Not average as in someone that is doctor shopping to get high, but it is someone that self-selected themselves for it. How much of the effect is placebo? Skimming the paper it is not mentioned except in the title of one reference.
Well not being a restricted drug is a practical difference. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against microdosing or anything. I'm just skeptical. I've listened to one too many acid-head's long winded speeches about enlightenment to take what people are self reporting about it seriously.
I'm a big believer in medical use of psychedelics, but if the effect is strictly due to placebo, then there are cheaper and safer placebos we can give.
Placebos actually do work even if the patient knows they are placebos (source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...), but regardless, how do you keep the patients from finding out that the psychedelics are just placebos? Why not just use some other realistic-sounding placebo like a rare herb or something?
I ate two bananas before my motorcycle test for their placebo effects to calm nerves. Cool as a cucumber I passed without a jitter on the throttle. It's anect-data-l. I know.
I think you misunderstand placebo. The placebo is needed foremost to reduce falsely reporting positive and negative effects after the study. E.G. for most drugs not beating placebo is essentially the same as zero or even negative effect. The rare exceptions when giving sugar water actually improves something because person thought they got a cure are themselves very anecdotal.
Very few drugs doctors prescribe for depression, or anxiety, get you high.
After trying at least 7 antidepressants over the years; I sometimes wonder exactly how much over Placebo do they work.
My doctor finally came clean one day. Antidepressants at their best might give you a bit more energy.
I noticed he started prescribing bupenorpine off label for treatment resistant depression. I understand why. I think he got tired of seeing patients not responding to traditional antidepresssants.
Most psychiatrists will not deviate from the old standbys though, even the progressive doctors.
(I can offer this. With time you will start to feel better. Everyone's biology is different. My depression when it hits sometimes takes a few weeks/months to lighten up, but it always lightened up, and wasen't tied to situational circumstances.)
Your comment has an interesting perspective, but I disagree that anti-depressants would solely give you more energy as a treatment.
The vast majority of them these days are SSRI, which effectively raises the level of serotonin that your body (not just brain) functions under. If anything, they will tend to make you more tired and blunt mood swings.
Bupropion, on the other hand, is a wonder drug for me that seems to effectively remove the bottom of my depression without really causing any other side-effects (except maybe a subtle positive effect on ADHD symptoms).
First, even if your statement was correct, it would say nothing about the OP (or my) issues of selective sampling.
Second, people who receive medicine for their ailments are not 'drug seekers' by any stretch of the imagination. People do not 'seek' blood thinners arbitrarily, people seek drugs which provide some kind of physical or psychoactive experience i.e. cocaine, opiods, thc. Very few prescription drugs fit that category.
I sincerely disagree with your somewhat puritanical definition of drug seeking. If someone seeks marijuana to relieve their misery, it's "arbitrary drug seeking behaviour" but if it's blood thinners, then you're just... not looking for drugs to provide a cure? That makes no sense.
I certainly do seek out blood thinners, antidepressants, antibiotics, ect, if I am suffering from illnesses that they provide relief for. Nobody seeks out drugs "arbitrarily" whatsoever. You seem to think that people who use narcotics to address their pain aren't worthy of a medical definition that is reserved for people who obtain their medication from a pharma company.
It's 'cognitive dissonance' to contemplate those getting prescriptions for diabetes, cancer and chemo as 'drug seekers' who are in any way remotely similar to those buying illegal drugs, most of which are not purchased for therapeutic value.
> most of which are not purchased for therapeutic value
There's that puritanism again. Both classes of people are seeking relief, you can simply touch one class of illness but not the other. It's the human condition to seek relief, not some pharma company buzzword that segregates acceptable pharmaceutical use and unacceptable use.
Your classification of narcotics users as plain hedonists - in no way empathizing with that user's need to have some form of relief from whatever is plaguing them - is the dissonance.
