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?
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:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just a person at an 8th grade reading level who read the US Constitution.
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:Looks like Mexico might have a solution (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.)
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:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that would never happen...*eye roll*
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.
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:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most industries are centrally planned, except the planning is done by two or three large oligarchical companies.
Re:Considering how often Adderall is abused... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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.
Equally lovable sides in this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can we just line both sides up against the wall, as a lesson to whomever we allow to replace them?
Re:You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there were no schools before the Dept of Education was created in 1979...
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: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: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.
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: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: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!
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: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: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:Ah, central planning. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ritalin gone Wrong" (Score:2, Insightful)
There's good evidence that all these "attention-deficit" drugs are only of real benefit for a few weeks [nytimes.com], after which continued use only makes sense for avoiding the sometimes-serious withdrawal symptoms. In other words, while use of aphetamines for ADD appeared to make medical sense once upon a time, more recent research shows that they whole thing is a bit of a fraud being run for the profit of the drug companies, with no net contribution at all to public well-being, or student performance, or anything else beyond maintaining a large, profitable population of addicts. Sure if you stop taking it you feel worse for a while, and if you start again you feel better. That's what addiction is.
If you're an adult taking them yourself, make your own judgment. If you're cooperating with a school in dosing your kid though, seriously consider setting a time and place for the kid to go cold turkey. You're doing nobody a real favor by keeping your kid on speed.
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:Legalize and Tax (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree with you entirely, it appears that we need to do more than just legalize it, as Adderall is legal and there are still shortages.
Re:Legalize and Tax (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: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: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: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:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Ah, central planning. (Score:2, Insightful)
Our lack of omniscience aside, ulterior motives are always a problem of central planning.
Re:You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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: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: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.
Re:Ah, central planning. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a direct product of decades of Bible Thumper effort.
... as is abolitionism.
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)
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.