> What would be the worst thing that happened to society if we just manufactured adderall and sold it OTC?
Honestly I agree with you. I think drugs like this should be sold OTC because it's basically just like food. It is a substance you put into your body. Just like psychedelics.
And imagine the lives that would be saved if the drug propaganda did not desensitize everyone to actual help. This is the whole reason "harm reduction" forums exist.
But, you know how it is, where the government doesn't trust anyone to use substances responsibly.
Man, what I would give for a "responsible enough to buy drugs OTC" license or whatever. I get dextroamphetamine on prescription, but I also really like LSD and would love to be able to buy that OTC, legally, so I'd know the supply is safe and I'm not going to jail.
Although, I'm pretty sure certain drugs like heroin compromise judgement to a great degree, which makes it very difficult to use responsibly, but honestly there are more creative ways to deal with this that society just hasn't explored because of the whole "war on drugs" ridiculousness.
The war on drugs has substantially ruined entire generations by convincing people drug abuse can be solved purely by throwing people in jail and through shame.
To think it's taken until ~2021-2022 for a federal administration in the US to finally admit there needs to be better solutions in place, it's absurd! All those deaths could have been prevented.
Yep... drugs are powerful substances that deserve to be treated with respect, but past that, it's possible to use them responsibly. The fact that some substances are just indiscriminately illegal is just... upsetting. Especially since even things like LSD are lumped into that "Schedule I" despite being... extremely safe? Given you're properly informed and prepared for the experience, of course. Only an example, but it's a particularly personal example.
I just think it's a bit sad how "don't talk to me before my morning coffee" and etc. is normalized just because so many people have that problem.
Some people legitimately need the caffeine just like some people legitimately need ADHD medication, but some people became dependent on caffeine when they didn't necessarily have to be.
> Sure. But shouldn't it be left to the individual?
Honestly, if someone chooses to be dependent on caffeine because they know and consent to it, that's fine I guess, though unfortunate. The problem is that caffeine use is so normalized that people seem to have forgotten that one even can become addicted or dependent on it—I would say "glorified" but that's a bit far.
FWIW, I have some friends who are trying to quit caffeine. Not because I told them it was an issue, but because they independently decided that. I am somewhat biased by seeing cases of actual caffeine addiction and dependence, whereas most people only see the benefits of taking it. This is probably how the normalization happens, some people just don't know any better.
>The problem is that caffeine use is so normalized that people seem to have forgotten that one even can become addicted or dependent on it—I would say "glorified" but that's a bit far.
Seems like the solution is better education on the effects of caffeine and not putting it into the same category as drugs and alcohol. So far I'm yet to hear of people who's lives were ruined by coffee addiction.
The fact that it makes you uncomfortable that people are dependent on coffee is kind of irelevant IMHO. We live in a free society. Let people have their coffee if they want it.
Once you get harassed or mugged by someone on coffee withdrawal who needed a fix, then we can talk about regulating it.
> Seems like the solution is better education on the effects of caffeine and not putting it into the same category as drugs and alcohol.
I... regret to inform you that caffeine is literally a drug, stimulant class.
> So far I'm yet to hear of people who's lives were ruined by coffee addiction.
I'm not really sure what your point is here, as I'm not saying caffeine addiction ruins lives, just that it's a thing that could be avoided more than it is now.
> The fact that it makes you uncomfortable that people are dependent on coffee is kind of irelevant IMHO.
>I... regret to inform you that caffeine is literally a drug, stimulant class.
I regret to inform you that not everything classified as a drug is equally bad as all the other drugs, in fact many drugs are useful in certain situations.
It's not black and white, "drugs are bad m-kay", as you want it to be. Which is why coffee is tolerated.
So I don't get your hissy fit on people consuming this particular drug. If you don't want it, then don't drink it, just let others enjoy it, since it has no negative effect on you.
Yup. Adderall is probably better for you than coffee. Especially if you are drinking copious amounts of coffee because you have undiagnosed ADHD and are self-medicating with caffeine (which, again, properly belongs to the category of stimulant medication) without even realizing it.
Regularly consuming large amounts of caffeine while barely feeling any effect (beyond getting jitters / bowel issues) or feeling calmed by it, is actually indicative of ADHD.
So I'm almost 40 now, was prescribed to ADHD meds from around ages 10-28, mainly Adderall as that just worked best.
At 28 I stopped Adderall because I honestly don't care for the side effects, and felt like I had good enough habits to do without it.
That worked for a while, but I was at a job that wasn't too challenging for 6 years (and very underpaid as a result of not being more ambitious/focused)
Switched to another job, ended up getting promoted to lead, then everything came crashing down. Couldn't focus, and as I fell further behind I'd feel more stressed and overwhelmed constantly.
I had been drinking coffee the whole time, but it wasn't helping that much. Irritated my bowels pretty badly though (I ended up needing surgery for a complication of what turned out to be Crohns, though my symptoms are incredibly mild when I'm not drinking over 4 cups of coffee per day).
Finally got back on Adderall after ~10 years unmedicated and was able to just stop coffee. My entire life has improved. I can focus during work hours and even have some free time during the day, since I'm not spending the entire day struggling to get work done.
I can honestly say that Adderall is much more helpful for me, and has minimal physical side effects compared to copious coffee (though I do have mental/emotional side effects, which are honestly less negative than the stress that accompanied being constantly overwhelmed, exhausted, and sleep-deprived)
The process to get my prescription in Canada took almost 2 years (in part because of my poor ability to navigate the labyrinthine health care system due to said ADHD)
But wow, has it already improved my quality of life significantly in the ~1 month I've been back on it. I agree with other posters here that we should just let people get it OTC or allow diagnosed individuals to just get a lifetime prescription
> It's not black and white, "drugs are bad m-kay", as you want it to be. Which is why coffee is tolerated.
You clearly haven't been paying attention to my comments if you think I'm saying anything like "drugs are bad".
I'm saying undue dependence on something that you didn't need to be dependent on, is unfortunate. As in, it's unfortunate how people can accidentally fall into caffeine dependence without knowing what they are getting into, because it's not that people don't think caffeine is evil, it's that people think caffeine is completely harmless.
Of course they're not exactly like food. They are powerful substances that deserve respect and you can't just "eat" them when you are "hungry" like you can with normal food. But I believe they're like food in the way that you deserve bodily autonomy wrt taking them.
Fun fact: Did you know hunger is basically just carbohydrate withdrawal? If you stop eating carbs for around 1-2 days, your hunger will go away. Obviously, if you want to stay that way, you will have to find some way to sustain yourself without carbs, but it's a relatively safe experiment to fast for a few days and see what happens.
It's fun to think of food in that way because actually... food is just a pile of substances! Carbs, fats and proteins.
It's just that food is generally safe to eat when you're hungry, but drugs are especially powerful substances that can be dangerous if misused. But still stuff that you can put into your body, through basically the exact same mechanisms as food.
I'm all for caution and research and responsibility and informed consent and all that—all good things. But I don't think drugs are inherently so much different than food that you don't deserve some level of autonomy with them.
In other words, I think the amphetamines and stuff should be OTC. Like... legalize them all, legalize everything. Not only would this make the supply safer for people who are already taking those substances, since they can be made by reputable, professional companies, but this would help get rid of the taboo around sharing safe dosage and supplement information, which would seriously help a lot of people (harm reduction!).
All the FUD around the war on drugs is just causing harm to the world. It's causing people to go to jail just from putting things into their own body, it's denying people access to safe medical information, it's barring medical professionals from helping people with substances that happen to be illegal, it's denying people a safe supply of their favorite drugs (which usually results in people going to shady sources, not abstaining completely), ... the list goes on.
Yeah, amphetamines aren't food, but it's nice to imagine a world where they're available freely and used responsibly. Unfortunately I'm not sure if that's a possible future.
Some people can use these things responsibly, but probably fewer than the number who think they can and many cannot at all. That's why doctors are there to help guide responsible use. I agree it isn't ideal for the subset of people who can use them well, but there are also further issues: your drug use doesn't just affect you but the culture around you. I think the analogy to food is pretty bad, since no one is born dependent on amphetamines and it is a manufactured product only invented recently (to be fair, too much of our food is also weird synthesised products which are not historically natural, but I dont think you have a strict natural right to frozen microwave dinners either). The analogy with food may work a little better with mushrooms, but also the effect of these is partially due to your body thinking it has been poisoned, so they arent really food either.
> If there is a referendum I am going to vote against this. Amphetamines are not like food, imo.
Would be nice if only people who are against drugs would pay some additional tax to sustain the whole prison-industrial-DEA-complex though. I don't do illegal drugs, but the fact that I'm forced to sponsor that due to other people's self-righteous puritanism is just stupid.
It would also be nice if the people who support softer drug laws paid a tax for all the resulting urban blight, health bills, property crime, violent crime, addiction, mental health issues, death etc. that results from drug use. The fact that I'm forced to live with all of that, often in danger, due to other people's selfish libertine delusions is unjust.
I think the real issue is that all it should take to get a prescription is a confirmation that you know the procedure for administering the proper dose and that you understand the expected efficacy and risks of doing so. It should be a process that could be completely handled by a kiosk. Maybe a drug won't help them, or even hurt them, but so long as they are informed they should have the right to make that decision for themselves. We let people buy peanut butter without demanding a note from a doctor saying they don't have a peanut allergy. Perhaps some things should have a traditional prescription but the burden on the government should be pretty high to prove that it's something so complicated or so dangerous that it would be catastrophic to permit direct sale to the public.
But boy does it come in handy for other things. It’s the best cold symptom medication there is. Need to drive late at night when you should be tired? Pop 5mg and you can actually drive safely for a few hours. It’s a shame we have it locked away.
That said, it’s dangerous to think other people would act like you. People would definitely abuse it (more than they already do). I come down on your idea like I do in most drug legalization questions. Conceptually I think we should be able to do whatever the hell we want to our bodies. Realistically I don’t know if that works for society.
Adderall is a mix of 3:1 dextroamphetamine to levoamphetamine. It is not "plain old amphetamine", also known as racemic or "free-base" amphetamine (equal mix of dextro- and levo-).
I can't take levoamphetamine, and need dextroamphetamine directly. Unsure if that was ever sold OTC on its own.
By plain old amphetamine I meant structurally, rather than a specific stereoisomer mix. Though I guess I had assumed it was 100% dextroamphetamine.
I think Dexedrine was sold OTC in the 50s and 60s, hard to be sure, sources I can find talk about it being popular for use by anyone and everyone, from dieting housewives to truck drivers and athletes, but don't specifically mention it being OTC or prescription.
Charles Whitman was dependent on Dexedrine, and he packed a good supply of it on that last day of his life. Dexedrine and other psychotropic pharmaceuticals have figured prominently in most mass shootings since that time.
Assuming this was true, did most shootings also involve cigarettes? A lot of people smoked at that time, so I would presume there were a lot of smokers doing shootings.
Sounds more like correlation to me than causation.
Yes; just check the label of SSRIs and other drugs when they first came out. Many carried an FDA-mandated, black-box warning of increased incidences of homicidal ideations. Not merely suicidal ideations, homicidal ones. This was largely regarded as a bad idea and detrimental to sales, so it was walked back.
That's tangential at best and I'm not sure it supports the strong claim - "Dexedrine and other psychotropic pharmaceuticals have figured prominently in most mass shootings since that time"
I'm not saying I don't find it plausible, but a warning message on the box isn't exactly the confirmation I was looking for.
You know that feeling that most impressive leaps in engineering and technology in general all happened in the 20th century, especially between 1950s and 1980s, and that we've somehow lost the ability to do big things?
> JFK was regularly using meth. It created a lot of problems.
Problems caused by drug abuse != problems caused by drug availability.
Meth is neurotoxic, we know this now. So are all stimulants, to a degree. I take magnesium supplements with my ADHD meds because it depletes my brain of natural magnesium—I have had blood tests confirm this. But meth can be particularly dangerous, especially due to how addictive it is and how neurotoxic it gets when abused, compared to even the other amphetamines like dextroamphetamine.
All this is not to say that it shouldn't be widely available. Just that proper, responsible usage information should also be widely available. Which it is not.
If people knew how to take meth properly and responsibly, maybe there would be less cases of it getting out of control.
Too bad all people have to go off of is anti-drug propaganda that says all drugs are bad. Leads to them ignoring all advice altogether, even if it could've otherwise helped them.
You’re going to have a curve of abuse. Availability will affect that curve.
Drugs like opioids and stimulants are great in that they work well at masking lots of symptoms, but our bodies adapt to them and the need for them feeds the physical dependence.
The mental abuse factors amplify as well availability. Bookies and sports betting isn’t novel. Legalized betting on smartphones is; so now billions are spent on marketing to vacuum up many billions of dollars of bets.
Humans are wired the way they are wired. Education about risk only benefits people capable of managing the risk - not the people likely to get addicted in the first place.
> Education about risk only benefits people capable of managing the risk - not the people likely to get addicted in the first place.
Sure, but people likely to get addicted are sometimes also in the presence of people who would benefit from a proper drug education in order to help protect the more vulnerable.
Am I saying people will stop using drugs if they stop being illegal? No way, the opposite actually. But if drug use wasn't considered indiscriminately bad, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing anyway.
Maybe some elevated cardiovascular problems across society as a whole?
Maybe some psychosis in serious chronic abusers?
Why don't we just do this?