A moral tag on controlled substances in psychiatry
There are entire libraries out there filled with journal articles, monographs and pop science books discussing the controversies around the use and misuse of controlled medications in the medical profession.
Sometimes, however, short statements like the ones below may literally “speak volumes” about the subject. Behold this “pearl”, from one anonymous child psychiatrist on Sermo:
“my colleagues are puzzled that I Rx stimulants but almost never benzodiazepines...
To me, benzodiazepines, weed, and alcohol are all substitutes for coping skills. Stimulants help compensate for deficient dopamine receptors that no amount of skills training will compensate for…”
This is a beautiful example of mainstream perception about these issues, and reminds me of a primary doctor who would never treat a fever, since it clearly denotes a lack of moral fiber, while he would always address hypothermia because none of the patient’s skills will compensate for the low body temperature.
The Brain Shop 
March 26, 2013 at 18:56
Ironically this is the case in many areas of medicine. For many, the difference between ADHD medications and benzodiazepines is that one is a CII and the other a CIV. Additionally, just because a certain anti-anxiety medication is given out doesn’t prove it’s any safer. In fact the wide and easily obtainable drugs of the benzodiazepine family have been shown to be even more habit former and on a much larger scale. It appears that people, especially, and sadly, medical professionals cannot seem to place controlled substances in the proper category. And, like the post said, one is used for coping and mimics, in not exaggerates what the body already does naturally. In the case of certain medications, whether they be controlled stimulants or even the most basic of antidepressant, they work in regulating the body’s neurotransmitters that are either malfunctioning or absent all together.