The referenced articles seem to repeat assertions that
this new drug may be {less|not} addictive
without providing {pharmo|neuro|pyscho}
reasons for those assertions.
My guess is that people will be able to find
old or new ways to abuse or become addicted.
The idea of an antidote or antagonist is initially appealing, but we
may see the pattern that made the narcotic antagonist nalaxone
(Narcan) subject to abuse - people take a long lunch break,
inject a narcotic, enjoy the buzz, and then use the antagonist
before returning to work, supposedly no worse for wear.
Would someone who does the benzo-equivalent of a three-martini lunch
and then takes the benzo-antagonist be ready to return to coding,
planning, or digital networking no worse than they were when they
left work?
Will the antagonist really convert someone who is too
benzo'd to drive to someone capable of driving as
well as their pre-impaired self?
How long will it take for societies to
work out those details and differences?
This is something that has great potential,
if it could replace ethanol without bad effects of ethanol -
but to believe that it might have no bad effects
seems naïve.
Do you have any reliable references for this use of Naloxone as a "lunch hour fix-ender"? I'm led to believe the administration of it isn't particularly pleasant under any circumstances, and the risk of an excessive dose causing precipitated withdrawal symptoms is probably the worst.
Not to mention, the mere idea that you'd waste money by ending it early would send many users away laughing.
And if you have the money and time/connections to be sourcing Naloxone on a regular basis, why not just use a short-acting opioid like Fentanyl (or even just Heroin?)
In what ways would the 3-martini-equiv benzo + nominal antidote be worse than, say, 3 martini lunch? It seems like the problem is more with irresponsible people consuming drugs for recreation when they shouldn't, rather than the drugs themselves[1].
Giving such irresponsible people the ability to hide either consumption without totally reversing its effects would indeed be a net negative, but same can be argued of breath mints or dark glasses, neither of which are known to make you a better drunk-driver.
Overall, I'd be deeply surprised if there wasn't something objectively better than alcohol in every way, but agreed that it's going to take society a long time and a good number of missteps to accept and adapt to it.
[1] Ignoring for brevity the issues of dependence, addiction and tolerance that might require them to dose regularly, or risk even greater impairment or harm to themselves.
I've been hit with Narcan. That shit is horrible and put me in instant withdrawals. The overlap of people who inject heroin and other opiates, who aren't already at risk of being put into withdrawals from Narcan would be exceedingly low, IMO.
> Would someone who does the benzo-equivalent of a three-martini lunch and then takes the benzo-antagonist be ready to return to coding, planning, or digital networking no worse than they were when they left work?
