Ok, you made some very good points in the post before this, and I'm not really interested in continuing this discussion any further but I'll answer anyway.
Aww, don't quit out now. We're almost at my favorite part. To willingly engage another in argument, only to recourse to a craven surrender at the mildest indication of your defeat is nothing but cowardice; it's a pusillanimous cop-out and shows you haven't got the gumption to either a.) convincingly argue your contentions, or b.) the decency to concede that you're wrong and to change your opinions accordingly.
I never said benzos were NECESSARILY more effective, so we are probably arguing over nothing
And I never said you ever said benzodiazepines are necessarily more effective, so you are probably arguing over nothing.
What I personally said was that they were better therapeutically because they were safer...
Therein lies the paramount mistake: you continually confuse and conflate safety with therapeutic efficacy. The two concepts are not connected. A substantial therapeutic window can coexist with a negligible therapeutic potential,and vice versa.
and YOU said that barbiturates were superior in every way for the most part.
For the most part, yes. When it comes to how effective barbiturates are relative to benzodiazepines as drugs for ameliorating or assuaging anxiety, insomnia, a plethora of parasomnias, delirium tremens, seizures, hypertension, panic attacks, depression, social phobias, agoraphobia, intrusive thoughts, OCPD, catatonia, psychotomimesis or psychosis—there simply is no comparison.
Again, a barbiturate is to a benzodiazepine for anxiety or insomnia as caffeine is to (d)methamphetamine or methylone for psychostimulation.
But the thing is, also...when treating "pain" whether it's emotional or physical both toxicity and ability to use the drug in your day to day life without causing too many problems ARE part of the issue.
I agree. And that's why pharmaceuticals are produced with specific formulations and dosages. The difference between a toxin and a drug is the dosage. Since the LD50 is lower for barbiturates compared to benzodiazepines, all that means is less of the barbiturates is used.
Barbiturates, it seems we're all too eager to forget, were prescribed for decades by clinicians and medical professionals all over the world, and they only obsolesced out of our culture's cyclical drug hysterica and fervent pharmacophobia.
Every decade has its worst drug ever. There's always some drug epidemic to popularise and proliferate through media for a burgeoning in revenue and viewership.
Point in case: although I Currently only use Klonopin on an as-needed-basis and don't take it every day, I actually took it every day for 11 years for stopping for 9 months (don't ask how I avoided withdrawal...I got lucky somehow and NO ONE should take them that much...) in low dosage for anxiety because as a medication they did not make me overly tired or overly sedated.
What's your point? Benzodiazepines are almost as demonized as barbiturates, and there exist countless articles (several entire pages of Wikipedia, alone) arguing anything from benzodiazepines are the most dangerous prescription drugs in existence (q.v., 1.)
Benzodiazepines: Dangerous Drugs; 2.)
Is This the World's Deadliest Pill?).
My point is that it can be equally demonstrated that clonazepam and other benzodiazepines are of no therapeutic value, insofar as we are to erroneously equate ineffective therapy with deleterious side-effect profiles.
By your reasoning, clonazepam is ineffective as a therapy because, like barbiturates, it comes with severe and numerous intrinsic risks and adverse effects.
Anxiety can be considered "emotional pain" if you will.
No, not even figuratively is this well-taken or veridical. Anxiety is fear in the absense of something tangible or palpable with which to actually fear.
For example, fear arising from being immobilised on the tracks of an oncoming locomotive is not anxiety, but fear. Anxiety is like the disquietingly amorphous and unknown but imminent cousin of fear. Anxiety is the response to a potential threat or calamity, whereas fear is a response to a real threat or calamity.
So I used benzos to treat "pain" daily for 11 years without ill effects of almost any kind that I'm aware of.
If my positive anecdotes about barbiturates are inconsiderable, so too are your positive anecdotes about benzodiazepines
Now...can that be done as easily with barbiturates?
With a sufficiently responsible individual, yes it can and has. I personally have used barbiturates since I was 17 years old and have done so on a regular basis for almost five years hence—I'm 21, now.
Can people drive around on barbiturates and do competitive sports on barbiturates and even (DISCLAIMER: NOT good for HR) drink on barbiturates more times than would probably be safe...and go to school on barbiturates...and do many other things....all DAILY for ELEVEN YEARS and get away with it??
One is not supposed to do any of these activities on any sedative or hypnotic drug.
I'm kind of thinking that would be a LOT harder to do on something like Seconal or Nembutal from what I have heard about them.
The dosage is what matters, here. Too much clonazepam can make daily activities much more laborious than too little secobarbital.
Moreover, why would anybody want to do anything whilst high on secobarbital, except have sex and lounge around?
Nobody takes barbiturates just for nice, relaxing drive across the countryside or up the block to the corner store.
You really quite are. But you'll never admit to it here. And so, I've nothing further to say.
