...So, maybe if there was a medication that would stop you from crying, depression levels could be taken down?----
Antidepressants can directly reduce crying, probably independent of other effects on emotion.
There is a condition called "pathological crying" which can occur after a stroke or other brain damage; in this condition the afflicted person may be weeping uncontrollably, with or without a subjectively sad or negative emotional state. SSRI antidepressants can help greatly with this, here is a reference:
Here is a reference showing that mirtazapine could be an alternative:
A similar antidepressant-induced "reduction in crying" may sometimes be one of the sources of relief in depression. But such an effect could be unwelcome if it leads to a subjective restriction of emotional range.
Are tears therapeutic? Most of us would agree that crying is often a relief, or even a necessary emotional outlet. Many psychotherapists would consider a patient's tearfulness in a session to be therapeutic.
In my opinion, tears can sometimes be a relief, and can sometimes be very therapeutic -- but sometimes tearfulness can feed a cycle of exhausting, out-of-control sadness or despair. And sometimes tearfulness can be so reflexive that almost any event or trigger in daily life can bring it on. Occasionally tearfulness may be a type of "defence" which prevents dialog (with self or others) about an underlying experience or emotion.
I would add, as a formal personal opinion, that tearfulness need not be a sign of "loss of emotional control" (though sometimes it could be). A person who is confident, stable, mature, and sensitive may feel quite at ease with tearfulness. Tearfulness, in this case, is a normal, and often healthy, emotional display. For some individuals, tearfulness happens more naturally, for others they may be more comfortable experiencing emotion without tearfulness.
What does some of the evidence have to tell us:
(a website with an introduction to the subject)
(here's a case study showing that crying can be therapeutic -- even if it is the therapist who cries; this is a position I strongly support, for a variety of reasons, most of all because I believe in the "Rogersian" idea of genuineness and transparency, also I believe that crying need not be considered a form of weakness, but a symbol of sensitivity and compassion, whether the tear is shed by the patient or by the therapist. Too many therapists are, in my opinion, so defended by various tactics of emotional detachment, that they become aloof, and in some cases ironically afraid of emotional intensity--this may in some cases lead to dismissive, or ineffectively cold, postures towards tearful or suffering patients. Of course, if the therapist is not functioning, and is tearful due to emotional fragility or depression, then the tearful therapist needs to take a break and seek therapy himself or herself.)
(an interesting look--from an anthropological perspective-- at a phenomenon called "wailing", a type of crying & lamentation which is part of a group ritual of mourning in the Yemenite Jewish community; this article includes interesting perspectives about crying and its theoretical role in bereavement. It suggests that the idea of "healthy bereavement" has been heavily influenced by Freudian, and largely "male", ideas, viewing emotions in a kind of "hydraulic" way -- as forces to be directed, or cathartically released, and in particular pronouncing healthy grief as a process involving letting go of the relational bond with the deceased. In the "wailing" phenomenon the author suggests that the group crying, accompanied by lyricism and dialog, may act to build a kind of emotional or relational "cradle" where the bereaved person may maintain a continuing loving bond with the deceased, rather than aim to let the bond go)