4 ms·

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 s

by 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.
    - drcube 15y ago
      You clearly have sufficient wealth and/or insurance to make such a decision. Most people don't, and either get a short list of approved doctors and procedures, or wait until it gets bad enough to go to the emergency room. These people are not choosing anything.
  - drcube 15y ago
    Should the kind fashion experts at JC Penny's mandate what you wear, comrade? Should your mechanic prescribe your car, along with the distance you are allowed to drive and at what intervals? Constrained by common sense government guidelines, of course; backed by bureaucratic approval and studies designed to prove whatever the bureaucrats want. I can't imagine someone voluntarily giving away their freedom to choose what to put in their bodies, but people like you do it every day. It's a shame that your misguided decisions take away my freedom as well.
- roc 15y ago
  The government does what the voters tell it. And so long as the voters are supporting the war on drugs -- so long as they demand drug abuse problems be tackled by trying to control drug use -- the government is required to be involved. And it simply does not matter whether the policy is enforced via a hard cap on production quantity, a hard cap on production licenses, a soft cap on prescriptions, pressure on the psychiatric industry to self-limit prescriptions, or a legal requirement that certain prescriptions need to go through a second-opinion or review board process. The result of all of those is the same: voter opinion on drug policy has interfered with what you and your doctor feel is right for you. Who cares whether you can't get Adderall because the manufacturing capacity isn't there, or your doctor was forced to ration his prescription allowance in case a more-severe case walks through his door, or a second-opinion review disagreed with your doctor? If the motivation is the same and the end result is the same, the method is irrelevant. That's why I say that arguing against government control of production is beside the point.

by roc 15y ago

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.
  - drcube 15y ago
    You clearly have sufficient wealth and/or insurance to make such a decision. Most people don't, and either get a short list of approved doctors and procedures, or wait until it gets bad enough to go to the emergency room. These people are not choosing anything.
- drcube 15y ago
  Should the kind fashion experts at JC Penny's mandate what you wear, comrade? Should your mechanic prescribe your car, along with the distance you are allowed to drive and at what intervals? Constrained by common sense government guidelines, of course; backed by bureaucratic approval and studies designed to prove whatever the bureaucrats want. I can't imagine someone voluntarily giving away their freedom to choose what to put in their bodies, but people like you do it every day. It's a shame that your misguided decisions take away my freedom as well.
roc 15y ago
The government does what the voters tell it. And so long as the voters are supporting the war on drugs -- so long as they demand drug abuse problems be tackled by trying to control drug use -- the government is required to be involved. And it simply does not matter whether the policy is enforced via a hard cap on production quantity, a hard cap on production licenses, a soft cap on prescriptions, pressure on the psychiatric industry to self-limit prescriptions, or a legal requirement that certain prescriptions need to go through a second-opinion or review board process. The result of all of those is the same: voter opinion on drug policy has interfered with what you and your doctor feel is right for you. Who cares whether you can't get Adderall because the manufacturing capacity isn't there, or your doctor was forced to ration his prescription allowance in case a more-severe case walks through his door, or a second-opinion review disagreed with your doctor? If the motivation is the same and the end result is the same, the method is irrelevant. That's why I say that arguing against government control of production is beside the point.