Nootropics: smart drugs

What is your take on drugs that enhance mental capacity? Ritalin, vinpocetine, etc. Should they be legal? Is it fair that some college/university students take them for better grades?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

These drugs don't enhance mental capacity. They induce tunnel-vision. Anything can be abused. Nothing can be completely removed from the market. If pharmaceutical companies aren't able to push these drugs, then they'll turn up on the street in more dangerous forms (which they have). So...keep it business, regulated and taxed. It's better for everyone involved.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

They're just stimulants. It's actually the same logic behind having a cup of coffee in the morning stimulate the firing of neurons in the brain. Stimulants like ritalin are amphetamine salts. Stimulants are also used against narcolepsy and as nasal decongestants. If a student has a legitimate attention disorder, then I don't see the problem with those who need these drugs having them.

Originally Posted by Gift of Game

These drugs don't enhance mental capacity. They induce tunnel-vision. Anything can be abused. Nothing can be completely removed from the market. If pharmaceutical companies aren't able to push these drugs, then they'll turn up on the street in more dangerous forms (which they have). So...keep it business, regulated and taxed. It's better for everyone involved.

While I think they're overused, there are people who have legitimate attention disorders that require these drugs. They have been proven to work. The FDA isn't just going to keep something on the market for the sake of safety, it's because they're clinically proven.

I mean, if you want to go the route you seem to be taking, technically cocaine is a schedule II drug in this country, but that's because it has medical use as a pain reliever. I mean, if it's only controlled by the FDA to keep it off the streets, the FDA is doing a golden job of that, dont you think? A few years ago the FDA regulated that Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) had to be kept behind pharmacy shelves to get it out of the hands of those using it to make methamphetaine. But hey, meth labs are a thing of the past, right? Regulate it or not, drug abusers are wicked fucking crafty when it comes to getting their fix. They WILL get it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by SuperNova

They're just stimulants. It's actually the same logic behind having a cup of coffee in the morning stimulate the firing of neurons in the brain. Stimulants like ritalin are amphetamine salts. Stimulants are also used against narcolepsy and as nasal decongestants. If a student has a legitimate attention disorder, then I don't see the problem with those who need these drugs having them.

Yes.

Originally Posted by SuperNova

While I think they're overused, there are people who have legitimate attention disorders that require these drugs. They have been proven to work. The FDA isn't just going to keep something on the market for the sake of safety, it's because they're clinically proven.

Functionality isn't the question. We are assuming that it works. Legality and fairness seems to be the main idea. Also, there seems to be a lot you don't concern yourself with regarding pharmaceutical companies and government. Moving on...why would they put it on the market? It works. Why wouldn't they remove it? It banks for them. If a drug regulates blood pressure but causes liver disease, they'll still sell it. Just with a disclaimer. How badly do you need it? I'm sure they have something for liver disease that increases the risk of colon cancer in return. They may even have an answer for that.

Originally Posted by SuperNova

I mean, if you want to go the route you seem to be taking, technically cocaine is a schedule II drug in this country, but that's because it has medical use as a pain reliever. I mean, if it's only controlled by the FDA to keep it off the streets, the FDA is doing a golden job of that, dont you think? A few years ago the FDA regulated that Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) had to be kept behind pharmacy shelves to get it out of the hands of those using it to make methamphetaine. But hey, meth labs are a thing of the past, right? Regulate it or not, drug abusers are wicked fucking crafty when it comes to getting their fix. They WILL get it.

Nothing is ever a thing of the past. Nothing can be completely removed from the market. That includes meth labs. There are always substitutes in place for ingredients. One can also shop in Mexico or other less discerning countries. Cocaine crosses international borders in the process of reaching our streets and suburbs. Very crafty indeed. Not the point.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Then please make your point because it's right now you're not making one and sounding dumb as fucking bricks in the process.

All drugs are chemicals. Chemicals have a consequence to taking them. These are side effects. This is why we have a pharmacy system in place in this country. If the side effects are minor enough not to be a concern, then they're sold over-the-counter. If the side effect is of a reasonable concern, they make it by prescription only such to make it so that doctors and pharmacists, and not individuals, are making the decision on whether or not this drug is the right medication for them.

If a medication is to be sold in this country, it is put through a rigorous 5 phase FDA approval process. Do you know how many drugs never even see a pharmacy shelf? Probably about 99% of compounds that are initially tested as a possible medication. Do you know why? Because of side effect or adverse reaction issues.

Celebrex and Vioxx were flagged by the FDA because of these problems. Vioxx moreso than Celebrex, and therefore has been withdrawn. Celebrex now has massive warnings associated with it's use. Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx because of the risks associated with long-term use, something they couldn't pick up in clinical trials. It was making them bank, sure, but do you honestly think a drug company is gonna keep things on the market to make a buck over consumer lives? If Pfizer did that, the largest drug company in the world would be nothing now. I'm not suggesting that pharmaceutical companies are of the highest moral character, as they've been known to do some economically shady things, but killing patients for the sake of a buck is not one of 'em.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Actually, this is sadly correct. Drugs being sold on the counter are the ones that work and give desirable effects, as what they are designed to be. But that doesn't necessarily means any drugs which work will be on the counter forever. That's what FDA is for; to test the margin of safety of drugs to make sure drugs out there are capable of dealing with health problems while still be safe to use.

More and more drugs are produced nowadays. The aim of these is to produce more potent drugs with wider margin of safety. Of course these drugs are tested first on experiment objects. If too many severe side effects are observed, the drug may cease to be developed.

Then, after the drugs approved enter the market, continuous observation is still conducted, mainly on observing what adverse effects may come out---especially the ones unobserved in laboratorium or severe ones. This is the main base for drug distribution in society by FDA; they can ban drugs already circulating if they produce too many or too serious adverse effects. Or they can make a useful drug with lots of side effect to be acquired only under prescription. But once again, there are certain degree of safety margin, and just because a drug has several side effects does not equal its halt in the market.

Thus, the role of doctors to decide what drugs should be prescribed to the patient is important. So is reading the labels of drugs before using it.

Now regarding this drug problem. Drugs, judged from their side effect and indication, are separated into several classes (I forgot, unfortunately). These classifications are useful for controlling the distribution of several drugs considered potential to be abused. However, all kind of drugs can be abused, including the usual (almost) harmless medicine such as aspirin or paracetamol.

So what is the definition of drug abuse? Drug abuse is when someone uses any drug for a long time without indication for using it.. So, if a student uses a stimulant once in a while (for example, studying before a test) with an appropriate indication (or because they really need it badly), it is not illegal. But if s/he use it regularly without the indication, then it's drug abuse.

But once again, the law doesn't control every drug usage, so abuse of any medicine beside the prohibited ones are kind of obscure.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

There was a long article in some magazine I wish I could remember about mental enhancement drug use. It said basically more and more people in my generation, ie. 20's are taking them to stay focused and be more productive at work.

From what I recall the short term side effects were negligible and I don't think were even addictive. The concern most people had was for the unknown long-term side effects and whether it could impact neurological development in children when taken too young.

Personally I'll admit I've been tempted. If you can artificially attain the sort of focus and drive that makes you stand out in the work place, I mean, that'd be pretty sweet. I'm just imagining all the shit I could get done. But my brain is precious to me, and I worry what I might do to it long term.

Also I cringe a little at the necessary perjury in order to acquire these drugs now. =/

FELIPE NO

Quote:

It was making them bank, sure, but do you honestly think a drug company is gonna keep things on the market to make a buck over consumer lives?

I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think your argument is very good. Just because FDA trials are extensive it doesn't mean they are fail-proof. And pharmaceutical companies are COMPANIES first and foremost. Maybe they don't kill people, but that's because they can't get away with it. Look at insurance companies: they can kill people and get away with it, and they damn well do it all the time.

I see what you mean that those substances are just like coffee, but there is a distinction, at least in America. You know, it is one thing for baseball players to work-out a lot, have perfect nutrition, and eat spinach. That has been around for ages. But nearly everyone finds steroids suspect. Isn't it kinda the same thing? We all drink coffee, but only a few of us use unperscribed ritalin. Maybe there is no REAL difference, but there is a perceived one.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Marco

Maybe they don't kill people, but that's because they can't get away with it.

Originally Posted by Marco

Maybe they don't kill people, but that's because they can't get away with it.

Originally Posted by Marco

Maybe they don't kill people, but that's because they can't get away with it.

And I don't make good arguments he says.

I think people forgot about a small thing called public perception. Merck almost got reamed because of Vioxx. Obviously if you kill patients people will stop using your products out of fear. So what purpose would it serve Merck to keep Vioxx on the market and have their consumers die off? Don't you think they'd rather have them live and be using the drug long term? Makes a whole shitload more sense than your argument does.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Look, if it turned a profit and they didn't get caught for it, I am sure drug companies would do anything. You can believe in their morals as much as you want. All I am saying is that 1) the FDA is not fail-proof, 2) big-pharma is suspect.

Quote:

Don't you think they'd rather have them live and be using the drug long term? Makes a whole shitload more sense than your argument does.

I often hear America is super-overmedicated. And don't you think big-pharma lobbies doctors to put their patients in all-sorts of pills? How morally suspect is that? Very, but also very profitable.

Either way, there was more stuff in my post directly responding to you.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Not all the time. Vioxx caused 88-130k heart attacks before it was pulled from the market, and evidence suggests Merck knew it was dangerous and kept it in the market for a while.

Quote:

Pharmaceutical giant Merck's Gardasil (which can cost $140 to $275 for each of the required series of shots, plus office visit charges), is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed in the U.S. Merck also makes Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the market after causing an estimated 88,000-139,000 heart attacks, 30-40 percent of them fatal, according to the FDA's Dr. David Graham.
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.co...s/4648048.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx mentions several studies which showed Vioxx caused heart attacks, all of which were edited or manipulated by merck to keep the drug in the market.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I am 100% in favor of smart-drugs.

That way, people will be able to stay focused and on-topic, even over the course of nearly a baker's dozen separate responses!

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

From same Wikipedia article...

Quote:

Merck's scientists interpreted the finding as a protective effect of naproxen, telling the FDA that the difference in heart attacks "is primarily due to" this protective effect (Targum, 2001). Some commentators have noted that naproxen would have to be three times as effective as aspirin to account for all of the difference (Michaels 2005), and some outside scientists warned Merck that this claim was implausible before VIGOR was published.[7] No evidence has since emerged for such a large cardioprotective effect of naproxen, although a number of studies have found protective effects similar in size to those of aspirin (Karha and Topol, 2004; Solomon et al., 2002). Though Dr. Topol's 2004 paper criticized Merck's naproxen hypothesis, he himself co-authored a 2001 JAMA article stating "because of the evidence for an antiplatelet effect of naproxen, it is difficult to assess whether the difference in cardiovascular event rates in VIGOR was due to a benefit from naproxen or to a prothrombotic effect from rofecoxib." (Mukherjee, Nissen and Topol, 2001.)

In other words, there was a legitimate explanation for the difference. Fact was that naproxen has a blood thinning effect. What Merck didn't do and was foolish for not doing was long term studies. Vioxx ended up having a prothrombotic effect in patients who took the drug over two months.

I'm not disputing that Merck may have been negligent in not doing the proper studies to further look into the findings, but to suggest that they would KILL THEIR PATIENTS TO MAKE A BUCK, which is what you're suggesting, is asinine. Again Merck gains more by having living patients taking a safe and efficacious drug for a long time rather than having their patients die, and not need medication anymore.

And before you ask, yes, I HAVE read some of the studies. I had to actually do a drug review on Celebrex and Vioxx last year for school. I'm a pharmacy student, and not an idiot when it comes to this stuff.

Originally Posted by Marco

Look, if it turned a profit and they didn't get caught for it, I am sure drug companies would do anything. You can believe in their morals as much as you want. All I am saying is that 1) the FDA is not fail-proof, 2) big-pharma is suspect.

Well then shit, I guess you have this figured out then. Why did you even start the fucking thread?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

If this is the case, then you've answered your original post right? Obviously the drugs are bad and no one should ever take them. So why we having this argument?

What are forums for? I want to see what other people think.

Quote:

I'm not disputing that Merck may have been negligent in not doing the proper studies to further look into the findings, but to suggest that they would KILL THEIR PATIENTS TO MAKE A BUCK, which is what you're suggesting, is asinine.

I understand that you have the greater understanding of the subject. All I am holding is that drug companies are primarily that - companies. I don't doubt they will go to any length to make a profit. From what I heard, some Merck execs KNEW that there were serious risks involved with the drug but decided to keep it going to at least cover the costs of research. Maybe I am wrong. If so, I apologize.

Either way, I asked you on my original post:

I see what you mean that those substances are just like coffee, but there is a distinction, at least in America. You know, it is one thing for baseball players to work-out a lot, have perfect nutrition, and eat spinach. That has been around for ages. But nearly everyone finds steroids suspect. Isn't it kinda the same thing? We all drink coffee, but only a few of us use unperscribed ritalin. Maybe there is no REAL difference, but there is a perceived one.

If you don't want to respond to that, fine. But it is the kind of thing I made this thread to talk about.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

No, no. You ARE wrong.

FELIPE NO

They don't have to kill them to make profits in morally suspect ways. The elderly in MA are extremely overmedicated, to the point that it is not beneficial and can actually harm them. You don't think any of that has to do with drug companies courting doctors? Yet the public isn't clamoring against big pharma.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I thought Vioxx was a good case of this, but according to SuperNova it is not. From what I understand, Merck allowed the drug to go into sale knowing that it was dangerous and it ended up killing 80-130 thousand people. They made the money from those sales.

You are right, obviously, drug companies make more money from keeping people on their meds. That only proves what I was saying, though, that they can't be trusted; they have an incentive to keep you on their drugs, whether or not you need it: it is what makes them money, and it is their primary concern as a company.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Marco

You are right, obviously, drug companies make more money from keeping people on their meds. That only proves what I was saying, though, that they can't be trusted; they have an incentive to keep you on their drugs, whether or not you need it: it is what makes them money, and it is their primary concern as a company.

Since obviously you're just making no sense at this point, I'm just gonna do what I've really wanted to do all thread long.

POLO!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

SuperNova obviously thinks he is the 'end all, be all' of thread dwellers. I don't have a problem with that, as long as he doesn't have a problem with us knowing better. Then when he loses wind, he resorts to spam. You don't have to commandeer threads, dick. But I sound 'dumb as fucking bricks.' I'm very familiar with the underbelly of the drug world, personally, and my girlfriend has a PhD in Biology if I were ever to need a fallback. Her research is enlightening. I'm not sure what makes SuperNova a credible source of information or one to insult people. We all possess conviction. Your's isn't superior to mine.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Gift of Game obviously thinks he is the 'be all, end all' of thread posters. I don't have a problem with that, as long as he doesn't have a problem with us not giving a shit. Then when he runs out of complaints, he resorts to shifting gears with all the subtlety of a Mack truck. You don't have to shit on threads, dick. But I sound 'like I don't give a shit.' I'm very familiar with the underbelly of GFF, personally, and my dad has a Master's in Economics if I were ever to need a mostly unrelated degree to make myself sound smarter. His work has nothing to do with this thread. I'm not sure what makes Gift of Game think his post did anything to contribute to the thread aside from vague threats of "nyah nyah I know people/things but I'm not telling" or one to limply insult people. We all possess grammar. YOURS isn't superior to mine.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

You contribute nothing to the discussion. Stop telling jokes.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I AM SO HURT AND WOUNDED BY YOUR BITING AND INTELLECTUAL RETORT, I WILL GO AND CRY NOW

Most amazing jew boots

Can we stop hazing the newbie just because SuperNova picked a pointless fight with him? SuperNova picks pointless fights with everybody. It's kind of his thing.

Can we stop doing our best to drive out everybody new? Honestly now.

FELIPE NO

So let me get this straight. SuperNova comes back after years of being a grown up and he picks back up at the same bullshit he was perpetratin like, shit, fuckin, ages ago or whatever?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by YOU MAD

Ben Affleck plays the same character he's been in for just about every movie. Every time Ben Affleck is in a movie he plays the same guy. That guy he plays is Ben Affleck in Dazed and Confused.

Ben Affleck plays himself, Ben Affleck, an asshole.

Jam it back in, in the dark.