Act serves as the implementing legislation for the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Francesca Allan:

Did you know that over 50% of the FDA's funding comes from pharmaceutical manufacturers?

proof? and if that is true then why aren't more of the controlled drugs not controlled? i'm sure rich companies have made more off of say vicodin then anti-psychotics, making them richer and able to "buy off" the FDA even more so, correct?

Francesca Allan:

And I know from painful personal experience how awful they are to try and get them out of your system.

and as holy knew, they helped him immensely so that point is very subjective

posted by The ONEder Man

Francesca Allan:

Here's a better article about scamming the FDA

excellent, thank you

oh and btw i agree with just about everything you've said about big pharma and it's corruption, i'd elaborate but knn will unleash his fury and call us offtopic even more

Francesca Allan:

Psychiatrists are not at all honest about warning patients about what happens when you try to withdraw

this is also true on the other end of the spectrum, our PIP or patient information packet we give away with drugs at the pharmacy says nothing about withdraw effects, only side effects that may occur during.

Francesca Allan:

We're discussing two different things here

i'm not sure what we are discussing...it seems your main 2 points are

Francesca Allan:

My concern is forced treatment

and

Francesca Allan:

Rebound psychosis is a horrible and very common condition

correct?

posted by The ONEder Man

The ONEder Man:

Francesca Allan:

Here's a better article about scamming the FDA

excellent, thank you

oh and btw i agree with just about everything you've said about big pharma and it's corruption, i'd elaborate but knn will unleash his fury and call us offtopic even more

Francesca Allan:

Psychiatrists are not at all honest about warning patients about what happens when you try to withdraw

Could this be because a lot of these drugs, especially the antipsychotics, are meant to be taken for a lifetime? That's certainly how psychiatrists tend to pitch them, anyway.

Francesca Allan:

We're discussing two different things here

Quote:

i'm not sure what we are discussing

I was just trying to make the distinction between Holy having the right to be on the drugs and me commenting on the difficulty in coming off them.

Quote:

...it seems your main 2 points are

Francesca Allan:

My concern is forced treatment

and

Francesca Allan:

Rebound psychosis is a horrible and very common condition

correct?

My primary concern is forced treatment. Next on my list is the lack of truly informed consent for voluntary treatment. I'm also disturbed by psychiatry pretending to be a medical science. Even the American Psychiatric Association admits that there is no objective test for mental illness. Given that state of affairs, I'm really alarmed to hear psychiatrists nattering on about brain chemical imbalances. The chemical imbalance theory is just one of many theories on the cause of mental illness. It happens to be the most popular for very obvious reasons.

posted by Francesca Allan

All I can reply with is my own experience. Antipsychotics can have a depressing effect, but this has nothing to do with addiction. A few months after I was put on mood stabilizers, when I was still recovering from an involuntary injection of the IV antipsychotic Prolixin, I went through a deep depression that lasted for months, and it felt exactly like a more prolonged version of the brief ones I had in college. My original psychiatrist - who had also treated another member of my immediate family for depression and thus should have known better - kept assuring me that it was a side effect of the medicine, and I believed him. But then when I had been off Prolixin for a matter of years, I still went through prolonged episodes of depression. It wasn't uncontrollable, suicidal depression, but just total despondency, apathy, and lethargy, like sleeping all the time, and so I know that it was part of my pathology and not caused by any drug. I take Effexor, an anti-depressant, as one of the two medications I'm currently on, and if I drop my dose even a little bit - like I did last week by 1/4 due to insomnia - I get lots of weird withdrawal effects like anxiety and extremely vivid nightmares. But it's also extremely effective in helping me feel better; in fact I would say that since I have been taking antipsychotics, the only real problem I have had when on them is with depression, and as I said, I had some of that long before an antipsychotic ever crossed my lips or broke my skin. And I haven't had any serious depression since I've been on Effexor. Once again, an example of how medication helped me in my life and why the antipsychiatry rhetoric against medication is bunk.

Now I'm sure the Prolixin had something to do with the first depression, and probably in fact triggered it, but I can't agree that this is cause to believe that the Prolixin caused the depression or that it was addictive in some way. I've been addicted to cigarettes before - cravings are one thing, but requiring medication for a treatable illness is another. I certainly never craved another hit of Prolixin! White laugh

[CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE]

posted by MindSlave

"Rasta don't work for no CIA..."
-Bob Marley

65mya.com

MindSlave:

Once again, an example of how medication helped me in my life and why the antipsychiatry rhetoric against medication is bunk.

The fact that some people are helped by psych drugs does not diminish how harmful psychiatry has been overall. If people willingly take SSRIs or atypical neuroleptics or mood stabilizers or anything else, you'll get no argument from 90% of the anti-psychiatry movement. It's the issue of forced drugging, forced electroshock and incarceration that we oppose.

posted by Francesca Allan

The reason anti-psychotics aren't controlled is because they aren't addicting. Anti-psychotics don't get you "high" like Valium and Xanax. The experience is not overly pleasant. The reason people take these is to avoid particular disorders which are many times worse than the drug's effects.
As for weather the addiction of pharmaceuticals is down-played by the companies that produce them: Wow, no shit.
Any good doctor is well aware of the addictive potential of drugs like Valium; just like she would be aware of addictive potential in Oxycotton (Despite Purdue Pharma playing that down).
Sadly, modern medicine is comprised of only good doctors.

posted by Agnostic89

The time now is 6 October 2008, 17:42
php B.B.