TRANQUILLISERS SIR,—In his paragraph on tranquillisers, Pharos states that the
satisfactory ones calm the mind without inducing sleep or loss of normal faculties, and do not lead to addiction, but opposes their use on the grounds that they can represent a means of avoiding difficulties rather than facing them. But the difficul- ties of many people who can benefit from tranquil- lisers are not of a kind which can be remedied by taking thought or effort or 'pulling themselves to- gether.' It is possible to be far from insane and yet suffer from anxiety and tension and feelings of inadequacy which can be greatly relieved by tranquil- lisers. The alternative before such people is not between taking tranquillisers and enjoying an active successful life, but between taking tranquillisers and being generally tense and miserable and just as in- effective, anyway. Furthermore, they can relieve such minor but still distressing psychogenic symptoms as fatigue or headaches or skin irritations or compulsive masturbation, without doing any harm or being objectionable to other people.
It seems to me that not only is there no case for more stringent control over prescription, but that there is far too much control already in that many drugs are only obtainable on prescription which should be freely obtainable (because harmless) to any wfio feel they can benefit from them. I should like to know what dangers are considered to be involved in the use of chlorpromazine or dexedrine which render prescription necessary?
If alcohol had been a twentieth-century discovery, I have no doubt that it would only be possible to drink it under strict medical supervision.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
