Like the other poster said, SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) inhibit the action of enzymes that take up Seratonin out of the synaptic cleft between neurons. The net effect of this is more Serotonin available to bind to Serotonin receptors.n_boucha said:Another thing I wonder about is: what is the real difference between psychotropic drugs like ecstasy, cocaine, etc, and psychotropic drugs like the prozacs and Co. How do either type of drug affect the brain differently?
Cocaine and other opiates work similarly on mainly the dopamine and adrenaline (norepinephrine to Americans) receptors to illicit similar results (also some effects on Seratonin). Simply put, more dopamine increases pleasure and more adrenaline increases CNS stimulation.
The psychedelics are analogues of one of the neurotransmitters in the brain (e.g. Serotonin for LSD) and so act by effectively increasing the levels of neurotransmitters.
So basically they have very similar mechanisms of action but the effects produced by psychedelics and other illegal drugs are far more potent and mind bending than the prescription ones (though I suppose you could argue that inducing hallucinations/psychosis is as potent as removing them from an individual).
However, both are altering your state of consciousness artificially and so you could argue that they are basically doing the same thing (yet the ones that can be taxed are legal...). I suppose one set is supposed to bend your mind to "normal" functioning while the other are supposed to obliterate "normality". Which does which? You decide
There's three broad reasons that I can think of. The first is scientific method. Essentially you can never prove anything in science, because you have to base your model of how something works on the idea that at some stage in the future it could be proven wrong. So you can't prove something, only prove it incorrect. Therefore science works by approximations and models which become increasingly accurate to reality but can never reach it. Basically if they were to say "This is what causes depression" they could be proven wrong the next year (especially with how fast science moves).Which brings me to: why does it say on the bottles of pick-your-antidepressant "It is thought that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance"? Why doesn't it say "depression is caused by a chemical imbalance" ? How come the people who advanced the theory that depression was caused by this never actually offered up any proof. Usually when you have a theory you need to prove or disprove it before pursuing the research further....
The second reason is to avoid law suits. As above, if they are selling drugs to cure depression and suddenly they are proven wrong, they could be help responsible.
Thirdly you are dealing with the human mind, which is as far as we know the most complex 'entity' in existance. Therefore, like with number 1, you can never be 100% sure of anything, especially given the subjective nature of what you are trying to do.
Alcohol and Tobacco. Case closed. Was this where your conspiracy theory was heading?What is the most profitable drug man has ever invented? (ok, this last one is leaning toward the conspiracy theory. I'll leave it at that)
With this, I agree, but it'll probably upset a lot of people here. So to each their own. Basically though you are altering your consciousness artificially with something that you need to keep taking in order to maintain. Isn't the idea to permanently change your consciousness for the better? Well, that's where the argument of using meds as a stepping stone comes in, and gradually lowering the dose etc.To me they seem like a band-aid...