Drugs create highs by manipulating chemicals our bodies produce normally. Frequent drug use can change the way our bodies produce and utilize these chemicals, causing our bodies to produce too much or too little. There is no perfect drug because any substance usage takes our bodies out of chemical equilibrium, causing adverse effects.

Edit: Wow! This blew up. Thanks for all the compliments and insightful responses, I know this is an oversimplification and you guys really helped flesh out my answer. Thanks for the gold!

Comments ()

What about people with mental illnesses who are already out of equilibrium?

Then they take drugs to get back to an equilibrium.

EDIT: This is an ELI5 response. The actual answer is a lot more complicated so you might want to look elsewhere for a more in depth response. There are people below me that seem to know what they're talking about but fuck, this is reddit and ELI5 to boot, you probably don't want to trust everything they say either.

This is a common misconception, but psychotherapeutic drugs don't make you "chemically normal". They compensate for some neurochemical, structural or receptor function issue.

There are exceptions, like L-DOPA for Parkinson's, but even it has huge side effects because your brain isn't a big box you just throw chemicals into.

SSRIs are a great example because they were actively sold to the public as "correcting a serotonin deficiency". Except that's not how they work at all; they take 3-4 weeks to begin relieving depression after this imbalancing serotonin spike affects gene transcription and ultimately triggers the growth of new neurons in the brain. In general, the first few weeks are all side effects and placebo.

You can do the same breakdown for any drug. Benzodiazepines don't treat a benzo or GABA deficiency, they (over)compensate for overactivity in certain neurons. Amphetamines at the right dose make anyone a better student and more active, engaged person - people with ADHD have more issues with various brain systems associated with attention, arousal, alertness, vigilance, etc., so the same thing can be life-changing for them.

There was a deleted response to this that pointed out that the SSRI mechanism I mention would look similar even if it was correcting some kind of insufficiency. It's a good point, but the issue is a bit more complicated, so here's the response I drafted to anyone interested:

Well, the issue with this is that "serotonin deficiency" isn't a defined thing. It's individual serotonin receptor polymorphisms that are associated with various forms of mental illness, and even those aren't very robust correlates. More than that, serotonin acts throughout the central and peripheral nervous systems, particularly in the enteric nervous system. This global serotonin boost causes huge side effects - sexual dysfunction, indigestion, anxiety, and typical effects of serotonin excess (tight jaw, excessive yawning, etc).

If you were boosting serotonin to "normal" in some way, you'd see the kind of effect profile you get with insulin-diabetes or L-DOPA-Parkinson's. Because of their mechanism, the only way SSRIs could actually "normalize" serotonin levels is if you had globally overactive reuptake proteins.

I didn't intend to imply the antidepressant mechanism "proves" that SSRIs don't correct for deficiency, but this is how they work despite the fact you don't see signs and symptoms of global deficiency like you can produce experimentally in treated patients - by producing supernormal serotonin tone globally in order to create this notable downstream effect - the same one created by antidepressants that don't affect serotonin.

Every single person who ever took Ritalin for any ailment felt better after taking it. It's the cocoa leaves of the Us.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not. My brother took it and became a zombie. Once he even passed out. Not everyone feels better while taking it. He pretty much felt...nothing.

I'm sorry to hear that. I was only considering legit prescriptions in a doctor-patient scenario where Ritalin was prescribed for a condition.

It was a legit prescription, for his (presumed) ADD. Mom finally took him off it.

I just wanted to say that I experienced the jaw-clenching! I had no idea it was common, which is a relief because I had recently discovered this after being on anti-depressants for many years.

[deleted]

That's a little above my pay grade, but is there anything you take regularly? Do you have other symptoms, anxiety, irritability/emotionality, high body temperature, etc?

If you're not taking anything and really getting hyperserotonergic symptoms then you should probably talk to your doc and maybe try a lower tryptophan diet or take a serotonin template enhancer like tianeptine or something. A lower carb diet might help too, but that's pretty speculative.

[deleted]

You should probably stop taking lots of over the counter NSAIDs, too, and consult your doctor.

[deleted]

Long term usage of NSAIDs can be quite damaging. Why don't you move to other medication or treat the underlying cause?

Not being a bitch has a high failure rate :-/ there are other options that don't tear your body up as much as daily NSAIDs. Highly absorbed forms of curcumin, omega IIIs, 5-LOXin, etc - there are all sorts of less toxic anti-inflammatories out there.

The Serotonin boost being referred to here I believe is Ecstasy/MDMA

Did you forget the name of this sub or...

It was a detailed question asking me to clear up the mechanism I described in overly simplified terms but fair enough, I don't usually post here :-D

because your brain isn't a big box you just throw chemicals into.

unless you're an artist in which case it's a chemical black hole

Thanks for the response. I meant equilibrium as a more normal perception and behavioral response than chemically. Just trying to keep things ELI5. Again, thanks for the explanation though.

Ahh, yeah, focusing on behavior as the target rather than neurochemicals is much more accurate and reflects actual practice. The problem is that people sometimes don't expect side effects or alternatively, completely demonize drugs when they think they're just supposed to make you "normal".

I also forgot what sub I was in, so point well taken there :-D

[deleted]

I'd need to pour through the research, but essentially it's just doing the same sort of thing through a different mechanism. Increasing serotonin broadly is a fairly sloppy, highly indirect and side effect ridden approach to enhancing neurogenesis and happens way, way downstream.

The activity of tianeptine could be related to a reflexive increase in serotonin receptor density (receptor upregulation) or possibly just another receptor target.

Its anxiolytic properties, though, are probably a direct product of reducing serotonin. Activity at certain serotonin receptor subtypes can be significantly anxiolytic.

I don't want to derail things here, but as someone with what feels like a GABA deficiency (it honestly seems a GABA agonist solves all of my issues) I would love to pick your brain for more info.. as in whatever sources or web-based resources you might suggest on the subject, I've studied pharmacology to a degree in my opiate-addict days (thank god, that's no longer an issue) I have some background, but you seem to have a steadier head on the subject than most, and I want to learn more from you..

What kind of GABA agonist, I'm guessing benzos? I'll answer any specific question to the best of my knowledge however you want to send it, GABA systems aren't my strongest suit but I know a fair amount.

I mostly read straight research (so Google Scholar and pubmed) and reported research these days. Rxlist for basic drug info, Wikipedia for quick review (needs to be taken with a grain of salt but people often note recent findings) , Essential Psychopharmacology by Stephen Stahl is my favorite general text and the one I recommend to people studying psychopharm. It's far from comprehensive, but can give you a solid background.

I like reading clinical pearls. It's not something you can probably find online, but the Audio Digest: Psychiatry CME series is great for this.

On reddit, there's /r/drugnerds and /r/Nootropics for questions and discussion, I'm sure other subs as well.

Most straight GABAergics are pretty blunt tools. How does whatever you take work for you? Have you tried GABA-B agonists like baclofen or nootropics like picamilon? Phenibut? Tigabine or gabapentin/pregabalin? These are much more "nuanced" GABAergics that can reduce excitatory tone without all the deleterious and potential long-term side effects of something like benzos.

Picamilon is fairly benign, phenibut is nasty and tolerance builds rapidly, I don't know much about tigabine but I think it's alright, pregabalin is great but not that potent, gabapentin is a bit dirtier but alright for some.

Most straight GABAergics are pretty blunt tools. How does whatever you take work for you? Have you tried GABA-B agonists like baclofen or nootropics like picamilon? Phenibut? Tigabine or gabapentin/pregabalin?

gabapentin has never been helpful, apart from a really fast way to multiply the effects of alcohol.. I've been considering trying out something along the phenilbut line, but am unsure of how well it crosses the BBB.. something along the lines of a straight GABA-a like phenilbut + etizolam sounds ideal, but it's usually a messy alprazolam + alcohol mix that turns me into a regular human able to deal with people.. normally, it would be fine, but I have dosing issues, your tolerance is soooo hard to figure out when the time comes, it's a fine line between doing OK and overdoing it on that mix.. I don't like it...

I go through roughly 120mg of alprazolam per mo, all legit, + too much alcohol that starts out ok, but my tolerance climbs too fast for it to be more than a productive few days and a bunch of nasty withdrawal time.. it's no solution..

That's a pretty solid bombardment on those GABA receptors, and as you suggest, it's not a great long term strategy. You can really go down a rabbit hole with GABAergics since they desensitize so robustly.

Honestly, I'm unimpressed with phenibut except as an occasional sleep aid. Tolerance builds rapidly and it's a pain to deal with. Dosing issues are worse than anything.

Ultimately, weaning yourself off benzos with the support of some of those other options I mentioned would probably be a good strategy, but you know that, I'm sure, and it's way easier said than done. You might want to chat with some of the people in /r/drugnerds - I think there was a recent discussion on a similar topic. Something like theanine, taurine or possibly picamilon or tigabine could be dosed regularly without screwing over your future self like your current regimen tends to do ;-)

[deleted]

Wow, that's incredibly rapid, I'd have thought you were talking on the scale of weeks rather than days. Maybe you can try seeking out a different doctor so you can try to explore your options without taking that risk? Or maybe try some combination of the OTC supplements I mentioned to get a sort of inhibition baseline?

Using magnesium, theanine and/or a few grams of taurine per day is about as benign as you can get. Kava is pretty much blunt too, but probably less so than alprazolam.

Tianeptine might be worth looking into too, though I don't know much about it.

I think you should really consider posting your whole situation to /r/drugnerds or a similar sub - I have lots of ideas for what you could try to get onto a more functional and sustainable regimen, but I haven't been there myself. I hope you keep trying alternative approaches either way.

Isn't proper nutrition a key in re-balancing these deficiencies? What do you think about psychedelics? I feel like the gateway that it opens is extremely helpful. I think in order to change your thought process you need to have an extremely open mind. I think having that open mind, you explore other avenues to your approach in whatever. I am aware of my feelings, thoughts and such, I check them with what I do on a daily basis. If there is conflict I dissect it and see what is wrong and what needs to be changed. Being psychologically aware of your own self is a huge hurdle to overcome when it comes to making yourself a better you.

However, if you were raised in a "proper" setting you won't have such issues, and you will be ahead of most people. So my ideas and thoughts apply to those that are less fortunate. People that grew up in a mentally abused setting, or whatever, something that wasn't the norm. So it all comes down to who raised you and how well they did. I find it really scary that we have so much influence on a life, especially those that are not educated properly.

I think that further speaks to the functional rather than purely biochemical nature of these so-called deficiencies. Chronic blood sugar imbalance, increased stress hormones, higher inflammatory tone, chronic allergic responses, depletion of methyl donating capacity, omega III insufficiency - all of these can be affected by diet and exercise and none of them involve directly just jacking up levels of a certain neurochemical.

I think that psychedelics represent an interesting approach, but are probably best coupled with either formal cognitive-behavioral therapy or just learning the appropriate strategies. The same positive effects you describe can also lead to rumination, existential suffering and detachment, depersonalization or disengagement with the outside world. This makes them a very risky tool for someone who "wasn't raised in a proper setting" or who has mental health issues of any etiology.

If you come into it well-prepared and ready to take a hard look at yourself and the world then respond in a positive way, psychedelic experiences can be great, and research bears this out as well. There is something called depressive realism, where depressed patients are actually better at assessing their abilities than healthy patients since they don't wear the same rose colored glasses, so for many depressed patients, poor self-awareness isn't quite the issue.

You could honestly make the same sort of arguments when it comes to thinking in general. If you spend all day mired in negative self-talk and repeating harmful messages, you're gonna have a bad time.

There are so many factors isn't there? I come to this conclusion and it is very overwhelming. I just wish there were more professionals that have the answers. The people that don't have the time to research this stuff just listen to whatever they are told.

Depressive realism blows my mind, I feel like that fits me. But if you can't get over the negative self talk you are not going any place. I love your response, thank your for the information.

The people in the worst shape usually have the hardest time doing their research too. And whatever the authorities they're listening to describe as the most important or effective approach is what they'll think.

Going back to how this thread started, if you have a doctor that oversimplifies and tells you "depression (or whatever) is a disease caused by a serotonin deficiency and this SSRI will treat it", you're much less likely to look towards other interventions.

Moderate intensity exercise - not even all that much of it - is an essentially zero side effect intervention with antidepressant effects comparable to drug therapy, with added anxiolytic and anti-asthenic effects and of course, generally positive effects on physical health, self-efficacy, self-image, attention, cognitive performance, etc. I don't think I know anyone whose psychiatrist vibrantly endorsed exercise, much less did what they should and recommend/discuss compliance with a specific exercise plan during every visit.

I honestly think that some basic cognitive-behavioral interventions should be taught in school. Teach people from the youngest age how to deal with destructive thoughts, how to break bad habits, how to respond to stress, etc. We weirdly assume that people will just figure it out.

The education system in America is terrible. The key is to getting the education community to instill that idea. You can tour the country teaching people.

But for drugs like SSRIs isn't the end result that the levels of serotonin being used by your brain are changed to be closer to normal?

Nope, at therapeutic doses, levels of serotonin in the synapse are well above normal. That's what causes all those side effects, but also what causes the ultimate therapeutic effects. You bombard the postsynaptic neuron with serotonin and downregulate receptors, which sets off a cascade of signaling events that ultimately affects gene transcription and leads to neurogenesis in the hippocampus.

Hormone replacements (insulin, testosterone, thyroid hormone) do work this way, but very few psychoactive drugs do.

Oh, ok, thank you for clearing that up.

Can you please elaborate on "trigger[ing] the growth of new neurons"

[I posted this link above] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181899/) - a fairly exhaustive review of neuroplasticity, including hippocampal neurogenesis, in the therapeutic effects of antidepressants. It's a rather involved signaling pathway.

Great paper, but I don't see anything about re growth of neurons. It is know that neurons can show slight-moderate regrowth the hippocampus, but something such a depression involves more than just that brain region. The CNS stops itself from repairing and regrowing neurons in every other brain region.

Oh a great reply. If you have time, could you elaborate on the changing of gene expression? Something like amphetamine affects the neuron at the synapse, do SSRIs not work in that sense?

There's a little covered way down there under the 'neurogenesis' section (not a huge amount in this paper), but absolutely! That's why I posted the paper, it covers other forms of neuroplasticity linked to antidepressant use.

I do think that hippocampal growth through both neurogenesis and other forms of neuroplasticity (dendritic branching, "filling in" by glial cells) is important, but far from the whole issue. I do think that almost the entire effect of SSRIs and SNRIs is mediated by gene induction though, given that research shows no reliable symptomatic improvement before the 3-4 weeks I cited.

I'm starting to hit my limit of what I can comfortably cite offhand if you're asking for the full pathway, but essentially you bombard the synapse with serotonin and get receptor downregulation at the postsynaptic neuron (and also some autoreceptors on the presynaptic neuron, but let's not go there ;-).

Basically you have the cascade going downhill from there, maybe you have reduced levels of activated g-proteins from 5-HT1a receptor downregulation, which hits a second messenger system and affects an adenyl cyclase, altered levels of cAMP activates certain transcription factors, which are brought to the nucleus and affect gene transcription, which results in a wide variety of outcomes (e.g. increase in BDNF and other neurohormones). I'd say bust out a cartoon on this one if you want to see a good path overview.

Just a small correction, amphetamines do not make "anyone" a better student. They did nothing for me, even at high doses.

Yeah, that was obviously a generalization, I should have been more specific. More speaking against the idea that they're amazing medicine for people with ADHD and criminal poison for people without.

I'd go one step further and point out that amphetamines don't make everyone with ADHD a better student either, in fact, and I knew several people growing up who were great cases in point.

Ed: also, high doses don't tend to be better. There's a sweet spot that maximizes benefits and minimizes side effects but people often end up overdosed, unfortunately.

This is really interesting to me. I have refused to brave it through the first few weeks of antidepressants multiple times because I had no understanding of how that window of time made the medicine begin to take effect. I figured it was a neuronal restructuring thing. So you're saying it changes the epigenetic switches in your cells to somehow promote new growth? Sorry for my layman language.

Terminology is off but upshot is correct if I'm reading you right. I read a big meta-analysis at some point demonstrating that no typical (SSRIs, SNRIs, tricyclics) antidepressants show any reliable efficacy before three to four weeks, although side effects and placebo/active placebo response kicks in right away.

[Simplified depiction.] (http://www.psychiatrist.com/pcc/brainstorm/images/br6103f1.gif) The Wikipedia article on neurogenesis isn't bad either, it's a good jumping off point.

Thank you for the info. Maybe I will give them one more go around :)

If you're put off by the side effects, you should try something like Wellbutrin (bupropion) - not free from side effects, but a completely different and IMO "better" side effect profile. Also does have some acute mood boosting activity for many. There's also options like SAMe and selegiline which act faster and with fewer adverse effects.

I don't love SSRIs - they're just fine if you can tolerate them well, but a pain in the ass and pretty underwhelming if you can't.

your brain isn't a big box you just throw chemicals into. It's a series of neurons!

Amphetamines at the right dose make anyone a better student and more active, engaged person - people with ADHD have more issues with various brain systems associated with attention, arousal, alertness, vigilance, etc., so the same thing can be life-changing for them.

can confirm. my roomate does amphetamines regularely and is actually more concentrated when learning.

You don't create new neurons. It takes a while for SSRIs because they block the reuptake of serotonin. You are just waiting for more serotonin to accumulate.

[Sure you do.] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121947/) You're actually waiting for the downregulation of post-synaptic serotonin receptors to activate the signaling pathways that lead to hippocampal neurogenesis. Otherwise you could just dose up on 5-HTP and buspirone and have a rapid response. This isn't quite ELI5 material though ;-)

That's making more receptors. Still not actually forming more neurons.

No, you're definitely making more neurons. And making fewer receptors, actually. Leading to hippocampal neurogenesis, the growth of new neurons in the hippocampus via mitosis, the same way other cells reproduce.

There are, however, a bunch of other forms of non-mitotic neuroplasticity I didn't go into (synaptic plasticity, dendritic branching, receptor up and downregulation, DNA methylation and other forms of genetic regulation).

Interesting, do you have any other sources for something like this happening? I've never heard of such great plasticity just from SSRIs. Also, only the abstract is available for that publication nothing else. I'm pretty skeptical.

An increase in receptor number is still what I'll stick to for now but you found an interesting effect that may happen in addition.

[Wikipedia is chock full of citations in their article discussing adult neurogenesis.] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis#Occurrence_in_adults)

And [here] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181899/) is a fairly exhaustive review of neuroplasticity, including hippocampal neurogenesis, in the therapeutic effects of antidepressants.

I don't doubt that neurogenesis happens. I'm not sure if it's a large portion of the effect in SSRI's. If you stop taking SSRIs, you will lose their effects. Is the increase of 5HT necessary to be constantly there to keep the neurons alive even after they've been created?

Nope, it's not necessary but that question isn't really posed well since all of this occurs far downstream (and time-delayed). Read through (selected parts of?) that second article!

Then they end up out of equilibrium again and get horrible side effects.

Not really. Think adderall, or any other ADHD medication, It brings me closer to the equilibrium and with very little side effects.

I've been battling depression without medication since the late nineties. I'd experimented with drugs, but most of the types my psychiatrists prescribed made me gain huge amounts of weight and made my emotions basically flatline. I became a fat robot. So I took myself off of them and decided to muddle through without.

When my son was born, having a depressive episode suddenly had a huge impact on someone else. I was a little slower to answer his cries. I was a little less motivated to go out and do stuff. I was a little less keen on doing things that needed doing, like household chores or personal hygiene routines. And those little bits really add up when you have a kid. They snowball in a huge way. So I got a prescription for Buproprion (Wellbutrin). I can honestly say that I've never felt better, and it's made me a better father. There were some side effects while my body adjusted to the new normal, but now I'm past them and feeling great.

[deleted]

They really are. It can be so shitty finding the right one and right dosage for your body. But once you find it, I feel like it's so worth it.

[deleted]

Aww :( mental illnesses are so tough. I have depression and anxiety and I was very fortunate to find something that worked for me relatively quickly. I hope one day you find something that works even better for you! Have you tried therapy along with the treatment and medication?

[deleted]

Oh man. Keep on trooping buddy!

When you said I have to double up on my meds not to act like a lunatic, how do you realize you're acting like a lunatic?

[deleted]

I'm not judging you. I'm curious. When you have these episodes, like laughter into rage, can you see the response you're having to the emotion, or can you not recognize it until after it passes? Thanks for replying.

My wife just got diagnosed with bipolar a few months ago. She went into full blown, thought she was in God mode, mania. Now she's getting kicked out the military, is being investigated for drug use and adultery, and we're pretty much getting a divorce, she just doesn't know it yet. Right now she's in the depressive, wants to die daily and is sleeping 16 hours a day phase.

Im so sorry to hear that. I wish I had words that could offer some consolation but Bipolar is just absolutely destructive when not treated properly. I dont blame you for wanting a divorce even though I know that much of her actions were out of her control almost entirely. When someone is fully blown manic they have essentially lost their mind and are basically incapable of rational thoughts or actions. I once lit a large portion of my yard on fire in high school while doing a science project and was laughing the entire time. But regardless of whether she was in control or not any action has repurcussions and sometimes it's just too hard for the ones we love to handle. Good luck man, and hang in there.

Out of her control? She said she was in complete control.

Then i'd say you are probably right in seeking a divorce.

There are a lot of reasons why someone might say they were in complete control during a manic phase. The manic phase might lead to what's called "magical thinking" which leads the sufferer to believe they have control over everything (not even just themselves), they might have a really ingrained shame/fear reaction that leads them to take inappropriate responsibility.

Fact is, though, if she was genuinely in a manic phase, regardless of what she thinks/thought, she was NOT in complete control of herself. That's kind of a diagnostic criteria.

This is true. She may have other, self-worth and fear-related reasons for wanting to be seen as in control. If others feel she is out of control, her rights might be removed, she may or may not see this as a good thing, i.e., recognize she needs help.

If there are children involved, she may not want to be seen as an out-of-control mom. She may not want you to think of her that way. She may not want to admit it to herself.

The proof is in the behavior. Is it harmful? Is it irrational (to most people)? Is there any other medical or social reason?

In any case, it's terribly stressful. Try to take care of yourself /u/jova33, as if you yourself had the illness. You'll need your strength.

Either way, what she did is inexcusable. If you scroll through /r/bipolar and /r/divorce, I go a bit into detail about her spiraling out of control and me going suicidal.

(Huge hugs.)

There is a myth that by going to 'x' psychiatrists and trying 'y' drugs with any kind of mental illness, there will always be either a partial or total alleviation of the symptoms.

Not true. Many times, there is no solution.

I didn't intend to suggest that therapy+meds = guaranteed treatment. And as a matter of fact, I have never heard in psychology that any form of treatment is guaranteed to treat an illness. There is a lot of trial and error involved, and that is the general consensus that I was taught.

The only reason I asked about therapy is because there is a higher potential for improvement when you combine medication and therapy, as opposed to either on their own. Not to imply that the combination was a miracle cure, sorry if I came off that way!

I know. I was not directing that comment at you, at all.

I was speaking to what the general public thinks. Many people seem to be under the misconception that there is some magic meds that can fix anything - not including you. ;)

Well, the thing with brain chemistry is that we understand a bunch of it, but there's so much we don't know yet. Trying to find something that will work with your personal chemistry isn't like throwing darts at a dartboard. It's more like throwing baby squid at a hyperactive kitten in a dark room. Sometimes you hit right on the thing you're aiming for (squidkitten! fifteen points!) sometimes you end up with a giant mess of squid and a pissed off cat.

I'm depressed and fat, so you're telling me I should definitely start taking Wellbutrin?

You need some phentermine more likely

Wow. The psychiatrist I go to(and hopefully a lot more) doesn't stick to the "known side effect" list, any change from before to after the medication is usually assumed as a side effect, listed or not.

oh man I just started taking wellbutrin and have the same side effect. Glad to hear it's the medicine and not something else.

Yeah definitely talk to your psychiatrist about it. It really fucked with my health. I used to do what my family called "the passion of the christ", where id slightly suck in my stomach and all of my ribs were visible.

Well I gained a shit ton of weight due to being almost completely sedentary and an alcoholic as a result of severe depression. So, not being able to eat much for now is not really a bad thing for me.

I had a lot of issues with depression/anxiety medicine fucking with me in high school, but thats when you're going through a lot of changes physically and its really hard to find something that works without horrible side effects. I've abstained from any sort of psychiatric medicine for a few years now, but I'm going back on it now that I need something more than my own willpower to keep my issues under control, and I'm hoping that it will effect me in a more positive way, now that I'm physically and mentally more matured.

High school really is the worst time to experiment with medication when you have mental health issues. Most people's really bad experiences with these drugs seem to be during that period of time.

Except if this vomiting after meals had started after changing to a new medication, any medical professional would have factored it in as a potential cause. So either your lying, your doctor is incompetent or there was a lack of information flow between the two of you.

Well, im certainly not lying. Because it wasnt a known side effect it didnt send any red flags off with my psychiatrist (who at the time wasnt very good, not quite incompetent, but im no longer seeing them). I saw a ton of specialists who for a time diagnosed me with cyclical vomitting syndrome. It wasnt until after I came off the wellbutrin, for other reasons, that the vomitting stopped and they came to the conclusion that that was the most likely cause.

Most of the drugs you'd used then were really garbage, with massive, intolerable side effect profiles like you describe. Until the era of SSRIs and other next-gens (I'm a big fan of bupropion for people who can tolerate it, so I'm glad you're doing well on it!), we had to deal with nasty things like tricyclics and MAOIs.

Now we have OTCs like SAMe that compete well on effectiveness and we're on the cusp of moving past even the next gens to ketamine analogues and other more highly targeted therapies. It's looking good!

Some people can't tolerate bupropion? How so? What does it do to them?

I can't speak for everyone, and I don't know if my results are typical, but it gave me more swingy moods making my depression closer to bipolar disorder. Normally I would be the typical fat robot as described, just flat affect. There was no "up" as with bipolar disorder, but any down was harder to handle than an unmedicated depression "down". I was put on lithium, which is normally used with bipolar disorder, in an attempt to manage the suicidal tendencies. Eventually going off the medication and returning to unmedicated depression was a relative improvement. (Preemptive "go fuck yourself" to the armchair psychiatrists who chime in and say it sounds like I'm actually bipolar and not depressed. You're wrong because you're not qualified to assess that.)

You're wrong because you're not qualified to assess that.

Yeah, neither are most psychiatrists.

[deleted]

Thanks for that information that isn't relevant to my case. I gave you a paragraph, my doctors who knew a lot more didn't see it as anything other than major depression. And having a friend who knows what they're talking about isn't the same as you knowing what you're talking about. Kindly move along.

Well, it has double the seizure risk of SSRIs. Some people feel anxious, become irritable or get headaches. Insomnia occasionally. I know at least one person who found the boost in sex drive intolerable (harmed their focus, were spending a lot of time masturbating).

You can check Rxlist or elsewhere for the full list of side effects, but those are the ones that stand out in my mind. It's extensively metabolized and has a bunch of active metabolites, so I think it can elevate liver enzymes (sign of liver damage) in some, but I don't know how common this is.

As you suggest though, its side effect profile is quite different from any other antidepressant and it's generally pretty well tolerated. I'm a fan.

Increased sex drive? I think I like this already.

It's an extremely useful effect for some people, especially considering that SSRIs are notorious for decreasing both sex drive and sexual enjoyment. On the other hand, man can it be distracting to feel like you're going through puberty again ;-) your mileage may vary.

It's worth mentioning that I also know at least two people who have taken it exclusively for the slight mood boost and increase in sex drive. One even asked for it from her doctor explicitly to increase her sex drive.

It made me really aggressive. Bad enough that I had to stop taking it.

A coworker of mine once tried Bupropion to try and quit smoking and broke out in a pretty severe case of hives. I use it myself and was having dizziness issues until the dose was lowered a bit, now it is fine.

from what i can remember of my time on bupropion. it really fucked me up. made me even more suicidal, made me gain weight, and made me horrible to be around.

In my case, as with every antidepressant I've ever taken, it made me more depressed. It works for my father though.

It hasn't been a dream, but Lexapro doesn't deserve all of the hate it gets IME, botched clinical trials aside. Very few side effects, and for years it has significantly helped my self confidence.

For SSRIs, for the people they work well for, I actually like Lexapro and Zoloft - pretty fair side effect profile on the former and possibly a bit more efficacy for the latter.

My dick would go limp during sex. I'd have to stop, make a girl suck it til it got hard again, then continue.

That made me more depressed.

This was the first drug I tried that didn't help me, but didn't make me worse either.

Unfortunately, SSRI's still aren't as efficacious as most trycyclics and MAOI's.

I'm not the biggest fan of SSRIs in general. They don't work remarkably well and aren't as benign as advertised. Comparing them to TCAs and MAOIs, sure, but that's a pretty extreme comparison. Interestingly, MAOIs are, or at least should be, first line therapy for psychotic depression.

For this gen I'm more into the atypicals like mirtazapine (Remeron), bupropion, SAMe and even the MAO-B inhibitor selegiline. They work well for some, but there are some doctors that will try five different SSRIs before even considering these other options, and this is pretty irresponsible, IMO.

What is SAMe?

Edit:Never mind google answered my question. Thank you for bringing this up I have never heard of it before.

Do share. Fuck it, I'll look it up, too, and won't relay the information.

Sorry! I felt silly for asking something I could google and got embarrassed and forgot to share the link.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/same/background/hrb-20059935 http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/786.html

Thanks. I actually did the same. LOL

If I'm not gonna quite ELI5, SAMe is an amino acid/DNA base pair derivative (S-adenosylmethionine naturally found in the body that's involved in methyl group donation. There is very good evidence supporting high dose SAMe (400-800 mg/day) in the treatment of depression. It takes effect somewhat more rapidly than most antidepressant drugs. It's also remarkably expensive, especially at those effective doses. It's also used sometimes to treat arthritis.

Some practitioners use it as an adjuvant treatment to traditional antidepressants or in milder cases. I'd read up on it if you're interested, it's very well tolerated but isn't free from risk. Hurts your wallet more than anything else at effective doses, though.

Very much appreciated.

Ah well if you're interested in that, check out inositol, PEA/selegiline, sulbutiamine and low dose lithium. Even mifepristone if you really want to go out there! All very interesting potential treatments for depression that don't get much play because they're unpatentable.

Fuck that stack piracetam with choline; the former is made by Albert Hoffman.

Easy, its not the same as the other

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

What you want is Tianeptine, it's an SSRE. Best antidepressant currently on the market (granted not the US market, but you can get under the FDA PIP)

Ahh, good mention. I'm impressed by the side effect profile but I think it's been a bit overhyped. Admittedly I don't know as much as I should about how well the hype has played out for the reason you point out though.

The one person I know who's tried it thought it was alright but not worth the cost and hassle to get again - you have any experience with it?

Yeah, I've used it a bit. I'd say it's worth the hype.

You can get bulk powder on the RC market pretty cheap: https://newmind.com/tianeptine.html

Newer research suggests that Tianeptine acts through indirect alteration of AMPA and NMDA glutamate receptor activity and seems to involve altered neuroplasticity and release of BDNF. [Wikipedia]

Very interesting. That'd be a similar general mechanism as ketamine, though not necessarily hitting the same upstream pathway. That price per dose for powder would be dramatically cheaper than what I saw when I last looked like 5+ years ago.

Do you vouch for that source? I'll definitely pick some up if so; I know more than one other person who'd appreciate it, particularly the bonus anxiolytic effects, even if I don't.

Do you vouch for that source?

Can as of earlier this year.

I'm all about it then. Thanks!

How has taking it affected your sleep? Quality, subjective experience, dreams, restfulness, energy and alertness the day after, etc?

Energy and alertness are definitely increased. Haven't noticed much else with my sleep, but I usually take it with modafinil which decreases my sleep needs.

There are also some amazing new treatments like Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation that could again revolutionize how we treat depression. The program at my hospital is seeing an 80% significant response rate. It certainly changed my life when I had been on every medication and then some with little response.

MAOi's, sure, but tricyclics remain among the least side-effect addled options.

? Which tricyclics are you talking about? They're not first line anymore for anything but migraine prophylaxis and neuropathic pain.

All that alpha and anticholinergic activity makes them very hard to tolerate relative to almost any of the next gens with the possible exception of mirtazapine (which works much better than they do). Lots of weight gain, sedation, sympathomimetic side effects, etc.

They have a higher risk for suicidal thoughts, iirc.

Man, in my experience, all of that shit is toxic. I was on a cocktail of them from 10 to 20/21. The last few meds my doctor gave me made me extremely homicidal/suicidal and I had really vivid hallucinations, like to the point where I've got a mild case of PTSD because of them. Any kind of mind altering drugs freak me the fuck out. The best thing I ever did for my depression was quit taking my medication and wait out the month long withdrawal. As soon as it was out of my system, I was like a new person. Haven't looked back since.

A lot of people are critical of the idea that polypharmacy can ever really be "rational". Your doctor obviously wasn't monitoring you well, asking the right questions and looking to see whether you were actually doing better overall, which is a shame and particularly awful when it happens to kids.

Unless it's an emergency, a good doctor should have looked at each med critically with an eye toward discontinuing them. It's pure hubris to think that you can just keep adding meds to "tweak someone into normalcy" without risking serious, even catastrophic side effects.

I don't know fully understand the science behind the medicine. All I can tell you is this. I had/have depression. It wasn't some teenage phase. I could literally be in a room full of people who loved me, having a good time, and want to kill myself for no reason other than I was inexplicably extremely upset/sad. I didn't know why I was upset. I'd make shit up to explain it to people, even my parents. I made up a lie that an online friend I had a crush on committed suicide on a webcam in front of me, and that's why I was upset. That was about the level of upset/angry/depressed. I didn't know how to tell people, I feel like this and I don't know why. So my depression was real. I had a serious problem in my mind. Add that to a long list of abuse, verbal, mental, physical, and sexual, and I was a serious nut case. The meds only ever helped a little. I'd keep quiet and not talk about how upset I was, I wouldn't last out at all, but every day, putting a bullet in my brain was seriously considered. Finally one day I told my doctor I wasn't happy, he switched up my meds, shit got worse. My girlfriend was cheating on me, I knew it, she knew I knew it, I stayed because I was scared and didn't want to be alone. She just wanted to fuck as many guys as she could get away with. Finally the new med they put me on, Effexxor or something like that, made me hallucinate. Like that shit you see in horror movies, where the lights flicker and something bad gets closer and closer to happening. It took over my vision. One was that the girl who was cheating on me, who I somehow still loved so much, was in my arms, and suddenly she's looking at me in shock, gasping for air, then I pull my hands back, they're bloody and I'm holding a knife. Another, my dad's S&W floating up to my temple, then a loud bang and my vision went red. The last was me walking into the local courthouse with an AR-15 and dumping mags into everything that moved. All with that same god damn flicker effect. Like a god damn sick twisted movie that I can't leave. For three days I was wide awake, hallucinating. Couldn't sleep. It was my own personal hell. I was hurting people, and I didn't want to. Finally on the forth day the medication was out of my system. Doc moved me to Wellbutrin (sic?), and I just really wanted to kill myself. It was all I could think about for a week. Then I quit. Cold turkey. The ensuing month was awful. The cocktail of medication had caused addiction, my system was freaking out because I didn't have any in me, I was an emotional wreck and would lash out at anyone for any reason. After that month, it was gone, and for the first time in a long time, I felt clean, sober, and I could think straight. It was the best move I ever made. I feel thousands of times better than I ever did on medication. I've since, to a degree conquered my depression, it only every comes back for a day or two and I get over it. I can't say staying away from these medications is for everybody, some people may REALLY need them, but for me personally, they were absolute poison turning me into a suicidal/homicidal maniac.

I'm the same. Wellbutrin was a godsend. My brother and another friend, both of whom suffer from depression and anxiety, reacted badly to it (near catatonia in the one, panic attacks in the other), but for me it's emotionally the difference between the sun rising or not. I even stopped drinking caffeine after it was in my system a few months. My energy is up, my moods are balanced, and I'm able to enjoy company and recreation and just life in general for the first time in long dark years. Amazing stuff.

Edit: It also made cigarettes taste like dirt and killed their buzz.

Who cares? Alone it's like a cigarette which lasts all day and doesn't stink!

Buproprion! Yes!

I've been through a couple different medication regimens with various results (Prozac made me feel like a zombie, ugh), but so far Buproprion has been awesome.

Thats so awesome that you got help for your depression and its working for you! I am on Wellbutrin and a couple others and they have worked well for me too. Congrats man, im happy for you!

Wellbutrin imo is a wonder drug. Helped me out a lot. One thing to watch out for is liver damage, make sure every once in awhile you get liver values checked by your PCP. This happened to me so I have to monitor and adjust things regularly.

I didn't react well to SSRIs and so my doctor just switched me as a potshot and hoped for the best. She said since I also have OCD and ADD the fact that it affects dopamine or something like that would probably help me best. Best decision I ever made, I love my buproprion except I can't say it.

Anytime I meet someone who's completely not helped by SSRIs I always suggest they ask their doctor. I'm like a commercial.

Pretty similar story for me. I'd been avoiding medication as an option for treating my depression and anxiety my whole life, mostly because of the negative stigma attached to it. When it got to its absolute worst point, where I was contemplating suicide daily, couldn't handle the stress of a normal job, and was making my wife absolutely fucking miserable, I finally gave in and talked to my doctor about SSRIs. She prescribed me a very, very low dosage of Setraline, and it pretty much saved my life. Side effects were minimal, and I'm a functional adult with a happy marriage and an awesome job. I don't think I'd be here right now if I hadn't given medication a shot.

Sorry for hijacking, but - Do you find the Buproprion caused any excess weight gain? I tried it briefly but felt like it was almost too effective in the dose I was given so I dropped it (without Dr permission, I admit).

I'm on Venlafaxine now and have been for about a year but I have gained a ton of weight, way too much given my diet and exercise level. I would love to see if this is the reason why but am trepidatious if it's just going to be more of the same...

I'm actually losing weight, and the Bupropion is helping. Almost all anti-depressants make you gain weight, but Bupropion is sometimes prescribed as a weight loss aid. It was the deciding factor on this trial run for which meds I'd be trying.

I gained forty pounds over a year while on the drugs they gave me in the early 2000s, and that weight hasn't gone away. I'm down something like fifteen pounds right now, after two months of dieting, increasing my activity level, and Bupropion (I think the article I read could point to a two pound per year loss for people on Bupropion, all other things equal).

I think I've probably gained close to that as well in the past year that I've been on Effexor, even though I eat fairly clean and try to be active. It feels like I just keep gaining. Clothes I bought last summer no longer come close to fitting, it honestly makes me more depressed.

This has helped me put two and two together! Even if it's just a minor change, having something that's not so drastically affecting my life will be refreshing. I'll have to have a talk with my Dr about it of course, but maybe it's worth looking into again. Thanks, and congrats on the weight loss :) I'm glad it's working out for you!

move to another country (australia to the canadian rockies) and try 3 medium magic mushroom doses over a period of 6 months, cured my depression!

Oh no! I already live in Canada!

then come to australia! i promise it will help, the cliche tumblr quote applies, before you diagnose yourself with depression, make sure you aren't surrounded by arseholes, change your situation!

I didn't diagnose myself with anything. I let professionals do that with all my free healthcare.

I would TOTALLY come to Australia, though. My stay-at-home dad salary isn't exactly conducive to travel, but I'll see what I can work out.

Buproprion really helped me out also. Other drugs always gave me side effects.

I had some side effects when I first started. I got some insomnia and some dizziness, rocked a headache for about a week. Eventually my body just got used to the difference in brain chemicals and things got much better for me. As with any long-term meds, it can be important to just weather through the bad for a while (which can be admittedly very difficult if you're already depressed).

Adderall has lots of side effects. Taking it long-term can cause severe issues with cognition and recall and physical side effects such as high blood pressure tachycardia and even heart attacks.

Should be taken with Modafinil and Guanfacine as adjuvants to prevent that, but it's a rare combo to see prescribed.

My father has very bad ADHD, can't function well without meds. The amphetamine salts actually lower his blood pressure to a safe level. Maybe its different for everybody or has vice versa effects to people that actually have ADHD. Also hes been taking it for years, since i can remember really.

Those are just the physical side effects

Suicidal thoughts and depression are also known side effects

And, if you stop the medication there is a approximately six week time for your body to recover from the imbalance it causes in the endocrine and adrenal systems. The drug leaves your body within 48 hours however long term use causes physical dependency within the adrenal glands. The result is alternating sleeplessness with narcolepsy and lethargy for several weeks.

That's why my doctor recommended I take it only when I needed it.

Yes it makes you feel closer to equilibrium. But the simple truth is that people with ADHD are not simply deficient of amphetamines or Adderall or whatever, it doesn't magically un-ADHD people.

Now can most people take amphetamines with little side effects, yes, but they do exist.

dependence is an adverse side effect.

I dated a girl with a horrible adderall addiction. She developed a massive tolerance and was up to 120 mg a day. Obviously no doctor is going to prescribe that much she would do anything to get it. Doctor shop, sex favors for pills, steal, etc.

[deleted]

If you actually have ADD, then it's really not possible to find that balance. The whole point is that I'm physically incapable of ignoring distractions on my own. I can mitigate that (and did from ~16-28) but it's not the same as overcoming it entirely.

Came here to say how beautiful adderall is.

Adderall has a very similar effect on neurotypical individuals as it does on people with ADHD. Don't kid yourself.

source: medicated for ADHD since early childhood

My friends who take adderalls and vyvanses clearly have side effects.

you'll still end up out of equilibrium eventually, which is why you'll have to up your dose

I think he was talking about real mental illness like schizophrenia or extreme depression

medically Ecstasy is fine as well but you don't see people taking medical doses

Good case in point. You can take Adderall for a long time if all you do is take it to reach normal productivity levels. But if you start taking it for recreation then it's pretty much meth.

Yeah I use it regularly and I don't have any negative side effects, unless I take it too late in the day then I have trouble going to sleep. However, I only use the prescribed amount, or more commonly, less. I know a couple people who have ruined their lives by abusing adderall. Like, staying up for three days then getting the FBI involved in a delusion they have of a plot to murder them. It works great for me, but if you start to abuse it, it can go terribly wrong. Which is probably true for most everything though.

Altho not directly adhd medicine is know to cause depression high alertness and suicidal thoughts

This is information enclosed with them ( alteast in Holland)

And shamefully I can confirm this indeed are real side effects

thats because you're not using enough of them to get a euphoric effect. if you took enought to get that typical amphetemine high then it has the same as just that: an amphetemine high

Adderall has a ton of side effects. If I take it without weed,I vomit. It makes me shakey and never hungry. I have adhd and narcolepsy and take 60mg a day and have been for three years. It was great for the first year but I built a tolerance really fast. I mean, yes, it's highly effective, but it has TONS of side effects. For men, it makes ejaculating more difficult, it makes everyone less hungry, it causes heart palpitations. Too much can even cause methamphetamine psychosis.

very little side effects.

HAHAHA! Then you were not taking adderall.

I do take adderall, have for well over a year now, and I really don't experience side effects from it. I didn't say you can't have them, I was only saying in my case, I don't.

how much you take in a day and when IR or ER?

I take 30mg ER twice a day, one before work, then another after about 6 hours to hold me over through the rest of my shift and school/homework.

Ahhhh got ya, I had the IR. I might try ER someday... Have you had to change the dosage to keep it working for you?

Only time I've had to change the dosage was my first few months on it while I figured out a good balance

Addies can actually have some horrible side effects depending on the person

Kinda but I feel like it has made things so much worse when I don't take it. I mean I just feel normal and productive when on it, not really a high anymore. But I am worse than worthless when I don't take it.

Yeah because all mental illnesses are as benign as ADHD...

He was just using it as one example out of many possible cases

Sorry just got a little miffed with someone actually calling ADHD a "mental disorder"

Properly diagnosed ADHD can be a seriously life affecting mental disorder. However 90% of those diagnosed are perfectly functioning individuals with parents that don't see any other solution than to sedate their children.

Out of curiosity, why do you not consider ADHD to be a mental disorder?

It's pretty famously over diagnosed and kids are given drugs to numb them when really they just needed decent parenting. Now some people have gone the other way thinking that it doesn't actually even exist and it's all some big pharma ploy to push pills on children.

I agree that it is over diagnosed, but I don't think that that means the disorder doesn't exist at all.

I'm right there with you, I fully believe it exists but some people are crazy and think it's made up because of the fact that it's over diagnosed. I should have made it more clear that I don't share that opinion.

ADHD is BS... much like fibromyalgia...most doctors will admit this if you ask them.

edit: downvoting may help you feel better but it doesn't make what I said any less true...(thats why no one can say anything disputing the claim)

[deleted]

Thanks for the heads up man. I don't give a fuck about up votes or down votes...I care about the truth. Suck on this truth reddit....

There's a school of thought among scientists that doesn't like the use of the worth equilibrium because it makes it sound like your body reaches some singular stable state. Some people prefer dynamic equilibrium or dynamic disequilibrium to describe biological systems. Basically, you're only alive because you're never at equilibrium. Life functions by having concentration and temperature gradients across different membranes and areas in the body.

So you're always 'in equilibrium' in the colloquial sense, but when people are talking about getting back to an equilibrium, they're either A) referring to returning to some ideal cycle or B) you're actually in some horrifying state of disarray and dying/dead. The problem with drugs isn't that they take you out of equilibrium, it's that they change the equilibrium you're in. If you notice a patient's current equilibrium is far from ideal, you can use drugs to change it to a different one that is closer to the ideal, or what we consider normal/healthy.

It depends on the drug, the dosage, and the individual. Certain antidepressants will work better for one person while others will help another, for example.

SSRI works for me and millions of others. Stop with the ignorance.

SSRI works for me and millions of others. Stop with the ignorance.

Don't think there's anything ignorant about pointing out that there's side effects. Very relevant to this debate methinks. Yes the drugs work for millions, and I'm glad they've worked for you. But there's also millions who can't tolerate the side effects and end up feeling like a failure because of the medicalisation of their normal human experience.

My little brother was told he was "slightly autistic" and had "learning disabilities" and then he was "overly aggressive"...

Every time the medicines kept piling on, and with every medicine, there was the risk he'd miss one...

If his "aggressive behavior" before he started medicine to control it was 7 of a scale of 10, then the days he forgets to take it or something else, he's usually a 568983 out of 10.

Why are so many "corrective medicines" that he takes creating these horrible rubber band effects? None of his symptoms prior to taking medicine were as severe as when he doesn't take it after having taken it for a long time. Is it like a mental addiction?

He probably creates mental and physical dependencies on the drugs he takes so that when he forgets them his body has to relearn how to cope without them.

I don't want to insinuate that the doctors are completely assfucked wrong about how to deal with your brother, but... They are completely assfucked wrong. (*In my opinion/experience)

Piling on pills left and right to compensate for an unknown variable (The actual emotional state of someone who has trouble processing said emotions) is as close to throwing darts in the dark while skimming your wallet as you can get.

Now the only question I ever really ask here: Did they ever, once, perform an overall hormone level test?

If the answer is No, get the hormone test. Hormone imbalances are being found to be somewhat common in the autistic-spectrum community and at least for me accounted for 90% of what I would have been on hard medication for, like your brother.

If this doesn't apply feel free to disregard, and I sincerely hope your brother finds that stable peace of mind.

Edit: Here is an article that specifically deals with the problem of doctors going straight to medication: http://autismdigest.com/hidden-medical-problems-can-cause-behavior-problems/

Re:edit I know no one will see this 25 days later but this is a perfect example of people overtrusting doctors. Everything I've said was on topic, with a source and aiming to be helpful but oh no, he doesn't think doctors are Gods, he can't be right!

But it might not help because the drug doesn't match up to complete their equilibrium.

An then there are always that side effect where it could actually make it worse...

Of course, that's the -theory-, but the only way to tell for sure would be to take out someone's brain, cut it into little cubes, and run those cubes through a centrifuge. Clinical Psychiatry is only concerned with clinical observation of behavior and statistics about what kinds of therapies are likely to produce the desired effect. This is why giving prescribers feedback and being in a position to communicate and advocate for yourself is so important.

The truth is, doctors don't know the "chemical balance" in a patient's brain. When they prescribe an SSRI, for example, they're really just guessing based on symptoms and hoping for the best. As a result, a lot of people end up in a worse state from the prescribed medications (e.g. someone with bipolar disorder who's prescribed just an antidepressant might end have a severe manic episodes).

Then they take drugs to try to get some unknown thing into equilibrium but really all psychiatric drugs weren't created for equilibrium, they're just created to kill parts of the brain so that the EXTERNAL side effects make the people appear to be normal (aka well behaved and mellow). Whatever things the scientists claim they equalize, they unbalance dozens of other chemical interactions. They cause exponentially more side effects due to chemical imbalances and introductions of foreign chemicals your body has never seen before.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe OP was referring to recreational drugs, not prescribed therapeutic drugs.

EDIT: This is an oversimplified ELI5 response.

I believe that is what ELI5 is for!

People are forgetting they're in ELI5 and are thinking I'm trying to write some scientific paper here or something.

This also goes for almost every ELI5 question. Top answer is always something that most adults wouldn't understand.

EDIT: This is an oversimplified ELI5 response.

How can there be an "oversimplification" of an explanation that is supposed to be simplified down to the understanding of a 5 year old?

Sorry my wording was redundant. Good on you for catching it and pointing it out.

No need to apologize, friend. I do admire how you learn from the advice of others rather than get annoyed or angry that someone would point it out.

Can confirm: Have depression, took meds for awhile, ended up fucked up.

Now pot works ust fine for me, and gives me back my mojo.

No by the definition of psychological disorders, they are taking drugs to behave in culturally accepted ways and to regain functionality in their society.

They are physiologically in equilibrium, as in, unless their body simply cannot produce certain neurotransmitters, their body is technically fine. But their mind, by society's common standard, is not fine.

I meant equilibrium as a more normal perception and behavioral response than chemically.

NO BY THE DEFINITION THAT I WONT PUT HERE

A psychological disorders must be 1. reduce the ability of the individual to function in the society 2. cause mental or behavioural patterns that's against society's common standards

According to...you.

I googled your 'definition' and nothing came up. Was this in a book? Please photograph or scan the entry. Or maybe its from a site that doesn't come up on google, please link or screenshot.

I want to thank you. For a few moments I was going to assume that all people with mental illnesses need to take drugs to get back to an equilibrium. I didn't even think twice. But then I saw it: the EDIT. Thank god for edits! I read through your edit and then I realized something - you weren't sure - you didn't know! The actual answer IS A LOT MORE COMPLICATED! Thanks for sending me on to more thorough research in this arena - I was about to go back to my couch and have another beer while binge watching television.

Then they shoot up a movie theater or shopping mall

The first problem is that frequently, we don't know what the exact, root cause is. We see the symptoms, and guess at the cause. Or we treat the symptoms because we don't have a clue. This is especially true with mental illnesses.

The second problem is isolating the desired effect. Biochemistry is incredibly complex, and we've got nothing that does only one thing. Blood pressure high? Take this hypertension pill, it will reduce your blood pressure. Except it also causes you to piss alot, so here's another pill that will fix that. Except this pill has another side-effect, but it's mostly pretty minor (dry mouth) so we don't need to prescribe yet another pill. But do call us if you have any of this long list of symptoms....

That's for non-neurological issues, mind you. When it comes to head problems, things are even worse -- they're much more interconnected, and a lot of the time we don't even know why certain drugs work for certain conditions, only that they do. Sometimes.

This is why any time you start a new medication your doctor needs a lot of feedback. He's experimenting to get the right chemical balance and can only do that effectively if his patient is very specific and concise with feedback. The better you describe the effects to your doctor, the better job he can do of helping you get where you want to be. It takes a little team work. Though I doubt most doctors explain that very well.

Depressed? Take this pill, it makes you more stable. Now you're tired and dissociated? Take this pill, it will make your more alert. Oh shit, now you're having delusions and hallucinations that demons are trying to kill you? Oops.

Using current drugs for mental illnesses is like driving a screw in with a hammer.

That's because a lot of these drugs were not actually designed to treat the conditions for which we are currently using them. I read an article about this a while back, and apparently a lot of the drugs currently on the market were discovered in the 60's (there was a lot of research in this field at that time, probably looking for the ultimate high with no adverse side-effects). This lead to the discovery of a lot of different chemical compounds, with varying physiological effects. The patents for these drugs were obtained/held by pharmaceutical companies and in an effort to turn these patents into cash, they started looking into finding ways to market these drugs to the public. So to make a long story short; these drugs were not designed to treat these conditions, instead they tried to make the condition fit the drugs they had available.

Can you recall what the article was called? I'm trying to search for it (or something related) and am coming up with nothing.

There's also the fact that they are untargeted, acting on multiple systems in the brain...

How is weed far from completely harmless?

... I didn't make any claims about weed. But anecdotally (my experience of using, my observation of others using, and others telling me of their experience of using), weed messes with your memory and your motivation.

Physically it is harmless, but everyone has different neurochemistry. I don't think it is foreign to anyone that weed can exacerbate underlying psychoses for instance.

define 'psychoses'

a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

Yeah you Dictionary.com that sucka!

Right. He asked for a definition and I provided it. Not too sure why he couldn't look it up himself...

He asked for it and had it coming to him.

Aside from what has been said, most psychotropic medications are intended for short term use (usually a few months to a year). This is to get the brain back to an equilibrium, because continual use has similar potential for damage as illicit drugs. Think of psych meds as restarting the computer.

There's no biological free lunch.

For example people with bipolar type 2 who become hypomanic? That's the closest thing I can think of to a non-chemically (external) induced high.

If you check out two fairly common diseases you can see this in action and it's neat. If you look at schizophrenia and Parkinson's disease they both revolve around dopamine. Too much and you get the effects of schizophrenia and too little causes Parkinson's.

They're in equilibrium it's just a bad equilibrium. Equilibrium is probably the wrong word to use here.

Use of narcotics is taboo in our society - we're not really sure who uses and who doesn't for the most part. Those that reveal themselves usually do so only to other users they use with and dealers, are found by police, or voluntarily submit themselves for rehab and treatment.

The vast majority are uncaught, do not volunteer, use for a while, stop, or use intermittently without revealing themselves.

I say all of that because I suspect that a considerable amount of congenital disorders and mental illnesses are caused by use of narcotics and go undocumented.

My only reason for suspecting that is that I have know three people who ended up manic/depressive - all have killed themselves - and after the fact, all were revealed privately as users at some point.

I have a suspicion that we'd have far fewer mental health issues if you could make the narcotics vanish.

People who are bi-polar (manic depressive) are considered predisposed to abuse drugs. I'm not sure if their drug use caused their bi-polarity.

I imagine that bipolar people are predisposed to all sorts of mischief in their manic phases. They get everything done, are running 100 mph in their minds, and then still have tons of energy to unload with boundless confidence of their success. They are over optimistic about the outcome of anything. Should they encounter drugs, booze, or sexual opportunities, I imagine that they would partake of them with full confidence that it would lead them to eventual conquest of the planet earth.

But I wonder if bipolar is something that "just happens" or if their isn't a cause and effect there.

I presume you mean adhd/add/schizophrenia in wich case the drugs supply a certain chemical wich brings back the balance

As somebody who is schizophrenic I'll tell ya weed for instance is a way different experience for me compared to my peers.

Elaborate?

All growing up I had a horrid time dealing with people. At 4 got my lead levels tested cause my parents couldnt figure out why I was so destructive. Multiple times during elementary, jr. high and highschool I had personality tests, a.d.d. tests, interviews with church leaders, and meetings with psychiatrists. Looking back on the first 18 years of my life its a strange blur. After I graduated I got a job as a liftie at the canyons ski resort... Lo and behold, Marijuana. I smoked buches with them and it was amazing, but kinda different. Most smokers will tell you that it is the 'icing on the cake' not 'the CAKE'. For instance, if you're feeling depressed and smoke a big fatty yet keep thinking about your depression. In my experience you just get more depressed. When I smoked it was like a cloud of sporadic, racing, scary and confusing thoughts were aligned in my brain and only then could I focus on the real world. Fast forward 12 years and I'm a daily user. The other day my boss of 2 and a half years came to me and asked "Tyler, I'm wondering if you could help me out? I'm not exactly sure what potheads act like." I didnt want to tell her she had never worked with me when I wasnt stoned but did tell her that there's usually no outward symptom of a pothead. Multiple times in the last 12 years I've quit for 3-4 months for various reasons. Each time I can feel my mind slowly slip into mush in the first few weeks of sobriety. After about a month I'm pretty stable-crazy and after that the sober experience is real scary. The best example of what I experience is this cool video i saw a couple years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkB2CGL769o Especially the scary darkness in the corners for me. I'm starting to ramble a bit but yeah, the only time I feel sane and in control of my racing mind is when I've smoked that week.

It's really interesting that it would have that effect. Man, the human mind is amazing

I asked this same question with two drugs; a gaba antagonist and a partial dopamine agonist. The effect as my professor put it "will result in the crazy of sitting in the middle of the street naked talking to yourself.... permanently" because of the hit the dopamanergic system would take from over activation. One of the drugs in question is a high therapeutic dose of an adhd med

Then drugs make ya goods

Then they take drugs to compensate. But it is always give and take. Go look up anti psychotics and check on some of those side effects.When taking a drug for these reasons the only question is, do the pros out weigh the cons.

Right... I used to ask people if it was possible for glasses to give you better than 20/20 vision. They'd give me a dumb look and say that was ridiculous (obviously, it wasn't).

I don't see why the same couldn't be true of other aspects of the human body.

99 OK 9koo99oooooooooo o

99 OK 9koo99oooooooooo o

Many drugs are used for the purpose of balancing these imbalances, that said however there is more to consider than the imbalance or hormones and brain chemicals, but also the metabolism and excretion of the drug can cause increased load on the liver, kidneys and even heart, and in this regard can cause permanent damage to one or all three.

Honestly they should stay away from drugs even more than an "stable" person. The chemical imbalances in the brain that are (could be) causing their mental illness are not very well understood. Even the changes in the brain caused by drugs psychiatrists prescribe aren't really that well understood.

The latter part of your comment isn't false, but the upshot certainly is. We use these drugs not to treat a "chemical imbalance" like we would treat a type I diabetic, but to achieve a functional outcome.

We absolutely know that antipsychotics are far from perfect and have terrible side effects, but we also know that psychosis is an awful state to be in (and for that matter, is damaging in and of itself). You balance the risks of taking a drug, including speculative risks, versus quality of life and the impact of an illness.

Never said they shouldn't be taking prescribed medication under the proper medical care. I said that even the medical drugs are not very well understood. My position is that they should stay away from recreational drugs.

Ahh thanks for the clarification, I don't think that's too controversial :-)

There is a big gray area there - for example, downthread I'm talking with someone about tianeptine,which is a powerful therapeutic that can't be prescribed in the US or Canada - but of course this is generally damn good advice.

So you're saying people with mental illnesses shouldn't take any drugs? That would be disastrous, millions of people with mental illnesses rely on drugs to be stable and productive people. And remember that many of the drugs prescribed for mental illness are also popular recreational drugs, such as benzodiazepines for anxiety and amphetamines or other stimulants for ADHD.

No. I'm saying they shouldn't take recreational drugs. How could you extrapolate that to include medications that are prescribed?

Best answer here. Actually addresses the question and is correct.

Yep. Simply put.... Drink too much carrot juice and you will turn orange.

Or even simpler: The dosage makes the poison.

Even water can kill you if you drink way too much.

[deleted]

Was expecting Circa Survive, was not disappointed.

Never heard of them before but damn that's a sick drum riff

Almost all of the songs on their album Blue Sky Noise are good.

This is off of their album Juturna. Check it out.

Its actually off On Letting Go. But both are great albums, so I upvoted you anyways.

Well Fuck. I feel retarded. Thanks for the correction.

Was expecting Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, was disappointed.

Aww yisss. Muthafuckin Circa Survive.

Cue three hour circa binge

The difference between medicine and poison is dosage and intent.

cyanide?

You can survive very small portions of cyanide

can i use you as a test subject, to determine how much?

explains your user name

Anthony Green is bae.

yeeeeesssssss! what a throwback

I read the comment above and thought "that's not the name of the song."

Glad I wasn't alone :)

Never heard this before, it's pretty nice

except for marijuana?

Damn your the best!

Or even simpler. Dosage...poison.

"Hold your wee for a Wii"

Paracetamol will ease lots of pains and fevers in the recommended doseage. If you take an entire box at once, you run the risk of fucking up your liver.

Really? I've near heard anyone say that before

Edit: I was being sarcastic, stop with the replies. People keep posting this like its new info, everyone is already well aware, as proven by the replies...

Really? You've never heard one of the oldest axioms in Toxicology?

Or do you mean that you've never heard someone say that water can kill you if you drink too much? Which is a truth that is as old, and is actually an example of, the above statement.

I was being sarcastic.

"Water Intoxication" sounds like a joke, but, seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication. I was first introduced to the concept by a classmate who was previously a firefighter; apparently during forest fires it's easy to OVERhydrate and it can be dangerous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

That's not actually a simplification, sorry. The OP is about frequency of drug use, not the dosage.

DAE weed harmless??????????

What?

On the average day, how many bowls do you smoke?

None. What are you on about?

Thanks, Dr. Cox.

Or Dr. House.

Roadhouse.

Shut up, Meg.

"Ohhh myyyy Julian. My hand....some Julian-Patrick Swayze you were so fuckin' sexy in Roadhouse! ...and Dirty Dancin'!!!!"

How ya gonna dance outta this one, Julian? Diiiirtily???

Also I'm gonna run the company.

With the name Soviet-Toaster, why, oh why, did you not go with...

Toasthouse.

Woodhouse what are you doing?

eating a bowl of cobwebs siiiir....

Woodhouse, I'm gonna check that bowl

Or Dr. Feelgood

Um, no. We didn't force him to drink 14 galons of carrot juice to cure polio in another patient.

Just thought that this would be relevant: r/explainlikedrcox

Fucking subscribed.

You'rrrrrrrrrrre welcome, Jennifer.

huh huh... Cox....

Oh betty. I for once can--an -ann-ann NOT comprehend how you wake up this morning and still decided to be a doctor

...Osbourne Cox?

Drink too much carrot juice and you might get hypervitaminosis A, which I believe someone already did and died of drinking carrot juice.

False: Carrot juice turns you yellow. Tomato juice turns you red. Drink excessive amounts of the two of them together and you'll turn orange.

Source: Scrubs S06E04 - My House

Rob Schneider is... A CARROT

magic school bus taught me this

The original Willy Wonka movie had a much better example of it.

Please. Everybody knows you get a better high from SunnyD. AND you turn orange. Carrot juice ain't got shit.

You'll also destroy/kill your liver rather quickly and then die. Large amounts of Vitamin A do not work well with livers.

Fun fact: pigmented carotenoids that accumulate under the skin can provide lasting protection from UVR (the equivalent of building up layers of sunscreen under your skin) and are correlated with more attractiveness versus the change in skin color you get from tanning normally! You have to eat a variety of carotenoids though to get a nice healthy color.

Can confirm. This happened to me when I was young.

Thanks Ms. Frizzle.

and become Speaker of the House.

instructions unclear. Got carrot stuck in anus.

Thanks Ms. Frizzle!

Drink too much water and you die. This happened to a woman in Sacramento, CA about 10 years.

Actually, too much krill will turn you orange.

... if you're a salmon.

Scrubs told me yellow...

Yup. Guy turned orange when he drank too much tomato juice as well.

Anything with high carotene. Umpa-lumpa juice

Or, if carrot juice happens to be a drug that causes intense euphoria, don't use it at all.

Yeah but who talks to a 5 year old like that?

Thanks for your seal of approval.

Yep right up there with Dr. Carl Heart.

Except he forgot to mention the children. THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

I agree. Top answer says the bad part is habitual use. This is true, but doesn't get to the bottom of it. The reason every pleasure giving drug has adverse side effects is because of what OP said. It puts your brain out of equilibrium to achieve pleasure. This is also why habitual use is bad (because of the potential to change your brain chemistry in a very big, sometimes irreversible way), but the reason the drugs are bad is not because of the habitual use. It's more drugs and the habitual use of them are bad because of effects on your brain chemistry.

AND it basically explains like I'm 5. Most ELI5 answers are on a 4th grade level or higher.

I wonder why.

LI5 means friendly, simplified and layman-accessible explanations, not for responses aimed at literal five year olds (which can be patronizing).

Oh right. Right there, in the sidebar.

What sidebar? This is on mobile.

Indeed, great answer. More info: http://youtu.be/ukFjH9odsXw

Vid deals with the subject of addiction, which OP didn't ask about, but it's the main reason why there really can't be a 'perfect drug'.

Also pretty obvious.

Worst comment here. Adds nothing to the conversation and does nothing that a simple up vote couldn't do.

No, it's bullshit. It's handwaving at best. DARE propaganda at worst. Falucious saw a prozac commercial, and think's he's a master neurochemist now.

The answer is simple: Perfect doesn't exist with anything. Ever. Also, here's a shocker: "perfection" is an opinion. A value judgement.

What comes with this is that regardless of whether its pharmaceutical or natural, all drugs have the potential to create either positive or negative impacts on someones life, responsible use most frequently dictates the outcome.

pharmaceutical or natural

This is always an interesting thought. There is no difference between a molecule of aspirin that was extracted from the bark of the tree it comes from and a molecule of aspirin that was made in a lab. There is no difference between synthetic and natural when it comes to molecules, the only thing that matters are the bonds it has. Yes, there are some drugs not found in nature so those could be considered true "synthetic" drugs but most of the meds we take come from plants/fungus/nature.

EDIT: As pointed out below, there is a difference between the ASA molecules in the tree and the one in aspirin. I incorrectly assumed the specific ASA in aspirin could also be found in some levels in the tree but aspirin was slightly modified from the ASA found in nature to improve GI absorption and side effects. I should have used a water molecule as an example instead. A water molecule plucked from the ocean behaves the same and is identical to one made in a lab. Thanks for the cool info!

Antibiotics are made from molds often, and it can easily throw the digestive flora completely out of balance.

Also the tree you're thinking of is White Willow bark!

Antibiotics come from molds (fungus), other bacteria, other plants, some synthetic tinkering made some, many many places. Yes White Willow is the one!

Yeah! I was just saying that it's a good example of a "naturally derived" medication that DOES cause imbalances in the body, even if it seems relatively harmless!

Oh absolutely! Yea, it is pretty crazy... And the poop transplants to help fix it, SO COOL... and gross, definitely gross.

white willow bark seems to be more effective for me than aspirin. is there a reason or am I just being slightly placebo-ed?

It could just be higher potency, with less binding agents? Straight ginger is more effective than ginger chew for nausea. It's not beyond the realm of imagination that some herbal versions are more effective.

Yes, I suppose that does make sense! Why didn't I think of that? Thanks

Short answer: maybe :)

First thought: does the willow bark extract say anything about the quantity of active ingredients? It could simply be that the willow bark is more effective because there's more active ingredient in it.

Second, they're slightly different chemicals. Willow bark contains salicin, whereas aspirin contains acetylsalicylic acid. Both of them get broken down by your body into salicylic acid, which is the stuff that has the pain-relieving effect. There may be a difference in how fast your body converts the different substances into salicylic acid. From what I've been able to find, aspirin probably takes effect faster, but the willow bark extract probably lasts longer. But I'm not a pharmacologist, so take that with a grain of salt.

Thirdly, if it's willow bark tincture that you're using, the alcohol will also have a mild pain-relieving, relaxing effect :)

Or yes, it could be the placebo effect at work. If you think it works better for you, then it probably does! This is the reason medical trials need to be "double blind", with neither the doctors nor the patients knowing who gets the real medicine and who gets a placebo. It's the only way they can tell the difference between an effect that's due to the medicine and an effect that's due to psychology.

They're pills with the ground up bark in them, once I get home I'll see if I have any aspirin bottles somewhere and compare the mg. The conversion time also kinda makes sense there as well.

Strictly speaking, yes. But the purification (for "natural" drugs) or the synthesis (for "synthetic" drugs) could leave leftover reagents, and those could be widely different. And there are cases where either one could be better than another because of that.

Actually, when you synthesize a "natural drug" and it is functionally different, it is not because of leftover reagents in the synthetic, but generally because of unidentified compounds in the natural source.

Which is why I specifically said the molecule is the same. I did not say that if you mix a bunch of chemicals together than they are the same. I said aspirin, by itself, is the same no matter where it comes from.

But the purification (for "natural" drugs) or the synthesis (for "synthetic" drugs) could leave leftover reagents, and those could be widely different. And there are cases where either one could be better than another because of that.

Chromatography much?

I think they've figured out pretty darned well how to purify chemicals by now.

Actually there is a molecular difference. The component of willow tree bark is salicylic acid. Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid. It has the same effect as salicylic acid, but the acetyl group makes it easier on your stomach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin

That is interesting, really it is, but cut me some slack because this discussion was not about the different molecules present in the bark. The initial comment I made was that if a molecule was made in a lab or nature, than they have the same properties, it is the same molecule no matter where it comes from and behaves the same way. We were talking about the properties of a molecule.

Aspirin was used as an example because I (incorrectly) thought the same ASA could be found in there. I should have used a water molecule. A water molecule made in the lab is no different than a water molecule plucked from the ocean.

Thanks for the info though, always interesting to know more.

It tends to go unnoticed, but "natural" and "chemical" are some of the most heavily abused words in the english language. The word "natural" has this ethereal, bogus definition that everyone just accepts at face value. The lie agreed upon.

I agree and it bugs me to no end. The whole new age movement has fell for it hook line and sinker. It is more profitable to put descriptors like natural and ancient and non-processed/synthetic it is crazy. People see the words and just gobble it up.

Not to be that guy but aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid and salicylic acid is derived from the willow tree. So they are in fact different in chemical structure.

Right, there are many types of ASA's. The fact is some of them are found in the tree, and the ASA's that share the structure are in the pill made in the lab are the same thing. The ASA's that share the same chemical structure share the same properties.

Again, all my original comment said was that if drug X was made in a lab, and drug X was found in the bark of a tree, then they would behave the same. I didn't say anything about the many forms of ASA's, nor did I try to say that different chemicals are the same even though they might both be ASA's so I don't know what you mean when you say "not to be that guy". I never said anything that contradicts your statement.

Yes there are many ASA's. No they are not the same. Yes, if they share the same structure they are the same molecule (properties are determined by the structure). Some ASA's in the tree are identical to the ones in NSAID's, those would behave identical, they would be the same. Yes some ASA's are different, they would not behave the same.

The estrification of salicylic said to create aspirin was done by a chemist in an atempt to make the drug less irritating to the stomach. ASA (or aspirin) is typically not found in large amounts in nature. ASA has a synthetic structure made to take in unique properties.

I'm a pharmacist, I'm not going to argue with you over evidence that I have been presented for years. However, I'd love it if you have evidence of your claims. I couldn't pass up the chance to tell my old PhD drug development professor that they were wrong. Wikipedia would also need updating...

Edit: the offending wiki entry. In 1853, chemist Charles Frédéric Gerhardt treated acetyl chloride with sodium salicylate to produce acetylsalicylic acid for the first time;[2] in the second half of the nineteenth century, other academic chemists established the compound's chemical structure and devised more efficient methods of synthesis. In 1897, scientists at the drug and dye firm Bayer began investigating acetylsalicylic acid as a less-irritating replacement for standard common salicylate medicines. By 1899, Bayer had dubbed this drug Aspirin and was selling it around the world. The word Aspirin was Bayer's brand name, rather than the generic name of the drug; however, Bayer's rights to the trademark were lost or sold in many countries.[3]

No you were totally correct about that and I was wrong for making the assumption. I incorrectly assumed there would be a number of them, including the one in aspirin in the tree as well. I was more using it as an example and it was a bad one. I should have used water and said that a water molecule from the ocean would behave the same as a water molecule made in a lab. My bad.

I would think artificial drugs are an outside chemical stimulus that change the brains chemistry, sex, thrills etc also change the body chemistry and can give you a high (endorphin release) and can be considered a natural high.

There is no difference between a molecule of aspirin that was extracted from the bark of the tree it comes from and a molecule of aspirin that was made in a lab.

The biggest difference between "natural" drugs and synthetic drugs simply comes down to concentration and the resulting eyeball dose sizing that results.

Scientists may do an unbiased analysis and come to the conclusion that X mg of the active ingredient from a plant and X mg of the same ingredient from a pill gives the same effect. That doesn't change the fact that it's a lot easier to take 100 or 1000 times the amount of the effective ingredient in pill form!

Most "safe herbal remedies" in natural form are very small doses. Especially in mass market form (if they're not outright counterfeit). Drinking an entire cup of tea makes you full, and you stop. Whereas you pop a pill, get impatient, pop another, and now you have 100 times the dose of that cup of tea and get to experience the "fun" side effects.

In practice, this is not always true. Synthetized substance might not have the same ratio of different isomers as the natural counterpart.

Oh. my. god.

If you synthesize an E form of a molecule of drug X in a lab, and then found the E form of the same molecule in bark in a tree they would behave the same way. Nobody said anything about the synthesis process in a tree or bark and how many of each of the types of isomers are produced.

All I said was one molecule made in a lab will behave the same way as the same molecule if it was made in a tree. The same molecule means the same molecule. It doesn't mean a different isomer.

So are you trying to say my statement is wrong that a molecule made in a tree will behave the same as the same molecule made in a lab?

I was talking about the practical side. Your statement is ideal and not necessarily from the real world.

You'll find water molecules in my piss but that doesn't mean it's the same as a bottle of Dasani. The delivery method absolutely matters.

[deleted]

You tell me I'm confused and then you end up reiterating my post? Th-thanks mister.

The water molecule in your piss is going to interact with your body and the world in the same way as the water molecule in a bottle of dasani. The chemistry behind the molecule doesn't change. It is still 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom bound in the same manner. That does not mean the same thing as saying piss and water are the same, clearly they are different. You are talking about something that I was not.

So you would agree that while they may contain the same molecules, taking an aspirin will not give the same effect as munching on willow tree bark.

Are you asking if I agree that eating mixtures of chemicals is as good as eating the pure chemical? Clearly eating the one chemical is better than a mixture of unknown chemicals, that is a no brainer. We weren't talking about that though.

Also, take your point a step further. How much bark would have to be gnawed on before one could reach an effective dose that is contained in one tablet of aspirin. I am not advocating for the abandonment of meds for trees, in fact I was pointing out the idea that there is a difference if a molecule is made from a tree or in a lab is flawed and that there isn't anything inherently bad about a molecule due to it being made in a lab. That is a common misconception of anti-western medicine people that was addressing.

[deleted]

It is a fundamental and basic tenant of chemistry that the way molecules behave are determined by their arrangement and bonds. The structure of a molecule and its constituent atoms are what give the molecule it's properties.

The properties come from the atoms and their very specific arrangements. There have been disastrous chemical mishaps by just simply using the mirror image of certain chemicals (look up thalidomide and flipper baby syndromes).

A molecule of water always behaves like water. A molecule of ethanol always behaves like ethanol. It doesn't matter where it comes from or how the molecules got to be arranged that way.

responsible use most frequently dictates the outcome.

In some ways, yes, but in many other ways (and possibly the most severe of them), that's not quite true.

The idea that responsible substance use can help one avoid addiction or other negative consequences is a common belief but completely wrong. We now know the factors that lead to addiction are present before one has even used a substance for the first time, so using a substance "responsibly" will not help someone avoid it because the likelihood of this outcomes was already decided before they had even used it and the nature of addiction is that one cannot use a substance responsibly.

The idea that using too much of a substance is what puts you at risk for addiction is pretty common but has no basis in reality. When one starts to use too much of a substance, this isn't a risk factor for developing addiction, it's a sign that addiction is already present and since this is something you have no control over, no amount of responsibility will change the outcome here.

You seem to be going on about addiction, which is cool, but its not what the talk is about. It's about the drugs. Just because some people are incapable of using something responsibly doesn't mean it should be illegal or considered bad.

72% of American's 18-54 admit to drinking. At what point do we realize we have a cultural addiction? At what point do we realize we've begun to fetishize a product that kills millions every year and take a step back to regulate its use better? Addiction is a great thing to focus on man but in this conversation, its pretty much irrelevant, because people can be addicted to anything not just drugs.

You said "responsible use most frequently dictates the outcome" and this is what I'm objecting to because it's an unsupported claim. Nobody is arguing in favor of criminalization here.

Very well put, I appreciate you using the example of pharm. drugs as an example. Example, you take Coumadin (warfarin) for the prevention of clot formation, most commonly with those that have a fib ( prone to a CVA ). Take too much of this drug and you will bleed out in no time. A drug that is used for positive effects can turn catastrophic in a flash.

Just to make the point even clearer, coumadin is used as the active ingredient in rat poison.

You know I actually was brought upon this fact by Arrow on CW and when I did more research I was surprised and yet not really. That's the study of pharm. for you, we take things that would kill you and turn them into drugs that can save lives. But the question is at what cost and when does benefit outweigh the risk.

I think you mean irregardless.

all drugs have the potential to create either positive or negative impacts

This is poorly worded. For any given individual, there are drugs that will only have negative effects on their life.

No, it wasn't, and yea, thats basically what I said. Each individual has to decide for themselves, its up to YOU to do the research and figure out of this is something you need / should be taking. If you're taking drugs recreationally, then know the side affects and know what to expect, know what pre-existing conditions you have going in and do your research to find out if there is a potential of exacerbating that condition. If you'd like to start naming some of these drugs perhaps we could debate it further, but right now you just seemed to want to up your post count.

No, it wasn't

Yes, it was. And there is nothing to debate.

Akylating agents, for example, given to a healthy person, will damage their bone marrow and have potential to cause leukemia. There is no potential upside in that instance.

By the way, "side effects." Someone professing such intimate knowledge of the proper use of drugs should get that right.

Haha, I make a mistake within a few minutes of waking up and you take it as an opportunity to make a personal attack on me, more evidence of a poor argument. Also, you're nitpicking , and my statement still covers it anyway, so more hilarity there. Seeing as we're just attacking each other now, I'll go to your english comprehension. "most frequently" - think real hard

Can't that be said about anything? Working 12 hours a day every day takes your body out of equilibrium. Exercising does the same.

Is equilibrium really a valid concept when it comes to neurology? Every interaction and experience manipulates and shifts neurology, there is no perfect brain chemical equilibrium rather it is constantly in motion/movement.

As an aside plenty of psychedelics have plenty of positive effects with little to no recorded adverse effects (besides the potential of having a bad time).

Yeah I'm confused by that, what state is equilibrium defined as?

This comment seems to imply that if someone has a really happy life where he constantly receives better and better news, it would be similarly harmful as a drug addiction.

I think neuroscience shows pretty clearly that equilibrium would be a false conception of the brain as a static object rather than a dynamic system.

Also, there are some "good" drugs. For example, caffeine. Minimal negative health effects and clear positive effects, and suddenly the whole world uses it.

"There is no such thing as a free lunch."

That's pretty much it, I always see it as you're cheating your brain into releasing reward chemicals so you have to come down even further to "pay"

What about caffeine? It doesn't have any serious side effects from long term use, right?

Most psychedelics don't have serious side effects from long term use.

They don't have serious side-effects on your organs or faculties, but they can and will significantly alter your relationship with the world.

This doesn't usually result in becoming a more adjusted, happier human being; for some people it does, and the rest will echo it because who wants to admit to themselves that they've turned into a worse version of themselves through drug use?

I've done shrooms and acid a couple times, it was a lot of fun and a huge learning experience, but I would recommend against it for like 95% of people.

No, but I doubt your caffeine high is much like heroin.

True, but people build up a tolerance to heroin too, caffeine has a much stronger effect on non-addicts (than it does on caffeine addicts, not than heroin).

I don't think caffeine really gives anyone euphoric feelings though.

Perhaps it reacts with me differently, but other than feeling slightly less groggy for an hour it doesn't make me feel good.

If you stopped taking caffeine until it was all out of your system, and then drank the same amount coffee you drink now, you will feel it. ;)

Your body adjusts to the chemicals that are in it.

I suppose it does react differently. Then again, that might just be the Red Bull and Mountain Dew mix talking.

Caffeine seems to be ok, even with pretty good amounts. It has known side effects (heart racing/fluttering/anxiety/jittery) but beyond those it doesn't seem to do anything terrible bad. There were some studies in the 40's that pointed to GI cancers but the science was really flawed and hasn't been replicated anywhere else. Some research to show it could help decrease prostate cancers with heavy drinkers.

What about heroin?

That escalated quickly.

If you're using caffeine at a high enough dosage to create euphoria on a regular basis, it could start to have negative side effects. Your body gets used to the stimulating chemicals and withdrawals could be miserable and even dangerous. I have a friend who ended up in the hospital for caffeine withdrawals.

But if you use it once in a while, it's just as harmless as things like mushrooms or acid. Most psychadelics are not harmful or dangerous if used rarely, depending on existing mental illness.

All magic comes with a price...

So, meth?

TL;DR There is no perfect drug because there is no perfect body.

Wow, an answer that actually answers the medical question OP asked instead of rambling rhetoric about drugs not being "perfect" because then you'd do them all the time instead of eat and that you shouldn't rely on artificial happiness.

Exactly!

I feel as though this answer is pretty obvious... I mean well answered none the less but I was assuming everyone understood this too, that this is why you can't have drugs and no bad side-effects.

Not necessarily. In the case of opiates (heroin, morphine, oxycodone, vicoden, etc) , it seems NMDA receptor activation is necessary for the downregulation of opioid receptors. By administering an NMDA antagonist, tolerance to opiates can be prevented.

Furthermore, studies are finding that co-administration of sub-threshold doses of an opioid antagonist, such as naltrexone, can actually reverse tolerance and create sensitization.

To add to this comment:

It is almost unheard of for xenobiotics to be so specific that they affect one single aspect of your physiology. This is one of the hurdles of studying molecular biology as there are so many interactions within a cell, many of which aren't fully understood yet. To add to the complexity of this, there are many different cells in the body utilizing different mechanisms. So while you may receive local pain inhibition in one area of the body, it could be entirely possible that the same chemical is inhibiting a different mechanism in another organ and the phenotype just isn't manifested, or can only be seen after x amount of use/dose.

TL;DR: Drugs/Xenobiotics tend not to affect one piece of the cellular machinery, but whether the off-target effects are seen requires a lot of intensive research.

The same thing can be said about food. As in much with life, moderation is key.

Some of that assumes that your brain isn't already out of balance. A lot of drug users are self medicating for depression, anxiety or chronic pain. The same uses as many legal drugs.

One study I read correlates depression and heavy marijuana use. You could argue that this is due to an altered brain chemistry caused by constant THC. You could also argue that depressed people are likely to turn to marijuana (and other similar drugs) for the euphoric effects, treating a pre-existing problem.

Many illegal drugs are taken in a way to get immediate effect and aren't extremely expensive for users just starting out. Prescribed antidepressants can't say either of those things. SSRI's take time to build in your system and are usually prescribed in a one-dose-fits-all model. You can't easily increase the apparent effects until they work. That and some major side effects are suicidal thoughts and sexual disfunction. I'll take the munchies over that any day

But who defines equilibrium?

People who have no knowledge of neuropsychopharmacology.

What about a drug what would insert a new chemical that we don't produce, thus changing nothing?

If it is making you feel euphoric or pleasure than it is interacting with your bodies chemical systems to signal the release of neurotransmitters that produce such sensations. In one way or another you are interfering with your current biological processes and altering the production of chemicals in your body. If it didn't do this then you wouldn't be able to feel anything. Changing things is what you intend to do by taking any drug.

But is it outside the realm of possibility to create a chemical that directly produces a reaction without going through the neurotransmitters? (Aka cutting out the middle man if i'm understanding it right)

Just to piggyback on the top comment, even if a drug with euphoric effects was created that didn't have any physical adverse effects, it would still have mental adverse effects.

Imagine a drug that produces a high and you never have to worry about ODing or having a hangover or any other health effects. Would you take it every day? Would you spend your last dollar on it instead of eating some days? Would you steal in order to get money for it?

As a more general advisory: You can always have too much of a good thing. Drugs give your body more of a good thing than they could normally get (either a hormone or neuroreceptor activity), so use always has the potential to push something beyond tolerance and break equilibrium.

This is way easier with some drugs than others.

Where does weed fall under this? Would a habitual smoker have a significant changes to their body as well?

Unless your body is naturally out of that equilibrum. Like if you are depressed

This answer is fuckin retarded. You can't just assume your brain is at an optimal equilibrium. And you can't assume that EVERY drug will throw off that equilibrium. By the way, what "Equilibrium" are you talking about? Biological systems are never at an equilibrium. You know what happens when an equilibrium is reached? You fucking die. You eat food for energy to stay away from the chemical equilibrium.

The answer to OP's question is simple: Perfection doesn't exist. In anything. Ever.

Why doesn't the perfect house exist? There's always some flaw. You'd think someone would develop a perfect house, but we don't live in a world where platonic ideals are real. Also, people's opinions differ on what's "perfect".

HOMEOSTASIS FTW!

I think Tim Ferriss said it best: there is no such thing as a biological free lunch

I wish I could remember the guy's name that said it, but a perfect summation of this is "There is no such thing as a genetic free lunch."

If drugs manipulate the body to cause adverse health effects, then can't there be drugs that manipulate the body for pleasure, but only have minor/negatable negative effects? For example: Meth has really bad side effects, but a meth like substance that only gives you cottonmouth or your body needing to pee excessively.

Note: I'm not looking to do any drugs, I am just curious.

Perhaps you meant out of balance or something? You're completely wrong about chemical equilibrium. You'd be dead if you were anywhere near equilibrium, thermally or chemically. That said, by taking drugs you're shifting where that equilibrium is and therefore changing behavior of stuff.

Source: I have a PhD in chemical engineering.

summary for planet earth.

Marijuana doesn't hurt your body at all, for realz brah, i see people saying how safe it is all the time!

If you reached chemical equilibrium you'd be dead. You metabolize food, and breathe for the very purpose of not reaching chemical equilibrium by adding reactants into the system while removing the products of the reactions. Thus the reactions in your cells continue in the forward direction of creating more product due to the abundance of reactants.

Chemical equilibrium, the state in which the concentrations of the reactants and products have stopped changing in time.

You must be referring to homeostasis, the ability of an open system, especially living organisms, to regulate its internal environment.

The idea that a perfect drug is one that must be used frequently is biased and absolutely incorrect. That shouldn't be a criteria when debating the idea of drugs, let alone a "perfect drug". The idea of a chemical equilibrium is also a bit odd, just like the idea of a constant state of consciousness. Your consciousness is always fluctuating.

Something to consider, though: psilocybin, the chemical in magic mushrooms, does not allow for 'frequent use.'

Our bodies develop an almost instant tolerance to it, meaning that you cannot abuse it. Usually a 7 to 14 day break between dosages is required to overcome this tolerance, allowing you to enjoy the full experience...sometimes longer, I suppose it depends on the individual.

So, one could argue that this drug is self-regulating, and by it's very nature does not allow for abuse, and is therefore superior to other substances.

Yes it has a downside, the possibility of a bad trip. But, if used carefully, this can be avoided 100% of the time. And it has no other negative side affects that I am aware of, and has been shown to provide positive mental health benefits.

This dude deserves some Gold.

You are wrong. There is a perfect drug: Love

My actual ELI5 answer based on this would be that the high itself is both the good part and bad part of the drug.

This is good, but I like to also think of it from a purely philosophical angle. Any drug that makes you feel good when things aren't actually good is bound to have negative consequences because it disconnects you from reality to some extent.

That answer is completely wrong and does not answer the question.
There are drugs that have no adverse effects. Overdosing does not count here as you can overdose on water.

The reason mind altering drugs are bad is someone has impaired judgement and possibly hallucinations and is still free to move in society. Too many bad things can happen even with the nicest most law abiding citizen while on mind altering drugs thus they make them illegal/bad even with no adverse affects.

Although, for some people, the chemicals in our body are already unbalanced and taking some drugs can actually help balance it out.

Really could take the word drugs and change it to something along the lines of "artifical, processed, unnatural items" heroine and soda will both mess up chemical balances, they're just different balances.

Because Homeostasis

So if I take a drug that makes me depressed for a long time when I stop taking it I'll be super happy all the time?

Yep. Weed is as far as I know the closest thing to what he's describing, and still has effects like changes in appetite, sleep schedule, and irritability/insomnia/lack of appetite when you quit, if only for a few days/weeks.

Why? It throws your natural chemicals and neurotransmitters for those bodily process way off, and they need time to readjust without it. So in that sense, it's a very mild withdrawal. Hell, getting off caffeine from a 3-cup-a-day habit will do worse to you, and for the same reasons.

Right. There is no biological free pass.

And this is always why you start to build up a tolerance?

Oh shit. What has all the coffee I've been drinking done to me then?

What do you mean by "frequent drug use"? Like what's frequent? I assume it also has something to do with which drug you are using right? I remember my friends say that using ecstasy once a month isn't so bad but using it every weekend is bad.

Only smoke pot occasionaly

How come they cant make a drug that inserts those chemicals into our system instead of making our system produce the chemicals itself?

And let's just say there was the perfect drug, it would still have adverse economical and subsequently social side effects.

You know how to say all the right words, /u/falucious.

So really, there ARE perfect drugs...and our body already uses them perfectly?

What if we take what our body produces and enhances it?

"Too much of anything is bad"

There is no perfect drug because any substance usage takes our bodies out of chemical equilibrium, causing adverse effects.

I agree with everything else, but this last part is speculation and may or may not be true. Is it possible that we can eventually make a drug that doesn't have these downsides? Sure, we just don't have any at the moment.

Couldn't there be a drug and tool combined to then monitor and regulate the vital chemicals released to sustain certain levels.

Going further into this, the same tool could notify emergency services if you are hurt and keep logs to provide healthier, longer lives.

It could be marketed as a sort of BIOS for your body. Log in and make slight adjustments. No remote access and secure for obvious reasons. Doctors and authorized few people can modify only while you are present and give ok.

This would be very cool actually, probably save lives in the process, using all that information on levels normally only checked once a year to several in between.

Many hallucinogens do not have this effect at normal doses. Only when doing them constantly(which they aren't very addictive anyway, so most people do not), do they have any adverse effects that you speak of.

LSD and mushrooms do not have the same effect on the dopamine system that weed or alcohol does.

Shit, this even applies to food that's bad for you.

Also, the high is what makes it addictive. so a "good" drug will always, in a way, be bad.

If one were to rotate the drug of choice, would that make any difference in maintaining the body's chemical equilibrium, and mitigating adverse effects?

Could drug abuse of some kind be used to treat certain chemical imbalances then?

Yeah he has it spot on basically. It's all about chemical reaction and such happening in the brain. Other parts of the brain light up with activity. Reasons why most heavy drug users are pretty whacked out.

AKA: Positive feedback l

There is no perfect drug

Except for you. You are the perfect drug.

Too add...when you withdraw from it. Thats the shitty part. When your body wants something it will "make you want" it.

So, you will have a tendancy to go one step further...and take too much from fear you will run out.

Your body will convince you, you need it because when you alter your balance. It will cause issues when you stop taking it as the best answer says, you wont produce it the same.

Plus: Even if we were to create a drug like you mentioned, you can bet your sweet ass that it wouldn't last very long in the U.S. Perfect drug with no side effects? The government ain't got time for that.

To add, this includes prescription drugs. Doctors are very careful about prescribing antibiotics, because they eventually stop working. Just one example

Example: Cocaine blocks NET which is the transporter responsible for reuptake of norepinephrine in the synaptic cleft (the gap between the nerve spitting out a chemical and the nerve receiving it). Therefore, instead of being reabsorbed and recycled, it keeps bouncing around in the synaptic cleft, hitting the receptors on the "receiving nerve" more often, causing a bigger signal. This results in you getting a bigger effect from norepinephrine, aka a high. Over time, this causes damage.

What about nootropics? They take our body out of chemical equilibrium but with positive effects. Piracetam taken with choline increases brain metabolism and has been studied for 30 years and is regarded as safe and very beneficial. While piracetam does not feel like a drug PhenylPiracetam which is 30 times more bioavalible in the body definitely does.

Yes, but this doesn't even address the adverse effects of addiction, like increased tolerance, leading to the need for higher dosages, with a resulting potential for overdose. And then there are the well-documented lifestyle implications of drug dependency resulting in additional burdens on society (your taxes and mine) to deal with these ramifications. Contrary to the protestations of the recreational drug proponents, they are not victimkess,

I'd add to this that no matter the direct physical effects, the psychological effects (which are in a sense an indirect physical effect) can lead to dependence. Just like it's hard to put down that second fatty or salty snack, essentially when the body feels pleasure, it becomes imperative that it seek out that pleasure again.

If you describe the pleasure you get from a drug in terms of cheeseburgers, a drug like heroin or cocaine produces many simultaneous cheeseburgers of pleasure that leads to that dependence. Crystal meth, IIRC was described as something like 1000 cheeseburgers of pleasure. Because pleasure is essentially a factor of brain chemistry, this heavy exposure can affect the structures in the brain quite drastically because essentially they are vastly overwhelming our pleasure centers.

Like sugar?

No free lunch you gotta pay for it somehow

too much of anything is bad

Equilibrium in the body means death. You cannot have equilibrium in the body because that would mean no flow. Everything in the body is dynamic so you should say homeostasis. For example, cells need to have different concentrations of ions excellular and intracellular of the cell. Having it equal would mean the cell dies.

Thank you! This makes sense. Too many people getting caught up on the addictive aspect here in the comments.

Until marijuana.

Your response ELI5-perfectly explains why there are side effects after stopping drug use or after it wares off.

Another important aspect of this is that the chemicals we produce rarely target a single receptor. They unfortunately bind to unintended receptors that bind structurally similar chemicals. These cause many of the immediate side effects from drug use.

I'm very disappointed this got as much karma as it did.

This is actually a pretty terrible answer.

It actually has much more to do with receptor regulation than some kind of hand-wavy "equilibrium" causing your body to produce too much or too little.

There's also absolutely nothing inherently preventing a drug from having no adverse effects, and this entire thread seems to be filled with ignoramuses.

6-hydroxynorketamine could quite well be an example.

Think of it like a puzzle piece. There is only 1 correct piece that will fit, but there are several pieces that almost fit.

Drugs are the puzzle pieces that almost fit, but they don't make a correct picture. The chemicals your body produces is the 1 puzzle piece that fits and makes a correct picture.

When you have the incorrect puzzle piece in place, you don't have room for the correct piece, and it is no longer needed.

I find it hard to believe they haven't developed a drug that gets you high while at the same time keeping the chemicals in your body in balance.

So basically what you're saying is that we need to find the human equivalent of catnip?

what comes up must come down works exactly well in this case.

What about mushrooms? Don't you build an immunity to quickly to actually be addicted, and isn't the active ingredient psilocybin metabolized with out any long term side effects?

I also want to add that it is not just the drug that is dangerous, but the impurities or additives. It is pretty difficult to make pure drugs and the people making meth are not chem PhDs in a sterilized facility. There is also the danger of additives which the producer often doesn't know how it will effect the body but just takes a guess and puts it in anyway to save money.

Even if this were not the case, I suspect that a drug creating euphoria that had no negative effects would rapidly become psychologically addicting.

Also, "drug" relates to any and all pharmaceutical product. Technically aspirin is a drug because it alters the chemicals in your body. As such, aspirin can be detrimental to your health if used chronically and/or in large doses

Our bodies aren't necessarily in equilibrium. Who's to say one persons mixture of sadness, happiness, anger, etc is in the right balance? Who's to say what the right balance is?

^ To back this up, even installing zombie buttons (something with a weak trickle of electricity into the pleasure centers of the brain) wouldn't be feasible, for the same reasons.

TL;DR - We can only have so much pleasure before we start to wreck our bodies.

Why catnip is safe to felines?

any substance usage takes our bodies out of chemical equilibrium

What evidence is there that there's any such thing as "chemical equilibrium" in our bodies?

This sounds as flaky as the idea of the "balance of nature"

But there are plenty of drugs that are essentially the top choices in terms of minimizing disarray to the body's long-term well-being. It's so crazy that people even still use things like meth when other newer amphetamines can give you the same physiological and psychological effects with much less harm.

have you not heard of this new drug called soma, It makes youfeel pretty alpha

I think you're simplifying things a little bit too much.

Take a look at one of the most widely-prescribed psychoactive drugs out there: amphetamine (Adderall, Vyvanse, etc)

Its simplified mechanism of action is it increases the activity of dopamine-driven neuronal interactions in your brain.

How it does that is not fully understood. It operates against a large number of transporters and enzymes, affecting their binding affinity in different ways and creating all sorts of subtle changes in the way neurons operate. It causes indirect changes in gene transcription. The changes in dopaimine concentrations have second-order effects on other parts of the neuron. Over time it changes the expression rates of proteins in a neuron, and over time it changes the connections between your neurons as they form differently due to the changes in their firing patterns.

Our bodies try to push towards equilibrium, but its more complicated than that. Think of homeostasis as a mechanism that finds a local minimal in a rich multidimensional space. Taking a drug changes the topology of that space and sets your body on a course towards a new local minimal. Temporary doses will change the topology for a short duration and you'll move slightly out of your typical equilibrium. Long-term dosing will push you so far out of your typical equilibrium that it might be impossible to return back to it.

You can't build perfect tolerance to a drug, but what will happen is that the parts of the mechanism of action that your body does have a feedback loop to regulate will slowly adjust within the bounds of your body's ability to adjust them.

I think the reason we don't have a perfect drug yet is because we don't truly understand how any drug really works, or the mechanism through which we compensate for their affects. If we could fully understand that space we could certainly design drugs to achieve a given desired effect long term. That's essentially what psychiatry tries to do today, albeit there is still a lot of guesswork in finding the "clinical dose" for a given patient because of all the unknowns I mentioned above.

How does electrical stimulation of pleasure centers fit into this?

This is an ELI5 answer, oversimplification is the key! You got it spot on :D

Today I learned dopamine is one of the four humors.

Could there be a drug that reverses the "bad" effect of the drug?

What are the adverse effects of LSD that have been scientifically proven?

You just ruined it with that edit. Made everyone cringe.

I know this is the top rated comment but I think it is slightly flawed. Practically everything we put inside of our bodies is a drug. Every vitamin, fat, sugar, etc. All do the same thing in regards to change the way our chemistry works. I think the OP needed to be more specific in which types of drugs. Just about everything we put inside of our body has specific chemical reactions. Some have negative side effects while others have positive. Think about the difference between milk and coke for example.

Additionally, there is not yet a drug that can be distributed to the brain without channeling through the body. Find a drug that can be given to the brain without going through the body then the problem is solved. Until then, we will have the come down.

I know this is an oversimplification and you guys really helped flesh out my answer. Thanks for the gold!

Explain like I am five is meant to be simple. You did a perfect job.

So I get a high from working out and eating food. Not a big one but enough of one. Why can't I duplicate that feeling? Why cant I make healthy broccoli taste like a big Mac or chocolate? What about left handed sugar or tagatose?

i would like to add that if such a drug existed, there would still be some wrong with it. Someone who would feel high and content at every single point in his life, no matter what, would probably find it hard to do, well, anything.

What about if there were a drug that had no other negative effects except dependency? So you could just keep taking it after your body stops producing its own, and just dial it back down to a normal level when you wanna be sober again?

What about bypassing the chemical part and triggering the affected areas in the brain surveyor through electrical stimulation or some other hypothetical heuristic?

Can't we somehow counteract these adverse effects with a magical drug?

I always liked the phrase "There are no free lunches in nature."

Is that true for DMT?

Bingo, this is the key. Anything which creates a high can be addictive, from food to skydiving. The problem is that drugs create such a great high, which is artificially much more intense than anything the brain can generate on its own, that the limbic system in the brain begins to prioritize the finding of that high before anything else. It becomes more important chemically, it creates a better "reward" response in the brain, than sex, food, water, shelter, friends, family, literally anything. Even when you quit getting high that priority remains for a very long time, and you are continually reminded by the brain that it's the thing it wants most in the world over everything else.

For anyone interested, I expanded on this much more in depth here

I knew this, I could have gotten gold and all the good karmas too. I need to lurk in more popular subreddits.

this is not actually correct, lake 2c-e for example, a drug in the phenethlamine class. it is a partial agonist to 5ht-2a (and a few others, 5ht-2a being the main one so thats what i will talk about more as a 'blanket term' for binding profiles, click here )

now, this drug is a partial agonist, which means it will bind to the same receptors that seritonin would, but due to the difference in shape, it causes the g coupled protein to change shape, and the synapse to fire at a different rate, and that will cause the brain to get the effects of the drug. this does not take any chemical out of equilibrium.

now, other drugs, such as MAOI's will prevent the monoamine oxidase enzyme from removing the amine from chemicals, when combined with a drug, this will prevent one of the active groups from being removed. in this case you will have too much drug and seritonin in your body, which is a major problem and can lead to seritonin syndrome, and yes, throwing the bodies chemicals out of equilibrium.

another would be an SSRI, or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. this prevents serotonin to be taken back up by the dendrite that has released it, causing a higher amount of serotonin in the brain.

on the other hand, you have releasing drugs, such as an SRA (serotonin releasing agent) an example of this would be mdma, which binds to dopamine receptors, serotonin receptors, and also causes the release of serotonin.

SSRI's and MAOI's are often used to treat mental illness, so in no way are they only negative, the point im trying to make though, is there are lots of drugs that simply bind... and not inhibit reuptake or metabolization of neurotransmitters.

ELI5

that... was a very watered down explanation. the brain is a complex beast.

But what about chocolate and caffeine? They also have strong chemical reactions with the body, but there would be universal outrage if anybody tried to make them illegal. Caffeine is arguably more addictive and dangerous than marijuana. It is possible to hit the LD50 for caffeine, and anyone who has gone through caffeine withdrawal can explain just how addictive it can be.

I'm curious - in what way is caffeine more dangerous than marijuana? And what is the LD50?

They aren't and he is a moron for saying so. Even his idea that chocolate produces "strong chemical reactions" with the body. There are no more "strong chemical reactions" than if he ate an orange or any other food.

Because caffeine is actually physically addicting. Consume caffeine everyday for a full month and then quit cold turkey -- you will fucking hate your life. Headache from hell.

i'm not entirely convinced this is bound to happen

when i was admitted into hospital for a week after a car crash, i didn't have any headaches. Wasn't given any medicine which could potentially negate said headache, i was only on saline. I drink somewhere between 500 and 1000 mg of caffeine each day

So you would need something extreme to explain that then, right? Like maybe, I don't know, a car crash?

It doesn't matter if they didn't give you any sort of medication or anything, whatever was the physical impact of the crash to your body could have negated the effects of caffeine. Physiology isn't something simple, so I'm not sure why you aren't already factoring in the physiological response of the crash itself to your bodies recovery of caffeine withdrawal.

it was a traffic accident. i wasn't in shock or anything.

You are lucky! It happens to me and countless others. It's a known side effect.

Yup, I drank 2 energy drinks a day, and some soda too some days for a LONG time. I didn't have enough money to keep buying them so i stopped. For the better part of a week I had a splitting headache and couldn't really do anything. After that though everything has been fine.

Caffeine is more dangerous than marijuana because it's entirely possibly to overdose with caffeine. However there is no record that anybody has ever overdosed with marijuana. LD50 means a dose of poison that kills 50% of test group. This calculator gives the number of caffeine laced drink needed to ensure a suicide with caffeine, still even smaller number maybe fatal.

He didn't even say anything about drugs being illegal

And even if it didnt mess up the brain, theres still the possibility of financial consequences of abuse.

Ok, maybe. But c'mon. Marijuana is as close to the perfect drug as you can probably get. Even among heavy users, the long term side effects disappear within a month of having stopped using, and they are incredibly mild to begin with. And the high is well worth the price of admission. Furthermore, many of the harmful side effects come from the smoke made when burning it, which can be eliminated by using a water bong or making edibles.

Also while there is a small portion of the population that does not react well, LSD is another nearly harmless drug. So the real answer to OP's question is "because nothing in life is free but there are drugs worth the paltry costs."

No wrong...pot is perfect

Typically you are correct, with one minor exception where the only adverse effect is alleviated by drug usage while usage also provides more benefits: caffeine. There's a reason its so popular, in most dosages (that is to say, distinctly not the pill variety) it provides a wealth of benefits and cures its only side effect (since withdrawl causes headaches, which caffeine usage alleviates)

This is false. Caffeine can cause a ton of potential side effects.

I was a coffee drinker for years but had to quit because the side effects were becoming too severe.

This is false. Your link specifically says the only "potential side effects" are in people who either A) already have a disease that it may exacerbate or B) take large doses that are far in excess of anything a coffee drinker would consume. For 99% of the world who doesn't have diabetes, high blood pressure, or bipolar disease, caffeine isn't a problem and is in fact the best and most widely used stimulent in the world.

'But weed isn't dangerous, yo!11'

awaiting these dumb comments. they're coming. :(