Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IsItSafe2Speak t1_jc7bp1b wrote

Reply to comment by simbaandnala23 in Psychiatrists that prescribe anxiety medications by Plastic_Awareness_96

Scheduling has not a single thing to do if a substance is good for you or not. I also couldn't care less about where and what you work around. That doesn't mean you know a damn thing.

−5

simbaandnala23 t1_jc7edrt wrote

100% wrong. They absolutely have to do with dependence and addiction potential.

"Schedule IV
Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are: Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien, Tramadol"

While I'd argue they should probably be schedule III because they're danger is underestimated, you're just wrong. I don't know what else to tell you as someone who has had experience having these drugs prescribed, being around them, working with them, and understanding how to play the system. If you'd like to say his 4 year gap means he won't get them because you have trouble getting them then that's fine, but it's your opinion. But trust me, you don't want to die on the hill of "benzos are worse than opioids because their withdrawal is worse, so you can't get a prescription for them", it's just wrong. in 2017 there were 25 million xanax prescriptions, OP's situation is exactly when they would prescribe them. As a non first list anti anxiety medication at a low dose for someone who has tried many other options that haven't worked.

I've said what I am going to say. If you want to live in some delusional world because you hate being wrong on the internet then that's fine. The truth is drug seeking behavior isn't just a checklist of behaviors. If you need a medication then you are by definition drug seeking even if it's not in the traditional sense of the word. Prescription history, affect, the clothes OP is wearing, the words he chooses to use, etc all effect a provider's decision to prescribe these drugs or not. Hell you can even go look up a prescriber on medicare part D and see how many prescriptions they have written for certain drugs when there is a medicare claim. Internists and family medicine routinely write prescriptions for benzos, even if their long term use is impractical and doesn't have much efficacy.

6

Final-Ad3772 t1_jc7giu8 wrote

Thank you. As someone who relied on benzodiazepines for a brief period when nothing else helped and stopped as soon as I was able and under a doctors supervision, I appreciate this comment very much. You are 100% right.

2

simbaandnala23 t1_jc7hzay wrote

Don't worry about him. There's people who think google is enough experience to know how the world and medicine work when it really doesn't work that way at an individual level.

I would call psychiatrists and psychiatric nurse practitioners and be honest. Don't waste your time trying random doctors. If you have a therapist that's on board that goes a long way.

1

flannel_smoothie t1_jc7j4bb wrote

This, for real. These drugs are tools for addressing a variety of issues and there’s a reason why they get prescribed - they work for acute anxiety and panic attacks.

2

testy918 t1_jcems6t wrote

If that's the case why has marijuana been schedule 1 for so long? And LSD?

1

simbaandnala23 t1_jcewafz wrote

Schedule 1 drugs have not gone through rigorous and expensive ($billions) testing that allows them to be put into schedule II-V or unscheduled. DEA also refused to give out any schedule I testing permits that may have allowed certain drugs to be tested for medical use. However, certain organizations that were known for being anti-marijuana routinely received permits for their testing. The process also takes 5-10 years for drugs to be approved. I don’t think the policy changes occurred until the Obama administration. This is also why drugs like Psilocybin and LSD were not studied in the US. DEA wouldn't give out permits and no one had the money for it. MAPS and other organizations finally got the ball moving. Support from Johns Hopkins and other top tier research institutions provided some legitimacy to testing as well.

1

testy918 t1_jcexfjx wrote

Thanks for the clarification and background!

Although I think it's a long way of saying politics play a big role in scheduling drugs.

2

IsItSafe2Speak t1_jc7ej0b wrote

No one is reading all that. Lmao.

−6

flannel_smoothie t1_jc7i7iu wrote

Why are you participating in this thread where you have no expertise and no suggestions for OP to find a good doctor?

0

IsItSafe2Speak t1_jc7ifhp wrote

I read the first three words and I know you're MAD. Hahaha. Not reading the rest of this trash either.

−4

flannel_smoothie t1_jc7j7ln wrote

Unclear if you’re aware of which user you’re even responding to

2

fighterpilottim t1_jc9vgm1 wrote

“This commonly used medication is not acceptable under any circumstances” is a helluva take from someone who knows nothing about OP. And OP explicitly asked to avoid this kind of talk. Please go elsewhere with your misplaced morality.

3