Nature magazine recently published an article where scientists plea to have drugs like adderall, ritalin made available without prescription

Link (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/456702a.html)

Me, I strongly support the idea, it could be a real help to people who have trouble focusing, or need to do a tedious yet risky job.

what's your take on this BLTC.

Though I voted yes, I think that people who would use these drugs under the guise of nootropics DAMN WELL better be taking nootropics as well. I voted yes though because I believe that banning a molecule or compound is simply retarded. I don't see how it's possible for a chemical to be evil. I support free information, education, responsible use and overall common sense.


Too bad it won't happen. Not that legal speed would be bad, not only because it would get americans off their lazy asses, but it would FINALLY make public and undeniable, the question of what drug abuse is really about. The people and not the drug. For a governing body to deem any chemical "evil" or dangerous flys in the face of logic, and people simply don't get that, because it's been instilled in us since such a young age.


Fuck, I even feel bad for using drugs sometimes, even pot. Because of the stigmas that have been set up by those who seek to control us, and they do a damn good job of it too.


My wife is an excellent case of someone who will take a drug based on it's legality and social standing. Which means no illegal drugs. It kills me.

Only with strict controls and a raised level of awareness among users and doctors about the risks and pharmacological effects.

That comment about 'cognitive style' in the article is one of the most important things mentioned. I wished it were elaborted on further.

Ritalin would become the new coffee. I wouldn't want that. Nootropics would probably be safer.

Cigarette use would probably skyrocket...

I will contact Phillip Morris with the proposition. :D

what kind of "smart drugs"? I thought ritalin was a stimulant that really doesnt even work for anything let alone intelligence.

what kind of "smart drugs"?

The ones from the article.

I voted for the second one. If people can get them anyway, why not make them available without prescription; it'll be a lot safer, and that's what matters.

hey ingenious, let cvs get 5 bucks a pill rather than the kidiot in the hallway 20 minutes before finals...


i'm all for leveling the playing field a bit..

I voted for Option 2, because, like all other drugs, there's no point in disallowing it, because people will do it anyway, so it might as well be legal. But, in my opinion, I can't really see too many advantages in selling Ritalin OTC, other than enabling people like those that frequent BLTC to get it quickly, easily and without protest. I don't see the Nation as a whole benefiting much from the legalization of it over-all. But, I could be wrong..

And if their freely available, then no more buying them from some dealer on the corner anymore....

Umm, isn't there a reason steroids were banned in professional sports? I don't know about you, but I don't want to pump my body full of possibly harmful chems just to compete with the rest of you guys.

People would work harder, and do better in school...

How do we fix this obesity epidemic? speed for the masses....

Of course with making amphetamine more legal than PSE or ephedrine, we would see a lot more meth...

Yea, its not like I cant get them anyways. My buddy across the hall gets them fo free!

hydergine, nootropil, etc, they should all be OTC and cheap

but fucking amphetamine?

no way

who are these doctors kidding?

those drugs will only have a long-term degenerative effect on the brain, whereas smart drugs will have a regenerative effect

I mean, didn't we try this in the 50's...?

Now we need scientists making a plea for all drugs to be legal...however it doesn't take a scientist to figure out.

Maybe, as stupid noob said, more people should find out about nootropics.

Anyone seen "Requiem for a dream"?

we've got a winnar!

I mean, didn't we try this in the 50's...?

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it didn't work.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it didn't work.

it doesn't...?

Though I voted yes, I think that people who would use these drugs under the guise of nootropics DAMN WELL better be taking nootropics as well. I voted yes though because I believe that banning a molecule or compound is simply retarded. I don't see how it's possible for a chemical to be evil. I support free information, education, responsible use and overall common sense.


Too bad it won't happen. Not that legal speed would be bad, not only because it would get americans off their lazy asses, but it would FINALLY make public and undeniable, the question of what drug abuse is really about. The people and not the drug. For a governing body to deem any chemical "evil" or dangerous flys in the face of logic, and people simply don't get that, because it's been instilled in us since such a young age.

^^^now that's TRUTH.

I agree to some extent. I think that you should be able to go through some kind of process and receive a certain limited supply of amphetamines, like show your class schedule and say I'm gonna need 2 40mg XRs for this day, and you go and pick it up on the appropriate day.

If we make them OTC...look how bad the amphetamine problem is in some parts of this country with them being ILLEGAL.

I think modafinil should be OTC though.

Methlyphenidate should be banned for Rx AND OTC, IMO.

It's a terrible mood-altering stimulant.

Everybody I know who's been on ritalin for extended periods of time has serious emotional problems.

I agree to some extent. I think that you should be able to go through some kind of process and receive a certain limited supply of amphetamines, like show your class schedule and say I'm gonna need 2 40mg XRs for this day, and you go and pick it up on the appropriate day.

If we make them OTC...look how bad the amphetamine problem is in some parts of this country with them being ILLEGAL.

I think modafinil should be OTC though.

Methlyphenidate should be banned for Rx AND OTC, IMO.

It's a terrible mood-altering stimulant.

Everybody I know who's been on ritalin for extended periods of time has serious emotional problems.

yeah I tried binging on ritalin a few weeks ago and it was horrible

not half as bad as benzedrex mind you *gag*

it doesn't...?

Well you can't say the drug didn't work properly.

I'm under the impression they didn't really try to reduce the abuse, much easier to schedule them and only dish them out to those who truly need them.

So why not try to re-introduce them?
I'm sure with the better understanding we have now that a better approach to their abuse potential and side effects could be formulated..

And fuck it, if it doesn't work this time they can just ban them again and try again in another fifty years.:)

Yes. This.

"ADHD" is not a disorder. It's a cute name to group particular type of person because they act a little differently compared to "normal" people.

"You don't seem like us so we'll give you drugs to make you more like us."

It's disgusting.

I voted option 2

i hate stimulants.

i think only those who've actually taken such meds should be allowed to vote. I took vyvanse for i beleive 5 days in a row, and the toll it took on me was ridiculous. It made the thought of eating or drinking anything disgusting. (i lived on a bagel and 2 cups of water a day. Felt great! Sleep? Get the fuck out of here. Without them i felt like i was drugged and asleep. It took me a week of solid eating/drinking/sleeping to get back to normal. I dont fuck with that shit anymore. Once in a while? ok. Everyday thing? Not a fucking chance

Yes, the neurotoxicity of amphetamine is another issue that needs to be discussed. Like I said, everything should be freely available with the information needed to use it, BUT that's not what's happening here. This is just another off label usage cooked up by pharm companies to hock their wares to an unsuspecting public. Like cymbalta for chronic pain. Fuck, every single pharm has an example of bullshit off label usages some asshole cooked up to make a quick buck.

My wife is an excellent case of someone who will take a drug based on it's legality and social standing. Which means no illegal drugs. It kills me.

Sounds like my girlfriend. She has a prescription for concerta because she has ADD, and I quit taking ADD meds a long time ago because I believed you didn't need them, and can learn to focus naturally. My girlfriend doesn't believe she is addicted to the stuff... she says she NEEDS it to function properly and thinks she isn't addicted to it because it's legal. However, she really doesn't want me to smoke weed.

I'm slowly beginning to convince her otherwise, I think. She is pretty well blinded by DARE propaganda.

thinks she isn't addicted to it because it's legal.

.

maybe you shouldn't reproduce with her then.

I'd better be sure you are



I'm slowly beginning to convince her otherwise, I think.

I didnt vote because my preferred option isnt up there. I would say "Yes, but only with a doctor's permission."

Actually I'm writing an essay about this right now. Maybe you guys can help me clarify my points.

What I am proposing is that ALL drugs should available legally, but only with a doctor's permission.
(For those of you versed in criminal policy formation I'm opting for the "positive license" model)

Basically, my proposed system is this:
You can buy any drug you like after you visit a doctor for a consultation on that drug. The appointment will have a minimum duration time, and the doctor will be required to go over a certain curriculum about the drug you wish to be licensed for during that time.

The curriculum will include pharmacology, harm reduction, and general info to make the drug use as safe as possible

After the consult the doctor signs a form saying that you have completed the consultation for "x" drug. You then take this form to the DMV and take a test on the info. If you pass the test you get a license thats good for a specified amount of time (probably between 1 and 5 years) and allows you to posess a specified amount of the drug (not enough that you could feasibly do anything more than personal use).

Note that who has these licenses and for what chemicals will not be public record. It will be treated with the same privacy as current laws give to what medicine you are prescribed.

For as long as your license is valid you may purchase and posess up to the specified limit.
You may not distribute the substance, even to other people who are licensed to have it.
With the exception of marijuana and other plants that require no refining to become psychoactive, you may not synthesize or otherwise produce the drugs without a DEA license ( the same as is required now).
One person can have multiple licenses, but he must undergo the same process for each one.
After your license has expired you must pass the test again to have it renewed.

This model is based off of the California medicinal marijuana system, where you get a doctor'r permission and use that to get a license from the city that you keep on your person whenever you have your drugs.

Why the restrictions i have included are included:

1) I am using a positive license model because research on successful drug policy has shown that this model has the lowest harm to society of all other models. This includes absolute prohibition, absolute legalization (where drugs are sold as freely as milk), and everything inbetween.

2) The doctor's appointment has a minimum length and curriculum because of what we have seen in CA. Here there are tons of "pot docs". Basically these are licensed doctors who put out ads in newspapers for $100 consults. Patients come in, pay cash, and say they have some disorder that can be treated by weed. The doctor then writes a prescription without doing any tests or anything.

So, requiring a minumum appointment time and curriculum ensures that doctors dont just go around signing forms to allow people to buy heroin after a 10 minute consult.

3) The test is there because requiring a doctor's appointment won't do any good if the patient isnt responsible for learning the information.

4) The records of who has what license is secret in order to suppress the re-emergence of the black market. If anyone can see what drugs their therapist or attorney or teacher is taking that would encourage those "reputable" people to buy from people who do have licenses instead of getting one themself.

TL/DR:
You can get a license to buy and posess any drug you like after you talk to a doctor about it and take a test.

Yes they should be legal so I that I am able to abuse them.

Ritalin should be fucking band. Ritalin is nasty, dangerous, damaging, and addictive. Hell its not even a cognition enhancer..

As far as cognition enhancers... the people who need and know enough about them.... can get them.

Those who dont, or dont feel the need to risk good standing legal status: dont really need them enough.

Trust me, i have been diagnosed with ADD years ago. And now that i am not fucking around(college). 8.333mg of the amphetamine mix in adderall is all i need to get in a state where at least can i force myself to study productively.

I also use Pericetam, Hydregine, and have fucked with many; not particularly recreational, cognition-enhancing, mentally modulating, pharmaceuticals.

When there is a will then there is a way....

But just think what would happen if this shit becomes the new "coffee".... The fucking college system would be popping out the most dangerous types of tweekers: educated ones.

Fucking motherfuckers are dangerously insane... so i predict that as amphetamine use/abuse increases: so will the amount of genetic-engineers, programmers, physicists, and organic chemists there will be dismantling, the world piece by piece....

Motherfuckers should have learned the first time around... with Hitler...

But Noooo... lets fucking sell easily available precursors to methamphetamine over the counter... so any hillbilly can cook it at the comfort of his trailer...

Any who.... my original statement, and recorded opinion still stand. Ban Ritalin, dont allow sleep replacement drugs, and dont change the restrictions on non-recreational jootropic drugs... it is best they never hit the mainstream vitamin shops...

I'm all for decriminalization and a legal market... but I can't be enthusiastic about amphetamines. They're harmful, addictive, and seem to frequently bring out the worst in those addicted. You don't NEED pills to study or work. They just make it easier and more tolerable, while taking a toll on your body. I think the whole college amphetamine study culture is stupid and frankly, a product of our increasingly lazy generation(s).

Yes, because people who literally can't sit and listen for 15 minutes at a time are just 'different' and we should learn to accept their behaviour. God forbid we give them drugs so that they can actually participate in their own education.

I do however agree that it is morbidly over-diagnosed.

Yes, because people who literally can't sit and listen for 15 minutes at a time are just 'different' and we should learn to accept their behaviour. God forbid we give them drugs so that they can actually participate in their own education.

I do however agree that it is morbidly over-diagnosed.

The symptoms for diagnosing these drugs happen to everybody. Everybody!!! There is no effective method for diagnosing the "real" hurters. How could there? It's not a physical symptom to diagnose but merely a mindset. So it's pretty much all or nothing blanket distribution like it is now.

Yes, because people who literally can't sit and listen for 15 minutes at a time are just 'different' and we should learn to accept their behaviour. God forbid we give them drugs so that they can actually participate in their own education.

I do however agree that it is morbidly over-diagnosed.

the beatings will continue

until morale improves

If we can enhance the stupid why not enhance the intelligent? You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

The symptoms for diagnosing these drugs happen to everybody. Everybody!!! There is no effective method for diagnosing the "real" hurters. How could there? It's not a physical symptom to diagnose but merely a mindset. So it's pretty much all or nothing blanket distribution like it is now.

What? the differential diagnosis for ADHD is basically all behavioral. Theres hardly any cognitive symptoms even listed.
Here: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/symptom.htm

Actually ADHD is coded in the DSM-IV as a psychiatric disorder, and one of the diagnostic criteria for a psych disorder is that it causes "significant impairment or distress" in the patient's day to day life. So, no, its not a blanket term that could include anyone.

the beatings will continue

until morale improves

I am

a revolutionary

You can strengthen weakness by weakening strength

You can strengthen weakness by weakening strength

Only in comparable terms, but we're talking absolutely here.

Only in comparable terms, but we're talking absolutely here.

how can you talk about absolutes?

talking implies a reference points to start and finish on

the absolute would imply everything said

how can you talk about absolutes?

talking implies a reference points to start and finish on

the absolute would imply everything said

No it wouldn't. Absolutely in reference to yourself or to all human history (take your pick), not in reference to the society around you (which would be relatively).

No it wouldn't. Absolutely in reference to yourself or to all human history (take your pick), not in reference to the society around you (which would be relatively).

You are only in reference to humanity or history. Besides that, you don't exist at all.

You are only in reference to humanity or history. Besides that, you don't exist at all.

Thus as much as history and humanity are absolutes, so are you.

Thus as much as history and humanity are absolutes, so are you.

If they are, I am.

I am, they are.

If neither, none.

If both, why separate?

If they are, I am.

I am, they are.

If neither, none.

If both, why separate?

Exactly. Nobody is separating them; advancement of each will lead to the advancement of all (humanity/history).

Exactly. Nobody is separating them; advancement of each will lead to the advancement of all (humanity/history).

the further you push ahead the longer there will be to go

Exactly. Nobody is separating them; advancement of each will lead to the advancement of all (humanity/history).


My, what a holistically unselfish perspective you have got there.

My, what a holistically unselfish perspective you have got there.

Why thank you. I'm glad we agree that all of society should share the fruits of science, not just the mentally underprivileged.

the further you push ahead the longer there will be to go

No. There's a limit to the intelligence our puny brains can attain.

Why thank you. I'm glad we agree that all of society should share the fruits of science, not just the mentally underprivileged.


I dont know the exact word i am looking for, but the tone of inflection on my attempted articulation; was quite a bit more toward the sarcastic extreme.

Tho im not sure if you tried to ricochet "wit" right back, if so, it went over my head.:(

I dont know the exact word i am looking for, but the tone of inflection on my attempted articulation; was quite a bit more toward the sarcastic extreme.

Tho im not sure if you tried to ricochet "wit" right back, if so, it went over my head.:(

You fail at sarcasm, both sending and receiving.

You fail at sarcasm, both sending and receiving.

It is difficult to articulate myself over teh Internets.:o
Also, it was not sarcasm, per-say....

Finally, why do you have a habit of always showing up to criticize me?:(


Edit:
Question: do you feel that the use of facial icons, helps to convey and clarify my intentions/ideas?

I dont know the exact word i am looking for, but the tone of inflection on my attempted articulation; was quite a bit more toward the sarcastic extreme.

The point should still be addressed--if only one group of society is able to receive the benefits of science, there better be a damn good reason for it.

Why thank you. I'm glad we agree that all of society should share the fruits of science, not just the mentally underprivileged.



No. There's a limit to the intelligence our puny brains can attain.

there's absolutely no limit to anything

there's absolutely no limit to anything

Not even blood flow?

It is difficult to articulate myself over teh Internets.:o
Also, it was not sarcasm, per-say....

Finally, why do you have a habit of always showing up to criticize me?:(


Edit:
Question: do you feel that the use of facial icons, helps to convey and clarify my intentions/ideas?

Nah, you just don't know how to.

I have an unnatural urge to bully people who i imagine you're similar too, don't worry man i think you're pretty cool i just can't stand you.

nah they get annoying, trust me, i know.

on the other topic: rizzo and nshanin you both right, there's no limits, only restrictions.

I agree to some extent. I think that you should be able to go through some kind of process and receive a certain limited supply of amphetamines, like show your class schedule and say I'm gonna need 2 40mg XRs for this day, and you go and pick it up on the appropriate day.

If we make them OTC...look how bad the amphetamine problem is in some parts of this country with them being ILLEGAL.

I think modafinil should be OTC though.

Methlyphenidate should be banned for Rx AND OTC, IMO.

It's a terrible mood-altering stimulant.

Everybody I know who's been on ritalin for extended periods of time has serious emotional problems.
This. All those scientists are worrying about is the yearly salary bonus they get from the manufacturers of Rx Amps, for writing bogus literature on their supposed "benefits" and swaying their peers in the scientific and medical community to agree with their viewpoint. If they REALLY wanted to help this country with productivity, they would outlaw toxic chemicals in our foods, restrict water and air pollution, ban the use of pesticides, and stop forcing junk-filled, nutritionally deficient foods on the people of this country.

If we cut cancer by just 10% in this country, we would gain back fucking billions in productivity and health care costs...but we have a long way to go for these apathetic, complacent mass of drugged-up citizens and selfish public figures to wake up or realize that this country is pretty much fucked so long as we keep doing what we are doing. :D

Ah well....all empires must fall, no?

If they were to make stimulants legal, Ritalin is about the shittiest candidate I can think of. The dopamine effects last about 50 minutes, then you get a nasty crash for a few hours then 1-2 days of noradrenaline gayness. Well, at least for me.

If they made a dopaminergic compound (without a crash or much NA stimulation) legal, it should be something like selegiline. Yeah it makes you quite angry for no reason whatsoever, but Ritalin is worse than nothing at all.

I think amphetamines are better than methylphenidate, but there's still the crash and some peripheral stimulation.

I don't think it would be better for anyone except employers. The population would be productive at work then irritable and depressed when they get home, and probably wouldn't get much sleep either.

I think it would be cool if a drug was available that enhanced neurotransmitters in normal ratios (maybe an SDRI?), but simply increasing dopamine tends to make people self-centred.

Also, the "all drugs should be legalised" opinion works nicely in theory, but in the real world you would get chaos. People would get mentally addicted to Ritalin and sue the pharmacy that sold them it. People would take too much and develop heart problems. You just have to accept that most people are idiots that can't self-regulate.

TL;DR: This is a shite plan that appears to have been devised by morons.

I approve of the idea, just cause I'm a fiend.

Amphetamines like ADHD/ADD medication are too unpredictable, just like the "disorders" of ADD and ADHD. If you have ADD/ADHD you can train yourself to focus when you need to naturally, you don't need drugs. Drugs are just an easy way of doing with but with side effects. I think I might be slipping back to my old ADD mindset though, or I might just be lazy. I'm thinking about trying some of my girlfriend's concerta, to test the effects.

But yeah, I had some nasty side effects from adderal when I was in elementary school, and I also tried dexadrine but didn't like it. Adderall made me have random rage outbursts occasionally when little stuff would piss me off, and I wouldn't remember much afterward. I think the government/pharmacies/whatever are going about the whole ADD thing completely wrong... from what I can infer, the weird side effects and whatnot wouldn't happen if people only used them for enhancement purposes in high stress circumstances (what most people without prescriptions do). Taking amps every day just doesn't seem like a good idea to me... wouldn't people be even more productive if they trained themselves not to have ADD but still took the amps when they really needed them (like before the SAT)?

Sorry I'm kinda just rambling...

I think people deserve access to all the non-habit forming nootropics available. I just don't agree with making Adderall OTC, it seems like it has too much potential for addiction. The one we need most is Modafinil though. I think Modafinil could benefit almost everybody; it seems like it would have a very positive impact on the population.

i voted for the second one. If people can get them anyway, why not make them available without prescription; it'll be a lot safer, and that's what matters.

+1234

Exactly, that would prevent criminal acts to get the shit in the first place.

Interesting article. I'm surprised that they failed to mention selegiline, hydergine, or any of the 'racetams. Dopaminergic drugs are limited in the cognitive enhancement department, and like Rizzo said, will only result in long-term neurodegeneration, which is clearly not a good thing.

It's actually kinda sketchy to me that they plugged both Ritalin and Adderall, the two most overprescribed stimulants. The problem with the whole ADD/ADHD paradigm is that those diagnoses are made most often by family practitioners, not psychiatrists (not to mention psychiatry's obsession with drug therapy), and the doctor's orders are ridiculous. Amphetamines/methylphenidate should be taken on an as needed basis (they generally are anyways, against doctor's orders), except in the textbook examples of ADD/ADHD. So the scripts are inevitably making their way into the hands of those who need them via prescription wielding patients, and they're being abused by high school kids everywhere. Seriously, who needs amphetamines to get by in high school? The highschool workload rarely justifies the kind of 18 hour study binge that virtually every pre-med student uses amphetamines to slog though.

So I voted for Option 2, because obviously no drug is for everyone. There should be no laws mandating that everyone take drug X, for any reason whatsoever (excluding vaccines and vaccination); conversely, there should be no laws mandating that no person can take drug X. No government or governing body should wield such a powerful force over the minds and bodies of their constituents.

I would have no issues with the position of the authors had they focused their paper strictly on true nootropics rather than off-label use of prescription stimulants.