5 ms·

The government centrally controls the production of narcotics, and people are wondering why there are shortages? It is obvious the purpose of their central con

The government centrally controls the production of narcotics, and people are wondering why there are shortages? It is obvious the purpose of their central control is not working, people who need the drug can't get it, and people who want to "abuse" it are still able to acquire the drug. I doubt we will see the sane solution of just stopping control on the production of these drugs.

eli 15y ago
It's worth noting that the government clampdown on this drug also happens to be extremely advantageous to the pharmaceutical giant who makes these drugs. I don't think Shire is blameless here.
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  Shire doesn't make the generics, Barr does.
  - eli 15y ago
    Nope. It's called an "authorized generic. It's marketed by Barr, but it's still made by Shire. From Wikipedia on Adderall: "Authorized generics are exactly the same as the brand name product both in active and inactive ingredients—they go through exactly the same brand manufacturing line, yet different labels are put on at the end of the manufacturing process." There is only the illusion of competition. I'm honestly not sure how they get away with it.
jrockway 15y ago
Technically, "narcotic" means "opiate" (or more generally, a sleep-inducing drug), which Adderall is not. I think you meant "schedule II controlled substance", or something.
- ahupp 15y ago
  The legal and medical definitions of narcotic are not the same, unfortunately.
roc 15y ago
The shortage is caused by our society's schizophrenic position on these kinds of drugs in general. We're restricting production as if drugs like Adderall are special-case prescriptions, yet we're prescribing them regularly. The problem that needs to be solved is the inconsistency, not the particular method used to enact policy.
- pdonis 15y ago
  If the government didn't insist on controlling production, there would be no inconsistency. Someone else's opinion about whether I "should" be taking Adderall would not affect me. The only reason the opinion of "society" matters is that "society", via the government, insists on micromanaging people's lives. And of course the people who are going to abuse the drug just circumvent the controls, so the ones that actually suffer are the ones who genuinely need it and can't get it.
  - eligottlieb 15y ago
    Take the libertarian claptrap somewhere else, please. The person entitled to determine whether you should take Adderall is your doctor.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      But you decide on your doctor, so ultimately, it's your decision.
      - eligottlieb 15y ago
        Of course you can shop around for a doctor who will diagnose and prescribe what you want. All you have to do is find someone who will completely disregard medical ethics in the name of being paid to give you expensive happy pills.
        jrockway 15y ago
        And there are plenty of doctors that will do this. I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just making an observation. The way I see it, the less drugs needed to keep me operational, the better. So I choose that kind of doctor. But other people like their drugs, and choose doctors that prescribe drugs.

eli 15y ago

It's worth noting that the government clampdown on this drug also happens to be extremely advantageous to the pharmaceutical giant who makes these drugs. I don't think Shire is blameless here.

juiceandjuice 15y ago
Shire doesn't make the generics, Barr does.
- eli 15y ago
  Nope. It's called an "authorized generic. It's marketed by Barr, but it's still made by Shire. From Wikipedia on Adderall: "Authorized generics are exactly the same as the brand name product both in active and inactive ingredients—they go through exactly the same brand manufacturing line, yet different labels are put on at the end of the manufacturing process." There is only the illusion of competition. I'm honestly not sure how they get away with it.

jrockway 15y ago

Technically, "narcotic" means "opiate" (or more generally, a sleep-inducing drug), which Adderall is not. I think you meant "schedule II controlled substance", or something.

ahupp 15y ago
The legal and medical definitions of narcotic are not the same, unfortunately.

roc 15y ago

The shortage is caused by our society's schizophrenic position on these kinds of drugs in general. We're restricting production as if drugs like Adderall are special-case prescriptions, yet we're prescribing them regularly. The problem that needs to be solved is the inconsistency, not the particular method used to enact policy.

pdonis 15y ago
If the government didn't insist on controlling production, there would be no inconsistency. Someone else's opinion about whether I "should" be taking Adderall would not affect me. The only reason the opinion of "society" matters is that "society", via the government, insists on micromanaging people's lives. And of course the people who are going to abuse the drug just circumvent the controls, so the ones that actually suffer are the ones who genuinely need it and can't get it.
- eligottlieb 15y ago
  Take the libertarian claptrap somewhere else, please. The person entitled to determine whether you should take Adderall is your doctor.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    But you decide on your doctor, so ultimately, it's your decision.
    - eligottlieb 15y ago
      Of course you can shop around for a doctor who will diagnose and prescribe what you want. All you have to do is find someone who will completely disregard medical ethics in the name of being paid to give you expensive happy pills.
      - jrockway 15y ago
        And there are plenty of doctors that will do this. I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just making an observation. The way I see it, the less drugs needed to keep me operational, the better. So I choose that kind of doctor. But other people like their drugs, and choose doctors that prescribe drugs.