What is the relative risk of taking the many proven carcinogenic benzoes and other drugs (also what about 2m2b)?

[Tieeurrrop]

I am a very health conscious person and always look up the long term possible toxic effects and get scared off taking something if the studies show it to be carcinogenic or genotoxic and that stuff.

But as I looked up downers nearly ALL of them I found studies saying they have some horrible toxicity. I think every benzo I found studies that any one is either carcinogenic or genotoxic or both and if I found a study which says a benzo isn't either of these I would find another study that says it is.

Also things like gabapentin/pregabalin, which seemed like ones I would have otherwise liked to try, I read cause tumors in rats. So that worried me.

I don't get why downers seem to be so toxic. But the question is, how much is the risk of cancer and tumors and such increased from taking a given downer a couple of times a week?

I read a study about the carcinogenicity of benzoes lately and it said the risk increase from long term use of the sample group studied was something like 15-20% increase risk of cancer. That is a very high figure! although the study said they had been using some form of benzo daily for several years.

Oh ye and what of the z drugs like zopiclone which I read are the most carcinogenic of the lot. I found these the best for me in the past in terms their direct utility at inducing sleep without annoying side effects (the oft maligned metallic taste didn't bother me) while not making you too groggy the next day but I haven't taken them again since I found out they were so carcinogenic.

And etizolam would fall into the same camp? toxicity wise? there have been no 'official' toxicity tests I could find and the medical literature just said they haven't been done but I suppose since it has been used for a long time in india and such we can infer it has the same sort of toxicity profile as the better known classical benzos.

So how much does it increase from the couple times a week sporadic use? How much more would the risk be compared to baseline at this kind of use?

Also 2m2b is it still in the risky research chemical kind of zone in terms of speculated toxicity? I know they say it is proven to be less toxic than alcohol in terms of its metabolism because it doesn't produce that same toxic byproduct normal alcohol does but what about carcinogenicity and genotoxicity? we just don't know eh? is it a 'safer bet' to take these benzoes that are indeed proven to have some of either of the aforementioned toxicities as the risk is minimal in moderation?

2m2b sounded very interesting to me as I read it as a mix between a barb feeling and alcohol with much heavier sedation than alcohol with no hangover. That sounds great minus the camphor smell it is said to make your body give off but the question mark about its toxicity is what really put me off trying it.

I know we know well that alcohol causes cancer and many people drink in moderation their whole lives. So is it the same with benzoes and the gabapentoids with tumors and whatever else that is used commonly in medical practice but has some proven toxicity? and would 2m2b be out on its own in more risky territory again?

I am just trying to get an idea of the general relative increase of risk above baseline with the couple of times a week/now and then kind of sporadic use I mentioned.

GHB or opiods seem the only safe bets in terms of lack of toxicity however I don't get on well with the gaba b drugs as my previous posts attests so I have still been searching for a good depressant to induce sedation and sleep (on occasion if required) but as I said all the others seemed to have these proven toxicities.

 

[polymath]

Benzos are likely to be less carcinogeninc than slightly excessive alcohol use (like 4-5 beers a day), but it's easier to develop a physical dependence for them because they don't make you sick and nauseous the next day (this prevents most young alcohol users from continuing drinking the first thing in the morning when waking up with hangover),

2M2B doesn't oxidize easily to reactive aldehydes, but sometimes compounds that have to be processed in a more "difficult" way by your liver produce even worse metabolites (e.g. benzene becoming epoxides). 2M2B is probably less toxic than ethanol, but to show that conclusively you'd have to expose animals of several different species to it for their whole lifespan and follow people who've been using it for years (and even then it wouldn't be conclusive enough for those who decide what products can be freely sold to the consumer). Tert-butanol, which is another tertiary alcohol, does seem to cause some harmful effects that ethanol doesn't have when you look at the toxicity assays.

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

worrying about something other than intense, life-long addiction or acute risky behavior from benzos is misdirection.

 

[nznity]

dude everything is carcinogenic/toxic to some extent. Moderation is the key. Anything that you abuse is gonna fuck you up in the end.

 

[Tieeurrrop]

Not everything. Give me examples? of what is everything. I wanna know how these drugs compare on the scale of other common things that we know are carcinogens and the like as it would help me put things in perspective as to the relative risk.

Alcohol was mentioned, what else, doesn't have to be drugs..uv light I suppose is one what else?

Somehow I got it in my mind that taking them would be like playing russian roulette in terms of the chance of getting cancer or whatever other worst side effect I read like tumors every time you took a dose. It surely isn't that risky right but the risk still increases some degree doesn't it. Is it like the type of risk of taking a walk around your local neighborhood and the chance of being hit by a bus when crossing the road? and the more you cross roads (ingest a drug) the higher the risk becomes.

And taken only a couple times a week reduces the risk as well by not allowing the toxic metabolites to build in the system? I still wanna clear it up in my head, to have other real life comparisons of relative risk to allow me to understand the understood actual risk better (as far as the evidence suggests). Benzoes and the gabapentoids + other prescription stuff are my main concern but also

And so is the 2m2b about on par with normal ethanol or it is just a guess like how they guess other rcs are like their parents or do they have a bit more evidence then those totally novel compounds? I found this recent study on 2m2b

Drinking "Vodka" or vodka - This is a question - PubMed

"Vodka" i.e. 2-methyl-2-butanol (2M2B) is growing in popularity as a substance of abuse, especially among East European youngsters. At present, there is not much data regarding its toxicity both in humans and animals. The direct effect of 2M2B on human tissue was evaluated and compared to that...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I doubt I would bother with it since there are so many other well studied downers about already so doesn't matter too much about that one. I want something to take sporadically over a long period as and when so an rc really would not be suitable for such a niche especially not something to reduce anxiety as untested rcs/substance peak my anxiety when I wonder about the unknown aspects.

 

[Skorpio]

That vodka study doesn't look at metabolism, just looking at cytotoxicity on hek cells from a variety of measures. At the end of the day that test doesn't check for mutagenic effects or like DNA damage or any other readout of cancer.

It just says 2m2b is equally good at killing cells than ethanol from its solvent properties without looking at downstream signaling or metabolism.

 

[polymath]

It should be compared to the toxic effects of ethanol doses that cause same level of intoxication for the results to be comparable.

If some super ũber quantum computer in the future makes it possible to predict long term chemical toxicity with less experiments, there could be a 2M2B "maintenance therapy" for the alcoholics who are having hardest time quitting drinking. It would just have to be diluted with a large amount of water and mixed with mild irritants to make it difficult to drink an overdose. Then some of those people could live a few years longer and have a chance to rethink quitting their substance use. But for people who are violent and destroy everything when drunk, you can't really partake in that by giving them free booze; those people would be better off in jail.

 

[Rectify]

We are being bombarded with so much radiation as it is such that cancer is not a huge issue.

 

[LandsUnknown]

It's hard to say. If one really did use them a couple times a week as opposed to daily, the cancer risk would be lower. But you're still ingesting a cancer causing substance. So, it would definitely be a risk. Unfortunately, benzos are pretty addictive. So, there's a good chance you'd end up going from taking it twice a week to daily over time or even multiple times a day. That's a lot of times how it goes with that class of drug. And if it's a carcinogenic substance, that just adds a whole other level of risk that you definitely don't need on top of the addiction/overdose risk associated with this class of drugs.

We are being bombarded with so much radiation as it is such that cancer is not a huge issue.

Yes, this is true. But neither factor alone is a guarantee of getting cancer. It's the combination of all risk factors that determines one's risk of getting a disease like cancer. So, the more risk factors you put together, the more likely you are to get it. Also, you can reduce the amount of radiation you're exposed to by using Ethernet cables instead of wireless internet. And at the very least, turning off your router at night. It has made a huge difference for me. I can feel such a difference on days that I slept with the router off versus when I had it on, and I get so much better of a sleep without the router on. Taking steps to reduce my exposure has made a world of difference for me.

 

[atara]

One reason that there are warnings and such around NPD is that it is not a forum for life advice. GABAergics are hard drugs, plain and simple. They carry numerous risks and any that happen to be particularly safe (diazepam) are exceptions to the rule. The topics discussed in detail here are only a small fraction of the real-life considerations associated with using any kind of drug. So my answer should not be interpreted as suggesting that the drug should be an acceptable risk for you.

When a cancer risk is reported, the odds ratio might be anywhere from 1.25 to 12.5. The base rate might be 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100000. Those factors dramatically influence the risk that you will die. When carcinogenic effects are discovered in a prescription drug after it has gone to market, usually only a small fraction of users develop the relevant cancer and a smaller fraction die. Often these drugs are taken every day, possibly multiple times per day.

In this case you are taking the drug significantly less than once per day, so the risk is probably small. The risk from alcohol is indeed higher. In general hypnotics (all) are associated with higher mortality.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

I've taken a lot of benzos this past year but the sun has still caused more cancerous growths on my body than anything else in life combined.

Ban the sun!

Cancer is relative I sometimes think. If you're in California everything is carcinogenic.

Don't sweat the small stuff I say. Booze will kill ya but it sure ain't from cancer, it's just toxic in general. But to hell with living to 100 years of age I say. Live somewhat fast. Die somewhat old.