bonkers for benzos

getting to know the benzos

last week, i blogged about psychiatric medications that are rarely (or, if you're in canada, never) prescribed, despite evidence that they are effective. as a counterpoint, i thought i'd write about a category of drugs that i find to be frighteningly over-prescribed: benzodiazepines. these are the drugs that are most likely to be handed out if you go to your doctor to complain of anxiety, stress, sleeplessness, recurrent headaches, generalised pain... well, put it this way: there are a lot of things that are likely to get you a prescription for benzos.

librium, the original benzo, was discovered in 1955, but was originally thought a disappointment. however, further testing and refinement resulted in a marketable drug, first made available in 1960. despite some concerns over the poorly-understood long-term effects of the drug and the potential for abuse, benzodiazepines were a marked improvement over their predecessors, the barbiturates (which, i discovered today, is a word i've been misspelling and mispronouncing my entire life). barbiturates had been the go-to medication to basically cure anything resembling a state of stress or even wakefulness for the first half of the century, but it was widely known that they were prone to abuse and that the stressed patients who took them had a tendency to use them for suicide. plus, of course, there were a number of soldiers in world war ii who were given "goofballs" to help depress their respiratory system, making it easier to work in the subtropical conditions of the south pacific (and probably making it a heck of a lot less stressful to risk their necks at war). the drugs seemed reasonably effective, but it unfortunately lead to a lot of pill-popping zombies coming home from the war, who were either forced into lengthy rehabilitation, or who continued as they were, leading to a widespread problem with barbiturate abuse in the post-war years. compared to that record, these spiffy new benzo drugs seemed like a good deal.




as occasionally happens, the launch of this new wonder drug caused a bit of a stampede. everyone had something that could be cured by a benzodiazepine. most will be familiar with the rolling stones' ode to the "mother's little helper"- an improvement on librium called diazepam, aka valium. and the more the drugs were used, the more data on the potential pitfalls emerged.

while certainly less problematic than their precursors, benzos are addictive and withdrawal can be extremely difficult. although not approved for long-term use (because of their addictive potential), many people do continue to use them (and doctors continue to prescribe them) on the understanding that they are to be taken only on an "as-needed" basis. there is limited data on the prevalence of benzo abuse, it is known to exist and, while it is rarely a drug used as a "first choice" it is often abused by patients who are already abusing alcohol (one of the indications for benzos is in managing symptoms associated with alcohol withdrawal) or other drugs. and in the long term, there is evidence (although it falls short of proof) that benzos can start to cause things like anxiety, depression and insomnia (which sort of defeats the purpose of taking them, most of the time) and so-called "paradoxical reactions", meaning they make you tense, aggressive and, as an added bonus, more likely to end a party making out with your best friend and wearing a lampshade on your head, since they can cause "lowered inhibitions". what's worse is that benzos work as anxiolytics (anti-panic meds), because they slow your brain down, which makes them cause something whimsically termed "cognitive impairment". in layman's terms, the more you use them, the more likely the chances that they'll leave you as stupid as a bag of hammers.

interestingly enough, the trend in development has not been towards combating the side effects of these drugs, but in making them stronger. the current market king, ativan, is exponentially more powerful than its antecedents valium and clonazepam (which is still used to sedate psychotic patients, so it's not like it's children's aspirin or anything). and ativan is routinely doled out to people for stress and sleeping problems- often without further investigation. (note: ativan is not approved for therapy lasting longer than 8 weeks in the u.s. or 4 weeks in the u.k., but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to get around the rules...)

chemical structure of a benzodiazepine

at the top of the benzo pyramid are drugs like xanax- termed the most frequently abused benzo in the united states- and halcion, which is powerful enough as a hypnotic drug that it's only use is as a sleep aid. their powerful effects and potential for abuse don't stop doctors from doling them out- xanax as a first line treatment for panic attacks and halcion as an anti-jet lag drug for frequent travelers.

as you've probably guessed, i'm not a huge fan of benzos. i find that they are moderately effective as  pain relievers for my chronic neck and upper back pain, if only for the fact that they are much more easily expelled from the body than the cocktail of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (mostly naproxen) and muscle relaxants, so they don't leave me with that nice "zombie head" feeling the next day. (that said, they're also not really as effective, so it's a trade-off.) as for panic attacks, i find them completely useless. i had xanax prescribed to me as a first-line med to control severe anxiety attacks and found that they had the charming effect of completely sedating me physically, while having no effect mentally. so i was panicking and paralysed.

given my own experience, i'm surprised that benzodiazepines aren't used more often as pain medication. yes, they're addictive, but pretty much all pain meds are, whereas there are better options for the management of anxiety disorders. both valium and the lesser known oxazepam are lower-intensity benzos that still help muscles relax.

another interesting purpose to which they might be applied hinges on a promising, but so far unproven medical theory. one of the lesser-known properties of benzos is that they are actually effective anti-convulsants, effective enough that they are often used for the management of epilepsy in animals. they are used for epilepsy in humans as adjunct therapy, useful in the relief of seizures in progress, but are ineffective as monotherapy (i.e., by themselves). however, some scientists have posited the idea that migraines may actually be a mild form of epilepsy. no one has ever been able to prove the link, but no one has any other viable theories as to what causes migraines either. in fact, despite being a fairly common condition, migraines are poorly understood and the treatments available for them- usually harsh drugs developed for other purposes- are hit-and-miss at best. in this case, it would seem that it would at least warrant clinical studies to see if benzos showed promise as migraine therapy. as far as i know, none are being conducted.

if you've been prescribed benzodiazepines, or if you are considering them as therapy, here are some resources for you to do your own research. please keep in mind that a) this is not an exhaustive list; b) i'm not a medical professional and have no training in medicine or pharmacology; c) chances are you aren't an expert either; and d) not all conditions require medication, so you should discuss any additions, adjustments and/ or changes of meds, as well as other options that might be available to you, with a medical professional.

list of benzodiazepines with comparative dosage chart
info sheets for xanax, ativan, valium and clonazepam
an article on xanax abuse and addiction- sadly short on stats, sorry
an article on ativan abuse and addiction- comes from narconon
interesting piece on the effectiveness of the natural remedy kava- produced by the association of natural medicine pharmacists

good for what ails you?

you can look but you can't touch

It's not surprising if you haven't heard of desoxyn. it's never prescribed as a first line medication to treat any ailments and even when it is used (it's not even approved for use in canada, so you'd have to get a prescription from another country), it's done under heavy monitoring and usually for extremely short periods of time. many doctors are suspicious of using it and the process for getting it is onerous even with a prescription. potential patients have to go through a thorough screening and if there is any history of problems with drugs or alcohol, you can pretty much kiss any chance of getting a prescription goodbye, no matter how suitable a candidate you might otherwise be. you cannot get a renewal on a prescription, ever- your doctor will need to fill out a form and sign every time you get another bottle. furthermore, pharmacists have their own special precautions they must take when dispensing it, even with a legitimate prescription, so you can pretty much expect to be treated like a criminal during the entire process. and at a price of nearly $600/g, it's one of the most expensive medications you can buy. the drug is so controversial, in fact, that its manufacturer, abbott laboratories, doesn't even mention it, much less provide detailed information on their web site.



nonetheless, the few who persevere and use it call it a holy grail. patients swear it is the most effective drug you can take for adult adhd and as an added bonus, it doesn't have nearly the side effect profile of similar medications. the limited information available suggests that its ability to greatly increase the flow of dopamine, norephedrine and serotonin in the brain makes it a miracle worker with treatment-resistant depression. it's a highly effective treatment for obesity and the lone study conducted (back in 2006) showed that it may have potential to regenerate damaged brain tissue in stroke victims. those who like it, like it a lot.

the u.s. drug enforcement administration and the united nations treaty on psychotropic substances classify desoxyn as a schedule ii controlled substance, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse, but that it also has limited medical applications. this is not an uncommon classification for powerful prescription drugs. after all, there are many highly addictive drugs that are prescribed on a regular basis for a variety of health issues, so it isn't that which makes desoxyn so suspect. the problem with desoxyn is that it's crystal meth.

i don't mean it's related to crystal meth, or that it's chemically similar to crystal meth. it is crystal meth, produced in a sterile lab and it is very quietly available in the united states and a handful of other countries.

information on the effectiveness on the drug is unprofessional at best. despite the fact that a brief internet search turns up a surprising number of testimonials from current or former users who claim it is a panacea, there are very few clinical studies and it's hard to find them as a lay person. even those who have heard of the drug's golden reputation have trouble talking to their doctor about it, because not all doctors are going to be open to the idea of deliberately putting a patient on the current pariah of the war on drugs.

there is such a level of paranoia in the united states about the prevalence of meth abuse that you can't even walk into a drug store and pick up allergy medication (pseudoephedrine/ ephedrine, which unstuff your nose and dry out your sinuses are also ingredients used to manufacture meth in home labs). you have to go to the pharmacy counter and give them your name and address, so that they can track your purchases and make sure that you aren't buying suspiciously large amounts of claritin. the legislation that put these stringent measures in place, called the "combat methamphetamine epidemic act", is part of the much-debated patriot act, which most lay people link only to issues of terrorism and national security. the federal government even declared november 30, 2006 to be national methamphetamine awareness day, although i very much doubt this was intended to foster a discussion on the apparent medical successes of desoxyn on a variety of conditions.

although none of them would be crazy enough to say it, given the hysterical rhetoric that surrounds drugs in north america, i suspect that big pharmaceutical (that's what you call drugs when they're legal) manufacturers would drool at the opportunity to be able to patent and sell currently illegal substances. after all, it's easy money that requires no research and in a lot of cases, they work better than what's been developed.

other drugs categorised as schedule ii in the united states might sound familiar- quaaludes are an effective pain reliever, as is morphine, opium is an antidiarrheal, cocaine makes a good topical anesthetic. in fact, even drugs in the schedule i category- those that are seen as purely recreational, with no medicinal properties- are often used as medications in other parts of the world. heroin is administered to severely ill cancer patients. marijuana, which seems like it must have been included in schedule i by mistake, has a range of medicinal properties that are well-documented.

in fact, the huge majority of drugs have some medicinal value and it's possible that those that don't simply haven't had their properties fully investigated. availability isn't even necessarily an indication of addictive potential. all sleeping pills are addictive to some degree, but that doesn't stop them from being doled out like candy on halloween. but whether it's an inborn suspicion of anything that people take to have fun or a fear of admitting that hugely expensive drug policies have been a colossal failure, the unwillingness to revisit existing drug policies and classifications is profound and very nearly unanimous among those in position to do something about it.

a happy handful each year will take their carefully audited desoxyn prescriptions to get filled, while a much larger number will make do with the less effective and more side-effect prone ritalin (also a schedule ii substance, by the way), because the stigma of handing over crystal meth as medicine is too high. it's simply one more example of a lost opportunity for serious medical study and potential advancement. the people making the rules (and the people who put them there) need to be able to admit that the rabid condemnation of recreational drug use is blocking pathways to those same drugs being put to use in public health. they need to take a pill.