Hacker News Reader

Comment by austerity | Hacker News Reader

> Drug dependency on SSRI's is a very real thing - I honestly don't see how its any better than an opiate addiction.

Where are you getting this from? Withdrawal syndrome is a minor component in any real addition and is nothing without craving for the substance which is not present with SSRIs. As someone who has experienced both reasonably severe SSRI withdrawal and nicotine addiction I find your comparison ridiculous (no exp with opiates, but it seems safe to assume they aren't better than nicotine).

View on HN

> Where are you getting this from? Withdrawal syndrome is a minor component in any real addition and is nothing without craving for the substance which is not present with SSRIs. As someone who has experienced both reasonably severe SSRI withdrawal and nicotine addiction I find your comparison ridiculous (no exp with opiates, but it seems safe to assume they aren't better than nicotine).

The issue is the way your body normalizes to the new default of higher Serotonin levels - when you suddenly return to normal the present state is worse than the it was before you started taking SSRI's (I read a few good papers on the topic a while ago, but I don't remember their titles now - wikipedia is probably a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidepressant_discontinuation_...).

Also lack of craving is a ridiculous justification for effectively prescribing substance abuse - for example aderol et. all are amphetamine salts - that people don't have a craving in the sense that they would for cocaine is just because the high lacks the euphoric effect -- they still can't function normally without dosing -- and it definitely doesn't mean it's fucking reasonable to prescribe to seven-year-olds.

Likewise people have cravings to watch their favorite tv-show or check their Facebook accounts - these cravings do not qualify these activities as substance abuse.

I've read my share of stuff on SSRI discontinuation, not in the last because I was experiencing it first hand. My point stands. Nothing you mentioned constitutes an addiction.

> Also lack of craving is a ridiculous justification for effectively prescribing substance abuse

What? The justification is improvement of patient's quality of life which is often unacceptably low without the treatment. Blinded by the anti-drug dogma you are unable to see that sometimes the only available alternative is endless suffering.

> these cravings do not qualify these activities as substance abuse.

Strawman. Substance abuse? No. Addictions? Absolutely.

> Strawman. Substance abuse? No. Addictions? Absolutely.

That's simply not how addiction is defined e.g.:

"Addiction is a state characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences"

> Blinded by the anti-drug dogma you are unable to see that sometimes the only available alternative is endless suffering.

The ad-hominem is quite unnecessary,thank you. It's certainly not the only viable alternative. I'm not saying it doesn't help some people -- but religion also helps some people; I'm saying the number of people taking clinical prescriptions greatly out-number the people that actually benefit and/or are getting the optimal treatment.

> not in the last because I was experiencing it first hand.

First-hand experience isn't a good metric.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com