Not...necessarily. As I understand, there can be a big difference -- even when the drug is the same -- between the effects of drugs at therapeutic doses for people with conditions that they are effective for treating and typical recreational uses.
While its not always an accurate description of the mechanism, the difference can be thought of (and sometimes literally is) the difference between restoring a normal chemical balance where there had been a deficit, on the one hand, and creating an excess, on the other.
So, calling it "getting high" can be very badly misleading.
> So, calling it "getting high" can be very badly misleading.
If we understood what depression is, understood its cause, then a dismissive expression like "getting high" might be unjust. But as long as we're only treating symptoms, that's an appropriate description.
No, even in terms of treating symptoms, its still unjust. Even from an external, symptomatic view, there's a difference between a recreational "high" from a drug and someone successfully treated for depression with the same drug.
The fact that the observation of that difference precedes understanding of the underlying mechanism responsible for it doesn't make the difference any less real.
> Even from an external, symptomatic view, there's a difference between a recreational "high" from a drug and someone successfully treated for depression with the same drug.
To take this position you cannot have spent much time listening to drug addicts, who explain their behavior in just this way.
> The fact that the observation of that difference precedes understanding of the underlying mechanism responsible for it doesn't make the difference any less real.
On the contrary -- knowledge of the underlying mechanism is what separates science from quackery. Remember that all quack cures appear to work, for unknown reasons, mostly having to do with the Placebo effect. Remember also that the study under discussion relied on self-reporting for its conclusions.
But sometimes treating symptoms is the only usable treatment. There is a big difference between someone "self medicating" with a drug with high abuse potential, and falling into addiction and a controlled dose in a therapeutic setting where (as the article stated) the benefits far outlasted the high.
> But sometimes treating symptoms is the only usable treatment.
This is the argument of the mental health establishment as they continue to offer drugs that haven't been proven to have a connection with the actual condition, only its symptoms. The result is that an absurdly high percentage of people are on drugs of high cost, serious side effects, and questionable effectiveness.
Quote: "The number of young adults taking drugs for ADHD has soared in five years, particularly among young women, whose use of the drugs is up 85 percent, according to a new report."
An 85% increase in five years, for a drug that only treats symptoms, and not very effectively at that. I guess the program is working.
While its not always an accurate description of the mechanism, the difference can be thought of (and sometimes literally is) the difference between restoring a normal chemical balance where there had been a deficit, on the one hand, and creating an excess, on the other.
So, calling it "getting high" can be very badly misleading.