Many Scientists Using Performance Enhancing Drugs

docinthemachine is one of several readers to send word of a new poll published in Nature showing unprecedented levels of cognitive performance-enhancing drug abuse by top academic scientists. The poll, conducted among subscribers to Nature, surveyed 1,400 scientists from 60 nations (70% from the US). 20% reported using performance-enhancing drugs. Among the drug-using population, 62% used Ritalin, 44% used Provigil, and 15% used beta-blockers like Inderal. Frequency of use was evenly divided among those who used drugs daily, weekly, monthly, and once a year. All such use without a prescription is illegal.

Comments

No, it's not drug abuse.

[fyngyrz]

...poll published in Nature showing unprecedented levels of cognitive performance-enhancing drug abuse by top academic scientists...

It is "drug abuse" when drugs are used without the informed consent of an individual; it is simply "illegal drug use" (and very likely legislative abuse of personal liberties at the same time) when an adult makes an informed choice about drug use that doesn't comply with the current law.

People need to move away from the mindset where media pompously and wrongly attributes polar positions such as "right and wrong" and "use and abuse" to be a 100% lexical replacement for "legal and illegal." Anyone with any sense at all knows better than that. A significant number of the laws on the books in the country I live in (the USA) are inherently wrong, outright un- or anti-constitutional, or something even worse. Using them to define what is "right" leads directly to behaviors that are despicable — or worse.

One can be cynical and simply say that this is because our legislators aren't very good at their jobs. Both from the standpoint of making good law in the first place, and also in the sense that they seem to be almost incapable of admitting they made a mistake and taking bad law off the books. Personally, I think it's because they're not very good at liberty — and very good indeed at lawmaking.

There's an old saw that goes, "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence", but I think in the case of bad law, we are indeed looking at malice aforethought. It seems to me that these people have agendas that can only be construed to be "for the people" if you slept through history class and have never read any of the founding documents with any interest. Like most Americans. :(

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[bagboy]

People need to move away from the mindset where media pompously and wrongly attributes polar positions such as "right and wrong" and "use and abuse" to be a 100% lexical replacement for "legal and illegal." Anyone with any sense at all knows better than that. A significant number of the laws on the books in the country I live in (the USA) are inherently wrong, outright un- or anti-constitutional, or something even worse. Using them to define what is "right" leads directly to behaviors that are despicable — or worse.

This is "your opinion". What is right and wrong will always be a subjective and philosophical definition. Laws are made when a majority who are elected, hold the same philosophical beliefs create and vote for them. If you don't like the laws, participate in the voting and hope your candidate of choice wins. That is what society is.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[timster]

What is right and wrong will always be a subjective and philosophical definition.

I don't agree with that in the least.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws are made when a majority who are elected, hold the same philosophical beliefs create and vote for them.
What planet do you live on? Laws in the US are made when a group of lobbyists bribe *ahem* I meant, give campaign contributions to a sufficient number of politicians to ensure passage of the law.

If you don't like the laws, participate in the voting and hope your candidate of choice wins. That is what society is.
Sounds like you actually believed all that crap in Government Class in High School.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[fyngyrz]

Laws are made when a majority who are elected, hold the same philosophical beliefs create and vote for them.

Well, ideally, yes. The problem comes when those "philosophical beliefs" consist of metrics evaluating which special interest group provided them with the most benefits, which of the other legislators will trade a vote their way now, for a vote you want for pork in your distract later, how actions now will affect standing within the political party (note not with the voters, which is something else entirely), what lucrative speaking engagements will be offered post-legislative career, and so forth.

Your approach would be spot on in a situation where legislators voted along the philosophical lines that they shared truthfully with the public during a fair election process; however, that in no way describes this country. And that's not an opinion — that's a fact.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[t0rkm3]

Sort of.

However, then you get into the 'tyranny of the majority' problem. There are some things that are 'off limits' to regulation by the gov't. At least according to the philosophy under which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were composed.

That is the problem that I have with a great deal of legislation that goes on within the US. Some of it should not be even considered, but the reading of the Constitution has become so alive that one wonders if any of the Congress Critters can catch it to read it.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[bagboy]

What's "right" and "wrong" in regards to what I do to my own body has nothing to do with society. It's nobody's business but my own. Not when it affects those in society. Ie, if you overdose and cannot afford health insurance, are rushed to the ER and tax payer money pays for your treatment and recovery, then it is our business.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[TubeSteak]

It is "drug abuse" when drugs are used without the informed consent of an individual; it is simply "illegal drug use" (and very likely legislative abuse of personal liberties at the same time) when an adult makes an informed choice about drug use that doesn't comply with the current law. Are you an idiot?
Drug abuse, by any definition of "abuse" has nothing to do with (informed) consent.

There is a range of usage patterns.
Some might say it's perscription drug abuse if used other than as perscribed.
But generally speaking, drug use becomes abuse when there are negative health/social consequences.

Under your idiotic definition, a fully informed heroin junkie isn't abusing drugs.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Applekid]

Not when it affects those in society. Ie, if you overdose and cannot afford health insurance, are rushed to the ER and tax payer money pays for your treatment and recovery, then it is our business. I would heartlessly argue that someone who's rushed to the ER because they were partying too hard and spending all their money on drugs instead of health insurance shouldn't be treated with the bill paid by society's safety net the same way as, say, a homeless person hit by a car should be treated.

That whole "my body my business" should cut both ways when you have the means by which to abuse said body.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[B'Trey]

Horsefeathers. You (that is, society) assumed that burden on its own. It doesn't place any obligations on me. It's as if I decided to come over and mow your lawn for you. You'd probably be delighted that you didn't have to do it yourself anymore.(1) But if, six months later, I came banging on your door and demanded that you stop allowing your kids to play in your own back yard because they were leaving toys laying around that made it harder for me to mow the grass, you'd most likely tell me to take a hike.

If you don't want to pay the cost associated with my behavior, then don't pay it. If I overdose on drugs, let me lay there and die if I don't have insurance or can't pay the bill myself if you so choose. But your actions in assuming responsibility for my debts don't give you any legitimate authority over my behavior.

(1)Unless, of course, you're one of those weird people who enjoys mowing the lawn, but we're assuming for the sake of the analogy that you aren't that warped an individual.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[B'Trey]

This doesn't make any sense. Even if someone is woefully addicted, it's not like they take drugs by accident-...

Who claimed they did? I intentionally drove my car to work. Did I commit automobile abuse? So why, if I intentionally take an illegal drug, did I commit drug "abuse?" If I take a prescribed pain pill, I'm using a drug. If I take the exact same drug for the exact same condition but I purchased it from an illegal source, it's drug abuse. The point is that, generally speaking, we've allowed legislatures to define what is use and what is abuse, and that we attach moral judgments to those terms. There is no legitimate moral or rational justification for the dividing lines that are drawn, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to mindlessly follow the legislatures judgments on what constitutes use and what constitutes abuse.

Would you suggest that we call what child molesters, who might not be able to help themselves, do as "illegal children touching" instead of "child abuse"?

You're conflating different meanings of the word, or at least different ways to interpret similarly formed sentences. Child molesters are abusing children because they are harming the children. The abuse that is occurring is from the point of view of the child. Are you arguing that drug users are causing harm to the drugs? If not, then your analogy falls apart.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Martin Blank]

The intention was always for the Constitution to be a living document, its meaning adapting to the times. This is the reason that there are so few specifics in there, and many of those specifics were intended to set a baseline after which Congress would take over in setting standards.

I read your statement as suggesting that it has become too alive, which may well be the case. Its meanings should be interpreted in the light of the current day; what was offensive 50 years ago is no longer considered offensive, and so no longer a First Amendment violation. This also forms part of the debate over the Second Amendment; even if one believes that there is an individual right, does that right extend to machineguns, which were still more than 70 years away from practicality at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights? There are Fourth Amendment issues that the framers wouldn't have dreamed of, such as whether alcohol checkpoints constitute an unreasonable search.

I bring these up not as debate points, but as examples where the classic interpretations of the Constitution have been or are being challenged. There doubtless will be additional questions brought up in the future that we have not considered to date because technology or cultural changes will force a re-examination of the Constitution in light of the situation at that time. But again, that's how it was intended to work.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[fyngyrz]

This doesn't make any sense.

Well, lets see.

Even if someone is woefully addicted, it's not like they take drugs by accident

Some addictions can, in fact, be the result of abuse; for instance, when a pregnant woman knowingly takes drugs recreationally that may very likely result in her addiction (which is fine, I have no problem with that) and that of her fetus (that, I define as "wrong" because it has the potential to abuse the fetus's liberties now and in its future.) Where I see you as in error here is in defining "woefully addicted" as a synonym for "wrong." If I choose to take a risk of becoming addicted, and in fact this comes to pass, that was my personal choice. It isn't "wrong." It may well be a poor choice by other people's standards, but what I get out of my actions as measured by myself against the costs to me isn't your balance to judge until, or unless, what I do directly affects you. If I walk up to you on the street and stab you with a hypodermic full of heroin, now we're talking about "abuse."

Would you suggest that we call what child molesters, who might not be able to help themselves, do as "illegal children touching" instead of "child abuse"?

A child abuser, in the sense that you're using the term, is someone who is violating the privacy and sexuality of an individual who (a) we think cannot make an informed decision and (b) is often subject to power (misuse of authority, or expression of control without authority) they cannot counter; that use of power is an abuse of the child's ability to make choices for itself. We don't subject children to the power of adults in order to expose them to any act an adult might choose; we do it to protect them. Consequently, when an adult abuses that power to act in ways that we consider not in the best interests of the child, we find that to be an extreme offense against the child.

The ideal of liberty is that my right to swing my fist stops where your face begins. If I take a potentially addicting drug, this is "swinging my fist at myself" and is none of your business, regardless of your opinion of how well reasoned my choice is. If I coerce or force someone else (child or otherwise) into taking a punch from me, or punching itself, this is the very definition of abuse. So I have no right to addict you; I have no right to force or coerce any person who cannot make an informed decision according to the dictates of their own conscience into any act, and that covers child abuse as well as it does any other kind of abuse.

Adding the concept of an abuser being "unable to control the act of abuse" in no way opens the door to acceptance of the fact that they have assaulted the liberties of another person. If they cannot control themselves in the "swinging of their fists", then society needs to control them. There is an inherent difference between what rights we have to do things to ourselves, and what rights we have to do to things to others. This difference is in no way ameliorated by one's ability to control one's self, as far as I'm concerned. If you can't control yourself with regard towards your actions as they directly affect others, you should not be excused for what you do: What you are able to do should be constrained, which is simply acting in the best interests of the other members of society.

The root problem with today's "child abuse" laws is the mismatch between the laws drawing a line in the sand based upon age. They use this line (wrongly) as if it provides an effective and reasonable match with every individual's attainment of the ability to make an informed choice according to the dictates of a rational and sufficiently mature conscience. This congruence is not valid and is unlikely to ever be valid, barring mandatory machine education and a lot more sophisticated social system than we have now. We could certainly do a lot better than ag

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely you are aware that drug prohibition is not preventing that from happening, because it does happen. However, without drug prohibition, the chances for overdose would be significantly reduced, through proper measurement of doses, quality of access, and so on. Ibuprofen overdose isn't a very big issue for the community, because most people who are over dosing, are not doing so on purpose, and the people who do overdose are likely committing suicide. I'm sure an argument similar to your own was used during the days of alcohol prohibition, and it's certainly a concern, but not a major one. History also shows us that death due to overdose goes down, after a prohibition is lifted. People were getting worse than overdose from the poorly made cocktails that were getting made in Joe Average's bathtub, because Joe Average doesn't know nearly as much about producing alcohol as Smirnoff.

But, let's just assume that it's a huge issue. Let's assume that ending drug prohibition would cause MORE overdoses, even though logically it would be less. Explain the situation with marijuana. No human being will ever be admitted to a hospital because of a THC overdose from smoking too much pot. It's just not possible to overdose on it, because you'll pass out long before it will reach toxic levels. That's not the issue, of course, the issue is freedom. Concern for public welfare isn't the real reason, otherwise we'd go back to having alcohol in the list of prohibited drugs, and tobacco would get thrown in as well. We'd get mandatory exercise, and every McDonald's would get bull dozed and replaced by a salad bar. All at government expense.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was hoping for a car analogy

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[khallow]

Under your idiotic definition, a fully informed heroin junkie isn't abusing drugs. That sounds reasonable. I don't know why you're getting worked up over this.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[nbritton]

The same can be said for sports injuries.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[sydneyfong]

I'm not living in America, but I had to ask: if that's what's happening then why is nobody trying to change it?

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I would heartlessly argue that someone who's rushed to the ER because they were partying too hard and spending all their money on drugs instead of health insurance shouldn't be treated with the bill paid by society's safety net the same way as, say, a homeless person hit by a car should be treated.

There are two reasons why ER care is financially backed by the government. The first is a moral, no one should be allowed to die just because they are down on their luck. In that sense, your distinction is valid.

But the second is pragmatic and merges the two cases. Time is of the essence in the ER. Confirming insurance or bank account info would require either a) a lot of time b) a scary big brother database. Both seem worse costs than the status quo if this is the only concern.

However, if you believe in the first reason (as you seem to), then they have to determine not only if you can pay, but if you cannot, why. That implies either a lot more time or a much scarier big brother database in those instances.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[fyngyrz]

Not when it affects those in society. Ie, if you overdose and cannot afford health insurance, are rushed to the ER and tax payer money pays for your treatment and recovery, then it is our business.

No. You're placing the blame on the wrong party. The person who overdosed didn't cause you to pay for their care. The legislators who put the law in place that says you have to pay for their care are the ones who connected the action of the drug user to your wallet. Your blame, and your reaction, can only be correctly directed at the legislators.

If a law is made that says every time I eat a cheeseburger, you must pay fifteen dollars, this in no way indicts me as a bad person for eating cheesburgers, nor does my eating cheeseburgers affect you for any reason that you can legitimately lay upon me. The problem is the law; the making of it, the enforcement of it, the support of it, if any, that you have extended. In the meantime, I should continue to have the liberty to go on eating cheeseburgers as I choose. You, on the other hand, need to do something about your legislators.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[shaka999]

Thats all well and good but it doesn't work in the "real" world. Your more or less saying that if anyone sees an injured person they should be left to die on their own. I mean it was there choice to use the bike/motorcycle/car/skateboard/.... and they should suffer the consequences.

Once you agree that a moral person has some responsibility to help a person in need you've agreed that society has a burden based on everyones actions. The only question is where you draw the line.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Under your idiotic definition, a fully informed heroin junkie isn't abusing drugs.

He's not. According to the federal courts, addiction is not a disease. Many experts on addiction agree that it is not a disease. He is choosing to use the drugs. The effect they have on him as well as the effect withdrawing from them weigh into this choice, but it is, at its root, a choice.

I used to be a heroin user. Wasted so much of my time and money on the stuff. Alienated close friends, irreparably destroyed relationships with family member, dragged my girlfriend and daughter through hell, but deep down, the choice was mine to do so. I've been clean three years now. It's a constant struggle, but it was my choice to get clean, and it is my choice to continue to be clean.

I didn't need a twelve step program or a jail sentence or witnessing a friend overdosing to stop (though I have been through all of those things and more). All I needed to do was sit down and rationally weigh my choices, which, I'll admit was hard because all I could do was think about getting high. I came to the conclusion one night as the haze cleared that there was no mystical heroin demon forcing me down and making me do it. It was me.

My opinion as a former drug user: so long as they're not infringing on the rights of others and as long as they are made to pay for their own health care, (I am for a system that excludes drug users from coverage if the illness can be attributed to their drug use) let them do what they want. The moment they run afoul of the law or become a drain on society, feel free to bitchslap them back into line.

You'll be surprised at the resources that will be available. Instead of chasing John McPothead that just wants to get high, eat some Doritos, and watch MXC, your police force will be able to patrol your neighborhood and stop real crime like robbery, rape, and murder and will have the resources needed to effectively investigate those crimes that they don't stop.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[4e617474]

Are you an idiot? Drug abuse, by any definition of "abuse" has nothing to do with (informed) consent.

Um, actually, there are definitions of "abuse" that deal with exactly that. There are better definitions for gp to refute - the ones that deal with the expectation that one lives up to an obligation to behave properly. The term "drug abuse" implies that any substance that can chemically interact with your body - even if naturally occurring and/or readily available without outside assistance - defaults to a state where society has a list of uses that are acceptable for you to engage in. This list starts blank and you are obligated to pay for the expense of satisfying society that there are acceptable uses, and you cannot ever demonstrate to society that you are up to the task of deciding the matter entirely for yourself. Even if you're a qualified scientist.

Under your idiotic definition, a fully informed heroin junkie isn't abusing drugs.

Under his definition a heroin junkie may be abusing many things - the charity of people who will preserve him from the full range of consequences of his decisions, treatment programs that he has no intention of actually making full use of but must attend to avoid penalties of one form or another. Then again, he may not be abusing any damn thing at all. But heroin? How can you "abuse heroin"? Society doesn't spell out a set of obligations to you in exchange for its efforts to keep it available for you, or acknowledge a right way and a wrong way to use it. It's like accusing someone of "abusing serial killing" or "abusing date rape". If you're against the use of certain drugs by anyone anywhere, then the charge is "heroin use" or "cocaine use". Calling it "abuse" is a way of stifling debate - "Are you for or against permitting abuse? Are you saying you're in favor of legalizing abuse?"

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[loteck]

We can't afford the lobbyists required to get it changed.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are trying to change it. The problem is that it would take a very large number of voters to force politicians to make such a change, and the average American is far too busy watching American Idol and working to obtain the next shiny toy.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[bishiraver]

People are either complicit or complacent. It's almost always been the case, and people are either too ignorant or too lazy to truly understand the issues - so they vote with what the media tells them, instead of researching records, facts, and generally going about things in an informed manner. A democratic republic only works when the voting populace is informed and active - and we don't have that. Thus the democratic process breaks down and becomes a capitalist oligarchy.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed his point entirely, that IS his point, the junkie you described is not "abusing" (a charged word that elicits thoughts of awful crimes against actual victims) himself, but is rather choosing to use illegal drugs. The idea that he is abusing himself is pretty preposterous when you think about it, how can someone be both the abuser and the victim of the same act?

The term drug abuser was carefully crafted to elicit just the right emotions from the general public, in the same way the word terrorist is often inappropriately used.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Some_Llama]

"I'm not living in America, but I had to ask: if that's what's happening then why is nobody trying to change it?"

People ARE trying to change it, the problem is with a general populace that is fat, happy and placated with endless hours of entertainment and blasted with pro-law propaganda continuously (that ironically they pay for) and a government run by special interests (tobacco lobby, alcohol lobby, energy lobby, textile lobby (cotton), prison lobby, etc).

there have been more than a few states that have decriminalized marijuana but federal laws still mandate incarceration, often with mandatory minimum sentencing. Changing laws on a federal level is almost impossible due to the heavy lobbying efforts of those mentioned previously.

It's getting to the point where the legal system is collapsing on itself with 1/10+ of the population incarcerated and drug use still as rampant as ever.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[ahodgson]

Or smoking. Or drinking. Or eating unhealthy food. Or not exercising enough. Who gets to draw that line?

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[d34thm0nk3y]

I would heartlessly argue that someone who's rushed to the ER because they were partying too hard and spending all their money on drugs instead of health insurance shouldn't be treated with the bill paid by society's safety net the same way as, say, a homeless person hit by a car should be treated.

I would agree so long as the provision is against ALL unhealthy habits. A fat person with no insurance should not get treated either.

But that would never happen so let's stop singling out drug users.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[ColdWetDog]

If taxpayer money is being used for treatment, then why is it that emergency rooms are shoving patients out on the street when they don't have health insurance. I mean if they are getting money from the taxpayers, then why not just keep them there until they are positive there is no risk of medical liability.

A couple of issues (in the US at least, I have no idea how it works Everywhere Else).

According to US law, any emergency room that accepts payment from Medicare or Medicaid (ie, every one of them) MUST admit and stabilize patients in an emergency situation. No questions asked. OK, well and good - not an unreasonable concept. But it gets complicated when you actually have to figure out the details.

Let's start with an emergency. What does that mean? A gunshot wound to the abdomen? OK, most of us will go with that one. Chronic Back pain? Hmm, that can be pretty bad indeed, but often isn't life threatening. Weak and Dizzy All Over (I don't feel good) - could be most anything. So what has evolved is a set of guidelines that are vague, conflicting and have spawned a cottage industry amongst lawyers and persons of similar enthusiasms. Well, that wasn't very helpful, was it?

OK, so our Taxpayer Supported Emergency Room has decided to treat this poor "Medically indigent" (the current buzzword) fellow. So we should keep this guy with chronic back pain in the ER until he gets bored enough to walk out or there is "no risk of medical liability (which would occur approximately 7 years after their death, assuming they aren't minors)? Right. Not in my busy 4 bed ER you don't.

Current US law and policy (which is widely, if not uniformly applied) is to:

1) Evaluate the ER patient for the presence of a (legally, not medically defined) emergency condition,
2) If such a condition is warranted to be occurring, treat it until the patient is "stabilized" (again a legal rather than strictly medical definition),
3) Then discharge the patient. The ER has the option of treating a Non-Emergent patient at it's discretion.
4) Then everybody (including Mr. Homeless Drunk) gets billed. We just don't expect very many checks from "General Delivery" addresses.

So in the US, access to truly emergency care is pretty good. Unfortunately this comes at the expense of the treating facility and quality medical care is a longitudinal affair and ERs are simply not appropriate places for them. So the system gets an "Epic Fail" for the chronic issues.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Hatta]

But generally speaking, drug use becomes abuse when there are negative health/social consequences.

Under your idiotic definition, a fully informed heroin junkie isn't abusing drugs.

By your definition a fully informed heroin junkie might not be abusing drugs either. If someone on a heroin maintenance program can manage their jobs, friends, and family, because they're not forced to spend all their time and money drug seeking, where are the negative health/social consequences?

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Roger W Moore]

So who decides whether you should be treated or not? How does the ambulance decide whether to not to come in the first place? What happens if you abstain from drugs but have a heart attack at a party where someone is taking drugs and the medical crew jump to the wrong conclusion? You cannot have sensible medical coverage based on acceptable causes. By the time you find out that you are treating an irresponsible idiot you've already treated them and trying to make that decision before you treat them will lead to people with "acceptable" problems being denied access to treatment.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[holyspidoo]

NURSE: Doctor! A driver in full drug overdose and no healthcare plan just hit a homeless man, which one do we repair and who will pay for what?

DOCTOR: Arrrg... too... complicated... need Ritalin to focus...

Yep, we're all screwed!

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[gnick]

Actually, I've seen first hand some extremely graphic cases of drug abuse and would classify it a little differently than you have. Just to name a few:

* I've seen beer stored in a warm garage allowed to temperature cycle between 40-100 F daily for weeks on end.
* I've seen pot left out on a tray in a well ventilated area for days allowing it to dry out and taste terrible.
* I've seen the SAME coffee brewed 3-4 days running, eventually creating a brown fluid only slightly resembling the intended substance.

Oh, the humanity...

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Rival]

I'm not sure whether to mod this interesting, insightful or funny (in a sarcasm sense.) It all depends on how (or whether) people correlate disagreement and judgment. Regardless, I think the parent ought to be modded up, as it asks some deep questions.

Personally, I believe that classifying any decision or action as right or wrong is a false dichotomy. Any decision or action can be broken down into pieces that may be judged right or wrong (some dependently and some independently of each other,) and doing such an analysis is both recursive and geometric. Where to "draw the line" on such an analysis is what makes such judgments subjective. How to weigh each facet during the analysis is what makes the process philosophical, moral and ethical.

That being said, while I agree that any judgment we make will be both subjective and philosophical, I believe that that the concepts of right and wrong themselves are based on absolutes. Obviously this is a belief, albeit one shared by a number of religions and philosophies. I don't want to start a debate, though, so I'll make a technological analogy.

Assume that people are processors, and that these processors do not know their internal logic. Any given processor thinks that it is generating correct output for a given set of inputs, but different processors generate different results for same set of inputs. The question is, how can the results of any particular processor for a particular set of inputs be verified?

Well, the processor cannot reliably test itself, as the faculties performing the test are suspect. Other processors cannot reliably model the internal logic of the flawed system, as it is not known. Since different processors generate different results for the same set of inputs, their reliability is unknown. The only option is to use a set of other processors to generate output from the same input. This may generate a consensus of what the correct output should be. (Depending on the distribution of flaws in subcomponents of the processors, the standard deviation of the results may vary significantly for different input sets.) Any consensus that is reached would be analogous to cultural morality. But any judgment by a processor, even if it includes as an input a given consensus, must be subjective.

So how can any results be absolutely verified? As I see it, there are only two ways. The first would be to have a reference processor that is known good, and compare results generated by the reference processor. The second is to have a reference document outlining the correct results.

Obviously, different religions claim to have reference processors and/or reference documents. Which of these (if any and to what extent and/or in what combination) to believe is where religious and philosophical differences occur.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Dada Vinci]

With that plan, a lot of people are going to tell you, perhaps in a few more words, "you can pry my cigarette out of my cold, dead hands." Good luck getting Americans (or any culture, for that matter) to give up unhealthy habits. The Americans get mocked for obseity, but Europeans smoke far more, and Chinese more still. (~70% of Chinese men smoke, comepared to ~38% of German men and ~24% of US men.)

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[shaka999]

No, I'm saying that your decision to assist, in whatever way, doesn't justify your imposing your will on their actions.

If I help you in any way then I am imposing my will on you. If I don't help you I am imposing my will on you.

If I am aware or you in any way and that affects my actions in any way I am imposing my will on you in some form. Its unavoidable.

If I live next to you and you don't mow your lawn you are imposing your will on me and making me suffer consequences I might not want. If you do mow your lawn you impact me as well.

The question comes down to what the natural state of a situation is. If I'm in a suburban neighborhood then the natural state is probably to mow a lawn. If I'm in the country it might be the opposite. Everyone can not act any damn way they want without impacting others.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[ccguy]

Are you an idiot?

Ah, the beauty and power of words combined with typical slashdot manners :-)

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Jasin Natael]

So, to sum up, you propose interpreting the phrase "drug abuse" as 'drug-induced abuse of others and/or social institutions'. To criminalize the very act of use is different, and should be rightly called "illegal drug use".

I think I agree.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[bckrispi]

The insurance companies, apparently.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

They aren't 'more or less' saying that people should be left to die on their own: they are flat out stating that barring any contract to the contrary, you are on your own., not none of them.

Not quite. They're saying the decision of wether or not someone should be left to die on their own is up to the individuals who can help him. In a libertarian society you CAN help drug addicts in failing health by donating your money/time to a charity that helps them if you want to.

They think their only moral responsibility is to themselves.

Not quite. As a libertarian I feel responsibilities to help my daughter and my parents if they were in need, regardless of need, for instance. A random drug addict... not so much. You obviously feel differently but I'm all about letting you help who you want to help.

But they are curiously blind to the ways we all help them everyday, and even when this is pointed out, they claim they never asked for it, so they feel no reciprocal responsibility.

I can't speak for "they", but this is not the case for myself.

The thing is, they aren't being forced. They could drop out of society.

We aren't? There is a place in our country we can go where we can put whatever substances in our bodies that we chose and live with the consequences of that?

But they want the benefits of living in a society with none of the responsibilities.

You don't seem to know what a libertarian is. The whole freedom accompanies responsibility concept is libertarianism 101. Any real libertarian wants ALL of the responsibilities for himself, not none of them.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Hatta]

Alcohol was prohibited for a reason, it was wisely repealed when it was clear prohibition did more harm than good. I believe the same is true of opiates. You simply can't compare an unregulated legal market 100 years ago to an unregulated illegal market today and conclude that a regulated legal market today would be worse. That simply doesn't follow.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[twistedsymphony]

"I cut my hand bad while wood working...", "I broke my leg while roller blading...", "I got smashed at a bar picked a fight and was bludgeoned to sh*t...", "I fell through some ice while snowmobiling and got hypothermia..."

How are any of those being taken care of by the ER and "billed to society" any different than "I used too many drugs and became ill..." aside from the fact that you believe it to be a poor personal choice?

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[osu-neko]

Some people do. It must be subjective. Hmm :p

Because different people don't agree on the subject, it must be subjective? It follows from that that the age of the Earth is subjective. Different people believe it's anywhere from six thousand to five billion years old.

It does not follow from the fact that different people hold different views on something that it's subjective. It could be subjective, or it could be some people are just plain wrong.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[pomakis]

If a law is made that says every time I eat a cheeseburger, you must pay fifteen dollars, this in no way indicts me as a bad person for eating cheesburgers, nor does my eating cheeseburgers affect you for any reason that you can legitimately lay upon me.

I don't agree with this. If you're aware that a consequence of you eating a cheeseburger is that somebody else suffers (in this case financially) to an extent greater than your gain, and you proceed to eat a cheeseburger despite this knowledge, then in my opinion your action is unethical. It doesn't matter whether the consequence is direct or as a result of the laws of the land; it's a known and predictable consequence that you're consciously ignoring. Yes, the law itself may indeed be the fundamental problem at work in this example, but it by no means removes you from any ethical responsibility.

Heavy drug users are similarly placing a net drain on society as a whole by relying on others to pay for the consequences of their drug habits. I consider this unethical, even if I personally believe that the laws defining the system are flawed.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[sentientbrendan]

>Explain the situation with marijuana.

The situation with marijuana is irrational, since it isn't that harmful or addictive compared to cigarettes and alcohol, which are both legal.

However, please don't equate legalizing marijuana with legalizing drugs.

Heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines don't just kill people, they kill communities. Legalizing heroin is like legalizing zombies.

You might think, oh hey, cool. I want to have a pet zombie. But, then one day it escapes, and the whole city turns into the walking dead.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[rkcallaghan]

deathmonkey wrote:

A fat person with no insurance should not get treated either. I'm overweight, now, because I didn't get treated without insurance when I needed it. My tale of how I'm not allowed to work in the US anymore, due to government bigotry, has been detailed here before. The short version though, is that I was an able bodied, upstanding natural born Caucasian US citizen.

I don't have insurance now, and likely never will. I didn't several years ago either, when I broke my foot. Since that was apparently not emergency enough (I obviously didn't die, no life threat..); I didn't get treated.

Now I'm overweight, because I can barely stand up to get to the bathroom. When I was younger, I was physically active on a daily basis. I had practiced Taekwondo since I was 11, and was in great shape.

So a hearty fuck you to you, and all the moderators who gave you a +5 for this stupidity. Not everyone who's overweight (or even most, from what I can tell) got their by eating nothing but Big Macs and Twinkies.

~Rebecca

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Doc Ruby]

No, there is objective consistency to measure these actions. It's not just a word game: "right" and "wrong" are measured against actual results, and actual values, usually stated in the laws themselves. So when a "Drug Use Reduction Act" doesn't result in lower drug use, just more people in jail (where they do more drugs), that is objectively wrong.

You have illustrated how majorities can control what's legal vs illegal, but not what is right or wrong. Even when many values are subject to change, when some do not, like logical consistency and responsibility of a cause for its effects, that leaves right and wrong independent of how majorities change.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[ookabooka]

NURSE: Doctor! A driver in full drug overdose and no healthcare plan just hit a homeless man, which one do we repair and who will pay for what?

That's easy, which one has signed their organ donor card?

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[Jerry Beasters]

Are you fucking serious? They NSGWP was in no way socialist. They used the term to gain supporters.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[spun]

Say someone offers to sell you land. But the land comes with stipulations. Say you have to feed their cats, and anyone you sell the land to also has to feed their cats.

You might not want to buy land with strings like that attached, but I'm sure you'd agree that it would be morally within that land owner's rights to attempt to sell such land. You wouldn't go around claiming he had no right to put such stipulations on, if you didn't like it, you wouldn't buy it. And you wouldn't go buying it and ignoring the stipulations, would you?

The thing is, everyone who has bought land in the US has bought land with such stipulations on it. They freely chose to do so. You could buy the land from them, but not without the stipulations.

The government is not an unrelated third party. They uphold your claims to the land, and defend you from those who would take it away. They are also in charge of enforcing the stipulations.

If you don't like that, you are free to shop around for a better deal. But you have no right to get the deal you'd like. You seem to think you have a moral right to buy land in an area you like with no strings attached. You don't. You get to choose from among the alternatives offered. So sorry if the alternative you'd like is not available, but that is equally an issue under any sort of lassez faire free market system, as well.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[steelfood]

This is slightly off topic, but one can either agree that morality (right and wrong) is subjective, and hence is completely open to debate, or morality is objective, and hence there is one and only one (Universal) right. There can be no middle ground.

It is easy to point to the presence of the debate itself as a method of validation for the former side to the argument. However, for the latter, the burden of proof is upon the person making such an assertion. After all, if moral right and wrong are facts, then it can be shown to apply universally, to all and to all situations. Should any situation be morally ambigious, then moral objectivity cannot hold true (one cannot have some morals be objective and some subjective--only that some are subjective and uncommon, and some are subjective and common). The only approach to truly assert truth and fallacy is through mathematics. Unfortunately, this is impossible, and thus most on the latter side emply the second best method, the scientific method.

However, most accounts of conflict show no clear moral line of right and wrong. Some of this is in part, are due to conflicts of social acceptability, conflicts of perception, even conflicts of memory. And even when such conflicts are not relevant, the line that is established will move over time. That we are capable of changing our minds, whether it be slightly, or completely, not attributable to an external force is sufficient to illustrate this point.

Or perhaps, to make the argument more concise, because the invididual as a self is capable of subjectivity, our morals, which are to the best of our ability to prove through scientific inquiry, a property of the system known as the self, are therefore subjective.

The body of science that deals with consciousness and perception unconditionally show this. Thus in order to assert the reality objective morals, one must discredit the scientific method of experimentation and validation--in which case, nothing is or can be proven.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[aminorex]

Heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines kill people and communities precisely because they are illegal. Without the incredible mark-up, there would be no organized crime, no gangs, no gang violence. Without artificially high prices, heroin would be pure, clean, safe, and cheap, and addicts would not get AIDS, would be able to pay for it with jobs, and could get medical treatment for addiction on their employer-paid health insurance. If abusing drugs would threaten your ability to take drugs legally, then there would be far less abuse of drugs, and much more responsible use.

I use adderall, but I could just as easily use methamphetamine. I have a license from the gatekeeprs which allows me to use adderall (substitute methamphetamine) but if I did not need a prescription, I would no more abuse the adderall or methamphetamine or heroin or cocaine than I do now, i.e. not at all. Millions of people buy these drugs illegally, because they think it improves their lives. I do it legally, because I have the social standing of a middle-aged white professional, so I can.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[FLEB]

I'd say that part of the problem is that there isn't a clear definition considered-- both in the sense of 'what' and 'why'-- of morality. Morality deals with "good" and "bad", but those terms cannot exist in a vacuum. 'Good' is good... toward what end? 'Bad' is bad... against what goal? Without goals for morality, nothing can be proven-- not so much from a lack of objective ability, as much as from the simple fact that no actual assertion has been made.

What's the problem?

[pclminion]

We prescribe these drugs to millions of kids who most likely have nothing "wrong" with them, and people have a problem when some adults do the same thing?

This isn't athletics. The point isn't fairness. The point is advancing the science. I have serious doubts that these drugs are actually helping anybody do research who didn't already have some kind of problem, but it's none of our damn business, either.

Re:What's the problem?

[pclminion]

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to suggest that attention-enhancing drugs actually make people DUMBER? I tried using them once. It was probably the most productive night of academia I've ever had. I wouldn't do it again, but what business is it of yours?

Suppose the fellow goes home at night and has a few too many glasses of scotch. Suppose he has threesomes with sluts. Suppose he does any number of things you don't personally like. Are you gonna take away his funding for that, too?

Re:What's the problem?

[qwertphobia]

Good point. I think anyone doing research with public money should do their research as efficiently as possible. Don't let those silly FDA guidelines get in the way.

Is that your stance, too? It's hard to tell from your post.

It would be interesting to see how many of the research is being done in the areas of pharmaceuticals and/or cognitive functions.

Re:What's the problem?

[fyngyrz]

It is when they are using taxpayer grants to fund their research.

Yes, that's certainly true. You would want research you pay for to be done at the fastest and most effective way possible, so as to maximize your ROI. So you make an excellent case for the use of cognitive enhancement.

Re:What's the problem?

[explosivejared]

That logic sort of falls apart very easily. People utilize taxpayer funds to facilitate going to work everyday. That doesn't somehow change the rules about privacy. We all depend on the state in one way or another, but that doesn't magically make every action I undertake a legitmate subject for public discourse and requiring of public approval.

Re:What's the problem?

[dpninerSLASH]

These drugs aren't making Rhodes Scholars out of an imbeciles, they're simply being used to enhance existing skills. And as the parent poster mentioned, we're all benefiting in some form or another by this.

It is also possible that the sciences are a more attractive field for people who truly do need to take these types of medications, so the disproportionately high percentage of users in that area may actually be closer to reality than the article would have you believe.

As a learning tool this is a near perfect example of a truly victimless "crime."

Re:What's the problem?

[Ethanol-fueled]

So, *cough* which drug did you use? I have a test coming up...;)

Re:What's the problem?

[SatanicPuppy]

How do you figure? I mean, they should be getting grants because they're good at what they do, right? If the drugs are a part of that, then they're a part of the reason the guy is getting the grant in the first place.

Somebody said it above; this isn't sports. It's not "cheating" to use a performance enhancing drug in your job. Most of us are addicted to a common one: caffeine. That's considered perfectly normal, but if you're using Provigil without a prescription its a wholly different thing.

The problem is one of perception. Some things are "drugs" and shouldn't be "abused", and some other things that seemingly belong in that category as well...aren't there.

Re:What's the problem?

[StaticEngine]

Only if that funding is in direct competition with my own slut-related research.

Re:What's the problem?

[Gat0r30y]

This isn't athletics. The point isn't fairness. Alright, predictions folks. How long until the Math team / Debate team / Model UN have to pee in a cup to prove they aren't taking "Brain Enhancing" Drugs? I set the over under at 5 years.

Re:What's the problem?

[evanbd]

That sort of report usually relates to any of the amphetamine relatives or methylphenidate (ritalin) relatives (the two are related but not the same). By amphetamine relatives, I include amphetamine, methamphetamine, dexedrine, Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts), and some others. Methylphenidates include Ritalin and Focalin and some others. Brand names vary, especially by country.

All the amphetamine derivatives have the same mode of action in the brain, but they aren't all "the same." Delivery route (oral, injected, insufflated, smoked) matters, as does the specific salt (eg amphetamine sulfate vs amphetamine hydrochloride). These have an impact on how rapidly your body absorbs the drug, and therefore the response vs time curve. Extended release versions also exist (Adderall XR, Concerta (methylphenidate)), which has a similar effect -- the duration is extended, and the response vs time curve flattened (generally considered a good thing -- the response varying with time is generally not what you want).

As always... don't take without a prescription. If you must take it without a prescription, you're much safer buying illicit Adderall than street meth, and you'll probably like the results better too (especially for functional, rather than recreational, purposes). Use an appropriate dosage (aka do your research), realize that the effect will be stronger in someone who doesn't take it regularly, and be aware of what drugs it reacts badly with. (Most notably, avoid mixing stimulants to excess, though the results of mixing with weak ones like caffeine won't surprise you. Do not, under any circumstances, mix stimulants with MAOIs (some antidepressants, possibly other uses) -- that can be fatal.)

I'm not a doctor, this is not medical advice. Don't take drugs you haven't researched. Taking them without a prescription is likely illegal. In general: do your research before taking them, and be really sure you know what you're taking!

Erowid is a great place to start said research, though it's more geared toward recreational / spiritual / exploratory drug use. Wikipedia has a lot of good info. In any case, beware of inaccuracies.

Re:What's the problem?

[Princess Aurora]

Those of us who are trying to compete with these people are being harmed. Now you put us in a bad position--take them too, or fall behind. Is that fair to us? We don't get a choice in whether we actually want to take these--take them, or don't have a career. Why should I have to risk my body because someone else is? Maybe my body can't handle these drugs and they'll kill me at 40, and not that other person.

It'd be like if you HAD to drive 130 mph on the freeway to keep up with traffic. Sure, you could not drive that fast, but that's dangerous--you're like the guy driving 40 in a 70 mph zone. You might not be comfortable at that speed (or even capable of handling the car at that speed), and by driving that fast, you're putting yourself at a high risk. In that way, the decisions of the other people force you to make a choice between two bad things: drive too fast and risk your safety, or drive "too slow" and risk your safety.

Re:What's the problem?

[pclminion]

Those of us who are trying to compete with these people are being harmed. Now you put us in a bad position--take them too, or fall behind. Is that fair to us?

Who knows if it's fair. Who cares. Is your only purpose in doing science to compete with other scientists? I thought the point was advancing the base of human knowledge. I don't think these drugs are having as big an effect as you think, anyway. My personal experience was that they enhance focus, not intelligence. You aren't going to come to any sudden insight you would not otherwise have reached, but it might help you get there faster, by preventing the "scatter brain."

If you are so concerned about fairness, you ought to be downright outraged at the fact that millions of children in the United States are taking these drugs -- surely these students are unfairly outcompeting their peers in school. Right?

Re:What's the problem?

[pclminion]

I think the idea is more that it would be unfair to the academics who don't use the drugs. These drugs were developed, as far as I am aware, to help those who otherwise couldn't perform at their normal level. If I live in the "publish or perish" world of academics, must I now take these drugs to be competitive?

As I keep repeating, I don't think these drugs make people as "smart" as you might think. And even if they did, if there were no terrible side effects, why would that be bad? You say you don't want to take drugs in order to compete. But what about staying up all night? Are you being unfairly treated because you refuse to stay up 48 hours in a block, like some other researchers do?

You work within your means and what you are willing to do. Others have a different set of criteria. I don't see how this implies unfairness.

Re:What's the problem?

[rubycodez]

hell with the drugs, where does he get the threesomes?

Re:What's the problem?

[pclminion]

An example. I have this great idea, but my resume isn't as good as this other person who took drugs all the time, while I didn't take drugs. When we both apply for the same $100k grant to do our project, he gets the money because his resume is better--they feel that the $100k is better spent with that person because of his past work. Now my idea won't get developed because I don't have the money I need to implement it. I fail on both my goals: advance the subject, and be employed.

Okay, let's switch things around a little. Suppose the other guy got the grant because he never sleeps, and therefore can produce a larger volume of research. Now, in order to compete with this guy, you basically have to stay awake all the time. So now do you want to enforce a rule that a scientist must sleep a certain number of hours every day, in order to stay fair to other scientists who actually like sleeping?

Would you suggest that someone who was born without an arm should never get a prosthetic, and be doomed to work in jobs that only require one arm for his entire life?

No, and I'm not sure how you got that from what I've said. Certainly, those who require a prosthetic should have one.

Re:What's the problem?

[s20451]

You aren't going to come to any sudden insight you would not otherwise have reached, but it might help you get there faster

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't work in modern academia. It's all about quantity. Ideally it's about both quantity and quality, but the only people who can get away with just quality are the very senior professors who already have tenure, who can't get promoted any further, and who are already in the senior ranks of all the academic societies (fellow of the IEEE, etc.). So the idea that a drug would keep your quality the same, while improving your quantity, is incredibly tempting (not to mention making the quantity vs. quality problem worse).

Re:What's the problem?

[pclminion]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't work in modern academia. It's all about quantity. Ideally it's about both quantity and quality, but the only people who can get away with just quality are the very senior professors who already have tenure, who can't get promoted any further, and who are already in the senior ranks of all the academic societies (fellow of the IEEE, etc.). So the idea that a drug would keep your quality the same, while improving your quantity, is incredibly tempting (not to mention making the quantity vs. quality problem worse).

Then we have a fundamental problem with how science is conducted. The problem isn't the drugs. The drug use is a symptom of flawed standards for scientific research.

Re:What's the problem?

[notjim]

"In general: do your research before taking them, and be really sure you know what you're taking!" Isn't the idea to do your research after you have taken them?

And what about...

[EricR86]

Caffeine anyone?

Re:And what about...

[UnknowingFool]

AsformeIcouldprobablyuseless.I'monmy4thcupalready.

Re:And what about...

[DrLang21]

I actually do use caffeine specifically for performance enhancement. Its effects on norepinephrine levels in the brain are similar to that of amphetamines, though far less severe.

Re:And what about...

[Deanalator]

Interestingly, Provigil (Modafinil) is more effective, safer, less addictive, and has less side effects when compared in side by side studies with caffeine.

Modafinil should be in soft drinks, and the fact that you can't buy it over the counter is ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil

Re:And what about...

[evanbd]

In my experience (both first hand and otherwise) that's very true at low levels, but becomes much less true at higher doses. Caffeine causes the jitters while having a comparable effect to a relatively mild dose of amphetamines (ie, a dose that generally will produce much lower side effect incidence).

It's similar to the difference between laevo- and dextro-amphetamines (though more pronounced) -- the laevo-amphetamines cause more jitters, the dextro-amphetamines are better at making you focus. This is why Adderall is generally preferred to normal (racemic) amphetamine (it's a mix of the two, but weighted toward dextro-amphetamine).

Caffeine?

[Hatta]

Strangely absent from the list. I've known few scientists that didn't consume lots of caffeine.

Re:Caffeine?

[SatanicPuppy]

The thing is, it's not hard to get a prescription for Provigil; just keep complaining of tiredness to your doctor until he prescribes it...Is he going to tell you you're lying about it?

I don't know of any serious side-effects other than those attendant on other stimulants. It's been out for about 25 years, so you'd think they would have shown up by now, so the cocaine analogy is flawed. If caffeine was illegal, would consuming it be okay?

Re:Caffeine?

[Hatta]

Yes. You have a fundamental right to control your own biochemistry. It is those who would deny you those rights who are in the wrong, not those who exercise that right.

Off-label

[Raindance]

The blurb makes it sound as if all this use is illegal. I would imagine most isn't: most of these people will have prescriptions but are using them for off-label purposes. Which is legal.

Punishment

[boristdog]

So, will they take away your Nobel if you've been found to use science-enhancing drugs?

Re:Punishment

[Spy der Mann]

They took my Nobel just because I used my newly discovered intelligence enhancing drug!? That's NO excuse! Science sometimes requires sacrifices!

Those damn underevolved monkeys... they laughed at me, scolded me, but I will be the one who laughs last... they will see!

Igor! PREPARE THE ANTI-INTELLIGENCE BEAM!!!

HA HA HA HA!!!

Not all use is illegal

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

It isn't necessarily illegal to possess or use prescription medicine without a prescription unless it is a controlled substance or there are state or other laws that come into play. It is illegal to dispense it without a presecription.

Inderal is not a controlled substance.

Re:Not all use is illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really unfortunate when it is. My apartment was raided by the police because my roommates (whom I did not elect to live with, but was placed with) were relatively heavy drug dealers. The police found a single adderall pill stuck in the corner of one of my drawers that I had completely forgotten about. I had tried adderall about three times and, although it helped me study, it wasn't worth the disruption to my sleep habits (it gives you horrible insomnia). I threw the last pill I had in a drawer and forgot about it. The pill had been there for about six months.

While I won't be serving any jail time, my future as I intended it is more or less over. I'm currently a convicted felon serving three years probation, having to attend an intensive drug rehab course, and worst of all, I lost my federal aid that was helping pay for my grad school. Once you include the legal fees, the loss of my state entitlements, and the loss of my federal aid, I am currently looking at around a $30,000 price tag that I can't afford because of a single pill that was found because of a search that wasn't even my fault. More than likely, I will have to withdraw from grad school after this semester, despite being less than a year away from completing my PhD.

Re:Not all use is illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your lawyer suck? Proving that you were even aware that that pill was there, let alone that you put it there is nearly impossible. If you had denied everything the DA probably would of dumped the case because it's not worth it to try and win such a stupid case. Worst case they would offer you a deal where you agree to community service and drug counseling. If you aren't trolling then you really got fucked hard.

I had a friend in college who lived with dealers and had almost a half ounce of weed in his dorm when it was raided. He got sent to through the campus "grievance" system (which is not actually part of the legal system) and had no real consequences besides a year of academic probation and some mandatory drug counseling sessions in the campus counseling center. The dealers of course were prosecuted and are in prison for 10+ years.

Re:Not all use is illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was charged with it, I thought for sure it would get dropped as well. I couldn't believe it. I didn't skimp with a cheap lawyer, but the simple fact of the matter is that I was in possession of the drugs. It was in my room, and when I was asked if it was mine, I said yes (I was there when they raided the apartment). My lawyer attempted to get me off on the search warrant, but it was specific and included my name and specific bedroom as one of the persons/places of interest.

Yes, it was monumentally stupid to admit that it was mine. In addition, yes, it was monumentally stupid to live in the apartment with my roommates. I signed an individual lease and my roommates were randomly assigned. However, they never caused trouble. They did their thing outside of the apartment and they were actually the best roomies I had ever had - they cleaned up after themselves and were never loud or obnoxious. Yes, I should have moved, but I didn't think I had anything to fear. After all, I didn't do recreational drugs, nor did I have anything to do with them. It's easy to say that I should have moved out, but it's easier to want to then to actually break my lease and find a new apartment. That would have cost money and time that I didn't have. You want to criticize me for not turning them in? Do you want to be the one that ruins someone's life that you have no problem with? Hindsight is 20/20.

I offered to testify against my roommates, but the police already had enough dirt on them that the DA refused my offer. I had to plea bargain and get treated under first offender status, which means that after my probation is complete I will have the felony charge dismissed, although the arrest and charge will remain on my record unless I can get it expunged. Until my charge is dismissed (which won't be until the successful completion of my three year probation, as well as my rehab and community service) I won't be able to receive federal aid, as I said before. I also lose my state entitlements for both this semester and the following semester (it's a Georgia law).

This is a true story, and I'm not trolling. I had never been arrested or in trouble with the law before. I'd never even gotten a traffic ticket before. I was fortunate enough that my university's Judicial Affairs were reasonable and just put me on disciplinary probation for a year. Yes, I was stupid for admitting that it was mine, and yes, I was stupid for not moving. But my question is, does the punishment really fit my crime?

Beta blockers?

[AltGrendel]

Most beta blockers are used as a treatment for high blood pressure. Surely the stress levels that these scientists experience would justify that kind of prescription.

Re:Beta blockers?

[laurier57]

Beta blockers are often used by public speakers or those presenting papers as it prevents many of the physical effects of performance anxiety--red in the face, sweating, clamminess--so they can at least appear and feel composed enough to say whatever they're saying.

Their evil plans were foiled yet again.

[jameskojiro]

By this strange scrawney man with black rimmed glases in a tan trenchcoat wearing sneakers and waving around a metal tool with a blue glowing end.

The man was apparently muttering about some kind of oil that supposedly made the brain work faster or some such nonsense.

His accomplices included a blonde bimbo, a middle aged woman resembling a sturng out housewife, her young ethnic lover, and a poorly put together RC dog.

Over in liberal arts....

[MosesJones]

Performance enhancing means Viagra.... no wonder kids aren't doing science.

Oh great...

[MrKevvy]

Does this mean there will be mandatory drug testing at the Science Olympiad?

Just what was in Albert Einstein's pipe?

And how did Stephen Hawking really end up in that wheelchair?

My confidence is shattered. :^p

Re:Oh great...

[Tablizer]

Just what was in Albert Einstein's pipe?

or his hair?

Re:Beta blockers? Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, lots of people use beta-blockers as a performance enhancer. The most common use is for musicians who have to do an audition. Beta-blockers really reduce any shakes that may ruin a performance.

I had a prescription for years to treat familial tremors. The drug worked well but tended to make me drowsy so I quit. As I get older, the shakes get worse and I may have to go back on them. C'est la vie. (shrugs)

And how many are legally used?

[MMC Monster]

You say those without a prescription are doing it illegally. Well, how many are legally taking these medications as prescribed by a physician?

Inderal is a cheap beta blocker ($4 for a month's supply) commonly used for the treatment of hypertension and various heart diseases. It can also be used on an as-needed basis for stage fright.

Adult ADHD may be treated with Ritalin. If people are prescribed these medicines, then no foul.

Adderall XR

[psychicsword]

I use Adderall damn that drug is addictive. I can stay up all night then take that and I feel good as new an hour later. Plus it has the benefit for me of allowing me to concentrate better and get more work done. It also stops me from clicking the damn stumbleupon button for hours on end. With it I get twice as much work done and can think twice as well.

Please note I do have a prescription for it and I dont even need to fake ADD to get it, just he gives me a slightly higher dose than I might need.

Re:Adderall XR

[jesdynf]

Nobody trying to convince me how amphetamines help them think more clearly should miss that many punctuation marks.

Re:Adderall XR

[psychicsword]

How did you approach your physician about this to get the drug prescribed? Did you just explain your problem and express interest in a medical solution? I had always thought doctors would be reluctant to try a pharmaceutic approach with an adult and have been hesitant to ask. I have been on ADD medications since third grade(now a freshman in college) about every three years they retest me, so I cant really help you there. But if you are having a problem just explain it to them. I recently restarted taking Adderall after trying to go Straterra only and asked my doctor if he could switch me from the 1x 15mg pill to 3x 5mg pills so I could figure out a correct dose based on how badly I needed it. Because my mom picks it up at the local pharmacy and ships it to me he was worried that she was taking it instead of me. The doctors are definitely worried people will abuse it and will perform the test for ADD which is very lenient and because you are an adult they may or may not trust you more. If you explain all your symptoms and tell them you have tried to work in a less distracting environment then they shouldn't give you as hard of a time. There is one thing I do know for a fact, Straterra doesn't work half as well as Adderall does so if it is offered I recommend you ask to try a different drug first.
Also the doctor will require you to make frequent appointments(every 1-3 months) and there are no refills on the Adderall prescriptions so you need to call up your doctor each month(the max allowed number of pills they can give you) for a new one. I really think adderall helps and if you are having a serious problem then I highly suggest you see a doctor because it has helped me a lot over the last 10 years. Also, I have yet to check up on it but there is a possibility that your regular Physician could prescribe it to you, but I haven't tried it yet.

Headline of the Future...

[Tablizer]

In today's news, Berry Dexter Bonds was informed that his three Nobel prizes for curing cancer and inventing a practical flying car will be revoked. Drug testing revealed that banned brain-enhancing substances were in his bloodstream just prior the prize ceremony. Testing has been standard procedure for the Nobel ceremonies since it was discovered that the inventor of the brain-enhancing drug, IQtrophine, used it to win a Nobel prize for curing the common cold.

It has also been revealed that Steven Nash of the Phoenix Suns NBA team has been taking brain enhancing drugs to help him make smarter, more accurate ball passes. One side effect is that it stunted his growth. College photos revealed that he used to be taller than Shaquille O'Neal. "I wasn't making it as a center, so I decided to become the Mother of All Point Guards", he said at a news conference.

Re:Fairness

[Qzukk]

But then again, life's not fair.

So if life's not fair, why ban "cheating" with drugs? Cheating is part of being unfair.

So do we have to unlearn all our Science?

[wsanders]

I mean, if you learned something from a professor who was under the influence of performance enhancing drugs, do you have to forget it?

Re:drugs for enhancement are self-defeating

[backwardMechanic]

I admire your romanticism, but science isn't sport. It's not about a fair fight between equals. Science is about using any method you can to explain or measure a detail of the universe that nobody else can. So long as you do it yourself (i.e. you didn't actually steal someone else's idea or result), anything goes. There is no Nobel prize for featherweight science. Either you're the best, or you're not - and your funding will reflect this.

Re:drugs for enhancement are self-defeating

[Duradin]

It is by will alone I set my mind in motion...

Also, where do you draw the line between drugs and things like proper nutrition?

By consuming an optimal diet of the proper nutrients (which are just specific chemical compounds) am I really a lesser person because I did not make my achievements while on a near starvation diet?

Am I cheating by juicing up more vegetables than I could eat whole and obtaining all those extra nutrients?

Who cares? Re:drugs are self-defeating

[jageryager]

_You_ can drink drugs are "self-defeating".. But who cares? If I used drugs to save my life, then I would say that is good. I won't even stop to think about how I have degraded myself by staying alive. I don't think any cancer survivors feel any smaller because they needed to use drugs to beat cancer..

If I use drugs to clear my head to solve an important problem, then I don't consider that problem any less solved. I'm not working on solving a problem just to see if I can do it... I want to save the world for the world's sake, not my sake.

I would say that this line of thinking is kind of "selfish" in a way. The need for people to believe sports are fair and uncompromised by drugs has skewed the way people think of performance enhancment. Enhancement is good. We like enhancement. Get over it.

I'm not surprised

[brady8]

I know at my University for example that there is widespread use of Ritalin for studying purposes once it got out that you can learn entire courses inside and out pulling all-nighters when you're on Ritalin.

A friend of mine is a regular user of Ritalin, and because I knew the guy (and his marks) before he started using I can tell you with some confidence that Ritalin will add a very significant boost to your GPA.

I also have anecdotal evidence of many pre-med students using Ritalin when they study for the MCAT, prerequisite courses, etc. since competition for med school here is so fierce.

If the students are doing it because they're under pressure for higher grades, why wouldn't the professors and scientists be doing it when they're under (arguably greater) pressure to produce research results.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Man On Pink Corner]

Provigil is useful, but its effects are heavily-exaggerated (thanks, Wired.) It is basically a slightly-better-than-caffeine stimulant with fewer side effects.

It will not allow you to go for days at a time without sleep, unless your reason for needing to do so is that your friend is shooting a zombie movie and needs extras.

It's useful when you need to pull an all-nighter, and only then if you take it before you actually get sleepy. That's about it.

Ritalin is scary stuff

[Sara Chan]

Ritalin is scary stuff. There are no good-quality long-term studies on the effects of Ritalin. And there is some evidence that ritalin is carcinogenic and can cause permanent changes in the brain. There is a partial summary of potential problems with ritalin here (mostly as it is used to treat ADHD).

Nanny state...

[mutube]

But your actions in assuming responsibility for my debts don't give you any legitimate authority over my behavior.

I think that is best single argument I have ever heard against state interference in people's behaviour (aka. the 'nanny state'). Interesting, thanks.

Re:"We like enhancement"

[L4t3r4lu5]

One person achieving without enhancing therapies what someone else needs enhancing therapies to achieve does not lessen the achievement of either party.

All it means is that twice as many people are capable of achieving the same goal. In this case, it's performing highly complex and detailed scientific analysis.

Isn't that a good thing?

Bullshit. No Top Academic Scientists Responded.

[Colonel Korn]

The poll defines "top academic scientist" as a reader of Nature. Obviously this has major issues. For one, very few serious scientists read Nature regularly, since it doesn't speak directly to a given field. In my "top academic" institution, almost all of the people I know who have gone to Nature's website recently are either science undergrads doing low level research for a simple presentation or non-scientists trying to figure out what was meant by article X which they saw referenced in an AP news story. In fact, the poll itself wouldn't be encountered by most scientists looking at Nature, since scientists are almost always entering through an external search portal directly to an article of interest. Scientists with real pressure (say, busy grad students or professors) don't browse Nature. They strategically read an occasional article in Nature, but in most cases the same research will have been published already in greater detail in a more field-specific journal.

Collectively, all of this means that Nature's pool of respondents was almost certainly not "top scientists." Instead, they were selecting undergrads, non-scientists, and generally people with a lot of extra time on their hands. Yes, we know undergrads use Ritalin to cheat on tests. We have no indication, however, that Ritalin helps one to do the deep creative thinking necessary for involved science.

Even if you say that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you say that, when they get an emergency patient, they're much too busy saving that person's life to investigate whether it's all their fault and they should be left to die.

Honestly, I still prefer it that way.

Re:Right and wrong are subjective?

[gnick]

Care to weigh in on P = NP ? Sure - Mathematicians always bring that up as if it's some huge mysterious debate, but I solved it rather easily. P==NP only when N==1 or P==0. See, that was easy - Unless I'm missing something, problem solved.

Right. Carry on. Glad that's sorted. =)

Details of the Cognitive Enhancing Drugs

[docinthemachine]

I appreciate /. linking to my post on this topic- I wanted to a share some further details of the drugs. I predict the potential for use/abuse of these agents to be unprecedented. The primary agents to hit the streets are eugaroics. They are a class of novel stimulants that produce long-lasting mental arousal. They are unique in producing hypervigilence and alertness without peripheral effects or addidition of usual stimulants. Strangely, they have minimal effect on sleep structure, and do not cause rebound hypersomnolence (crashing). You might also be interested in Ampakines are similar but also cause memory enhancement (just a bit of abuse potential there). One of these - a drug code-named CX717 from Cortex - reportedly enabled sleep deprived rhesus monkeys to outperform rested normal monkeys on memory tasks. all the juicy details are here: http://docinthemachine.com/2007/03/09/eugeroic/ and http://docinthemachine.com/2008/02/12/enhanceperformance/ the biggest issue here is how far would you go to enhance your body's performance if risks were minimal? Would you take a drug, implant a bionic retina? or replace your limbs with bionic ones. Discussions I have had with those on the international olympic committee and DARPA indicate many many people will go the route of biomodification. A discussion of this concept is here: http://docinthemachine.com/2007/01/22/cateye/

Re:Provigil

[sjs132]

I also use Provigil, but because I have sleep apnea.. Even WITH my mask and CPAP, I have huge sleep disruptions. The Dr's suggested surgery, but admitted that it may not provide much relief and I may
actually still need the CPAP... Therefore, I use the CPAP as much as I can, and pop the Provigil on
the days when I can tell I didn't get any sleep. My only side effect that I've found is talking. Once
I pop a Provigil, about 1/2 hour later, I can't shutup. I will just rattle on and on... And for the
folks at work, they knew right away that something was wrong till I explained why I had to take it.

As for brain enhancement, etc... Naw... Just makes you awake. Though I'll be the first to admit that
it is rather distracting to fall asleep while your trying to think of something. :)

BTW, For those planning on using this as a reason to get Provigil, you have to have REAL evidence of a
problem. I had a RUDE AWAKENING when I bumped into another vehicle at a stop light. I fell asleep
at the wheel waiting for it to turn green. Luckily nobody was hurt, and it made me drop the excuses as
to why I was tired at work.

Who judges the victims

[bbasgen]

  Who makes that judgment? Is it the EMT responding on the scene? Is the the ambulance driver? Does the doctor decide when you are on the operating table?

  You are going to ask people whose profession is to help fix people and save lives to determine who is worthy of being saved, and who isn't? This is the horribly unethical problem that is the notion of being "uninsured" in the first place. You want to compound that with subjective life style judgments?

  So, a gay person with AIDS is treated by a fundamentalist doctor who believes sexuality is a lifestyle choice, and thus, AIDS treatment costs are an unnecessary burden on the tax payer. This is truly the extreme of what the US already has in place with HMOs who are constantly crunching numbers, as opposed to doing everything in their power to help people get better.

  Sure, what you say is a wonderful idea. Freedom of choice, my body, and all that. But this thing is called society for a reason. If you really want to destroy yourself, do it outside the realm of society. But of course, these junkies don't hold such noble notions of personal responsibility, so you can't expect them (nor society) to act in accord with such notions.

Re:Who judges the victims

[mosb1000]

It is unfair to force people not to abuse their bodies. If we as a society can't stomach the thought of letting them die, it is our decision to help them, not them forcing our hand to do so.

You can't be compassionate but then attach strings (I'll help you, but only if you don't abuse drugs). People almost always have some hand in what fate befals them, and almost never have complete control over it.

It is an exercise in futility to try to judge who is worthy of charity by setting regulatory standards and making sweeping moral judgements.

Re:Who judges the victims

[bbasgen]

  That ideal of yours is all well and good, but you are also recognizing above that their choices effect you. This is due to the social fabric we live in. What choices can a person make that don't have effects on society? If you drive to work, someone needs to pay for that road that wouldn't be necessary if you weren't driving.

  The struggle between Authoritarianism versus Libertarianism stem from these issues, but the simplistic thinking expressed by the extreme views of either side are not satisfactory. Just as a society can't justly dictate how a person should live their life (e.g. don't do drugs), that does not make the opposite extreme the only other option. In other words, it is not also not just for society to allow people to do whatever they want. We know this as a general truth (murder, etc), yet when it comes to some particulars such as health care, it finds expression despite such glaring flaws.

  I am positing that on some issues, a compromise must be struck. Universal health care, yes, but free choice also.

Re:drugs for enhancement are self-defeating

[gtall]

Way to miss the gp's point entirely. He wasn't arguing science isn't done that way, he's arguing you will have no respect for yourself if you do science that way. And if you do science that way and still respect yourself, you have deeper issues than respect dogging you.

Gerry

Its not financially backed in the US

[NIckGorton]

There are two reasons why ER care is financially backed by the government. The first is a moral, no one should be allowed to die just because they are down on their luck. In that sense, your distinction is valid. Um, emergency care (in the US) is not financially backed by the government. It is mandated but paying for it isn't. The EMTALA law says if you come to the ER and have an emergency medical condition, I have to provide you with a medical screening exam and any emergent and necessary care. However if you don't have money, are uninsured, and you can't get retroactive Medicaid, I don't get paid.

EMTALA is an unfunded mandate that says that the nurses who work in an ER, the hospital who runs the ER, and ER physicians like me have to pay for uninsured emergency care. It takes a segment of the US economy and says we have to take responsibility for and subsidize what everyone else doesn't. That cheap McDonalds hamburger you ate today that is less expensive because McDonalds doesn't offer health insurance? I paid for a part of that.

Of course I am thankful for EMTALA every time that I use it to force a surgeon to take the appendix out of an uninsured teenager. I also feel that I am paid quite well enough even though about 30% of the ER care and 50% of the overall care I provide is uncompensated (I volunteer two days a week at a low income clinic that sees a lot of uninsured patients so that bumps the % up.) However overall I hate EMTALA precisely because its used as a crutch: I'm sure Bush slept very well at night after vetoing SCHIP because he thinks that every American gets health care since even if we are uninsured we can go to the ER (where most of the care people need - like prevention and treatment of chronic disease can't be done).

Re:Its not financially backed in the US

[Maxo-Texas]

And actually... since you do quite well for the most part, in reality I am paying for it.

My health insurance rates are set so that you can be paid your normal wage, the rent can be paid, the bills for drugs can be paid despite providing mandated free healthcare for people without healthcare.

Something like this
Pays/Cost/Unpaid
$0/300/$300 Illegal Immigrant/Young Party Animal/Homeless saint who helped society/Single Unemployed Widowed Mother
$680/300/0 Four people with insurance getting the same thing done. ($30 goes to the insurance company, $50 sales tax)

The problem comes externalizing costs becomes the majority (which it sort of is now...something like 60% of people in the US rely on other people to pay for some or all of their healthcare). Which is why Medicare is going to be completely bankrupt in 2019 (hey... 11 YEARS away-- very soon).

Re:Its not financially backed in the US

[Maxo-Texas]

My poke is not at illegal immigrants.

My poke is at the *business* hiring them which is making me pay for part of it's cost of doing business so it has higher profits. That's the main thing corporations do-- find ways to push their costs outside of their company onto society as a whole.

If businesses were required to pay fair wages and we didn't provide free health care and schooling, the illegal immigrant problem wouldn't really exist. It would be more like back in the 50's when it was background noise (and teenagers did the work of illegal immigrants) as opposed to the 4 million that crossed the border last year alone (850k were caught and sent back.. the rest are here now)

Tainted

[techstar25]

Can you stamp an asterisk on a Nobel Prize?

Re:Any tips on doctor shopping?

[evanbd]

I have no clue how to go doctor shopping; I come by my drugs the hard way (ie, having problems that really screw up my life if I'm not on them).

Of course, my personal sense of ethics says these drugs should be available to anyone making an informed choice. At least some doctors are willing to prescribe low doses to people they feel are responsible and would be helped by them. If you're intending to use them non-recreationally (ie, to help with focus) you may well qualify. So seriously, if you and your doctor have a good relationship, just... ask. Tell them you have difficulty focusing sometimes (or whatever the case is) and were wondering if some sort of stimulant might help. Don't lie to them, or exagerrate symptoms. There's quite possibly no need, and it probably won't work (not to mention being illegal and imo unethical).

In short, if you want to convince a physician that CNS stimulants would enhance your quality of life... then tell them so :) Say why you think that's true, and approach the issue as asking your doctor for help, not trying to con them out of drugs.

There are a variety of drug options, as well as non-drug options (various techniques for focusing, etc -- they actually do work, and they work in concert with the drugs as well). You'll want to get detailed input from someone who knows the drugs better than you or I, so give them all the info they need and give them correct info.

society's "safety net"

[commodoresloat]

So if someone uses drugs and contracts a communicable disease as a result, you would not have society treat them, and let them continue to spread the disease until someone catches it who can't be blamed for taking unnecessary risks? Do you see the problem here? It is in society's best interest to address the health problems of individuals even if they got those problems through objectionable behavior. You can address the behavior in other ways, but trying to punish individuals by not taking care of the sick actually punishes the whole society. You're asking society to pay a bigger price in the long run just so you can feel good about having taken a punitive (and, as you yourself acknowledge, somewhat mean-spirited) stance.

microsoft

[fsiefken]

I remember that Bob Wallace (ninth Microsoft employee) posted in alt.drugs.psychedelics years ago that Microsoft experimented with I believe 2C-* phenethylamines as enhancers for creativity and concentration for programming. Unfortunately most of his posts got deleted from the google groups archive after or shortly before his untimely death a few years ago. I did copy most of his posts before they went offline, but they are on some lost harddisk/zipdrive somewhere... which would take longer to find then this topic will stay alive and read on slashdot.

Re:Obligatory Dune Reference

[Eli Gottlieb]

That's the best analogy for the issue I've seen so far. Do we want our scientists to be human beings or Guild Navigator-esque mutants who interact little with normal society?

beta blockers

[brianf711]

I have 2 comments, but I didn't read all of the 600 comments, so I apologize if I duplicate another's thoughts.

1) What kind of response bias is there in this? They survey Nature's readers, but is the 1400 the number of responses? If so, perhaps people with a history of use or knowing someone who used an enhancing substance responded preferentially. Maybe someone needs to be on a performance enhancing drug to even subscribe with institutional subscriptions now-a-days.

2) Beta-blockers like propranolol [trade name-Inderal] can be used for anxiety, hypertension, tachycardia, etc. I've never heard them described as drugs of abuse or performance enhancing drugs, save perhaps for someone doing public speaking. In fact, beta-blockers are given to drug addicts/alcoholics for the treatment of anxiety instead of Xanax or other benzodiazepines. I tried to find a the statistics on Beta-blocker prescription numbers, but could only find that there were >$3 billion in sales for beta blockers within the last few years (It was like looking for a needle in a Viagra-stack). I have to wonder, what is the baseline rate of beta-blocker usage that is not performance-enhancing in a group of people that may be type-A personalities, have high stress jobs if they are writing grants with 8-9% funding success rates, and may be of an older age bracket if they are personal vs institutional subscribers and also have the time and interest in replying to an unsolicited survey?

Caffeine, Red Bull? Bah!

[Chicken_Kickers]

I am a grad student. To help me plan my research strategy and predict the outcome of my experimental setups, I highly recommend my brother grad students to take the spice melange. Not only has it drastically reduced the probability of failure in my lab setups (I can find out before hand if the experiment will or will not work), I also now have the ability to navigate my car better and forsee if there will be a traffic jam on the highway even before I step into the car. I also now have the baby blue eyes that all the chicks love. I was even told that I will live longer. Even better, this product is 100% natural and organic. So what are you waiting for?