I am a 67-year-old ADULT who tried for over a year to get off of Effexor after paying out of my own pocket for a compounding pharmacist -- one who was not allowed to provide extended release formula. The effort failed after a year with my depression returning worse than it had ever been and I also discovered that I had cognitive impairment that only disappeared after returning to the drug. I finally decided to return to the drug full-time and to spend the remainder of my life protesting the superstitious fear-driven drug attitudes that shunted me off onto this drug-from-hell in the first place.
If only it were so easy.
When I complained to my psychiatrist about having been placed on a drug that I can never kick, he "fired" me as a patient. He accused me of questioning his integrity. I told him I was questioning the integrity of the whole system, but he was determined to take it personally. I think he was also motivated because I complained via the Sentara Complaint service, and he was going to punish me as a whistleblower.
Now I have to find a psychiatrist to prescribe the med for me. This means in practice that I have to see a physician less than half my age every three months of my life to share the most intimate details of my life with him or her. In other words, I have been turned into a child for life and a ward of the healthcare state. It is humiliating. And if I work too hard to find an understanding physician, I am charged with "doctor hopping." But the worst thing of all is that no one in the healthcare field seems to consider me to be a victim. They talk plenty about the rights of patients, of course, but they never talk about the rights of people like myself NOT TO BE PATIENTS in the first place.
My personal conviction, based on eight years of philosophical study, is that this disempowerment is the necessary evil result of drug prohibition and the fearmongering attitudes that it represents. However, I will not try to convince you here of that thesis. I only ask you for any suggestions on making my case to the powers-that-be. Who can I tell about this? How can I make it clear to the people in charge that I am sick and tired of being a patient for life!
PS We don't need research: we need the re-legalization of godsend medicines like laughing gas, phenethylamines, coca, and opium. Drug prohibition has turned me into a patient for life -- and this is obviously in the interests of the healthcare industry, not myself.
TO Virginia Department of Health Professions Prescription Monitoring Program2
Good day.
I am a 67-year-old Virginian who has been turned into a patient for life because of government drug policy. I have been "on" Effexor for 30+ years, a drug that is far harder to kick than heroin. I tried for a year but could never get off it with brain zaps and severe depression, worse than I had ever had before taking the drug. I have to keep taking the drug merely to be able to think straight. This means I have to see a doctor less than one-half my age every three months of my life and share my most intimate feelings with him or her -- for the privilege of receiving an expensive and under-performing prescription of a drug that I have come to detest.
I have been turned into a patient for life!
Please keep this in mind the next time the government makes it as hard as possible to get prescriptions easily. I have been taking this drug for decades. Why am I not trusted to use the drug without the constant prying of young adults into my life! It is humiliating!
This is not healthcare, it is Christian Science fanaticism. It is treating drugs like plutonium!
When is Virginia drug policy going to recognize the fact that adults are adults and we are sick and tired of seeing someone half our age every three months of our lives to discuss the same psychiatric "crap" that we discussed 30 years ago!!!!!!!!!!
To Delegate Pence and Senator French of Virginia state legislature
With all due respect, I have been turned into a ward of the healthcare state by government drug policy.
I am a 67-year-old who was started on Effexor 30 years ago, a drug that is harder to kick than heroin. I tried for a year to get off the drug, but I had to pay for my own compounding pharmacist to do that, and even he could not provide extended-release formula for proprietary reasons. After the side effects of withdrawal became intolerable, I resumed the drug, resolving to spend the rest of my life protesting America's fearmongering drug policy. But I still needed the drug. So I had to go to a psychiatrist who is less than half my age every three months of my life and share my most intimate feelings by answering questions like: "Have you considered suicide over the last three months?"
I want to answer that question as follows: "Only when I consider how drug policy has turned me into a ward of the healthcare state and a child for life!"
When are Drug Warriors going to realize that there are more stakeholders in drug prohibition than the kids whom we refuse to teach about safe use?
Drug policy has denied me all medicines that could cheer me up in a trice and shunted me off instead onto a drug that is far far far harder to kick than heroin.
I write this after my latest psychiatrist quit the field -- meaning that I once again have to find a new young person to whom to bare my soul for the privilege of a prescription refill. And if I spend too much time looking for one, I am told that I am "doctor hopping!" This is a big joke -- but only psychiatrists are laughing on their way to the bank.
When am I going to be trusted as an ADULT?!
Author's Follow-up:
May 16, 2026
Of course, I have received no answers, but that's an outcome that I have come to expect after spending the last seven years writing honestly about the subject of drugs. Americans just will not "go there." One is literally invisible if they raise these kinds of concerns. I am just supposed to "shut up and take my meds."
Key Takeaways:
No one talks about the right not to be a patient in the first place.
Drug prohibition turns the depressed into patients for life.
A senior adult is not trusted to take 'meds' safely, but has to see a child half his age or less every three months to answer humiliating questions.
The system ignores complaints, telling the depressed basically to 'shut up and take your meds'.
So much harm could be reduced by shunting people off onto safer alternative drugs -- but they're all outlawed! Reducing harm should ultimately mean ending this prohibition that denies us endless godsends, like the phenethylamines of Alexander Shulgin.
A company will be put out of business if someone happens to die while using "drugs," even if the drug was not really responsible for the death.
The DEA stomped onto Thomas Jefferson's estate in 1987 and confiscated the founding father's poppy plants in violation of everything he stood for, politically speaking. And the TJ Foundation helped them! They sold out Jefferson.
No drug causes addiction after one use. From this fact alone, it follows that even drugs like meth and crack and Fentanyl can be used wisely -- on an intermittent basis.
The Hindu religion was inspired by drug use.
Drug warriors are too selfish and short-sighted to fight real problems, so they blame everything on drugs.
Folks like Sabet accuse folks like myself of ignoring the "facts." No, it is Sabet who is ignoring the facts -- facts about dangerous horses and free climbing. He's also ignoring all the downsides of prohibition, whose laws lead to the election of tyrants.
Kids should be taught beginning in grade school that drug prohibition is wrong.
No wonder the "Justice" Department relies on plea deals; otherwise juries could use nullification to free those charged with mere drug possession.
Endless drugs could help with depression. Any drug that inspires and elates is an antidepressant, partly by the effect itself and partly by the mood-elevation caused by anticipation of use (facts which are far too obvious for materialists and drug warriors to understand -- let alone materialist drug warriors!).
Unless otherwise indicated, no AI is used in the creation of site content. These essays represent the original ideas of their author and not the ideas that the author SHOULD have based on an algorithmic parsing of existing data. For more on this subject, consider the AI-related viewpoints to which the author subscribes as delineated in the New York Times opinion piece entitled "What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity" by Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution.
TO PSSD NETWORK1
(up)