Jump to content

Let's Talk About Cold Turkey!


[Ms...]

Recommended Posts

This video features Sonja Styblo, a social worker and healed benzo survivor serving on our General Advisory Board.

 

Sonja has a lot of on-the-ground experience campaigning around the informed consent benzo bill in Massachusetts and attending conferences on our behalf.

 

As such, she has encountered an issue with certain terminology being used against us in our efforts. Please have a listen to this short video and let us know your thoughts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you are on the right track with your efforts to ensure that proper language is used whenit comes to benzos. Nothing will ever change until this is recognized for what it is, and getting away from addiction language is critical for making that happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[98...]

I disagree that 'cold turkey' is associated strictly with addiction (versus dependency).  Cold Turkey simply refers to a sudden discontinuation of a med.  There's no other connotation in my mind.  Clearly, the woman in the video has bought into some sort of connection between the two.  It's a convenient term - much shorter and clearer than the long explanation that the woman was espousing.  I c/t'd - 3 syllables and totally understood.  Yes, you can find on-line definitions that include 'addiction'.  Let's get that removed instead of inventing some new term that's going to add to confusion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should be embracing the idea that one of the issues is that doctors are handing out potentially addicting drugs with such frequency.  They readily admit that potential.  In fact they use addiction to avoid responsibility.  Put the onus back on them when they bring up issues like personal responsibility and character. 

 

Look, I get it.  I get the whole argument about addiction terminology.  I think it’s important but I also think the defensive posture involved in changing the understanding of terminology and what appears to be denial in the addiction paradigm can be damaging.  My point is people have always understood this as addiction.  Changing that perception is an overwhelming task that takes away from the message of the damage the drugs cause.  By knowingly prescribing potentially addictive drugs what does that say about their character?  Possibly shutting that argument down so the real issue of the problems with benzos can be addressed.  And oh by the way, as doctors are so quick to point out, addiction is one of the problems. 

 

This makes them complicit.  Hammer that home.  It’s what they do when they bring up addiction.  Turn it back around on them.   

 

You also leave out a whole subsection of patients who were addicted and aren’t allowed to associate or really participate in your cause.  I think you down play the numbers who were addicted to benzos to further the cause which seems a little short sighted and self involved to me.  As if being an addict is exactly what the doctors are trying to point out.  Short on character, morals, brains or whatever. 

 

I know you know that addiction doesn’t discriminate, but you sure do like to distance yourself from a whole group of people.  Some, maybe many, possibly most are pretty awesome folks that were given a bad drug (for them) by their doctors.

 

Tolerance, acceptance and understanding are basic premises of the people I choose to associate with.  I see elements of addict shaming in your attempts to distance yourself from that word.  It’s exactly what the doctors are doing. 

 

I appreciate your effort.  I think it’s important to get the message out.  It also leaves me grasping for air sometimes.  Too much exclusion, not enough inclusion. 

 

You may not understand how this is possible, but I am an ally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is people have always understood this as addiction.  Changing that perception is an overwhelming task that takes away from the message of the damage the drugs cause.

 

No, calling it addiction takes away from the message of the damage these drugs cause. We can debate how much responsibility an addict needs to take for their condition till the cows come home but the fact of the matter is that there IS a solid element of choice involved in addiction, and right or wrong the general perception is that addiction is a personal failure so putting it in the addiction category is what allows the medical establishment to shirk responsibility.   

 

You also leave out a whole subsection of patients who were addicted and aren’t allowed to associate or really participate in your cause.  I think you down play the numbers who were addicted to benzos to further the cause which seems a little short sighted and self involved to me.  As if being an addict is exactly what the doctors are trying to point out.  Short on character, morals, brains or whatever.

 

Everyone has their own problems. It isn't fair for you to try to make your problem my problem, which is exactly what is happening when you try to lump people who have have had their cns damaged by a prescription drug into the addiction category.

 

Anyone who suggests that the benzo issue as a whole should framed as an addiction issue either hasn't taken a moment to understand the issue, or they have an agenda. Some of the worst offenders are people who have had true addiction issues with other drugs and they seem to want to lump everyone together in an effort to destigmatize the addiction label. What better way of doing that than to throw people whose lives were destroyed simply by listening to their doctors under the bus?

 

The more you can expand the addiction label the more society will accept it. That's great for the former opiate addict who wants to feel good about himself, but it could be a death sentence for someone who is seeking medical help after they find themselves dependent on benzos. Send the benzo "addict" to detox just like you would an alcoholic or heroin addict and everything will be fine, right?

 

Tolerance, acceptance and understanding are basic premises of the people I choose to associate with.  I see elements of addict shaming in your attempts to distance yourself from that word.  It’s exactly what the doctors are doing.

 

Who is shaming who here?

 

This is 10% wanting to be distanced from a stigmatizing label and 90% wanting to advocate for proper labels to ensure proper treatment.

 

Don't you get it? The second you lump the person who has a serious dependency issue into the same category as someone who has an addiction issue you pretty much ensure that they will receive improper care.

 

Maybe you could explain to us how we are going to convince medical professionals to provide iatrogenically dependent patients proper care while you are doing your best to convince them that that they have an addiction problem? Are you prepared to take responsibility for benzo patients being shoved into detox? Because that is exactly what is going to continue to happen as long as you keep up this crusade.

 

The only way you can even get away with trying to pin this problem on addiction is because there is a very small potential for addiction with benzos with some people, and the fact that they are sometimes used recreationally. Calling antidepressants, antipsychotics and some of the other classes of psych drugs "addictive" would be completely ridiculous, despite the fact that they can and do cause many of the exact same issues as benzos. You just want everyone to believe that the 3% (or whatever small number it is) of people who actually do have an addiction to benzos are in the same situation as the other 97%, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/11/language-surrounding-benzodiazepines/

 

https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/11/language-surrounding-benzodiazepines-part-ii/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get all of your points, FG.  I always have.  As I've told you before we are pretty much on the same page but you seem incapable of understanding I don't need your lectures.  I won't respond to you further as it almost always shuts down the thread. 

 

What I was doing was sharing with MsAtomicBomb.  She asked for feedback.  I've followed BIC since it's inception.  I'm pretty sure she has had to address similar feedback to mine, I just haven't seen it.  I'm also pretty sure what her response will be, if she does so.  I thought I'd bring it up anyway, for the record.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im good with Cold Turkey, but to be true, I do use Sudden Discontinuation on rare occasion to specific  audiences...

So I guess to ME it does matter a bit, -Im just slack more often than not... :(

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Maybe you should be embracing the idea that one of the issues is that doctors are handing out potentially addicting drugs with such frequency.  They readily admit that potential.  In fact they use addiction to avoid responsibility.  Put the onus back on them when they bring up issues like personal responsibility and character. 

 

Look, I get it.  I get the whole argument about addiction terminology.  I think it’s important but I also think the defensive posture involved in changing the understanding of terminology and what appears to be denial in the addiction paradigm can be damaging.  My point is people have always understood this as addiction.  Changing that perception is an overwhelming task that takes away from the message of the damage the drugs cause.  By knowingly prescribing potentially addictive drugs what does that say about their character?  Possibly shutting that argument down so the real issue of the problems with benzos can be addressed.  And oh by the way, as doctors are so quick to point out, addiction is one of the problems. 

 

This makes them complicit.  Hammer that home.  It’s what they do when they bring up addiction.  Turn it back around on them.   

 

You also leave out a whole subsection of patients who were addicted and aren’t allowed to associate or really participate in your cause.  I think you down play the numbers who were addicted to benzos to further the cause which seems a little short sighted and self involved to me.  As if being an addict is exactly what the doctors are trying to point out.  Short on character, morals, brains or whatever. 

 

I know you know that addiction doesn’t discriminate, but you sure do like to distance yourself from a whole group of people.  Some, maybe many, possibly most are pretty awesome folks that were given a bad drug (for them) by their doctors.

 

Tolerance, acceptance and understanding are basic premises of the people I choose to associate with.  I see elements of addict shaming in your attempts to distance yourself from that word.  It’s exactly what the doctors are doing. 

 

I appreciate your effort.  I think it’s important to get the message out.  It also leaves me grasping for air sometimes.  Too much exclusion, not enough inclusion. 

 

You may not understand how this is possible, but I am an ally.

 

 

Hi Beau,

 

I am glad you are an ally. Thanks for your thoughts. I do have a lot to say about this comment. Bear with me.

 

I agree that our focus should but on the damage, but I think there will be no conversation on the drugs damage as long as addiction terminology is present. Nobody cares about addicts being damaged by drugs. You don't see campaigns about that anywhere. If you are aware of the history of benzodiazepine activism in the 70s 80s 90s 2000s they tried to make doctors "take responsibility" for their prescribing. The focusing on doctors making "addicts" out of patients was tried for decades. It didn't work. It is decades of "addiction" activism that got us nowhere. Literally nowhere. I believe it is why I am here today sick. Had the proper language been used to begin with this probelm would have been solved by the 80s. We are actually getting somewhere now not using this language. So I'm going to keep doing that. I've seen some media lightbulbs go on when we explain why this isn't addiction.

 

To test this, go to any article anywhere using addiction language to describe this and look at the comments. It isn't "oh those doctors need to be held accountable" but, instead, "don't take away my prescription because some people can't control the use of theirs!" 

 

I think the statement "people have always understood this as addiction" isn't true. Who has a great understanding of this? IMHO nobody. Nobody has a clue what this is. When you say "I was addicted to benzos" they think you abused your prescription, which isn't what this is, so then we get into "which addiction" and why and what that entails and at that point you might as well have said physical dependence or damage to be clearer.

 

Beyond that, we don't even call actual addicts addicts anymore. It's considered stigmatizing and under the DSM it's called Substance Use Disorder now. So why are we calling non-addicts addicts? Whole thing is bizarre. I really do wish more would get on board as it would make our job, as sick patients trying to change something, infinitely easier and more productive. For our activism we just don't use people, or work with people, who use addiction language. It just isn't possible to relay a clear message with it.

 

Even further beyond that people think detox and rehab is a solution for addiction. We KNOW rehab is a high risk, often disabling, protracted and deadly for our issue. We know patients are often led to akathisia and long term protracted from that approach. Why would we use any language that makes it easy for patients to run off and be damaged or killed by a detox? We are all aware detoxed and rehabs do not have the training or approach that is useful for most of us, save a few lucky few who wouldn't be harmed in any environment due to unknown factors.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Maybe you should be embracing the idea that one of the issues is that doctors are handing out potentially addicting drugs with such frequency.  They readily admit that potential.  In fact they use addiction to avoid responsibility.  Put the onus back on them when they bring up issues like personal responsibility and character. 

 

Look, I get it.  I get the whole argument about addiction terminology.  I think it’s important but I also think the defensive posture involved in changing the understanding of terminology and what appears to be denial in the addiction paradigm can be damaging.  My point is people have always understood this as addiction.  Changing that perception is an overwhelming task that takes away from the message of the damage the drugs cause.  By knowingly prescribing potentially addictive drugs what does that say about their character?  Possibly shutting that argument down so the real issue of the problems with benzos can be addressed.  And oh by the way, as doctors are so quick to point out, addiction is one of the problems. 

 

This makes them complicit.  Hammer that home.  It’s what they do when they bring up addiction.  Turn it back around on them.   

 

You also leave out a whole subsection of patients who were addicted and aren’t allowed to associate or really participate in your cause.  I think you down play the numbers who were addicted to benzos to further the cause which seems a little short sighted and self involved to me.  As if being an addict is exactly what the doctors are trying to point out.  Short on character, morals, brains or whatever. 

 

I know you know that addiction doesn’t discriminate, but you sure do like to distance yourself from a whole group of people.  Some, maybe many, possibly most are pretty awesome folks that were given a bad drug (for them) by their doctors.

 

Tolerance, acceptance and understanding are basic premises of the people I choose to associate with.  I see elements of addict shaming in your attempts to distance yourself from that word.  It’s exactly what the doctors are doing. 

 

I appreciate your effort.  I think it’s important to get the message out.  It also leaves me grasping for air sometimes.  Too much exclusion, not enough inclusion. 

 

You may not understand how this is possible, but I am an ally.

 

 

Hi Beau,

 

I am glad you are an ally. Thanks for your thoughts. I do have a lot to say about this comment. Bear with me.

 

I agree that our focus should but on the damage, but I think there will be no conversation on the drugs damage as long as addiction terminology is present. Nobody cares about addicts being damaged by drugs. You don't see campaigns about that anywhere. If you are aware of the history of benzodiazepine activism in the 70s 80s 90s 2000s they tried to make doctors "take responsibility" for their prescribing. The focusing on doctors making "addicts" out of patients was tried for decades. It didn't work. It is decades of "addiction" activism that got us nowhere. Literally nowhere. I believe it is why I am here today sick. Had the proper language been used to begin with this probelm would have been solved by the 80s. We are actually getting somewhere now not using this language. So I'm going to keep doing that. I've seen some media lightbulbs go on when we explain why this isn't addiction.

 

To test this, go to any article anywhere using addiction language to describe this and look at the comments. It isn't "oh those doctors need to be held accountable" but, instead, "don't take away my prescription because some people can't control the use of theirs!" 

 

I think the statement "people have always understood this as addiction" isn't true. Who has a great understanding of this? IMHO nobody. Nobody has a clue what this is. When you say "I was addicted to benzos" they think you abused your prescription, which isn't what this is, so then we get into "which addiction" and why and what that entails and at that point you might as well have said physical dependence or damage to be clearer.

 

Beyond that, we don't even call actual addicts addicts anymore. It's considered stigmatizing and under the DSM it's called Substance Use Disorder now. So why are we calling non-addicts addicts? Whole thing is bizarre. I really do wish more would get on board as it would make our job, as sick patients trying to change something, infinitely easier and more productive. For our activism we just don't use people, or work with people, who use addiction language. It just isn't possible to relay a clear message with it.

 

Even further beyond that people think detox and rehab is a solution for addiction. We KNOW rehab is a high risk, often disabling, protracted and deadly for our issue. We know patients are often led to akathisia and long term protracted from that approach. Why would we use any language that makes it easy for patients to run off and be damaged or killed by a detox? We are all aware detoxed and rehabs do not have the training or approach that is useful for most of us, save a few lucky few who wouldn't be harmed in any environment due to unknown factors.

 

Thank you.

 

My original post is a result of my own personal experiences when I try to educate others.  I get almost nowhere when I talk about this from a physical dependency perspective rather than an addiction. 

 

I've recovered.  I have amazing people in my life who know my story with benzos.  Some were there for the whole 30-40 year relation I had with benzos, others were not.  They only know me now, not before.

 

When I attempt to explain my experience with benzos to anyone I know what I get as I am detailing it is a lot of "I understand".  They tell me that they understand the difference between physical dependency and addiction (I'm using BIC's information, MAD's information and the common collective wisdom that can be found here at Benzobuddies).  Here's the rub.  The next day, the next week or the next time I see most of these amazing people they reference my history with benzos as an addiction.

 

Others, people who I may not have had an opportunity to give a first hand explanation to about the differences between physical dependency and addiction, but who know me otherwise will say to me, "I heard you've been addicted to xanax".  They've aquired that information from the amazing friends I've referenced who I've already attempted to educate.  So, those "educated" friends are sharing my history with others as an addiction, not a physical dependency despite my attempts to educate them. 

 

Allow me this opportunity at self indulgence.  These amazing people in my life are all very high functioning.  Many are successful professionals in their respective fields (it's entirely possible one or more of them might be defending your position in the courtroom or even a sitting judge).  Almost all are over 50 so they have a lifetime of not only advanced education but also the wisdom of age.  These people are smart, they get it.  They understand most things out there in ways that not everyone else does or can.  They are kind, tolerant, understanding and accepting.  But they don't tell anyone I was physically dependent on benzos, even though I've attempted to educate them.  For them, after a night of sleep I was still an addict. 

 

I am 100% ok with being an addict.  My life is simple.  I like it that way.  If these people in my life would rather call my experience with benzos an addiction than a dependency, that's OK with me.  They treat me no differently one way or another.  The effort to change their understanding of my and others benzo experiences from addiction to dependency involves too much effort and, it complicates my life.  It's just easier to let them think what they want to think.  My life doesn't change one way or another.

 

I've had a long life filled mostly with the struggles of dealing with the horrid side effects of benzos.  I didn't know they were the side affects.  I was told they were my disorder.  I believed my doctors.  As it turns out, they were wrong. The information I found here at benzobuddies so many years ago was true for me.  I'm free of all those side affects now.  Life is amazing for me now.

 

I've been criticized for not doing more to further the cause about educating others on the distinctions of physical dependency and addiction.  Actually, here.

 

I'm over 60.  I like simple things.  I've found I don't want to complicate my life by trying to change other's world views about addiction.  It's too personal and I deserve my right to choose simplicity.  I've earned that right.  My default setting in new situations, with new people in my life is to explain the distinctions of addition and dependency.  It always will be.  But I won't make it a "cause". 

 

I don't have that energy. 

 

I applaud your energy, your effort and, from the sidelines am always rooting for you! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Maybe you should be embracing the idea that one of the issues is that doctors are handing out potentially addicting drugs with such frequency.  They readily admit that potential.  In fact they use addiction to avoid responsibility.  Put the onus back on them when they bring up issues like personal responsibility and character. 

 

Look, I get it.  I get the whole argument about addiction terminology.  I think it’s important but I also think the defensive posture involved in changing the understanding of terminology and what appears to be denial in the addiction paradigm can be damaging.  My point is people have always understood this as addiction.  Changing that perception is an overwhelming task that takes away from the message of the damage the drugs cause.  By knowingly prescribing potentially addictive drugs what does that say about their character?  Possibly shutting that argument down so the real issue of the problems with benzos can be addressed.  And oh by the way, as doctors are so quick to point out, addiction is one of the problems. 

 

This makes them complicit.  Hammer that home.  It’s what they do when they bring up addiction.  Turn it back around on them.   

 

You also leave out a whole subsection of patients who were addicted and aren’t allowed to associate or really participate in your cause.  I think you down play the numbers who were addicted to benzos to further the cause which seems a little short sighted and self involved to me.  As if being an addict is exactly what the doctors are trying to point out.  Short on character, morals, brains or whatever. 

 

I know you know that addiction doesn’t discriminate, but you sure do like to distance yourself from a whole group of people.  Some, maybe many, possibly most are pretty awesome folks that were given a bad drug (for them) by their doctors.

 

Tolerance, acceptance and understanding are basic premises of the people I choose to associate with.  I see elements of addict shaming in your attempts to distance yourself from that word.  It’s exactly what the doctors are doing. 

 

I appreciate your effort.  I think it’s important to get the message out.  It also leaves me grasping for air sometimes.  Too much exclusion, not enough inclusion. 

 

You may not understand how this is possible, but I am an ally.

 

 

Hi Beau,

 

I am glad you are an ally. Thanks for your thoughts. I do have a lot to say about this comment. Bear with me.

 

I agree that our focus should but on the damage, but I think there will be no conversation on the drugs damage as long as addiction terminology is present. Nobody cares about addicts being damaged by drugs. You don't see campaigns about that anywhere. If you are aware of the history of benzodiazepine activism in the 70s 80s 90s 2000s they tried to make doctors "take responsibility" for their prescribing. The focusing on doctors making "addicts" out of patients was tried for decades. It didn't work. It is decades of "addiction" activism that got us nowhere. Literally nowhere. I believe it is why I am here today sick. Had the proper language been used to begin with this probelm would have been solved by the 80s. We are actually getting somewhere now not using this language. So I'm going to keep doing that. I've seen some media lightbulbs go on when we explain why this isn't addiction.

 

To test this, go to any article anywhere using addiction language to describe this and look at the comments. It isn't "oh those doctors need to be held accountable" but, instead, "don't take away my prescription because some people can't control the use of theirs!" 

 

I think the statement "people have always understood this as addiction" isn't true. Who has a great understanding of this? IMHO nobody. Nobody has a clue what this is. When you say "I was addicted to benzos" they think you abused your prescription, which isn't what this is, so then we get into "which addiction" and why and what that entails and at that point you might as well have said physical dependence or damage to be clearer.

 

Beyond that, we don't even call actual addicts addicts anymore. It's considered stigmatizing and under the DSM it's called Substance Use Disorder now. So why are we calling non-addicts addicts? Whole thing is bizarre. I really do wish more would get on board as it would make our job, as sick patients trying to change something, infinitely easier and more productive. For our activism we just don't use people, or work with people, who use addiction language. It just isn't possible to relay a clear message with it.

 

Even further beyond that people think detox and rehab is a solution for addiction. We KNOW rehab is a high risk, often disabling, protracted and deadly for our issue. We know patients are often led to akathisia and long term protracted from that approach. Why would we use any language that makes it easy for patients to run off and be damaged or killed by a detox? We are all aware detoxed and rehabs do not have the training or approach that is useful for most of us, save a few lucky few who wouldn't be harmed in any environment due to unknown factors.

 

Thank you.

 

My original post is a result of my own personal experiences when I try to educate others.  I get almost nowhere when I talk about this from a physical dependency perspective rather than an addiction. 

 

I've recovered.  I have amazing people in my life who know my story with benzos.  Some were there for the whole 30-40 year relation I had with benzos, others were not.  They only know me now, not before.

 

When I attempt to explain my experience with benzos to anyone I know what I get as I am detailing it is a lot of "I understand".  They tell me that they understand the difference between physical dependency and addiction (I'm using BIC's information, MAD's information and the common collective wisdom that can be found here at Benzobuddies).  Here's the rub.  The next day, the next week or the next time I see most of these amazing people they reference my history with benzos as an addiction.

 

Others, people who I may not have had an opportunity to give a first hand explanation to about the differences between physical dependency and addiction, but who know me otherwise will say to me, "I heard you've been addicted to xanax".  They've aquired that information from the amazing friends I've referenced who I've already attempted to educate.  So, those "educated" friends are sharing my history with others as an addiction, not a physical dependency despite my attempts to educate them. 

 

Allow me this opportunity at self indulgence.  These amazing people in my life are all very high functioning.  Many are successful professionals in their respective fields (it's entirely possible one or more of them might be defending your position in the courtroom or even a sitting judge).  Almost all are over 50 so they have a lifetime of not only advanced education but also the wisdom of age.  These people are smart, they get it.  They understand most things out there in ways that not everyone else does or can.  They are kind, tolerant, understanding and accepting.  But they don't tell anyone I was physically dependent on benzos, even though I've attempted to educate them.  For them, after a night of sleep I was still an addict. 

 

I am 100% ok with being an addict.  My life is simple.  I like it that way.  If these people in my life would rather call my experience with benzos an addiction than a dependency, that's OK with me.  They treat me no differently one way or another.  The effort to change their understanding of my and others benzo experiences from addiction to dependency involves too much effort and, it complicates my life.  It's just easier to let them think what they want to think.  My life doesn't change one way or another.

 

I've had a long life filled mostly with the struggles of dealing with the horrid side effects of benzos.  I didn't know they were the side affects.  I was told they were my disorder.  I believed my doctors.  As it turns out, they were wrong. The information I found here at benzobuddies so many years ago was true for me.  I'm free of all those side affects now.  Life is amazing for me now.

 

I've been criticized for not doing more to further the cause about educating others on the distinctions of physical dependency and addiction.  Actually, here.

 

I'm over 60.  I like simple things.  I've found I don't want to complicate my life by trying to change other's world views about addiction.  It's too personal and I deserve my right to choose simplicity.  I've earned that right.  My default setting in new situations, with new people in my life is to explain the distinctions of addition and dependency.  It always will be.  But I won't make it a "cause". 

 

I don't have that energy. 

 

I applaud your energy, your effort and, from the sidelines am always rooting for you! 

 

 

 

 

 

I get that, and I do agree that's where it ends up for many people. And that's where it needs to change. Granted, if anyone in my life calls me an addict they should be prepared to be chewed up like a rabid piranha, it's not because I have an issue with "being an addict" at face value. I used to smoke, I was a nicotine addict. That's fine. My issue is it's inaccurate and that inaccuracy kills people to represent this issue in this way. And it prevents us from getting the care we need. I don't just want to heal and leave everyone to suffer behind me.

 

This, to me, is like calling a stroke an addiction. It just doesn't make sense. It is probably brain damage and we have no research because we're getting stuck dealing with "Addiction psychiatrist" who often know literally nothing about what the is like, but seem attached to dictating the narrative. They honestly have no business being involved in a brain injury problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Maybe you should be embracing the idea that one of the issues is that doctors are handing out potentially addicting drugs with such frequency.  They readily admit that potential.  In fact they use addiction to avoid responsibility.  Put the onus back on them when they bring up issues like personal responsibility and character. 

 

Look, I get it.  I get the whole argument about addiction terminology.  I think it’s important but I also think the defensive posture involved in changing the understanding of terminology and what appears to be denial in the addiction paradigm can be damaging.  My point is people have always understood this as addiction.  Changing that perception is an overwhelming task that takes away from the message of the damage the drugs cause.  By knowingly prescribing potentially addictive drugs what does that say about their character?  Possibly shutting that argument down so the real issue of the problems with benzos can be addressed.  And oh by the way, as doctors are so quick to point out, addiction is one of the problems. 

 

This makes them complicit.  Hammer that home.  It’s what they do when they bring up addiction.  Turn it back around on them.   

 

You also leave out a whole subsection of patients who were addicted and aren’t allowed to associate or really participate in your cause.  I think you down play the numbers who were addicted to benzos to further the cause which seems a little short sighted and self involved to me.  As if being an addict is exactly what the doctors are trying to point out.  Short on character, morals, brains or whatever. 

 

I know you know that addiction doesn’t discriminate, but you sure do like to distance yourself from a whole group of people.  Some, maybe many, possibly most are pretty awesome folks that were given a bad drug (for them) by their doctors.

 

Tolerance, acceptance and understanding are basic premises of the people I choose to associate with.  I see elements of addict shaming in your attempts to distance yourself from that word.  It’s exactly what the doctors are doing. 

 

I appreciate your effort.  I think it’s important to get the message out.  It also leaves me grasping for air sometimes.  Too much exclusion, not enough inclusion. 

 

You may not understand how this is possible, but I am an ally.

 

 

Hi Beau,

 

I am glad you are an ally. Thanks for your thoughts. I do have a lot to say about this comment. Bear with me.

 

I agree that our focus should but on the damage, but I think there will be no conversation on the drugs damage as long as addiction terminology is present. Nobody cares about addicts being damaged by drugs. You don't see campaigns about that anywhere. If you are aware of the history of benzodiazepine activism in the 70s 80s 90s 2000s they tried to make doctors "take responsibility" for their prescribing. The focusing on doctors making "addicts" out of patients was tried for decades. It didn't work. It is decades of "addiction" activism that got us nowhere. Literally nowhere. I believe it is why I am here today sick. Had the proper language been used to begin with this probelm would have been solved by the 80s. We are actually getting somewhere now not using this language. So I'm going to keep doing that. I've seen some media lightbulbs go on when we explain why this isn't addiction.

 

To test this, go to any article anywhere using addiction language to describe this and look at the comments. It isn't "oh those doctors need to be held accountable" but, instead, "don't take away my prescription because some people can't control the use of theirs!" 

 

I think the statement "people have always understood this as addiction" isn't true. Who has a great understanding of this? IMHO nobody. Nobody has a clue what this is. When you say "I was addicted to benzos" they think you abused your prescription, which isn't what this is, so then we get into "which addiction" and why and what that entails and at that point you might as well have said physical dependence or damage to be clearer.

 

Beyond that, we don't even call actual addicts addicts anymore. It's considered stigmatizing and under the DSM it's called Substance Use Disorder now. So why are we calling non-addicts addicts? Whole thing is bizarre. I really do wish more would get on board as it would make our job, as sick patients trying to change something, infinitely easier and more productive. For our activism we just don't use people, or work with people, who use addiction language. It just isn't possible to relay a clear message with it.

 

Even further beyond that people think detox and rehab is a solution for addiction. We KNOW rehab is a high risk, often disabling, protracted and deadly for our issue. We know patients are often led to akathisia and long term protracted from that approach. Why would we use any language that makes it easy for patients to run off and be damaged or killed by a detox? We are all aware detoxed and rehabs do not have the training or approach that is useful for most of us, save a few lucky few who wouldn't be harmed in any environment due to unknown factors.

 

Thank you.

 

My original post is a result of my own personal experiences when I try to educate others.  I get almost nowhere when I talk about this from a physical dependency perspective rather than an addiction. 

 

I've recovered.  I have amazing people in my life who know my story with benzos.  Some were there for the whole 30-40 year relation I had with benzos, others were not.  They only know me now, not before.

 

When I attempt to explain my experience with benzos to anyone I know what I get as I am detailing it is a lot of "I understand".  They tell me that they understand the difference between physical dependency and addiction (I'm using BIC's information, MAD's information and the common collective wisdom that can be found here at Benzobuddies).  Here's the rub.  The next day, the next week or the next time I see most of these amazing people they reference my history with benzos as an addiction.

 

Others, people who I may not have had an opportunity to give a first hand explanation to about the differences between physical dependency and addiction, but who know me otherwise will say to me, "I heard you've been addicted to xanax".  They've aquired that information from the amazing friends I've referenced who I've already attempted to educate.  So, those "educated" friends are sharing my history with others as an addiction, not a physical dependency despite my attempts to educate them. 

 

Allow me this opportunity at self indulgence.  These amazing people in my life are all very high functioning.  Many are successful professionals in their respective fields (it's entirely possible one or more of them might be defending your position in the courtroom or even a sitting judge).  Almost all are over 50 so they have a lifetime of not only advanced education but also the wisdom of age.  These people are smart, they get it.  They understand most things out there in ways that not everyone else does or can.  They are kind, tolerant, understanding and accepting.  But they don't tell anyone I was physically dependent on benzos, even though I've attempted to educate them.  For them, after a night of sleep I was still an addict. 

 

I am 100% ok with being an addict.  My life is simple.  I like it that way.  If these people in my life would rather call my experience with benzos an addiction than a dependency, that's OK with me.  They treat me no differently one way or another.  The effort to change their understanding of my and others benzo experiences from addiction to dependency involves too much effort and, it complicates my life.  It's just easier to let them think what they want to think.  My life doesn't change one way or another.

 

I've had a long life filled mostly with the struggles of dealing with the horrid side effects of benzos.  I didn't know they were the side affects.  I was told they were my disorder.  I believed my doctors.  As it turns out, they were wrong. The information I found here at benzobuddies so many years ago was true for me.  I'm free of all those side affects now.  Life is amazing for me now.

 

I've been criticized for not doing more to further the cause about educating others on the distinctions of physical dependency and addiction.  Actually, here.

 

I'm over 60.  I like simple things.  I've found I don't want to complicate my life by trying to change other's world views about addiction.  It's too personal and I deserve my right to choose simplicity.  I've earned that right.  My default setting in new situations, with new people in my life is to explain the distinctions of addition and dependency.  It always will be.  But I won't make it a "cause". 

 

I don't have that energy. 

 

I applaud your energy, your effort and, from the sidelines am always rooting for you! 

 

 

 

 

 

I get that, and I do agree that's where it ends up for many people. And that's where it needs to change. Granted, if anyone in my life calls me an addict they should be prepared to be chewed up like a rabid piranha, it's not because I have an issue with "being an addict" at face value. I used to smoke, I was a nicotine addict. That's fine. My issue is it's inaccurate and that inaccuracy kills people to represent this issue in this way. And it prevents us from getting the care we need. I don't just want to heal and leave everyone to suffer behind me.

 

This, to me, is like calling a stroke an addiction. It just doesn't make sense. It is probably brain damage and we have no research because we're getting stuck dealing with "Addiction psychiatrist" who often know literally nothing about what the is like, but seem attached to dictating the narrative. They honestly have no business being involved in a brain injury problem.

 

You do know of course that when you come here for feedback you are "preaching to the choir"?  In this case you will find what you want to find, mostly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You do know of course that when you come here for feedback you are "preaching to the choir"?  In this case you will find what you want to find, mostly.

 

A lot of people here do get it, but I don't know if that many do truly understand how important it is to be crystal clear on language. It doesn't seem like they all do to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You do know of course that when you come here for feedback you are "preaching to the choir"?  In this case you will find what you want to find, mostly.

 

A lot of people here do get it, but I don't know if that many do truly understand how important it is to be crystal clear on language. It doesn't seem like they all do to me.

 

Right.  Most here are still actively in some stage of recovery.  Emotions are high, they were for me at this point.  For me, I have found that understanding what happened needs time for reflection after most of the healing and time away from the daily reality of the side effects, withdrawals, brain damage, whatever one wants to call it. 

 

But, I think you are correct in that planting the seed early about the importance of language has value.

 

Your best soldiers will be those who have felt it. 

 

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are actually getting somewhere now not using this language. So I'm going to keep doing that. I've seen some media lightbulbs go on when we explain why this isn't addiction.

 

There has been a real shift in the narrative over the last several years, and it is all a result of people in the benzo community insisting that the record is set straight. All of us have the responsibility to use the correct terminology when describing this issue. It doesn't matter whether an individual does or doesn't get it, what matters is that if we keep pushing back, eventually attitudes will change and people WILL be able to grasp the concept that supposedly safe prescription drugs can cause years or even a lifetime of debilitating health issues, even if taken exactly as prescribed.

 

I don't know what my sisters thought about the addiction vs dependence thing, but their eyes were opened by the Lisa Ling program that thankfully avoided portraying this as an addiction issue. That was the only reason why I had them watch it. There have been many articles in the past I could have sent to them but unfortunately most of them missed the mark in some fundamental way by inappropriately using addiction language and the last thing I was going to do was spread more misinformation, so I never bothered to try to send anyone any of these articles. One single paragraph, sentence or even a single word is enough to destroy an otherwise good and informative message when it comes to these drugs.

 

For our activism we just don't use people, or work with people, who use addiction language. It just isn't possible to relay a clear message with it.

 

And for that reason you will likely go down in history as being true pioneers in the benzo community.  If anyone has a shot at getting this ship turned around it is you and your organization and a big part of the reason for that is that you ensure that you don't promote false or misleading information.

 

For years I would cringe every time I would see a so called "benzo counselor" or an author or anyone else who has a voice in the benzo community describing this as addiction. Up until a few years ago it seemed like they were all doing it. That's how we know that the push to set the record straight is working.

 

Even further beyond that people think detox and rehab is a solution for addiction. We KNOW rehab is a high risk, often disabling, protracted and deadly for our issue. We know patients are often led to akathisia and long term protracted from that approach. Why would we use any language that makes it easy for patients to run off and be damaged or killed by a detox? We are all aware detoxed and rehabs do not have the training or approach that is useful for most of us, save a few lucky few who wouldn't be harmed in any environment due to unknown factors.

 

This is really the only thing anyone should have to understand in order to grasp the importance of using proper terminology. I always challenge people who advocate for the addiction narrative or brush it off as being an issue of "semantics" what they would say to someone who ends up in serious protracted withdrawal after getting sent to detox, and no one ever seems to have an answer.

 

If we call it the same thing, we treat it the same way. Everyone understands that it is imperative that you use different treatments for a heart attack vs a stroke. Why is it difficult for some folks to grasp the idea that the same thing applies to benzo issues? As far as I am concerned, anyone who should know better who continues to actively promote incorrect terminology has blood on their hands.

 

That's how serious this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup... Detox is one of the defining points, but particularly (perhaps??) for those of us that have long discontinuations (on med tapers), how our family and friends view this is probably just as vital as yrs turn to decades... lol, try doing it with both opiates and benzos, and a sibling that “specialises” in studies (sociological) on this very issue of “addiction” within the community...!! Preaching to the quire myself here im sure, but its been a long uphill road for this black sheep of the family...

 

Im actually blessed to have Drs that clicked to the problem pretty quick, but the only tool they have in the box is support and a shoulder to lean on... At a GP level, we often fight the system, for example, no code to attach or bill a test or service too, but when referred up to specialists, their toolbox can get pretty misguided, -dangerous even... Its kinda a reverse process, the information is having to flow upwards rather than down...

 

Ha, Detox.. What a mess..!! They couldnt even get an opiate discontinuation right using the addiction model..!! Thank god I had enough physical dependancy info at that point to hold my own and a few key pieces/people in my corner, but it sure was WWIII till after the long weekend was over...

As mentioned, people will face horrific harm and death until this language is understood.. I guess that means using it first... Sigh, another chore for this poor fried brain.. :(

 

Can I use “ripped out” instead of CT..?? -Sudden Cessation twists my tongue and brain.. :(

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Systemic change is definitely needed. I believe verbiage is everything. The wrong word choice leads to inaccurate connotations/beliefs/perceptions. We are fighting a stigma as well. I find also that there is unfortunately an arrogant pride in certain professions that seems to prevent them from considering that maybe their model of care needs a complete overhaul or that maybe certain meds (benzos) need regulation on usage/prescribing. It's a nightmare.

 

Just my opinion:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Systemic change is definitely needed. I believe verbiage is everything. The wrong word choice leads to inaccurate connotations/beliefs/perceptions. We are fighting a stigma as well. I find also that there is unfortunately an arrogant pride in certain professions that seems to prevent them from considering that maybe their model of care needs a complete overhaul or that maybe certain meds (benzos) need regulation on usage/prescribing. It's a nightmare.

 

Just my opinion:)

 

They make me so tired. It is truly arrogance and ego versus peoples health.

 

 

Can I use “ripped out” instead of CT..?? -Sudden Cessation twists my tongue and brain.. :(

 

 

 

I've posed this question to Sonja and will respond! I agree sudden cessation is a big word for benzo brains!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Can I use “ripped out” instead of CT..?? -Sudden Cessation twists my tongue and brain.. :(

 

 

 

 

 

She said: "yeah, I think so. I mean, I'm primarily concerned about that language on public forums like YT. Internally within the community doesn't seem as big as a deal"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Can I use “ripped out” instead of CT..?? -Sudden Cessation twists my tongue and brain.. :(

 

 

 

 

 

She said: "yeah, I think so. I mean, I'm primarily concerned about that language on public forums like YT. Internally within the community doesn't seem as big as a deal"

Yeah, I think thats the thing, -audience and intent (type stuff).. One thing a good ‘ol Buddy here, but a newer member might be better served with more meaningful and correct terminology..

While I do do this (without really thinking on it), Your friend gives me a good reminder to not get too slack or flippant on the matter...

:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...