4 ms·

> It's super important because it's really hard to do research with controlled substances. > And pharmas are not interested in spending on some product that the

> It's super important because it's really hard to do research with controlled substances. > And pharmas are not interested in spending on some product that they can't market anyway What do you mean? That pharma companies only develop drugs that don't require prescriptions? As far as I know at least that's kind of their main business.

otherme123 4y ago
My text was unclear. Lets suppose some pharma researchs MDMA, and finds that it is useful against depression. With any other non controlled substance, they could mass market it in 5 years. With MDMA it would be delayed, and then delayed a bit more, and then banned in some places, and then only available in some specific cases where other substances doesn't work. Just look at the history of ketamine: known since 1970, it's controlled until 2000's when finally is found to work better than anything against depression. But even today it isn't marketed, unlike hundreds of antidepressants known to have worse secondary effects and be less effective. Reason? Some people might have fun with it.
- flakeoil 4y ago
  I don't understand your argument. Most active ingredients/medicines/chemicals that have some sort of effect on people (good or bad) are more or less controlled. Their are called medicines (drugs) and are under subscription (also during research and clinical trials they are under strict control). You can think cancer medicine, HIV medicine, insulin, whatever. Just because some medicines have kind of happy or fun or hallucinating effects don't make them more or less controlled. And your argument about MDMA, it's already a developed medicine which is available under subscription. Why do you talk about delays? And most medicines take more than 5 years to develop and release to market (also those without funny side effects sought after by drug abusers). It's funny how you talk about ketamine being not 'marketed'. Why should a drug be marketed? It's a medical doctor who should subscribe it to patients he sees has a need for it. For sure medical companies might market it to doctors, but overall drugs should not be 'marketed'. Just see the issue with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis in the US.
  - otherme123 4y ago
    You should read about scheduled drugs before asserting "Just because some medicines have kind of happy or fun or hallucinating effects don't make them more or less controlled." Specially, the list I, one of its conditions is "The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." Turns out MDMA is on list I, despite being used medically for a decade without problems. Currently there's no MDMA available, at least in the USA, under subscription nor prescription. It seems that is being researched, with extreme difficulties for being in list I, as a remedy for PTSD. I'm done with this thread.

otherme123 4y ago

My text was unclear. Lets suppose some pharma researchs MDMA, and finds that it is useful against depression. With any other non controlled substance, they could mass market it in 5 years. With MDMA it would be delayed, and then delayed a bit more, and then banned in some places, and then only available in some specific cases where other substances doesn't work. Just look at the history of ketamine: known since 1970, it's controlled until 2000's when finally is found to work better than anything against depression. But even today it isn't marketed, unlike hundreds of antidepressants known to have worse secondary effects and be less effective. Reason? Some people might have fun with it.

flakeoil 4y ago
I don't understand your argument. Most active ingredients/medicines/chemicals that have some sort of effect on people (good or bad) are more or less controlled. Their are called medicines (drugs) and are under subscription (also during research and clinical trials they are under strict control). You can think cancer medicine, HIV medicine, insulin, whatever. Just because some medicines have kind of happy or fun or hallucinating effects don't make them more or less controlled. And your argument about MDMA, it's already a developed medicine which is available under subscription. Why do you talk about delays? And most medicines take more than 5 years to develop and release to market (also those without funny side effects sought after by drug abusers). It's funny how you talk about ketamine being not 'marketed'. Why should a drug be marketed? It's a medical doctor who should subscribe it to patients he sees has a need for it. For sure medical companies might market it to doctors, but overall drugs should not be 'marketed'. Just see the issue with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis in the US.
- otherme123 4y ago
  You should read about scheduled drugs before asserting "Just because some medicines have kind of happy or fun or hallucinating effects don't make them more or less controlled." Specially, the list I, one of its conditions is "The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." Turns out MDMA is on list I, despite being used medically for a decade without problems. Currently there's no MDMA available, at least in the USA, under subscription nor prescription. It seems that is being researched, with extreme difficulties for being in list I, as a remedy for PTSD. I'm done with this thread.