Talk:Benzodiazepine use disorder

Requested Move--NPOV

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine drug misuse → Recreational use of Benzodiazepines — "Misuse" is a bit of a biased term to use to refer to all recreational use. I'm sure most of us, including recreational drug users, can agree that there is such a thing as drug misuse, but using such a term to refer to all recreational use isn't exactly appropriate. Of course the notion of drug misuse should remain within this article, but there are many ways for an individual to use a drug recreationally in such a way that many individuals would not consider "misuse," like I'm sure anyone can understand for drinking alcohol, for example. An article referring to all sorts of recreational benzodiazapine use should be titled "Recreational use of Benzodiazepines" or something of this sort. Assuming that all recreational drug use is "misuse" is shortsighted and certainly not neutral. Even regardless of whether or not all recreational may or may not be misuse, recreational is just a more accurate word to use. _Anonabyss TalkContribs 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The consensus term in the literature is "abuse" or "misuse", not "recreational use". "Recreational use" is a biased term as well. This topic has come up before, at Talk:Benzodiazepine#Misuse?, and it's pretty clear that the recreational-use point of view is a minority view among reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, per Eubulides. Misuse was specifically chosen for neutrality. The vast majority of the literature calls it abuse, see link give by Eubulides above so if anything we are being biased against the word abuse and going against the peer reviewed literature as it is chosing a less frequently used term. Also importantly this article is NOT on recreational drug "use" but is on problematic harmful/addictive drug misuse. The article is not about recreational users popping a pill once a week or once a month at a party. Please don't confuse recreational use and problematic drug misuse.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. There's no such thing as "Recreational use of Benzodiazepines". Any use other than what the doctor prescribed is misuse. -- œ^™ 23:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

temazepam

http://www.medicalboard.act.gov.au/Standards%20Statements/docs/benzodiazepines.pdf

According to PDF page 5 of this article, in order of abuse potential, according to Darke, Ross & Hall, the abuse potential of benzodiazepines is in order of flunitrazepam, diazepam, oxazepam, clonazepam, and then temazepam.

Why then does the article claim that temazepam is a particularly problematic benzodiazepine, to wit: "temazepam rated significantly higher than other benzodiazepines"?

The abuse of temazepam preparations in the UK would appear to be due moreso to their availability (a relatively safe, and commonly prescribed hypnotic drug, with limited abuse potential) and their form of dosage (gel-cap that can be prepared for IV administration), than an actual psychopharmacological property of the drug.

Also, Erowid's temazepam experience pages would imply that there is little euphoria experienced when using temazepam, as opposed to other benzodiazepines such as diazepam or flunitrazepam. In fact, most of the drug experiences reported to that website are expressions of dissappointment.

So, unless someone can direct me otherwise, or adduce evidence that temazepam is intrinsically more euphoric or has a higher abuse potential, I am going to work that claim out of the article, as the source cited does not support that assertion.

71.17.52.50 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed correct, I did not add the referenced text so can't answer why it was misrepresented. Thank you for fixing it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"non-benzodiazepines"

I know there's a lot of debate on this topic, even within the medical community, but should we be considering the inclusion of the nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics (zolpidem, [es]zopiclone, zaleplon, etc.) under the broader category of benzodiazepine mis-use? There's a mountain of evidence to suggest that zolpidem and zopiclone, especially with cheap generics being marketed, have become the benzodiazepine receptor agonists (technically, GABA(A) modulators) of choice for mis-use, in the same way that barbiturates and benzos were abused previously. 216.197.207.134 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not, they are benzodiazepine receptor agonists, as are benzodiazepines. You could create a new section in the article. If it gets to big it may need a new article of its own.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That the non-benzodiazepines and benzodiazepines bind to same receptor complex does not mean they produce similar effects! Human brain is far to complicated for this kind of simple "it is just like light switch" thinking. In a recent lecture I saw scientist explained that different molecules that bind to same receptor then rotate it different amounts and cause totally different chemicals to be released in post synaptic cell! Also, all studies say that these drugs have different kind of effects. Please never on a complicated subject edit wikipedia in a way that relies on your own logic and reasoning and ignores scientific research. 88.193.125.78 (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

benzo related deviance

If we want to say that crime or deviance is accompanied by benzos, here is an actual secondary source that doesn't just say they're likely to be homeless and use other drugs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15228166?ordinalpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

we could also put some stuff about their use in sexual assault (secondary source!) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10881768?ordinalpos=28&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

If we think these issues are somehow more pertinent to benzos than other drugs, prove it. Otherwise I think we need to have these sections in all the relevant drug articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrewler (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 October 2009

The article should probably note their use as a date rape drug. Above source says 8% of victims tested were positive for benzodiazepines, and goes on to discuss the drugs in more detail, along with its banning in the United States under the Drug-Induced Rape Prevention and Punishment Act. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny Skrewler you know all about wikipedia's policies on editing medicine related articles but do not know how to sign your name. Trying to appear like a newbie? Not doing a good job. Maybe an idea is not to sockpuppet around wikipedia, I am getting tired of all these sockpuppets. Log onto your usual account.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oldie, I agree and I shall try and insert the text now. Hopefully within the next few days undue weight can be resolved and in the near future data from other countries added.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, just haven't been around wikipedia in a long time, here's some tildes to satiate you! Skrewler (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, stop reverting my changes without bringing up a valid point to keep them. Thanks in advance! Skrewler (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One last thing. Accusing me of a 'sockpuppet' doesn't make my point any less valid. No original research, some *unpublished* study is not a credible source on top of being primary source. Skrewler (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of sockpuppet allegations, edit warring, deleting same content 4 times and being combative is not doing anyone least of all yourself any favours. I did not edit war with you, reverted you once in 24 hours and twice in 48 hours, then stopped, other editors reverted you as well remember. I don't see how you regard the study as unpublished, it was a government report by the Australian Institute of Criminology, peer reviewed in Trends Issues Crime Crim Justice so it is actually more reliable than your average primary source. That being said I am in discussion with user Cosmic latte on regarding undue weight issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could care less about your personal opinion on whether something is a credible source or not. The reason? There are clear standards for what is deemed an acceptable source on Wikipedia, and it's specifically spelled out in the wiki medicine guide thingy. Your discussion with another user is irrelevant.Skrewler (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also a policy called WP:CIVIL. Less of the hostility and combative editing sil vous plais.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazapine effects similar to alcohol?

While both affect the gaba complex, the subjective effects are very different.

These drugs (Benzodiazapines (benzos from here on out) and alcohol have a much in common, but their effects on the mind/body are quite different. I'm guessing here, but I have a feeling that this is why combining the two makes deadly overdose so much morel likely.

As an example... many phenethylamines (amphetamine, MDAMA, etc) act on the exact same set of neurotransmitters, but have widely varying subjective affects.

In my personal experience (hope this is ok for the talk page), I do not enjoy being "drunk" but I abuse and and all benzodiazepines (and other drugs that effect gaba such as barbituates or pregablin\gabapentin).

This issue should be addressed, but as you can tell I am not qualified to make the necessary changes.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.74.4 (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Risk factors for abuse

Under this section the list is missing, perhaps among others, Bromazepam.

I was wondering if anyone has that information and would like to share it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.68.173 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Name of article

Have moved to benzodiazepine misuse. May be a good idea to discuss the best article name. Misuse would cover overdose and abuse.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that - in this context - misuse is the misuse of the UK Misuse of Drugs Act - means use as an intoxicant - and is inappropiately judgemental - while use as an intoxicant is not
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "misuse" is unnecessarily moralistic. A better title would be "non-medical use of benzodiazepines". Khimaris (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.maps.org/dea-mdma/pdf/0059.PDF. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed, along with other material added by the contributor in keeping with Wikipedia:Copyright violations, and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The title is biased

It suggests there is only one proper way to use benzodiazepines. The article demonizes recreational users as "bad guys." Recreational use is unbiased, that is people are doing it for. Clr324 (say hi) 23:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search shows "Non-medical use of benzodiazepines" has some use, though not a widespread as "misuse" or "abuse". However, as Doc James notes above, misuse can refer to overdose or non-medical use. "Non-medical use" is more specific to the scope of this article so I think an argument can be made to change the name under WP:NAME. Thoughts anyone? Sizeofint (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

On a side note a lot of this seems like an unnecessary content fork from Benzodiazepine Sizeofint (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS compliant lead section

Please read WP:MEDRS. The views and opinions of recreational drug users do not deserve "equal time" (false balance) with peer-reviewed medical practice guidelines. The use of clinical terminology in peer reviewed medical journals is appropriate for an article title - the goal of science-based medicine is not to avoid "offending" drug users.

This is the lead sentence I've used:

The non-medical use of Benzodiazepine drugs (called misuse or abuse in public health journals) is the use of benzodiazepines without a prescription, often for recreational purposes, which poses risks of dependence, withdrawal and other long-term effects

I think it's simple enough and gets the point across. I've removed the POV title tag. If anyone objects, find a MEDRS compliant source in the TRIP database linked at the top of the page. -- Callinus (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Benzodiazepine misuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090118110454/http://dawninfo.samhsa.gov:80/files/ED2006/DAWN2k6ED.htm to http://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ed2006/DAWN2k6ED.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The proposal is to merge benzodiazepine dependence to benzodiazepine misuse and than move the article to benzodiazepine use disorder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Before weighing in, I want to clarify that "misuse" in the sense that it's most frequently, and was intended to be used in this article, is the preferred terminology in the UK for what most other countries refer to, or used to refer to, as "abuse," according this well-sourced and impressively clear explanation on Talk:Substance abuse#DSM Updates by Scientizzle (who hasn't been active for 2 years and sadly will probably never see these accolades.) There seems to have been confusion about the same thing on this talkpage (Requested Move--NPOV) by some editors who assumed "misuse" had a more general meaning similar to "recreational" or "used not exactly as prescribed." This misunderstanding is also evident in the actual content of this article at times (though I'll be working on removing it when I catch it), so I wanted to clarify it here to make sure we're all using the same definition (misuse = abuse) in this discussion. I'll comment again soon to explain why I think we should definitely merge these 2 articles under the title Benzodiazepine use disorder. PermStrump(talk) 01:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Move Me again... As of 2013, "Substance use disorder in DSM-5 combines the DSM-IV categories of substance abuse and substance dependence into a single disorder measured on a continuum from mild to severe."[1] The ICD-10 also combines them into one category, Mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use, which is then further qualified based on severity. For example, in the ICD-10, benzodiazepines would be coded F13.1 as Mental and behavioural disorders due to use of benzodiazepines: harmful use, and F13.1 corresponds to DSM-5's benzodiazepine use disorder, mild. IMO, the ICD wording is too much of a mouthful, but maybe I’m biased. The key thing is though, that they’ve both combined all clinically significant, problematic drug use under one main category “use.” WP is supposed to be consistent with the authority sources on the subject, not just for the sake of consistency, but also for the sake of clarity, which incidentally is one of the main reasons the DSM stopped using “abuse” and “dependence” as diagnostic labels. PermStrump(talk) 02:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Merging would seem to imply that tolerance/dependence issues don't happen to people taking benzodiazepines as prescribed. Archdiamond (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The benzodiazepine dependence article is primarily focused on physical dependence which is a normal bodily response to chronic exposure to a drug - the article to a lesser extent also covers psychological dependence. The very large number of chronic benzodiazepine users are following doctors instructions so cannot be truely be classed as having a substance user disorder. This article covers substance abuse of benzodiazepines - many and in fact probably most abusers of benzodiazepines do not develop a dependence so the two articles should be separate I feel.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Benzodiazepine dependence can occur in the absence of benzodiazepine abuse and vice versa. We also have separate articles for Alcohol abuse and Alcohol dependence. Seven of Nine (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benzodiazepine use disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080623035317/http://www.radiologycasereports.net/index.php/rcr/article/viewPDFInterstitial/33/187 to http://www.radiologycasereports.net/index.php/rcr/article/viewPDFInterstitial/33/187

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Order of common brand names

Are the common brand names ordered by any specific criteria? -- Mfnalex (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)