5 ms·

I am sure that the vast majority of us use/abuse drugs. To what extent is the only question. For example, after years of avoiding it, I have quickly settled i

by mrtron 19y ago

I am sure that the vast majority of us use/abuse drugs. To what extent is the only question. For example, after years of avoiding it, I have quickly settled in to the caffeine routine. Coffee in the morning, occasionally a soft drink in the evening. While this is hardly risky behaviour, it is drug use. I personally would consider using different drugs more regularly. Jet lag really can be a killer, so I would take something when travelling if there was a good option I was aware of. Personally I am strongly against certain drugs being prescription and unavailable to informed individuals. It makes it seem like these drugs are entirely safe when prescribed by a doctor and unsafe if people get them through other means. I have some heavy painkillers that were legally acquired but not prescribed by a doctor, and I use them in a very safe way for my occasional intense back pain. I know many people on the same pain killers who take them in an irresponsible way as prescribed by their doctor. It is a topic that I think we need to try and avoid looking at it with such a narrow vision. I also think a lot of illegal drugs are no more dangerous than legal drugs, but that is another topic.

jmzachary 19y ago
"For example, after years of avoiding it, I have quickly settled in to the caffeine routine. Coffee in the morning, occasionally a soft drink in the evening. While this is hardly risky behaviour, it is drug use." But it's not illegal drug use. You are lumping together taking an aspirin for a headache in with taking ADD drugs illegally to enhance mental focus. Having a coffee is not drug use, despite it having caffeine. It doesn't matter if you think a lot of illegal drugs are no more dangerous than legal drugs. If you compare the effective and lethal doses of pot and booze, you'll find booze is much deadlier. What matters is the rule of law.
- mrtron 19y ago
  Using illegal as a matter of consideration is ridiculous. Illegal in what country? Why is the drug illegal? Taking aspirin for a headache IS the same as taking ADD drugs. Having coffee specifically for the caffeine boost IS drug use. What I am saying is that the rule of law doesn't matter, and as you suggest with the pot/booze example it is often backwards. Booze is much deadlier and more dangerous for personal use than pot, no question when you consider lethal dose. Legality of drugs would be a small afterthought if I considered taking something like ADD for concentration. 99% of the consideration would be my personal health and safety including long term side effects.
  - jmzachary 19y ago
    Illegal in the U.S. Your country may have different rules. Taking aspirin is the same as taking Ritalin for ADD. It is not the same as taking it for a use for which it is not prescribed. Logic notwithstanding, the law sure as hell does matter. Try breaking it, getting caught, and doing time.
    - mrtron 19y ago
      I strongly doubt taking Ritalin without a prescription is grounds for jail time in many countries. Why does it matter if a drug is prescribed or not? Who has the right to establish which drugs require prescriptions? I believe in freedom. Freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of living your life how you choose. I believe anyone should be allowed to consume any substance they desire. If Ritalin improves your research as many of these people think, who has the right to stop them? They aren't harming anyone else, and are possibly helping.
      - jmzachary 19y ago
        I, too, believe in freedom. But freedom doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility for your actions. If anyone could consume any substance they desire, it would have a detrimental effect on some basic level of social order (and I'm not talking about government or top-down control) and it would have a negative impact on other's freedoms and rights. That's why many drugs are banned and why people aren't allowed to drive while intoxicated (despite it being an act of freedom to live your life as a drunk). And I won't need a lecture on libertarianism, thank you, which many people seem to confuse with lawlessness. I'm not sure what else there is to debate about Ritalin. If you want to be a dopehead scientist, have at it. When the long-term effects start to manifest themselves in physical or mental conditions we aren't aware of, don't start whining for the FDA or an attorney to sue the drug maker.
        rms 19y ago
        >That's why many drugs are banned I bet you also bought the government's line about the war on drugs. >If you want to be a dopehead scientist You're using ad hominem instead of logic. And I expect you still haven't said the real reason you are so strongly in favor of drugs, because none of the reasons you have given have made any sense.
- sdurkin 19y ago
  But is there a good reason not to prescribe these drugs to anyone who wants to use them for extra mental focus? It seems to me that if they are safe for use long term, there's no good reason to ban them.
  - jmzachary 19y ago
    I don't know if there is a good reason and I don't know if they are safe for long term use. What I do know is that using them for non-prescribed uses is illegal, as are painkillers, HGH, and other drugs. If you guys don't like that, then lobby the FDA to do studies for general use and make them legal for general use. That's the point of my posts.
    - rms 19y ago
      They are legal for general use, as long as they are prescribed by a doctor. It is the "off-label" loophole: once a medication is approved for a specific use doctors can prescribe it for whatever they want.
      - sdurkin 19y ago
        Is this true with regard to all drugs, and for all reasons? For example, could a physician decide to prescribe narcotics for anxiety? Or an athlete steroids to increase performance? I will also ask again whether these drugs should be illegal. From my point of view, it seems logical that anybody should be able to use whatever drugs they want, so long as that drug use does not affect others. So, for example, heroin would remain illegal due to the strong negative externality imposed on a community by heroin users. Mental performance enhancing drugs don't seem to have any negative externality associated with their use. In fact, the argument could be made that by furthering scientific discovery, they actually have a net positive effect. I find no compelling evidence in favor of the prohibition of these drugs.
        jmzachary 19y ago
        Here is some evidence against using these drugs for recreational/non-ADHD use: http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/ritalin.asp http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/ritalin.asp http://www.biopsychiatry.com/methylphenidate/ritalin.html http://www.biopsychiatry.com/methylphenidate/ritalin.html http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/4870.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/4870.php http://amphetamines.com/methylphenidate/brain.html http://amphetamines.com/methylphenidate/brain.html
- pstuart 19y ago
  The only thing about the rule of law here is not getting caught. These laws are about controlling the population, not protecting them. Here is where your "illegal drugs" thinking goes: http://www.reason.com/news/show/124947.html http://www.reason.com/news/show/124947.html

by mrtron 19y ago

jmzachary 19y ago

"For example, after years of avoiding it, I have quickly settled in to the caffeine routine. Coffee in the morning, occasionally a soft drink in the evening. While this is hardly risky behaviour, it is drug use." But it's not illegal drug use. You are lumping together taking an aspirin for a headache in with taking ADD drugs illegally to enhance mental focus. Having a coffee is not drug use, despite it having caffeine. It doesn't matter if you think a lot of illegal drugs are no more dangerous than legal drugs. If you compare the effective and lethal doses of pot and booze, you'll find booze is much deadlier. What matters is the rule of law.

mrtron 19y ago
Using illegal as a matter of consideration is ridiculous. Illegal in what country? Why is the drug illegal? Taking aspirin for a headache IS the same as taking ADD drugs. Having coffee specifically for the caffeine boost IS drug use. What I am saying is that the rule of law doesn't matter, and as you suggest with the pot/booze example it is often backwards. Booze is much deadlier and more dangerous for personal use than pot, no question when you consider lethal dose. Legality of drugs would be a small afterthought if I considered taking something like ADD for concentration. 99% of the consideration would be my personal health and safety including long term side effects.
- jmzachary 19y ago
  Illegal in the U.S. Your country may have different rules. Taking aspirin is the same as taking Ritalin for ADD. It is not the same as taking it for a use for which it is not prescribed. Logic notwithstanding, the law sure as hell does matter. Try breaking it, getting caught, and doing time.
  - mrtron 19y ago
    I strongly doubt taking Ritalin without a prescription is grounds for jail time in many countries. Why does it matter if a drug is prescribed or not? Who has the right to establish which drugs require prescriptions? I believe in freedom. Freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of living your life how you choose. I believe anyone should be allowed to consume any substance they desire. If Ritalin improves your research as many of these people think, who has the right to stop them? They aren't harming anyone else, and are possibly helping.
    - jmzachary 19y ago
      I, too, believe in freedom. But freedom doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility for your actions. If anyone could consume any substance they desire, it would have a detrimental effect on some basic level of social order (and I'm not talking about government or top-down control) and it would have a negative impact on other's freedoms and rights. That's why many drugs are banned and why people aren't allowed to drive while intoxicated (despite it being an act of freedom to live your life as a drunk). And I won't need a lecture on libertarianism, thank you, which many people seem to confuse with lawlessness. I'm not sure what else there is to debate about Ritalin. If you want to be a dopehead scientist, have at it. When the long-term effects start to manifest themselves in physical or mental conditions we aren't aware of, don't start whining for the FDA or an attorney to sue the drug maker.
      - rms 19y ago
        >That's why many drugs are banned I bet you also bought the government's line about the war on drugs. >If you want to be a dopehead scientist You're using ad hominem instead of logic. And I expect you still haven't said the real reason you are so strongly in favor of drugs, because none of the reasons you have given have made any sense.
sdurkin 19y ago
But is there a good reason not to prescribe these drugs to anyone who wants to use them for extra mental focus? It seems to me that if they are safe for use long term, there's no good reason to ban them.
- jmzachary 19y ago
  I don't know if there is a good reason and I don't know if they are safe for long term use. What I do know is that using them for non-prescribed uses is illegal, as are painkillers, HGH, and other drugs. If you guys don't like that, then lobby the FDA to do studies for general use and make them legal for general use. That's the point of my posts.
  - rms 19y ago
    They are legal for general use, as long as they are prescribed by a doctor. It is the "off-label" loophole: once a medication is approved for a specific use doctors can prescribe it for whatever they want.
    - sdurkin 19y ago
      Is this true with regard to all drugs, and for all reasons? For example, could a physician decide to prescribe narcotics for anxiety? Or an athlete steroids to increase performance? I will also ask again whether these drugs should be illegal. From my point of view, it seems logical that anybody should be able to use whatever drugs they want, so long as that drug use does not affect others. So, for example, heroin would remain illegal due to the strong negative externality imposed on a community by heroin users. Mental performance enhancing drugs don't seem to have any negative externality associated with their use. In fact, the argument could be made that by furthering scientific discovery, they actually have a net positive effect. I find no compelling evidence in favor of the prohibition of these drugs.
      - jmzachary 19y ago
        Here is some evidence against using these drugs for recreational/non-ADHD use: http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/ritalin.asp http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/ritalin.asp http://www.biopsychiatry.com/methylphenidate/ritalin.html http://www.biopsychiatry.com/methylphenidate/ritalin.html http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/4870.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/4870.php http://amphetamines.com/methylphenidate/brain.html http://amphetamines.com/methylphenidate/brain.html
pstuart 19y ago
The only thing about the rule of law here is not getting caught. These laws are about controlling the population, not protecting them. Here is where your "illegal drugs" thinking goes: http://www.reason.com/news/show/124947.html http://www.reason.com/news/show/124947.html