Aderall Or Nothing: Anatomy of the Great Amphetamine Drought 611
pigrabbitbear writes "To prevent hoarding of materials and their potential for theft and illicit use, the Drug Enforcement Agency sets quotas for the chemical precursors to drugs like Adderall. The DEA projects the need for amphetamine salts, then produces and distributes the materials to pharmaceutical companies so that they can produce their drugs. But with the number of prescriptions for Adderall jumping 13 percent in the past year, pharmaceutical companies claim that the quotas are no longer sufficient for supplying Americans with their Adderall. The DEA contends that their quotas do, in fact, meet demands, and that any shortages arise from pharmaceutical companies selectively producing only certain, typically name-brand and more expensive versions of ADHD medications."
Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there no enterprise you can't utterly fuck up?
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that would never happen...*eye roll*
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but that is only due to the artificial shortage. If rates of the precursor were not limited, then lower priced generic drugs would be produced destroying the advantage of overproducing the expensive medication. It is the artificial scarcity that allows for this strategy to be profitable.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:4, Funny)
There's no shortage... :(
Just come to NorCal, where we have enough methylated Amphetamine Salts for everyone who wants some.
-nB
You'd think, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You'd think, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong, they opt to make the most money with a supply ordained by the government, and not any sort of actual physical restrictions. If the government didn't artificially limit the supply, the companies would opt to make more money by filling both the more and less profitable markets, because both are still profitable.
Re:You'd think, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You'd think, but... (Score:5, Informative)
The supply of methotrexate isn't exactly limited by the government.
As I recall, there were 2 companies with the capacity to make methotrexate in the U.S., but they both had problems meeting the good manufacturing standards for pharmaceutical drugs. Injected methotrexate can be fatal if it's not manufactured properly. Yes, they weren't meeting federal standards, but no pharmaceutical manufacturer in his right mind would manufacture these drugs without meeting the same standard.
I know a bit about the chemical processing industry, and according to the textbooks, when you have 2 manufacturers producing an unreliable supply of a specialty chemical with inelastic demand, and shortages develop, a third company is supposed to move in to the market and produce that chemical at a price which is slightly higher than the old, unsustainable price but less than the monopoly price of a patented chemical.
Not only are there U.S. manufacturers capable of manufacturing methotrexate, but there are also capable foreign manufacturers in Europe, India, China, Israel, etc. who are regularly FDA-inspected and approved for other drugs, and even do contract manufacturing for major brands here.
I don't understand why the free market isn't working, and why additional manufacturers aren't jumping into the market for drugs like methotrexate.
Re:You'd think, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, there was a good series about that in the New York Times a few years ago.
The Chinese are very capable manufacturers, not only of drugs but also feedstocks to make drugs. Some American and European manufacturers established their own quality control procedures, and they did OK. But most of the American manufacturers put their suppliers under heavy price competition, which lead to a race to the bottom, and there have been a lot of Chinese products (like heparin) that, through carelessness, negligence or outright fraud, were improperly manufactured and caused widespread illnesses and some deaths. The FDA didn't have the resources to inspect Chinese plants, so we've got global competition without the oversight. The Times had difficulty locating manufacturers even when they knew the names. There's a long international distribution chain, and it's usually impossible to trace a Chinese drug back to the source. The Chinese government didn't care, had almost no oversight, and dealt with a few of the worst scandals (in which Chinese were harmed) by executing the suppliers. I think it shows what would happen if the libertarians had their wish of eliminating government regulation and letting the free market take care of it, as we did before 1916. As I understand it, Communism in China meant that drug companies and hospitals were run by the Red Army, which is politically powerful enough to do whatever they want without much oversight. Between the cracks they have wealthy businessmen running drug companies (I assume they have connections with the Red Army). It's like Halliburton and Blackwater under the Bush Administration.
India has a much older pharmaceutical industry, with chemists like Cipla, who have had several generations of European-trained owners running the plant. They go to European and American conferences. They do contract work for American and European companies, so they're FDA-inspected. They supply generics to the third world, so they can do it cheaply. For a long time, Indian law allowed them to manufacture generic copies of drugs that were still under patent in America and Europe, if they could "invent around" the patents, so they were under a lot of pressure to be good chemists. Otherwise, poor Indians would have just died. The Indians seem to understand the whole system, whereas the Chinese are just contract manufacturers.
It's not because the Chinese are stupid. There are some pretty smart Chinese scientists, many of them trained in the U.S. It's because of the system and the accountability. I'm sure the Chinese will be major players in the pharmaceutical industry in the next few decades. If you gave them a well-defined drug manufacturing task to do, and established good quality control, they can do it. I'm looking forward to seeing what Chinese scientists will contribute to molecular medicine in the years ahead.
But I don't understand why the Indian and Chinese manufacturers can't produce methotrexate to FDA standards.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong, they opt to make the most money with a supply ordained by the government
You do realize the demand for such prescription drugs is fairly inelastic to both price and supply controls. People don't use twice as much if the price is halved... at least they shouldn't.
There is some price sensitivity to prescription drugs, and at some price levels some people just can't afford it and go without... which is why I say its fairly inelastic as opposed to completely inelastic.
At the end of the day, the more profi
Re:You'd think, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the supply of precursors weren't limited, then other companies could step in and manufacture the generic drugs, and thus the companies that are limiting these drugs would end up sabotaging their own sales.
However, since supplies are very limited and there are high barriers to entry due to DEA rules, there isn't much competition and companies can lock up the entire supply of precursors.
Re:You'd think, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, we all know that there is no free market for drugs in this country. If you think there is, just rent some floor space and machinery, hire some chemists, and get to work manufacturing the drug. Oh wait, there's now months (if not years) of forms, inspections, permits, etc. you need before you can get started. I won't pretend that I disagree with these. I'm simply stating that the market isn't free to move as it otherwise would.
Similarly, the pharma patents (and patents in general) are another restriction on a truly free market. Do you think it likely that existing giants like Eli Lilly or Phizer are likely to re-tool to create a cheap generic drug while a free, government-enforced monopoly (and its associated high profit margins) is available on other drugs they produce? Of course not. Again, it seems that temporary monopolies are necessary in this space simply to encourage massive R&D spend by these companies. Still, artificial monopolies don't exist in a free market.
But what about the companies that already thrive providing cheap, generic pharma products. Why aren't they filling the gap? The answer seems simple (I'm just reasoning below - no citations available as I don't sit on the boards of these companies).
1. Companies already producing the drug haven't ramped up production because they know that a) there is a high barrier to entry to new drug production and b)contraction in supply is likely to increase price, thus increasing their margin - at least in the short term.
2. Existing companies won't re-tool to produce the drug right now because the cost of re-tooling and crossing the approval hurdles for production is too high to justify the effort. They can make more money selling the same generic drugs they do today. Of course, these companies will respond when the price of the drug in question rises to the level where it makes sense for these companies to go through the effort to re-tool and seek approval.
Bottom line here is that there is a significant barrier to entry that keeps free market forces at bay.
So, the reason free market forces aren't at work here is because the free market doesn't exist in this space. That's good for a lot of reasons (I, for one, appreciate that I can assume my pharma products are safe), but bad for the reason you see above.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
And why shouldn't they produce certain more expensive versions of ADHD medications? Oh, right, because it throws off that finely-tuned plan from the commissar of methamphetamine.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:4, Informative)
act of god is a legal term, irrespective of one's belief in a deity.
French term less deity-licious (Score:3)
act of god is a legal term, irrespective of one's belief in a deity.
If memory serves, the French-derived term force majeure indicates basically the same thing, only without the religious overtones.
Ah, yes, apparently [wikipedia.org] force majeure is a superset of act of god. FWIW.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most industries are centrally planned, except the planning is done by two or three large oligarchical companies.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Funny)
FTFY.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that the planning doesn't have meeting demand with supply in mind. The planning is 100% for the failing war on some drugs because they want to make sure stimulant abusers get their fix from the dirtiest and most dangerous sources possible.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, hopefully they all die. That way demand will dry up.
The crowd at a Republican debate cheered this approach for uninsured sick people in need of health care.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, one or two people in the crowd, but even at that I agree that was still a WTF?! moment.
Not quite "WTF" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, hopefully they all die. That way demand will dry up.
The crowd at a Republican debate cheered this approach for uninsured sick people in need of health care.
Well, one or two people in the crowd, but even at that I agree that was still a WTF?! moment.
I found it to be not a "WTF" moment, and instead more a "wow, they're being really honest about their 'fuck everyone else' attitude..."
I'm no fan of either of the major political parties in the US -- both appear to be full of unprincipled mercenaries perfectly happy to sell the country down the shitter for the right price. That said, the Republican party seems much more the party of bald-faced sociopaths, actively courting like-minded authoritarians, selling the theme of anti-social, anti-public policy, and cultivating and capitalizing upon their audience's near-complete lack of cognitive dissonance. "I've got mine; screw you!" could well be their rallying cry.
As widely reported in the US media, such as the NY Times article, "Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It" [nytimes.com], the common people self-identifying as Republican are very often the very people being hurt by the espoused Republican approach to policy. More disturbingly, they've been so successfully hoodwinked that these very people have absorbed the Republican talking points about dismantling the very systems that keep themselves afloat, and happily parrot them back to anyone that asks.
That's some masterful propagandizing. I doff my cap, I really do.
So then having even a few people in a crowd, let alone a whole room, cheering for the idea that all those sick people will die off and thereby "solve" the problem of healthcare, that's just more evidence of how successful the pro-corporate, pro-wealth, anti-public idea machine has been.
All this really just helps the rest of us still capable of more rational thought to see the signs of where this might go. And it's not a pretty outlook.
Re: (Score:3)
Ultimitely working for what you get is better for the human spirit than handouts. And there really is a trade off between the amount of handouts and the difficulty of self-sufficiency. But it's easier to just accuse people of greed and meanness than think things through, I guess.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do I think the pharmaceutical companies' complaints about not getting enough amphetamine ingredients to allow them to make "enough Adderall" doesn't really have anything to do with Adderall at all?
And how much fucking Adderall do we really need? All of a sudden, the US can't function without sufficient supplies of Adderall. That all those second graders who don't give a fuck about school will be fine if their parents just fork over the $1200 bucks a year for their bottles of meth.
So if some hillbillies want to make speed, the chemicals are bad, m'kay? But when Big Pharma wants to make sure that every other second grader is lit up with enough methamphetamine to give a horse a heart attack, that's good. Because they are the "job creators". And all those yuppie parents who spend less than an hour a day with their kids believe that they're being great parents because they're making sure to fill those prescriptions so they don't have to actually be parents. Well, to be more truthful, they can't really afford to be parents because mom and dad are both working 60 hour weeks in order to have a lower middle-class lifestyle that would have only taken one parent working 40 hours just 35 years ago. Isn't a better treatment for ADHD just having actual parents who are home and not so exhausted that they are unable to be effective parents? Why is ADHD so much more prevalent in "free market" societies where health care costs are artificially inflated by the "free market" than in more "socialist" countries like Canada, Sweden, Iceland?
And this asshole thinks that the problem is "central planning" and not a pharmaceutical industry that gets rich by selling meth to second graders. Wonderful.
Can someone tell me why every other second grader has "ADHD" all of a sudden anyway? Was there some catastrophic event at the turn of the millennium that caused some gene mutation that has expressed itself in a psychiatric disease that is now the most widespread pediatric disorder in the nation, affecting more children than the next three childhood illnesses combined? Or is "ADHD" a marketing opportunity?
Here are the signs and "symptoms" of ADHD (from Wikipedia). Check this shit out:
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Informative)
The ADHD 'explosion" is a function of govt.
Kids with ADHD can get a Social Security check. Also, Schools may not have to perform up to standards if they have too many kids with ADHD, so they push parents into getting their kids diagnosed with ADHD, which too many doctors are happy to do, since the govt. will pay for their treatment.
So, in effect, it a central planning thing that caused the problem that the other central planning thing is causing a problem for.
Why do I think the pharmaceutical companies' complaints about not getting enough amphetamine ingredients to allow them to make "enough Adderall" doesn't really have anything to do with Adderall at all?
And how much fucking Adderall do we really need? All of a sudden, the US can't function without sufficient supplies of Adderall. That all those second graders who don't give a fuck about school will be fine if their parents just fork over the $1200 bucks a year for their bottles of meth.
So if some hillbillies want to make speed, the chemicals are bad, m'kay? But when Big Pharma wants to make sure that every other second grader is lit up with enough methamphetamine to give a horse a heart attack, that's good. Because they are the "job creators". And all those yuppie parents who spend less than an hour a day with their kids believe that they're being great parents because they're making sure to fill those prescriptions so they don't have to actually be parents. Well, to be more truthful, they can't really afford to be parents because mom and dad are both working 60 hour weeks in order to have a lower middle-class lifestyle that would have only taken one parent working 40 hours just 35 years ago. Isn't a better treatment for ADHD just having actual parents who are home and not so exhausted that they are unable to be effective parents? Why is ADHD so much more prevalent in "free market" societies where health care costs are artificially inflated by the "free market" than in more "socialist" countries like Canada, Sweden, Iceland?
And this asshole thinks that the problem is "central planning" and not a pharmaceutical industry that gets rich by selling meth to second graders. Wonderful.
Can someone tell me why every other second grader has "ADHD" all of a sudden anyway? Was there some catastrophic event at the turn of the millennium that caused some gene mutation that has expressed itself in a psychiatric disease that is now the most widespread pediatric disorder in the nation, affecting more children than the next three childhood illnesses combined? Or is "ADHD" a marketing opportunity?
Here are the signs and "symptoms" of ADHD (from Wikipedia). Check this shit out:
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are aware that some people who are medicated for ADHD (raises hand) are not kids?
I wasn't diagnosed until I was in college (I entered a drug trial for people who thought they might have ADHD, and after 10 hours of structured interviews and computer tests, I was diagnosed) and I took Adderall for years. Now I'm on Strattera. Both drugs made/make a huge difference in both my work and home life. I don't know if I could have gotten my MS in CompSci without em.
Agreed, lots of kids are "just kids", but ADHD is not a made-up disease, just an over-diagnosed one.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Informative)
So let me get this straight. What you're saying is that ADHD is an over diagnosed disease that you personally have been diagnosed with... and what's more, you have found that with the intake of prescribed amphetamine, your attention span increases?
That's exactly the way it works. For those of us who have AD(H)D, the stimulants in correct dosage have the opposite effect as to what you would expect. For me personally, my productivity goes through the floor if I am off my meds. I pretty much lose any sense of organization and prioritization, and wind up working on whatever I see as shiniest in that instant. The whole "I suffer from Attention Defici... hey wanna go ride bikes?" is truer than you'd think.
I myself am on Concerta, which is an ultra-slow release version of Ritalin (Adderal did weird nasty shit to my personality and sleep patterns) which works a treat. It really does feel like a good, strong cup of coffee in the morning and not much else. I can actually partially self medicate by using significant quantities of coffee, but then my sleep patterns are really destroyed.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't disagree that ADHD is probably over-diagnosed. The symptoms can easily mistaken for laziness or general immaturity, and with kids it can be particularly difficult to get it right. There is a stunning lack of counseling ADHD children on how to deal with their symptoms. I wish someone had talked to me candidly about why I didn't fit in, why I literally couldn't sit still, always got in trouble, etc. Might not have helped my behavior much but it may have saved me some years of anguish wondering why I couldn't get it together. I got bad grades in Middle School, but I was smart, and grasped the material just fine. I just didn't do any homework. I know. All kids hate homework and blow it off now and then. Not me. I just didn't do it. Period. Couldn't, and I didn't understand how anybody else did. It was not normal. The only reason I passed most classes was that I would cheat in middle school. We'd often "exchange papers" to grade each other in 6-7th grade or so. I would keep my own, had a red pen filled with black ink, and just filedl in the answers when they were called out. I did this in one class or another almost every day. That's right. I cheated my way through 6th grade. Like I said, not normal.
I do sympathize with your perspective. In most cases, I think medication should wait until kids are a little older and their grades actually matter. Make sure kids who have strong symptoms early on know what is happenning and why, and let the teachers know too. Then, maybe in high school start medication if it is necessary. The logistics alone are awful for dosing a kid properly with a highly psychoactive chemical. A kid's metabolism changes monthly, and their mass may double in three years. And I think it's important to let a kid explore their own native psyche, regardless of whether it is a "normal" psyche.
To work as a professional, I rely on Aderall. Some might call me a junkie, based on my steep performance drop-off when I go unmedicated. I assure you, this isn't withdrawal and addiction. I don't even want to take the pills. I won't take them on weekends, vacations, or holidays, and I don't suffer any physical ill-effects for it. What happens when I don't is a return of my normal everyday symptoms. The shortages in supply, whatever the cause, are very real, and it is REALLY frustrating to call about 5-6 pharmacies to see if they can fill my prescription every month. Sometimes I just have to wait, and I quite frankly have better htings to do than call pharmacies all afternoon and drive halfway across the county to get my prescription only mostly filled, because they were down to their last 40 pills at the pharmacy
Hope I don't come off as obtuse or anything. I encounter a lot of people that think ADHD is a made-up disorder and there's no legitimate reason to take medication. I don't think you fall into this category, but I am sure there are some reading who do. Just trying to spread the word.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, I see it's a combination of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine. Well then, never mind. It's perfectly safe and healthy for children.
Every child ought to gobble them and wash them down with a Super Mega Gulp of Coca-Cola.
Political Correctness, Not Just Central Planning (Score:3)
It's not just a central planning problem, like having the Agriculture Department subsidizing ethanol production or the CDC guessing wrong about what kind of flu vaccine we need some years. It's mostly a political correctness problem, with the DEA trying to interfere with people using a popular type of drug (as a followon to their War on Cold Medicine that makes us have to use fake sudafed instead of the real stuff.)
What? You're one of those Republicans who thinks "Political Correctness" is a only _Libera
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Informative)
Quick googling provides quota history [usdoj.gov] back to at least 2002 so maybe it was Bush.
Personally I'd love to see Limbaugh come out against the quotas on Oxycontin...
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Informative)
The War on Drugs (and the creation of te vile-named office of Drug Czar) is from *Nixon*. Along with it came the justification for "no-knock warrants", which itself has led to the 3AM ninja-suited, automatic-weapon toting bashing-down of doors for seemingly decreasingly dangerous arresting or warrant serving.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting. To elaborate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a direct product of decades of Bible Thumper effort.
... as is abolitionism.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard liquor consumption shot up during prohibition, and fell since repeal. Prohibition generally means more people on the more dangerous and addictive forms of whatever drug. Prohibition defeinity causes collateral damage to skyrocket, as it's the only source of enough income for street gangs to buy automatic weapons.
Just because X is bad does not always mean that society is better off if X is illegal - the details matter.
You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we should have this dept dissolved.
At the very least, can we start a movement to find constitutional justification for such a Federal Agency?
Re:You know... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if it wasn't for the DEA, those customers wouldn't need to pass phoney prescriptions, nor would doctors give out massive ones. In a climate where drug use can be above board and people can be honest, its not clear that any of the real problems with meth, or any other drugs, are actually major issues....and even less evidence that prohibition and regulation to stop drug use does anything positive.
Generally the DEA has created a climate where violent gangs thrive, legitimate patients are often under medicated for pain (do you have any idea how many people will spend the rest of their lives in daily chronic pain for no other reason than their doctor can't give them heroin? or high enough levels of other pain meds?) and desperate people are preyed upon.
The alternative? Some doctors give some drugs to addicts? Oh my god what a horror! Above board drug use? Where it can be monitored and people can seek out help without stigma? Oh no! How terrible!
Re: (Score:3)
Full stop. That's the issue. People are not honest. Sure, I am and you are, but your neighbor Bob isn't. Or his neighbor Sally.
If people were honest, we wouldn't have half the laws we do. But people, being animals, aren't honest. If there is some way to game the system or make their life better by cheating someone else, humans will find a way. Not everyone, but enough to make the rest of us have to deal with their failure to be honest.
Don't you listen to House?
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And, as often as lot, it's one group of people trying to make sure the rest of the world is legally bound by their morality.
Anytime someone passes a law about what someone else can't do -- you have to ask, are they doing it to protect people from harm, or are they doing it to impose their own morality? If anybody ever says something should be illegal because God says you shouldn't, they're trying
Re: (Score:3)
Decriminalizing drugs will not remove the need for rehab clinics. Drug-seeking behaviour is a psychological issue that has little to do with the criminality, except for those who are specifically looking to get arrested and join the federal pity party. Rehab will be there to help people get back on track.
Gambling isn't illegal, yet gambling addiction is a very real problem with government-funded services to help steer people toward counseling and redress. Society's problems cannot be solved by a bunch of
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
The DEA does do a lot of important things
I know, right..
Yes, this is one agency that America really needs to keep around.
Re:You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
The DEA does do a lot of important things. As a pharmacy tech, we often worked with the DEA to put a stop to both customers passing phoney prescriptions, and doctors giving massive prescriptions for controlled substances to anyone.
Whether that's an important thing is debatable. Some of us don't like the concept of "controlled substances" and believe that anyone who wants to take anything should have the right to take it. Yes, it might screw up their life, and even kill them. Personal responsibility is about being able to do something wrong and choosing not to do it. Alternatively, paying the consequence if you're too stupid to think ahead.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't agree with you more, the DEA is nothing more than red tape.
As a person who takes Adderall (20mg x 2 daily) daily, this shortage has made my life a living hell. Before refilling my prescription, I have to call around to all of the local drug stores to see who has Adderall in stock and if not, when it will be in. The negative part here is the doctor can't give me my monthly prescription until a few days before I am required a refill. So once I get my prescription, all I can do is hope that I can find a place that can get it filled before I run out.
Adderall is classified in the same drug schedule as Cocaine, Opium, Morphine, Oxycodone and Methadone. I've seen tons of crap online about people becoming addicted to Adderall which honestly I believe is all bullshit. I can take my Adderall during the week and stop over the weekend without craving it. The only negative effect of doing this is I end up playing xbox all weekend and nothing gets done around the house.
Re:You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Those same people usually say that anyone who has debilitating chronic pain is just fine to work and shouldn't be on disability if they don't spend every second of their lives writhing in absolute agony. Usually, those people are devoid of empathy.
Re:You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just a person at an 8th grade reading level who read the US Constitution.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Informative)
But what about stopping drugs before they enter our country?
We have boarder patrol, coast guard, and relationships with foreign governments.
get off my lawn?
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
the down-the road consequences of losing a paramilitary force that kills with impunity, siezes civilian property to fund its operations, operates inside of and outside of US borders, has more signals intelligence capability than the intelligence services of most nations, and which both creates and enforces drug possession laws without any democratic process.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, they are focused on the Departments of Energy and Education.
Libertarians: quite happy to keep a boot up your ass while telling you how much better off you are without education.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there were no schools before the Dept of Education was created in 1979...
Re:You know... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
DO you have any idea how much I don't want to be a Ron Paul Supporter. I mean... the gold standard? Seriously?
Or the whole not using the bathroom of homosexuals thing.... or his statements on abortion but... in the end... hes the only one saying anything sane on drug policy, which is a bigger issue than all of them. He is the only one who says anything sane about wars, and how silly it is that we keep having them.
I so don't want to support that crazy old coot but.... when he is the most sane one out there....
Well thats scary.... but it doesn't make him less right on this issue. The DEA makes no sense. We have ample evidence that amphetamine use is not terribly harmful and its addiction can be managed and even beneficial for many people. Similarly to coffee.
Look at all the problems with meth addiction and...please....show me them before its prohibition. Meth was around for a LONG TIME. Meth addiction in this climate of expensive drugs and addicts being driven underground sucks for the addicts, and sucks for everyone else who has to deal with the results. All problems that didn't exist before prohibition.... when it was mostly regulated by doctors and use was above board.
Congress and their DEA lap dogs made every problem that they touched worst. They made the lives of addicts worst, they made the supply more dangerous, they drove people to do business with violent criminals, and created an atmosphere for violent criminal gangs to thrive. Its THEIR FAULT WE ARE IN THIS MESS!
Coincidence? (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone notice that the shortage of adderall and the rise of the TEA party happened about the same time?
Coincidence? I think not ....
Re:Coincidence? (Score:5, Funny)
Pain (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, I was a pharmacy tech while working through HS and college, and the entire time, we never had such bad problems with backorders on any product (with the possible exception of when albuterol inhalers were required to switch to CFA free, another massive screwup).
Hmmm, lets sell 2,000 guns to criminals (Score:4, Interesting)
so that we can track their killing sprees, but not let enough medication be produced for law abiding citizens. Smart move.
Re:Hmmm, lets sell 2,000 guns to criminals (Score:5, Informative)
The DEA had nothing to do with Fast-n-Furious - that was the BATFE (which should be a convienence store not a government agency)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry I got the wrong agency. Doesn't really change anything about what happened. And, BTW I'm not a right winger(nice flamebait from an AC). I voted for Obama and have been very disappointed in my vote, because he did not do the left wing things he promised to. Even the ones that were totally under the control of the executive office.
So whose actually producing the precursor salts? (Score:5, Interesting)
When did the DEA get into the chemical production business?
Probably both right (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the total amount of the raw material might be enough for the demand, but people have been making fortunes profiting from local shortages since, like, forever.
Re: (Score:3)
In a free, market, however there cannot be that level of control. There may be several of firms producing similar, fungible, product. Each might be trying for 50% market share. That might mean that the a
Obligatory Airplane! (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Legalize and Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Legalize and Tax. No more war on drugs.
I'm 48, and I don't use any recreational drugs (including alcohol). But I've long held that legalizing and simply taxing all drugs would eliminate far more problems than drugs currently cause.
Drug dealers? No need. Buy what you want at the local pharmacy. Made by real labs, with quality control standards. Warning label on the bottle: "This drug may kill you. Use at your own risk." No illegal pipeline if what you can buy at CVS is cheaper and better quality than from the guy on the street. How much of organized crime is based on the drug trade? From import to manufacturing to distribution to people stealing crap to feed their habit?
Dirty Needles? Nope. Buy those when you are picking up your consumer grade heroin. There go HIV and HEP-C transmission rates.
Drug addicts? Use the previously mentioned tax money on education and rehab programs. Even a hefty tax on the drugs would still leave them at a lower cost than street drugs.
Never happen. There are too many vested interests in keeping the "war on drugs" alive.
Re:Legalize and Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Drug addicts? Use the previously mentioned tax money on education and rehab programs. Even a hefty tax on the drugs would still leave them at a lower cost than street drugs.
Even without taxes, the money now spent on the War and keeping users and small time dealers in prisions would probably more than pay for those programs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard these arguments before, but ultimately not all drugs can be treated the same. Do you think your "legalize and tax" method would fix the problems that originate with meth? By all accounts, this is a drug which, once you've tried it, you're on a one-way road, downhill, no brakes.
Re:Legalize and Tax (Score:4, Informative)
IMHO the drug rehab system is a joke in this country. I once knew a teenager who was addicted to heroin, he wanted to stop so he went to his parents for help. They took him to two different hospitals and both refused to help him, stating that "we don't treat that here". Next they went the local methadone clinic and even they refused to help him, stating that they only treat people who have been addicted for more than three years. Finally they determined the only way to get the necessary help was to have judge order the hospital to admit him through involuntary commitment proceedings. Even then, the hospital kicked him out after a couple of days. They did arranged treatment at a rehab center, but apparently this was the only approved center in the state so the waiting list was over a month to get in. In the mean time he had a prior felony (with deferred judgement / probation) drug charge and was now thrust back onto the streets with the same group of people while still having intense cravings. They wanted him to go live with his grandmother, but of course since he was on probation he couldn't leave the area. The consequence if he was arrested again would be guaranteed prison time and a felony permanently on his record. I think what they did was bordering on criminal, he just wanted help.
Re: (Score:3)
What's to stop that from happening now?
How much suffering for a "drug-free" America? (Score:5, Insightful)
How much suffering is the DEA willing to inflict for the, pardon the metaphor, pipe dream of a drug-free America?
You can't swing a dead cat without hearing about under-medicating pain and how that one of the primary drivers of that is physician fear of a DEA investigation or worse, losing their license to prescribe.
Now it's this -- and while I'm sure there's some pharma holdback for brand-name drugs, that wouldn't matter if the DEA wasn't so restrictive of the chemistry.
So now we have another group of people at minimum inconvenienced at at maximum with negative health consequences because of the relentless pursuit of an unobtainable moral goal.
Thanks, DEA.
Re:How much suffering for a "drug-free" America? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the DEA were pursuing a pragmatic objective(or a pragmatic objective that isn't pragmatic exclusively because it's an excellent makework project for cops) they'd have hit the cost/benefit rocks bloody ages ago. Luckily for them, they aren't.
America has become insane (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
ADHD (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every single person I've met (which are dozens) that regularly takes Adderall clearly does not "need" it to function, but they may think they do and exhibit classic signs of addiction.
However, medicines like this fit into most medical/social science methodology in that, if someone starts taking Adderall, of course they are more productive and may even feel better (e.g. euphoria) etc, so measuring those effects usually produces positive results.
Interceding variables like having doctors prescribing amphetamine salts like candy seem to be ignored in these methodologies.
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, everyone you've met on Adderall (that you know of...) are addicted to it. Everyone I've met on Adderall can fly like Superman. What does anecdotal evidence (especially that which is uncited) have to do with it again?
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they just didn't function. Kinda like before antibiotics, people with serious infections just died.
Sure, there are abuses, and it's over-prescribed. However, there are people who actually do need it to function well and they should be able to get it. The DEA needs to butt out of medical practice.
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. And since that's all the DEA does, it should be put down.
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as addiction goes, what of it? People are addicted, physically addicted, to coffee, and other substances all the time. It's not the addiction but the psycho-physico-emotional harm that it might do that is the problem. No one worries that people with bipolar disorder are "addicted" to their meds.
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:5, Informative)
Your personal anecdotes may be well founded. However, I have a personal anecdote too. I have a child who is on Addreall and I can attest to how much better it makes him function. Since the last 2 years of taking it, he has made leaps and bounds in his ability to speak and articulate thoughts. Without the drug, he reverts to extremely erratic behavior, his speech suffers, and sometimes he unintentionally hurts himself. Recently, the Adderall shortage caught us off guard once, and we had a fairly wild weekend with him (not the only time actually). So yes, he is a clear case of where the drug works as intended.
That people abuse this drug upsets me to no end. I'm reminded of it every time I have to go through the prescription refill process.
For the record, I'm not one of the parents that would dose up their kid just to get him to sit still and be quiet. Far from it. I'm certain without it, he'd be held back or in a special needs school.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think anyone disagrees that there are cases where it actually does help and is needed. What people are saying is that its use is too widespread and most of the children on it just need parenting and discipline. Your child may well be one of those who do actually need it. The question is how do you discern one group from the other and prevent those who don't need it from being placed on it.
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone disagrees that there are cases where it actually does help and is needed. What people are saying is that its use is too widespread and most of the children on it just need parenting and discipline. Your child may well be one of those who do actually need it. The question is how do you discern one group from the other and prevent those who don't need it from being placed on it.
What you DON'T do is give that decision to a governmental agency that has a narrow focus on just saying no. While there are legitimate social and medical arguments for and against amphetamine (and other drug) use, letting the DEA essentially control it is a very, very bad way to go.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:4, Informative)
What did people do before Adderall then, simply not function? It's only been around for around 30 years.
My child is not ADHD, but was diagnosed as such by the school system (long story) and as a result I did quite a bit of research and talked to parents of kids and to adults who had the affliction.
Without drugs there are coping skills but how they work depends on how bad your case is. For instance, a co-worker who has a mild case, has a hard time communicating because he jumps around on topics and gets buried in sub-clauses. His coping skill is to put a finger down on the desk each time he shifts topics to remind himself to go back and complete the original topic.
As to how severe cases dealt with it without drugs, they'd often have a hard time getting good grades or staying employed despite high intelligence, feel ostracized and unappreciated, diagnosed as "discipline problems" and find themselves clients of the justice system. For those who really need the drugs, they really need the drugs.
There are a few careers (art, music, broadcasting) where ADHD isn't a deficit and may actually be an advantage. But it's not a safe bet.
If you need an example that may be easier to understand, for people who really need antidepressants (which are somewhat overprescribed also, in my opinion) really NEED them, because without the drugs, clinically depressed people really can not function. (Even *with* the drugs they may never be normal, but may at least be able to hold down a job.)
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering how those that are actually being prescribed Aderall and need it to function are the most likely to be affected by this, I do.
I read somewhere that only about two in an hundred need ADHD drugs to function (which is still arguably a significant number in a 300m population) but that it's way overprescribed, to upwards of one in five in US schools. (The report did not say how this statistic translates to the general population, so it could be misleading.)
So, just spitballing here, but maybe the shortage could be at least partially alleviated by prescribing the drugs less casually. For instance, I give you personal permission to take the drugs the school prescribed for my kid, which I declined. (The school looked at her and said she's ADHD and recommended drugs. The doctor agreed to prescribe with no testing, which made me suspicious. I had her formally tested, and she's not ADHD. She's severely dyslexic. I'd like to personally thank the school system and medical community for screwing that up.)
Note, I am not one of those loonies who believe the drugs are unnecessary. You say you need them to function, and I believe you. But clearly at least some are taking them who don't need to, and that has to negatively affect demand to some degree.
Re: (Score:3)
(The school looked at her and said she's ADHD and recommended drugs. The doctor agreed to prescribe with no testing, which made me suspicious. I had her formally tested, and she's not ADHD. She's severely dyslexic. I'd like to personally thank the school system and medical community for screwing that up.)
They're terrible at diagnosing unusual or obscure things that look like things they know how to treat. With that said: it might ge that your daughter has vision tracking/fusion problems, which are sometimes a cause of dyslexia. My wife's a vision therapist (and dyslexic) and she's helped a lot of kids diagnosed with dyslexia to vastly improve their reading speed and math abilities by helping them learn to train their eyes. A lot of dyslexia cases are caused by processing problems, but a lot of them can b
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Truly spoken like someone who doesn't have a medical need for it. How very civic minded of you being so willing to let other people suffer so that you don't have to worry that people you don't know might take a drug they don't need.
I'm guessing you're also OK with people not being properly treated for their debillitating cluster headaches or chronic pain as well (as long as you don't have those conditions, naturally).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. When my son was in grade school, one of the teachers mentioned he should be tested for ADHD. My wife and I both agreed to take him to his doctor but we also agreed it was a load of crap. (Since been proven over time since he's at university and doing fine.)
Re: (Score:3)
Narcocorrido "Negro y Azul" (Score:3)