Slashdot Mirror
Cosmetic Neurology
The New Yorker has a long piece examining the growing trend of healthy people, not diagnosed with any mental condition, taking drugs that enhance mental functioning, including Adderall and Provigil. The profiles include a Harvard student, a professional poker player, a number of brain researchers, and a self-described transhumanist. "Zack [Lynch]... has a book being published this summer, called 'The Neuro Revolution'... In coming years, he said, scientists will understand the brain better, and we'll have improved neuroenhancers that some people will use therapeutically, others because they are 'on the borderline of needing them therapeutically,' and others purely 'for competitive advantage.' ... Even if today's smart drugs aren't as powerful as such drugs may someday be, there are plenty of questions that need to be asked about them. How much do they actually help? Are they potentially harmful or addictive? Then, there's the question of what we mean by 'smarter.' Could enhancing one kind of thinking exact a toll on others? All these questions need proper scientific answers, but for now much of the discussion is taking place furtively, among the increasing number of Americans who are performing daily experiments on their own brains. ... [A cognitive researcher said,] 'Cognitive psychologists have found that there is a trade-off between attentional focus and creativity. And there is some evidence that suggests that individuals who are better able to focus on one thing and filter out distractions tend to be less creative. ... I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.'"
Everyone has been taking caffeine. So what else is new?
Bah, I say! I am no more or less creative when I take my prescribed adderall, only more able to apt to finish the task at hand before wondering off into a new creation or idea.
Demented But Determined.
I just finished up undergraduate classes as an electrical engineer, and I would say the majority of people in my department used Adderall to help them study longer. Those people all ended up with better GPA's for it. It's almost the same question with sports and steroids, if I had used that kind of drug to increase my studying capacity, I probably could have gotten enough of an extra boost to enter "free Ph.D." territory.
I, for one, seriously, welcome accountants becoming more focused and less creative.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
In the march to the Singularity, we don't need history majors writing papers or Baseball players hitting homeruns. We need science. A neuroscientist taking a cognitive-enhancing drug is a direct example of recursive, exponential growth to the Singularity. Keep it coming.
>I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.
Very focused accountants isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I've taken some of these drugs myself - medical necessity. Couldn't focus on tasks worth a damn. Slept through high school, slept through college. I'd fall asleep at work, fall asleep while driving. Right now I've got a regimen that's working pretty good. If it were really good I would be doing something useful rather than goofing off on Slashdot, but the brain's working well enough that I tend to get my work done, just slower than I should be.
I feel like I'm performing the best I ever have. More ambitious about taking on projects, doing new things. I don't think I'm less creative for it, unless by creative they mean the dream-like half-conscious state I was in for twenty years.
But I've been doing all this by the book, under medical supervision. I don't think I'd be taking this stuff illegally for competitive reasons, like athletes do steroids - not sure if that makes me righteous or stupid.
The general idea of amping up brains seems like a positive to me, but I wouldn't be the guinea pig if I didn't have medical need.
What about those of us that are already "focused accountants" what do we get out of this "Neuro Revolution"?
I'd recommend another relatively well known substance that never seems to get enough credit these days - LSD. It's great for creativity and getting yourself out of "single directional thinking". It definitely helped my programming anyway... gave me a chance to reconsider some ideas I'd held as being "true" and instead come up with new ways of doing things. Some worse, but some better. Discard the worse ones, keep the better ones and it's a plus in the end.
Note: I wouldn't recommend it too regularly, but up to 12 times a year (once a month) is generally fine.
Second note: if you consider yourself the kind of person who can't control his/her own thoughts very well, then start with VERY low doses until you're comfortable with it and then increase slowly - a bad trip can be managed if you're strong willed AND know what to expect/look for, but if not, it gets nasty.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
There have been a few pieces of that kind in recent months, among those one in The Economist. They all follow the very same scenario and use the same rhetoric. Comments from readers testified of few benefits (confusion and excitation rather than concentration) and dramatic, often tragic side effects, with dependency consequences, etc. Each time the piece resurfaces, none of the downsides are mentioned and the same rhetoric: benign use, everybody uses it, unquestioned efficiency is brought back. Deregulating the sale of those drugs seems to be a coveted objective of Big Pharma and no wonder, considering the fabulous sums involved. Soma anyone?
It's like saying driving a car instead of walking is "cosmetic transportation". Something whose main purpose is to provide functionality is pretty much the exact opposite of "cosmetic".
To reply to this post, or when you took Provigil?
While I am not against the use of such drugs because of safety reasons per se, to me, it feels like we're cheating evolution. Perhaps evolution could come up with many of these modifications (intelligence/less drowsiness) naturally.
Heck, it's only a theory, and would be impossible to enforce in reality, but if nobody say... showered, shaved or brushed their teeth, I bet evolution would eventually bias towards those who were naturally less smelly, or clean-shaven looking. Thus saving everyone half an hour per day or whatever in the future.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Depends what kind of team setting you are talking about. If you are talking about team sports, IMHO a lessening of creativity will make a team less likely to succeed. Communication of ideas tend to be burst/spontaneous and situation oriented especially when presented with a shifting/changing situation (opposing team changing defense or offense) and being more focused will not necessarily help that: the focus may only be on the route to be run and its expected variations, and therefore may not be aware of the opponent just ever so slightly tipping their hand at a novel approach.
Then again...it might help the superior performer go through various permutations of the situation quicker. Imagine a more "focused" Michael Jordan in his hey-day (yipes! Cavs fans) or Ronaldo (from Manchester united, if u don't know who he is, replace with Tom Brady).
Could be something to it...and then there will be one more thing to ban.
For every present, there is a past
I don't really see anything wrong with this, as long as the drugs aren't over-used to the point where health is compromised.
I took Ritalin for a while. It was effective for a number of months and really helped me to focus, but it did cost me a great deal in terms of creativity, which is something I depend on more than I realized before taking Ritalin.
Eventually the Ritalin stopped working and my choice was between raising the dose (and probably having to boost my blood pressure meds concurrently), or quit. I chose to quit since I was missing my creativity.
While I understand the concern of doctors from the "if it ain't broke" camp, most doctor are happy enough to start throwing Paxil, Prozac and other SSRIs at people at the first hint of anxiety or depression, without even a hint of trying to address the real problem (whatever is causing the anxiety or depression). Why should they be so skittish about giving drugs to make people focus better and otherwise improve the quality of their lives?
AFAIK amphetamines were popular already in WW2 among soldiers being able to stay sharp extended periods (weeks or so), in 1960's truck drivers and students did it for the same purpose. This is really nothing new, just amphetamines renamed. The extremely addictive nature of amphetamines will create once again another generation of drug addicts from unsuspecting students who fall for the hype.
Many people are taking smart drugs now -- solely for advantage, without prescribed a medical need -- but in most fields, I don't think it's to the point that *not* taking them is a disadvantage, yet. I admit to a certain amount of interest in nootropic drugs, especially those that could help me hyperfocus. However, I've limited myself to vitamins, minerals, and herbal products, with a primary goal of maintaining long-term brain health.
I've seen too many retirees and seniors slide away into fuzziness, dementia, or worse. On the other hand, I've seen a few that remained sharp as tacks into their 80s and 90s. There are some pretty clear differences between the lifestyles of these two groups. I've tried to learn something from those differences.
I'm turning 40 this year, which is about when most people say they start to feel age-related decline. I want a healthy, well-functioning brain for now and the future. So, I pay a lot more attention to my nutrition than I used to, have started a regular exercise program, and engage in a few different "brain training" activities on a regular basis. I actually feel many benefits now -- I feel better, I'm happier, and my mind seems a little sharper.
In addition to the above, I take a prepared "stack" that includes a variety of nutrients and compounds for both mild cognitive enhancement and neuroprotection. I did a lot of research before I picked AOR's Ortho-Mind, which seems pretty well-balanced and reasonably priced. I also take an Omega-3 supplement daily, along with a good multi-vitamin and a "green" drink with a lot of antioxidants and phytonutrients. My monthly investment, dollar-wise, is less than $100. I have friends that spend that amount each month on coffee.
The big thing here is to be careful in what you choose to take. I chose to focus first on overall brain health, and I'm happy with results so far. Only then did I start adding some mild cognitive enhancers, but even then, I made sure my chosen stack included agents specifically chosen for their neuroprotective properties. If I ever become convinced that any of the various smart drugs make sense from that perspective, then maybe I'll change my strategy... but right now, I think a little conservatism is a good thing.
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
For once, an article that carries through the excellent understanding of the researchers. They have a very good grasp of the current state of cognition research. I've not seen the balance between focus (under control of executive function) and heuristic (purposefully instigated but unconsciously operating) cognition.
However, they answer has already been obtained. True nootropics (cognition enhancing drugs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropics were first created/discovered over 50 years ago. If it weren't for the fact he discovered/created LSD, Albert Hoffmann would have been in line for a Nobel for Hydergine. It, and its many derivatives (the racetams), have been in use for more than half a century. Hoffmann himself credited hydergine for his longetivity (he died not long ago at age 103). These drugs are frequently reclassified, almost invariably downwards, to "possibly effective" in the US, and only recommended for late stage dementias. Elsewhere these drugs are used for all stages of cognitive decline as well as cases such as illustrated by TFA, desire for improved cognitive processing.
Despite widespread positive results, clinical and real life, in the US the FDA has been dragging its feet on approving these drugs so long that the patents on some are expiring. Their efforts have been so effective that Nobel winner Eric Kandel (major player in describing the dopamine system) announced that he would use his prize money to start a company to create the first nootropic, apparently unaware that he was at the time almost 50 years too late.
Thanks to the 1989 AIDS law, people in the US can obtain a 90 day supply of any drug approved anywhere in the world, as long as they can get a prescription for it. There are many non-US pharma companies willing to accept such prescriptions and ship the meds. I won't go as far as to suggest their use by others for any particular purpose, but I will state that despite the correlation/caustion problem in a single data point, I credit a 9 month course of hydergine and nootropil with a decade long suspension and even partial reversal in the progress of my Parkinsons. I only have a background in these nootropics as can be obtained by sources not under the influence of the FDA. I do have a professional research background in Parkinsons and other dopaminergic disorders and can find no other reason for such a lengthy remission and reversal of some symptoms beyond the frequent but under-reported medical observation of "inexplicable".
The use of drugs that force the system into a state of enhanced cognition will always prove futile and usually addictive in some sense. Drugs that promote natural enhancement have already proven effective.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Acid is not a toy. As a "bathtub" drug there is no consistency of dosage or quality. There are tens of thousands of people in mental hospitals because of the permanent psychological damage it can cause in certain individuals, most notably those who already walk the fine line between creative genius and insanity.
The music industry is littered with high-profile examples of people who ended up with permanently damaged psyches; Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd), Peter Green (Fleetwood Mac), and one of the more horrifying examples (whom I knew personally), Kurt Struebing, guitarist for the Seattle death-metal band NME. Under the influence of repeated dosages, Kurt developed the idea that his mother was a robot and gutted her with a kitchen knife. A number of years later, after being released from prison, he drove his vehicle off the end of an open drawbridge in Seattle under unknown curcumstances and ended his tragic life.
If any brand of crazy or a high degree of creativity runs in your family, you are well advised to avoid recreational usage of lysergic acid, mescaline, psylocybin, MDMA, and all other psychotropic/psychoactive substances.
Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
What hasn't yet been brought up in this discussion is the fact that these are all controlled substances, meaning that they are not just prescription drugs, but that their use and prescription by a physician is closely monitored to ensure they they are only given for FDA-approved uses. In fact, Adderall is a Schedule II controlled substance, which puts in in the same category as Opium, Morphine, Percocet, Hydrocodone, etc. Whatever your position on using these substances is, all of the above uses are not FDA approved and if a physician is caught prescribing these medications for these uses, he/she would have his/her medical license revoked.
The above summary makes it sound as if anyone can go to their physician and ask for Adderall or Provigil to enhance their study routine. As a physician myself, this is simply not the case.
How can such a helpful class of drugs be so demonised? Pilots, mostly military -- presumably -- have often said it was what got them and their plane home alive. Clearly there is a downside, :)
but 15mG of a racemic mix is a very small dose of amphetamine. Its a very common 'programing fluid' which can be borne out by studying some code. No names mentioned, but there are those that smoke pot, drink coffee/Jolt and those that do amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs or even beer.
If I was stoned, I might have to get stoned to understand what I did, same for 'drunk', wired or jacked up on caffein or any combination. MODERATION is key -- always. I never used stimulants,
alcohol or pot in university. (college was the reward for not using)
What's the big deal? I guess its 'still shocking' to the New Yorker types, but used properly, drugs get the job done. Personally I can't type stoned, but I can make written notes. LSD is
certainly not very smart, but it can in rare moments provide access to 'hidden insights'. Only once did I get a good piece written while tripping that impressed many when published in the
S.F. Chronicle.
Finally drugs are best on the short term. Take speed (meth) to kick out those lines of code and meet a deadline. Maybe a week of use is about all its good for? As another reader said: "What's new" and I agree. Smoke a joint to relax when done. :) If you are leaving the wrong impression on
others: Moderation! Be cool.
BillSF
When you're using a prescription drug without a prescription, that's drug abuse. When you're using a drug in a way its not intended to be used, that's drug abuse.
Let's not kid ourselves with name games here.
When you're using a drug in a way it's not intended, that's off-label use. When you're using a drug with a prescription, that's prescribed use. When you're using a drug without a prescription, that's illicit use. It is possible to abuse a drug even with a prescription, and it is possible to use a drug responsibly without one. I have, for example, used benzodiazepines for which I have no prescription to control anxiety. With no health insurance it's easily possible for buying the medicine on the street to be more cost effective than paying for a doctor's appointment, scheduling time off from work to go to the appointment (for which you won't be paid), and then paying outlandish prices for prescriptions, depending on the medication the doctor agrees to give you. And that's not to mention subjecting a person with anxiety to the harrowing process that is convincing your doctor that you need a controlled medication. I now have a prescription for anxiety, but I battled it in my own way for years because the thought of going to a doctor and being subjected to their suspicion was enough to put me into a panic attack. I realize that's irrational, but that's anxiety.
I'm glad your Adderall works for you, but I'm sorry that you can't accept that there are other people who can also benefit from the medication who, for one reason or another, do not have or want a prescription. It's not like ADD isn't real until a doctor tells you it is. It's worth remembering that drug regulation laws were not enacted because people were abusing drugs, but rather because drug companies were putting out tainted shit that killed people.
--Obyron
Most slashdot.org users including myself have screens that are at least 1280 pixels wide. Even you netbook users have 600 pixels. The New Yorker's website only use like 400 pixels, and leaves the rest to white space. THEY DON'T EVEN USE THE SPACE FOR ADS.
From the article, "For breakfast every morning, he concocted a slurry of oatmeal, berries, soy milk, pomegranate juice, flaxseed, almond meal, raw eggs, and protein powder. The goal behind the recipe was efficiency: to rely on âoeone goop you could eat or drink that would have everything you need nutritionally for your brain and body.â He explained, âoeTaste was the last thing on my mind; I wanted to be able to keep it downâ"that was it.â"
I started having a nutritionally complete shake for breakfast every morning - and it rocks! But I wouldn't describe it's taste as something that I have trouble keeping down - instead it's very yummy. The recipe I usually use was designed by nutritionist Sam Graci and is:
* 1 cup of berries (blueberries, blackberries)
* 2 scoops of high alpha whey protein
* 1 tbsp high-quality fish oil
* 1/2 tsp borage oil
* 2 tbsps flax seeds and 2 tbsps sesame seeds, ground in a coffee grinder
* 4-6 tbsps plain low-fat organic yogurt
* 1 cup rice milk or soy milk
That's the basic recipe, but there are lots of other ingredients you can use to mix it up: hemp protein powder, other fruits (banana, strawberry, kiwi), acai and goji juice, raw eggs.
The basic idea of the breakfast shake is that your bodies metabolism has started to slow down since you haven't eaten since yesterday evening ... you want to have a nice balance of carbs, protein and fat to get your metabolism back in the game. Nutritionally you also want to have lots of omega 3 fatty acids (flax and fish oil) which promotes healthy brain cells and also foods with high anti-oxidant properties to promote healthy blood (berries). Finally the probiotics in the yogurt promote healthy digestion.
Combine the breakfast shake with a daily green drink and a healthy diet of lots of veggies and fruits, and you will notice a marked improvement in overall energy and mental functioning -- I estimated that I could crank out 25% more lines of code after a couple months, and overall my code was of markedly better quality. Plus since your overall mood is better I was about 25% less acerbic in conversations with my co-workers :P
I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.
perhaps preferable to a generation of very creative accountants.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
There are tens of thousands of people in mental hospitals because of the permanent psychological damage [LSD] can cause in certain individuals, most notably those who already walk the fine line between creative genius and insanity.
Please supply any reference to substantiate this claim.
Da Blog
If you're drunk that comment reads really funny.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
What I do need is better memory, because the way it is right now, it's pretty much bursting at the seams. I want it to be like it was when I was in my teens. I could read three pages of text once and then recite them pretty much word for word. I felt like I could keep information in my head indefinitely. Complex words (e.g. DNA, NADF, etc.), formulas, numbers, War & Peace - it was all effortless.
A little less than two decades later, I don't remember what I ate in the morning. I would gladly pay 5-10% of my substantial income every year (I hope someone from Big Pharma is reading this) to get my memory back.
As a matter of fact, yes. How about you?
Da Blog
I'm a 48 year old tenured mathematician. I've been taking methylphenidate for about 10 years. In the late 90s my productivity slumped dramatically. I talked to one of my peers (a very very well known logician who is now in his 70s) and he suggested this course to me. My physician had no problem with it, I get an ECG and bloodwork done annually to make sure i'm not having any cardiovascular problems.
After taking the medication, my work, energy, quality of sleep, quality of life really, improved dramatically. The reality is 1) it works 2) the benefits(for me at least) outway the costs. 3) Moderation and responsibility are the key. It is pharmaceutical speed and is habit forming. 4) The moral hazard debate is silly unless you like the idea of living in a nanny state. I'm extremely well informed and am making a decision that affects no one but myself.
In the march to the Singularity, we don't need history majors writing papers or Baseball players hitting homeruns. We need science. A neuroscientist taking a cognitive-enhancing drug is a direct example of recursive, exponential growth to the Singularity. Keep it coming.
Personally, I think we'd be better off if amateur futurists (read: all futurists) understood that extrapolating exponential growth far into the future is idiotic. Not that I disagree with your premise that science is important.
> Acid is not a toy. As a "bathtub" drug there is no consistency of dosage or quality.
You've just posted the most reasonable reason for legalizing recreational drugs that I've ever heard. No, you're not the first one to say it, but it's a very valid argument.
Street drugs may be recreational, but you don't know the dosage that you're buying. If it were legalized, and sold in stores at reasonable prices, blackmarket vendors would be out of business. You'd know if you're taking 50ug (nominal recreational dose) or 400ug (high dosage). If you just purchased what you thought was a light dosage of say 25ug (will induce light hallucinations), but were looking for a "heavier" trip, you could take a dozen hits. I've never heard of anyone doing it intentionally, but you could. If they were actually 400ug, you're already 25% of the way to a lethal dose (12,000ug).
And for the reference minded, look here.
I've read many studies on the long term effects. In the 60's, they believed the drug caused long term side effects, such as flashbacks. Now, the "flash backs" are more like a PTSD moment, where traumatic memories are recalled in a fully believable and current fashion.
PTSD exists. I have flashbacks from a particularly traumatic event. I don't take LSD, so you can't blame that. :) I know people with severe PTSD, usually from military service.
Voluntarily creating moments in your head that could be traumatic (i.e., bad acid trip) are a bad thing. Then again, drinking heavily and doing something bad could be just as traumatic. DUI involving fatality can be bad for your psyche. It could be just as traumatic for the non-DUI driver. At least alcohol has a measured and rated influence (alcohol proof). People don't necessarily follow guidelines, but then again, at least they have guidelines.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I've limited myself to vitamins, minerals, and herbal products, with a primary goal of maintaining long-term brain health.
Good to know you're restricting yourself to untested and largely un-quality controlled drugs.
The pharmaceutical route has its own drawbacks, and some notable failures, despite testing and quality control. This page on Wikipedia lists a number of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Withdrawn_drugs
I do understand your point. However, note that I said I did research. I found many apparently well-designed, double-blind, and peer-reviewed studies on vitamins, minerals, and herbal extracts. I just had to look for them. Then I went and looked for companies that appeared to have qualified medical and research staff preparing their formulations, and that had apparent quality control programs. Then I checked around for any "bad news" about the companies and their formulations.
I am not one of those people that automatically equates "natural" to "good" and "man-made" to "bad". There is one thing to keep in mind, though: herbal products often have a much longer history of use than recently developed man-made drugs. There might not have been much hard science driving their use, but some of the herbal compounds have anecdotal evidence of safety and efficacy going back hundreds (or even thousands) of years. That can't be said for any of the pharmaceuticals. Many of the herbals have undergone significant scientific testing precisely because of their long histories (ginkgo comes to mind). Sometimes, the science shows an herbal remedy to be useless... but the converse also sometimes true. Some of the herbals even form the basis for the development of new pharmaceutical treatments.
In the end, what I'm restricting myself from is very powerful compounds that haven't been around that long and don't have long histories of safe human use. I'm also avoiding herbal extracts that have either been shown to be worthless or to have significant adverse side-effects. The result is that I'm probably not using the most powerful agents available to meet my purpose... but I still get some benefits while avoiding potentially significant side effects.
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
Acid is not a toy.
...
If any brand of crazy or a high degree of creativity runs in your family, you are well advised to avoid recreational usage of lysergic acid, mescaline, psylocybin, MDMA, and all other psychotropic/psychoactive substances.
Absolutely correct, which is why I didn't recommend it as a "way to have some fun" - I recommended it as a way to cure being a "focused accountant" type.
The music industry is littered with high-profile examples of people who ended up with permanently damaged psyches;
Citation needed. While I won't deny that there are people that have taken LSD that have gone off the deep end, can you really say it was the LSD that caused it and not other factors in their lifestyles (including a combination of stress and not being entirely mentally stable to begin with)? You've listed 3 examples of such people, but it wouldn't be hard to come up with a much longer list of musicians that HAVE taken it a lot and were/are absolutely fine (the Beatles spring to mind, but there are many other examples also)
Under the influence of repeated dosages, Kurt developed the idea that his mother was a robot and gutted her with a kitchen knife.
I have a VERY hard time believing this was caused by LSD - only severe mental instability could lead someone to do something like that (quite possibly exacerbated by LSD, but not caused by it... as I already said in my original post, if you're not the kind of person who can control his/her thoughts so well, be damn careful). Under even very large dosages, I've always been able to say to myself - "hey wow, that's cool, but I know it isn't real". Also, "believing ones mother to be a robot" just doesn't sound like an LSD experience to me. The "weirdest" I've had was noticing that some houses looked rather like faces, assigning genders and emotional states to them based on characteristics of the houses, and then pretending to have a conversation with them. This was under a very large dose and at no time did I believe the houses actually were alive or capable of conversation. Note that this isn't just my own experience either, but also my experience with others - I often introduce people to the substance, and have taken it with a very large number of different people, none of whom have ever had the slightest problem from it beyond some (rare) scary bad trips.
There are tens of thousands of people in mental hospitals because of the permanent psychological damage it can cause in certain individuals, most notably those who already walk the fine line between creative genius and insanity.
While another replier already pointed out that a citation really is needed for this (as in, "I don't believe you either"), again you're missing that I was absolutely NOT targeting "those who already walk the fine line between creative genius and insanity" - my post was quite clearly targeted at those who lack creativity (the "focused accountant" types).
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
LSD. It's great for creativity and getting yourself out of "single directional thinking". It definitely helped my programming anyway
Larry Wall, is that you ?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Seriously, when steroids were discovered, people were saying that in the future athletes and others who needed a boost to physical prowess would take steroids. It turns out that the side effects of steroids are serious enough that in the long term the boost to downside is greater than the temporary boost unless one has a diagnosed physical ailment (even with the improvements to reduce side effects).
As to drugs which improve mental performance, people have been trying from time immemorial to find such, look up Freud and cocaine.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison