Some kind of wonderful -

[kyburg]

You'll hear me rant about overmedication a lot - well, it's a sore point. Giving pills is cheap - compared to long-term talk counseling with active therapy. Trouble is, the pills stop working. Oh, you can cycle through a ton of stuff - it's out there - but the expensive, labor-intensive-with-a-real-person is where long term results lie (unless you're one of the people who truly HAVE a chemical issue, and one of the hallmarks of THAT is the pills don't stop working and you don't have to cycle, yadda ya).

Then I hear about Cymbalta. Holy chrome. This stuff is being prescribed off-label right, left and center for things OTHER than depression...and damn if it isn't doing some incredible things, mostly related to pain relief (and we all know I think that's going to be HUGE when it happens).

But for depression? *wiggles hand* Not so much. Read about coming off it and UH.

...and so many, many reports are from people who came to this medication because - you guessed it - they needed to cycle from something else.

I have to wonder about what this all about - and if the cycling is a Good Thing, or a sign that this is not the right way to treat depression, period.

Yeah, maybe I do more than wonder. Like - NO.

Here's a thought for the day - isn't it still addiction when it's legal and you don't have to worry about getting it on a daily basis? You go without and you're not going to feel good, yanno. But get your drug and everything is fine.

What makes that okay?

As for me, I'll pass. And yes, I know that's a privilege.

Comments

[foogod.livejournal.com]

First of all, what "defense" are you referring to? I never claimed to be defending anything (except perhaps the English language, but I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant). And are you referring to me or to you when you ask about reacting emotionally? If you're referring to me (which I'm guessing you were), why is it you assume this is an emotional subject? Could it possibly be because you've presumptuously assumed you know everything about me and my positions on these subjects? Could it be because you automatically assume anybody who doesn't agree with you must be a certain kind of person? This is not the first time you've condescendingly (and erroneously) implied you know all about me in order to belittle an opposing point of view. As a tactic it's both arrogant and rather telling, and something I'd expect to see in a Republican campaign, but not here. Please check your prejudices. Maybe you don't know as much about everyone as you think you do.

Moving along, however, regarding the definitions in question, with the exception of the "start acting all funny" bit, which I (and I think any reasonable person would) assume was a colloquial generalization on drlaurac's part, and not a literal quote of what was actually taught, drlaurac's definitions of these terms, while not entirely complete, are essentially correct, and yours are substantially less so.

Specifically, in a pharmaceutical sense, "abuse" means using something in a way contrary to its directed use or its intended purpose. (as a side-note, even the useful off-label applications you mention above are actually abuse, BTW. Abuse has nothing to do with whether something works or not, or whether it has good or bad results, it only has to do with whether it's being used the way it was intended to be used.)

(And no, actually, using a hammer to open jars of pickled beets is not abuse. The hammer is being used for its intended purpose (hitting things), and thus by definition is not being abused. Just because you don't believe it's the right choice to apply it in that way does not mean the application itself is abuse.)

"dependency" is fairly obvious, and I don't think we have a lot of disagreement on that term. Anything which requires somebody keep using it in order to maintain a particular condition or state is a dependency (what state is being maintained is really irrelevant to the term).

"addiction" is specifically a dependency which has become a compulsion or obsession. That is, the dependency on a substance has affected the person to the point where they can no longer make rational judgements about its use. The important point here is the decision making process of the individual in question. Addiction is almost inevitably coupled with abuse, because obviously if one is no longer able to rationally control one's usage, one is extremely unlikely to continue to use something only as directed.

Therefore, in answer to your originally posted question with the example of a legal drug used, rationally, as directed, no, that is not addiction. Attempting to characterize it as such is an abuse of the term.