Slashdot Log In
Cosmetic Neurology
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Apr 26, 2009 04:13 PM
from the we-have-a-pill-for-that dept.
from the we-have-a-pill-for-that dept.
The New Yorker has a long piece examining the growing trend of healthy people, not diagnosed with any mental condition, taking drugs that enhance mental functioning, including Adderall and Provigil. The profiles include a Harvard student, a professional poker player, a number of brain researchers, and a self-described transhumanist. "Zack [Lynch]... has a book being published this summer, called 'The Neuro Revolution'... In coming years, he said, scientists will understand the brain better, and we'll have improved neuroenhancers that some people will use therapeutically, others because they are 'on the borderline of needing them therapeutically,' and others purely 'for competitive advantage.' ... Even if today's smart drugs aren't as powerful as such drugs may someday be, there are plenty of questions that need to be asked about them. How much do they actually help? Are they potentially harmful or addictive? Then, there's the question of what we mean by 'smarter.' Could enhancing one kind of thinking exact a toll on others? All these questions need proper scientific answers, but for now much of the discussion is taking place furtively, among the increasing number of Americans who are performing daily experiments on their own brains. ... [A cognitive researcher said,] 'Cognitive psychologists have found that there is a trade-off between attentional focus and creativity. And there is some evidence that suggests that individuals who are better able to focus on one thing and filter out distractions tend to be less creative. ... I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
For years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone has been taking caffeine. So what else is new?
Re:For years... (Score:5, Interesting)
And alcohol, and caffeine, and all sorts of prescription drugs with adverse side effects.
Society doesn't seem to think drugs need to be banned or even disapproved of just because they can have (extremely) undesirable side effects.
If a nootropic came to exist that made you a whole bunch smarter, and a whole bunch less creative with no other obvious side effects - I think you can kiss creativity goodbye.
Parent
Re:For years... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a nootropic came to exist that made you a whole bunch smarter, and a whole bunch less creative with no other obvious side effects - I think you can kiss creativity goodbye.
"Smarter" is a fairly vague term. Smarter how? Some activities (work related or not) require creativity for you to be effective. Not counting the obvious ones (like design, music, painting, architecture etc) I would say that a scientist or detective without creativity could be hyper intelligent and still not be able to produce a usable result; depending of course on what the desired result is. One could argue that making certain connections requires creativity.
That being said I find this area of research to be fascinating; even if it does at times make me a just a bit apprehensive.
Parent
Re:For years... (Score:5, Funny)
But there are already plenty of drugs that make you more creative but significantly less "smart". Why have people who can do both when you can hire one ritalin junkie and one tripper and have two excellent employees for specific roles?
Parent
Re:For years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:For years... (Score:4, Interesting)
Except thats a myth:
http://news.google.com/news?q=beer%20goggles [google.com]
Of course in reality all alcohol does is lower your inhibitions. The other person isn't more attractive, you it just lowers your standards.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Looks like I picked a bad day to quit amphetamines..."
Re:For years... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:For years... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:For years... (Score:5, Insightful)
not to mention 'creativity enhancers' like acid, pot, shrooms, etc.
it all depends what you want to optimize for.
Parent
Re:For years... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, that was an April Fool's Day joke. Helps if you read the article. :(
Less Creative? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Less Creative? (Score:5, Interesting)
...Oh OK, so there is something to be said of the side effects; some people do experience a sort of 'high' while on doses above what they realy need, which may pulverize any apathy and genuinely lead them to doing (even enjoying) tasks they would not normally. But this is really quite far off from my original assertion that the idea these drugs stunt creativity is untrue.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In my experience, that's the case with amphetamines (Adderall/Vyvanse). Wellbutrin, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any effect at all at the time, but later I can see retrospectively that I chose and completed the important tasks more efficiently when I was using
Re:Less Creative? (Score:5, Interesting)
I took adderall for a while. It was a lifesafer (no, actually it helped me keep focus while I was working on some flight safety critical items).
The point of it for me was that I would feel an incredible draw to do something else. I always had to switch to a new task, I'd do 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10% of five different tasks. Always switching from one to another. For me, it was a partial combination of a very low dose of aderall, and some practice at organization. (I literally keep my desk empty of everything but keyboard, mouse and monitor) A very limited notebook (I restrict what I write in there to very specific things like Task, Deadline)
I quite literally couldn't do my job, at least, not as well as I knew I could do my job. It helped me move from "basic employee" to getting 10% merit raises each year.
It even helped me cut down on the time I actually spent at work, with the new organization and an ability to stick on a task, I worked fewer hours and got a lot more done.
I've been off it for 6 months to see if it, or the organization was the result, and I do find myself task hopping too often again.
Parent
Used in college (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Used in college (Score:5, Insightful)
And how much did they retain a month later, would you think, compared with those who didn't? That's the real point of getting an education, you know, not just grades.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. As I explained to another poster, I wanted to know if the advantage were long-term or short. And, as I've been out of school for longer than the average slashdotter's been alive, it's only a case of satisfying my curiosity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wanted to know if the advantage were long-term or short. And, as I've been out of school for longer than the average slashdotter's been alive, it's only a case of satisfying my curiosity.
I'm not sure about the long term, but i have witnessed first hand the same person studying with and without Adderall and the difference is scary. When on Adderall knowledge retention becomes increased ten fold and immunity to distractions becomes perfect. It reminds me of movies where you see super geniuses recite any line from a book read in the past.
Re:Used in college (Score:5, Insightful)
The few that lived after sniffing Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons or OD ing, I see trying to make change at the local ice cream store or equivalent.
To some extent they all eat away at the body and mind. It is a strange road to take and the end of that road is as often creativity or some other advantage, followed by the opposite *10.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The effect on a person who normally has retention above 10% must be startling.
Someone who can recite any line from a book is more likely to be an idiot savant than a genius.
Re:Used in college (Score:4, Interesting)
Looking back, on the one hand I want to go back to school and see how I would do on all my new wonder drugs; on the other hand, I am really grateful for that experience and the humility that it taught me. I was able to work around my condition even though I didn't know anything was "wrong," and I learned a lot from all the F's, D's, and C's I got, eventually raising my GPA to just under a 3.5.
Parent
Re:Used in college (Score:5, Interesting)
I prefer the term "brain management". It's asinine to assume (as John Q. Public does assume) that everyone's bran operates in the approved western modern 40-hour-work-week manner. Those whose brains do not -- be they ornery, overly type A, sociopathic, a bully, depressed, whatever -- can have a better life if they can make some adjustments. The only question is, what are the risk tradeoffs for the current crop of brain-adjustment drugs?
There is going to be a lot of embarrassing public hue and cry about this, coming from those who luckily do not need any such adjustments.
I once worked for a guy for three years and was always mystified by his occasional "asshole" days, in which he was an insufferable type-A jerk. Years later I bumped into him in another city, and he apologized, explaining that those bad days were the ones when he'd run out of grass. inviolet was enlightened.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this not a form of cheating?
Because they did the work...
Similar to using caffeine to stay up through the night before the exam. What matters is how much work you do, not how you do it.
About time (Score:5, Funny)
Who cares about history majors...now scientists? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the march to the Singularity, we don't need history majors writing papers or Baseball players hitting homeruns. We need science. A neuroscientist taking a cognitive-enhancing drug is a direct example of recursive, exponential growth to the Singularity. Keep it coming.
Focus (Score:3, Interesting)
>I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.
Very focused accountants isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I've taken some of these drugs myself - medical necessity. Couldn't focus on tasks worth a damn. Slept through high school, slept through college. I'd fall asleep at work, fall asleep while driving. Right now I've got a regimen that's working pretty good. If it were really good I would be doing something useful rather than goofing off on Slashdot, but the brain's working well enough that I tend to get my work done, just slower than I should be.
I feel like I'm performing the best I ever have. More ambitious about taking on projects, doing new things. I don't think I'm less creative for it, unless by creative they mean the dream-like half-conscious state I was in for twenty years.
But I've been doing all this by the book, under medical supervision. I don't think I'd be taking this stuff illegally for competitive reasons, like athletes do steroids - not sure if that makes me righteous or stupid.
The general idea of amping up brains seems like a positive to me, but I wouldn't be the guinea pig if I didn't have medical need.
PR footwork for Big Pharma? (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been a few pieces of that kind in recent months, among those one in The Economist. They all follow the very same scenario and use the same rhetoric. Comments from readers testified of few benefits (confusion and excitation rather than concentration) and dramatic, often tragic side effects, with dependency consequences, etc. Each time the piece resurfaces, none of the downsides are mentioned and the same rhetoric: benign use, everybody uses it, unquestioned efficiency is brought back. Deregulating the sale of those drugs seems to be a coveted objective of Big Pharma and no wonder, considering the fabulous sums involved. Soma anyone?
How is this "cosmetic"? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like saying driving a car instead of walking is "cosmetic transportation". Something whose main purpose is to provide functionality is pretty much the exact opposite of "cosmetic".
Evolution versus artificial modification (Score:3, Interesting)
While I am not against the use of such drugs because of safety reasons per se, to me, it feels like we're cheating evolution. Perhaps evolution could come up with many of these modifications (intelligence/less drowsiness) naturally.
Heck, it's only a theory, and would be impossible to enforce in reality, but if nobody say... showered, shaved or brushed their teeth, I bet evolution would eventually bias towards those who were naturally less smelly, or clean-shaven looking. Thus saving everyone half an hour per day or whatever in the future.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification (Score:4, Insightful)
"While I am not against the use of such drugs because of safety reasons per se, to me, it feels like we're cheating evolution. Perhaps evolution could come up with many of these modifications (intelligence/less drowsiness) naturally."
Sigh... why do people keep thinking that things are "unnatural" technically everything we do is NATURAL by definition, value judgements that x is good and y is bad because it is not 'natural' is cultural thing not ab objective truth.
If we were really so concerned about "cheating evolution" we would not save the sick, we would not have hospitals that keep people who are "wasting resources" on life support for x many years, we would let diseases run their course and not have anti-biotics or drugs, only our natural immune systems to deal with sickness.
The whole idea that we are "cheating evolution" or doming something "unnatural" is bogus, psychologically generated bullshit that we inherit from the culture and our proclivities.
IS playing video games natural?? or inventing computers? What about programming? What about making machines that do work for you so you no longer have to work at hard labour which kept your muscles in shape?
This whole obsession with an unreal version of nature that never was in our cultural mythos is the culprit.
Parent
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification (Score:4, Interesting)
The toothbrush has only been in widespread use for the last few hundered years, so evolution has already had it's chance to do what it could with humans who didn't brush.
You can't "evolve" past the basic fact that your mouth is a breeding ground for bacteria, and that as that bacteria piles up and dies it's going to create unsightly, disgusting plaque. Well, maybe if humans grew stainless steel teeth -- but that'd be quite the stretch in evolution, since we'd need some kind of organ to act as a smelting and refining and we'd need to digest lots of raw ore ...
Humans have done quite well without the toothbrush in terms of dentistry. Weston Price's work well documented that primitive people's had very low incidences of tooth decay and other dental problems when subsiting on a native diet, and how members of those same cultures who had transitioned to a western diet had much, much higher incidences of tooth decay.
Parent
Not a terrible thing (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really see anything wrong with this, as long as the drugs aren't over-used to the point where health is compromised.
I took Ritalin for a while. It was effective for a number of months and really helped me to focus, but it did cost me a great deal in terms of creativity, which is something I depend on more than I realized before taking Ritalin.
Eventually the Ritalin stopped working and my choice was between raising the dose (and probably having to boost my blood pressure meds concurrently), or quit. I chose to quit since I was missing my creativity.
While I understand the concern of doctors from the "if it ain't broke" camp, most doctor are happy enough to start throwing Paxil, Prozac and other SSRIs at people at the first hint of anxiety or depression, without even a hint of trying to address the real problem (whatever is causing the anxiety or depression). Why should they be so skittish about giving drugs to make people focus better and otherwise improve the quality of their lives?
Reinvented wheel (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIK amphetamines were popular already in WW2 among soldiers being able to stay sharp extended periods (weeks or so), in 1960's truck drivers and students did it for the same purpose. This is really nothing new, just amphetamines renamed. The extremely addictive nature of amphetamines will create once again another generation of drug addicts from unsuspecting students who fall for the hype.
Focus more on long-term health than on enhancement (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people are taking smart drugs now -- solely for advantage, without prescribed a medical need -- but in most fields, I don't think it's to the point that *not* taking them is a disadvantage, yet. I admit to a certain amount of interest in nootropic drugs, especially those that could help me hyperfocus. However, I've limited myself to vitamins, minerals, and herbal products, with a primary goal of maintaining long-term brain health.
I've seen too many retirees and seniors slide away into fuzziness, dementia, or worse. On the other hand, I've seen a few that remained sharp as tacks into their 80s and 90s. There are some pretty clear differences between the lifestyles of these two groups. I've tried to learn something from those differences.
I'm turning 40 this year, which is about when most people say they start to feel age-related decline. I want a healthy, well-functioning brain for now and the future. So, I pay a lot more attention to my nutrition than I used to, have started a regular exercise program, and engage in a few different "brain training" activities on a regular basis. I actually feel many benefits now -- I feel better, I'm happier, and my mind seems a little sharper.
In addition to the above, I take a prepared "stack" that includes a variety of nutrients and compounds for both mild cognitive enhancement and neuroprotection. I did a lot of research before I picked AOR's Ortho-Mind, which seems pretty well-balanced and reasonably priced. I also take an Omega-3 supplement daily, along with a good multi-vitamin and a "green" drink with a lot of antioxidants and phytonutrients. My monthly investment, dollar-wise, is less than $100. I have friends that spend that amount each month on coffee.
The big thing here is to be careful in what you choose to take. I chose to focus first on overall brain health, and I'm happy with results so far. Only then did I start adding some mild cognitive enhancers, but even then, I made sure my chosen stack included agents specifically chosen for their neuroprotective properties. If I ever become convinced that any of the various smart drugs make sense from that perspective, then maybe I'll change my strategy... but right now, I think a little conservatism is a good thing.
Spectacluar (Score:5, Informative)
For once, an article that carries through the excellent understanding of the researchers. They have a very good grasp of the current state of cognition research. I've not seen the balance between focus (under control of executive function) and heuristic (purposefully instigated but unconsciously operating) cognition.
However, they answer has already been obtained. True nootropics (cognition enhancing drugs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropics [wikipedia.org] were first created/discovered over 50 years ago. If it weren't for the fact he discovered/created LSD, Albert Hoffmann would have been in line for a Nobel for Hydergine. It, and its many derivatives (the racetams), have been in use for more than half a century. Hoffmann himself credited hydergine for his longetivity (he died not long ago at age 103). These drugs are frequently reclassified, almost invariably downwards, to "possibly effective" in the US, and only recommended for late stage dementias. Elsewhere these drugs are used for all stages of cognitive decline as well as cases such as illustrated by TFA, desire for improved cognitive processing.
Despite widespread positive results, clinical and real life, in the US the FDA has been dragging its feet on approving these drugs so long that the patents on some are expiring. Their efforts have been so effective that Nobel winner Eric Kandel (major player in describing the dopamine system) announced that he would use his prize money to start a company to create the first nootropic, apparently unaware that he was at the time almost 50 years too late.
Thanks to the 1989 AIDS law, people in the US can obtain a 90 day supply of any drug approved anywhere in the world, as long as they can get a prescription for it. There are many non-US pharma companies willing to accept such prescriptions and ship the meds. I won't go as far as to suggest their use by others for any particular purpose, but I will state that despite the correlation/caustion problem in a single data point, I credit a 9 month course of hydergine and nootropil with a decade long suspension and even partial reversal in the progress of my Parkinsons. I only have a background in these nootropics as can be obtained by sources not under the influence of the FDA. I do have a professional research background in Parkinsons and other dopaminergic disorders and can find no other reason for such a lengthy remission and reversal of some symptoms beyond the frequent but under-reported medical observation of "inexplicable".
The use of drugs that force the system into a state of enhanced cognition will always prove futile and usually addictive in some sense. Drugs that promote natural enhancement have already proven effective.
Re:Spectacluar (Score:5, Informative)
Hear hear. I actually clicked on this thread to post about my experience with hydergine, piracetam + lecithin + choline supplements, 5-HTP, etc. There's no doubt that these drugs are making a big impact for some people, but the results can be spotty. Finding the proper attack dose and then tapering to your needed dose of piracetam can take a little time, unless you're just one of those people it doesn't work for. The main thing with nootropics is taking the time to work out your stack, and figure out what doses work for you. I'm glad you've had such great experiences with hydergine, which is, in my opinion, a wonder drug.
A less-discussed topic is the use of currently illegal or semi-legal (ie: controlled substance analogue) drugs in a nootropic capacity. MDPV is a (currently) non-controlled stimulant active at the range of just a few milligrams for which I've read great results for nootropic use. Unfortunately it's also prone to abuse, so who knows how it'll last. I had some interesting results for anxiety and depression with low doses of methylenedioxymethcathinone (aka: MDMCat, Methylone, etc.) which is a beta-ketone analogue of MDMA (aka: Ecstasy). I've also read of good results using low (sub-hallucinogenic) doses of LSD and psilocybin for nootropic purposes. And then there are all the synthetic tryptamines-- iprocine, ipracetine, miprocin, psilacetine-- and some of the phenethylamines as well. These are mostly used for recreational purposes, but show promise for therapeutic use at low doses.
I think we're ultimately doomed on this one unless people wise up and throw off their preconceived notions, though. Even though LSD has proven useful in helping people overcome alcoholism, even though psilocybin has shown promise in helping people who suffer from cluster headaches, and even though MDMA has proven very effective in psychiatric counseling, these drugs are all classified by the US Government in Schedule I as having no recognized medical use.
The fact is that for every Albert Hoffman or Alexander Shulgin who pushes the boundaries of organic chemistry for the benefit of mankind, there is a Timothy Leary who pushes too far with their creations and ruins everything for people who would use them responsibly. We have been programmed in this country to believe that using a drug to expand your mind is unlawful and without any redeeming medical value. With the puritanical bastards we have running the FDA and the DEA, I'm amazed things like the -racetams and hydergine are even still legal.
Parent
Pilots say: "Speed saves" (Score:3, Interesting)
How can such a helpful class of drugs be so demonised? Pilots, mostly military -- presumably -- have often said it was what got them and their plane home alive. Clearly there is a downside, :)
but 15mG of a racemic mix is a very small dose of amphetamine. Its a very common 'programing fluid' which can be borne out by studying some code. No names mentioned, but there are those that smoke pot, drink coffee/Jolt and those that do amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs or even beer.
If I was stoned, I might have to get stoned to understand what I did, same for 'drunk', wired or jacked up on caffein or any combination. MODERATION is key -- always. I never used stimulants,
alcohol or pot in university. (college was the reward for not using)
What's the big deal? I guess its 'still shocking' to the New Yorker types, but used properly, drugs get the job done. Personally I can't type stoned, but I can make written notes. LSD is
certainly not very smart, but it can in rare moments provide access to 'hidden insights'. Only once did I get a good piece written while tripping that impressed many when published in the
S.F. Chronicle.
Finally drugs are best on the short term. Take speed (meth) to kick out those lines of code and meet a deadline. Maybe a week of use is about all its good for? As another reader said: "What's new" and I agree. Smoke a joint to relax when done. :) If you are leaving the wrong impression on
others: Moderation! Be cool.
BillSF
Effective use of screenspace (Score:3, Insightful)
breakfast shake (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article, "For breakfast every morning, he concocted a slurry of oatmeal, berries, soy milk, pomegranate juice, flaxseed, almond meal, raw eggs, and protein powder. The goal behind the recipe was efficiency: to rely on âoeone goop you could eat or drink that would have everything you need nutritionally for your brain and body.â He explained, âoeTaste was the last thing on my mind; I wanted to be able to keep it downâ"that was it.â"
I started having a nutritionally complete shake for breakfast every morning - and it rocks! But I wouldn't describe it's taste as something that I have trouble keeping down - instead it's very yummy. The recipe I usually use was designed by nutritionist Sam Graci and is:
* 1 cup of berries (blueberries, blackberries)
* 2 scoops of high alpha whey protein
* 1 tbsp high-quality fish oil
* 1/2 tsp borage oil
* 2 tbsps flax seeds and 2 tbsps sesame seeds, ground in a coffee grinder
* 4-6 tbsps plain low-fat organic yogurt
* 1 cup rice milk or soy milk
That's the basic recipe, but there are lots of other ingredients you can use to mix it up: hemp protein powder, other fruits (banana, strawberry, kiwi), acai and goji juice, raw eggs.
The basic idea of the breakfast shake is that your bodies metabolism has started to slow down since you haven't eaten since yesterday evening ... you want to have a nice balance of carbs, protein and fat to get your metabolism back in the game. Nutritionally you also want to have lots of omega 3 fatty acids (flax and fish oil) which promotes healthy brain cells and also foods with high anti-oxidant properties to promote healthy blood (berries). Finally the probiotics in the yogurt promote healthy digestion.
Combine the breakfast shake with a daily green drink and a healthy diet of lots of veggies and fruits, and you will notice a marked improvement in overall energy and mental functioning -- I estimated that I could crank out 25% more lines of code after a couple months, and overall my code was of markedly better quality. Plus since your overall mood is better I was about 25% less acerbic in conversations with my co-workers :P
focused accountants (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.
perhaps preferable to a generation of very creative accountants.
Re:Focused accountants (Score:4, Interesting)
What about those of us that are already "focused accountants" what do we get out of this "Neuro Revolution"?
I'd recommend another relatively well known substance that never seems to get enough credit these days - LSD. It's great for creativity and getting yourself out of "single directional thinking". It definitely helped my programming anyway... gave me a chance to reconsider some ideas I'd held as being "true" and instead come up with new ways of doing things. Some worse, but some better. Discard the worse ones, keep the better ones and it's a plus in the end.
Note: I wouldn't recommend it too regularly, but up to 12 times a year (once a month) is generally fine.
Second note: if you consider yourself the kind of person who can't control his/her own thoughts very well, then start with VERY low doses until you're comfortable with it and then increase slowly - a bad trip can be managed if you're strong willed AND know what to expect/look for, but if not, it gets nasty.
Parent
Giving Them Drugs, Taking Their Lives Away? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are tens of thousands of people in mental hospitals because of the permanent psychological damage [LSD] can cause in certain individuals, most notably those who already walk the fine line between creative genius and insanity.
Please supply any reference to substantiate this claim.
Parent
Re:Focused accountants (Score:5, Interesting)
Acid is not a toy.
...
If any brand of crazy or a high degree of creativity runs in your family, you are well advised to avoid recreational usage of lysergic acid, mescaline, psylocybin, MDMA, and all other psychotropic/psychoactive substances.
Absolutely correct, which is why I didn't recommend it as a "way to have some fun" - I recommended it as a way to cure being a "focused accountant" type.
The music industry is littered with high-profile examples of people who ended up with permanently damaged psyches;
Citation needed. While I won't deny that there are people that have taken LSD that have gone off the deep end, can you really say it was the LSD that caused it and not other factors in their lifestyles (including a combination of stress and not being entirely mentally stable to begin with)? You've listed 3 examples of such people, but it wouldn't be hard to come up with a much longer list of musicians that HAVE taken it a lot and were/are absolutely fine (the Beatles spring to mind, but there are many other examples also)
Under the influence of repeated dosages, Kurt developed the idea that his mother was a robot and gutted her with a kitchen knife.
I have a VERY hard time believing this was caused by LSD - only severe mental instability could lead someone to do something like that (quite possibly exacerbated by LSD, but not caused by it... as I already said in my original post, if you're not the kind of person who can control his/her thoughts so well, be damn careful). Under even very large dosages, I've always been able to say to myself - "hey wow, that's cool, but I know it isn't real". Also, "believing ones mother to be a robot" just doesn't sound like an LSD experience to me. The "weirdest" I've had was noticing that some houses looked rather like faces, assigning genders and emotional states to them based on characteristics of the houses, and then pretending to have a conversation with them. This was under a very large dose and at no time did I believe the houses actually were alive or capable of conversation. Note that this isn't just my own experience either, but also my experience with others - I often introduce people to the substance, and have taken it with a very large number of different people, none of whom have ever had the slightest problem from it beyond some (rare) scary bad trips.
There are tens of thousands of people in mental hospitals because of the permanent psychological damage it can cause in certain individuals, most notably those who already walk the fine line between creative genius and insanity.
While another replier already pointed out that a citation really is needed for this (as in, "I don't believe you either"), again you're missing that I was absolutely NOT targeting "those who already walk the fine line between creative genius and insanity" - my post was quite clearly targeted at those who lack creativity (the "focused accountant" types).
Parent
lolwut (Score:3, Funny)
To reply to this post, or when you took Provigil?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a separate argument from whether or not it's a good idea, but from the physician's point of view, it's pretty dangerous to routinely prescribe these for boderline to non existent conditions.
Re:I call BS (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're using a prescription drug without a prescription, that's drug abuse. When you're using a drug in a way its not intended to be used, that's drug abuse.
Let's not kid ourselves with name games here.
When you're using a drug in a way it's not intended, that's off-label use. When you're using a drug with a prescription, that's prescribed use. When you're using a drug without a prescription, that's illicit use. It is possible to abuse a drug even with a prescription, and it is possible to use a drug responsibly without one. I have, for example, used benzodiazepines for which I have no prescription to control anxiety. With no health insurance it's easily possible for buying the medicine on the street to be more cost effective than paying for a doctor's appointment, scheduling time off from work to go to the appointment (for which you won't be paid), and then paying outlandish prices for prescriptions, depending on the medication the doctor agrees to give you. And that's not to mention subjecting a person with anxiety to the harrowing process that is convincing your doctor that you need a controlled medication. I now have a prescription for anxiety, but I battled it in my own way for years because the thought of going to a doctor and being subjected to their suspicion was enough to put me into a panic attack. I realize that's irrational, but that's anxiety.
I'm glad your Adderall works for you, but I'm sorry that you can't accept that there are other people who can also benefit from the medication who, for one reason or another, do not have or want a prescription. It's not like ADD isn't real until a doctor tells you it is. It's worth remembering that drug regulation laws were not enacted because people were abusing drugs, but rather because drug companies were putting out tainted shit that killed people.
Parent