Why are emotions and logical understanding mutually incompatible? Show me the emotion that doesn't have a logical cause? If I'm angry with someone, I have a reason. If I'm afraid of something, then I have a reason. It is not always wise to act on these feelings straight away but that has little to do with whether I can comprehend them or not.
Girls tend to do better at school (statistically shown many times) than boys because girls tend to study more. But I make the case that study, both through learning from others and from excercising the memory and analytical capabilities of the brain, does increase that hard to define thing called intelligence.
But the most important thing to consider when reading this report is that there are over six billion people on this planet and that's a lot of people to generalize over. I'm not going to dispense with the scientific method just because of the subject matter, but if it were the case that men were more intelligent than women on average, then that statistical difference would have to be enormous to justify taking it into consideration in daily life. And it clearly isn't, or people wouldn't be debating this.
We'll have to wait for the actual paper to be published to see what the basis is, since TFA(s) contain nothing except flamebait. But research into this has been going on for a long time so which has come first? The definition of intelligence and the realization that men fit it best? Or the ever finer analysis of the differences between men and women and the definition of intelligence based on that? Surely the latter should be considered as a factor as by this stage in the game, no scientist designing these tests is entering the field without prior knowledge of these differences.
And does it make a difference to how you evaluate this post if you knew whether I was male or female? Because it shouldn't, but this report implies it should.
There are no remaining clinical uses for cocaine that I'm aware of. You mentioned eye surgery, but cocaine was last commonly used for this in the early twentieth century. Tetracaine, proparacaine and others which are all non-abusable and don't cause corneal sloughing have long since replaced cocaine.
So your information is quite some time out of date. Now ordinarily I would say that you are mistaken, but I suppose it's only fair to apply your own standards, which would make you a LIAR, eh?
Regards,
-H.
p.s. I noticed that you posted the exact same reply in three seperate places. Well, I'm happy to deal with trolls for a while, but only for the sake of the audience which is probably dwindling now. I get no satisfaction out of a slanging match for it's own sake, so you can have the last word if you like. You'll probably make a bigger pratt of yourself with it than I ever could anyway. G'night!
If this is true and it remains prescription only, then that would go a long way to countering the situation I'm afraid of.
I don't entirely follow the logic of why it is more profitable for the pharmacy corporations to have it be prescription only though. There may be people who want regular prescriptions of sleep-deprivation cures, but I'd think most demand would be people who just need it occasionally for over-work, a badly timed late-night, etc. For this sort of use, I wouldn't think you'd want to spare the time to see the doctor, explain, get your prescription etc. And if you had to, maybe you'd just not go through it - hence lost sale.
I'm not certain on this, but it sounds plausible. IANAPITUSA (I am not a patient in the USA) and I'm happy to be corrected on this if you have more detail.
NO dude, you lied. You were very much aware that cocaine isn't illegal
So what makes you so certain about what I do and do not know? I suppose it's reasonable to extrapolote from my wonderful insightful posts that I do in fact know everything, but it's really not the case. From the fact that you get arrested for possessing, selling, puchasing or manufacturing cocaine, combined with the fact that there are no remaining clinical uses for it and any doctor attempting to prescribe it would get an unfriendly visit from the DEA, I made a wild supposition that it's illegal. Seems reasonable to me. IANAL, so perhaps there is a legal technicality, but it seems to be the case that cocaine is effectively illegal so it doesn't change what I said.
yet you chose to continue to spread you drug company conspiracy crap.
I mentioned (in passing), that if there is money in something, the drug companies will try and get it legal and push it on people. Take Prozac for example. Terrible side-effects on some people, still legal and prescribed commonly. Take Aspartame and Acesulfame K, both with probable side-effects, neither with much dietary merit and omnipresent. It's hardly conspiracy theory when you suggest that where there is big money involved, policy can be influenced.
As to why I post where I do, WHY DO YOU CARE?
We were having this discussion further up the thread and you'd recieved a reply. Here I was talking with someone else about the state of employers. You saw a post by me and leapt in where it wasn't connected, to say the same thing you'd said earlier and call me a liar.
I DESPISE LIARS LIKE YOU, who insist on preying on individuals who are easily influenced. Your attempts to misrepresent the current state of drug laws is one example, and it's because of people like you that so much misinformation is around.
Do you honestly think that of every hundred people who read this thread and see the discussion between us, that more than one will favour CAPTAIN CAPITALISATION over the one who presents calm and reasoned debate? It's not a competition to see who can type loudest, you know. It's by discussion that we reduce misinformation. I've learnt a couple of things in this discussion, and a couple of people presented good criticisms of what I've said. You were not one of them, however.
I repeat, I have not lied in this discussion and you should apologise.
In the lion situation, pain doesn't stop you "scooping up your intestines and running" as it were. The body can still do what it needs to even in immense agony. Read this.
A doctor friend of mine described for me in detail what was actually involved in this. He had to cut through each of the nerves one by one with a blunt knife. Twang...twang... twang....
Shudder!
That the other is prescription drug controlled by medical experts who have the necessary knowledge about it's effects and dosage, and the other is substance of unsure purity and blending sold by random crooks with no medical background whatsoever?
I agree. But the downside has relatively little to do with the drug itself and rather its legality. But that was your point too, so perhaps we're just agreeing with each other loudly.:)
Regarding this discrepancy between the two drugs' similarity yet their differing legal status, I think it happened something like this:
In the early sixties, Speed was outlawed and the police cracked down on it. This was accompanied by all the usual propaganda and hoo-ha, demonising Speed as a terrible evil. Later however, drug companies saw an opportunity to make money from speed but you can't suddenly turn round and say "You know that terrible stuff that will destroy your children, well it's okay if we give it to them." People would smell a rat.
So something that has a very similar effect is patented, marketed and in comes the money. But you know, Ritalin is spelt differently to Speed, so nobody panics about their children being fed it.
I normally avoid using any personal information in a discussion on/., anecdotal evidence and all that, but it might be interesting to know that I personally don't smoke, drink alcohol or drink coffee, tea, anything fizzy or containing aspartame or akasulfame-k. As far as I'm concerned, speed, ritalin, cocaine or prozac - all look pretty dodgy to me. But I do like to discuss things openly, and the pharmaceutical industry doesn't like that game at all.
You've already commented on this further up (and recieved a reply). Why do you leap in to a different branch of the discussion (the ratio of nice:nasty employers) and make the same comment where it has no relevance to what is being discussed?
Oh, wait you're right, that's not a sweeping generalization, it's just a LIE.
I don't lie. I sometimes make mistakes, but if so, please point out the flaws in my logic, rather than get excited and start throwing accusations like that about.
They ARE NOT however, even remotely similar to cocaine, and by making such a statement, you show how little understanding you have of the chemistry involved.
Actually, I think the parent poster has a much stronger grasp of the argument than you do. You are under the impression that someone has declared cocaine to be chemically similar to ritalin. I've no idea if they are or not, but nobody has said that they were.
The case made was that the legality of drugs is influenced by whether some big pharmacy company has a patent on it and can milk it for money or not. Hence the highlighting of chemical similarities between ritalin and speed (not cocaine), one of which is patented, the other not.
No company can make big money out of cocaine, so it's currently illegal.
I've seen you repeat this several times now - in what way does Ritalin "have the same effects" as speed?
Both Ritalin (called Methylphenidate in its non-brand name) and Speed (phenylisopropylamine) operate in a similar manner - both prevent the reabsorbtion of monoamine transporters for dopamine and norepinephrine which results in increased amounts of dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain. This promotes nerve impulse transmission in neurons that have those receptors. The effect is something you're probably familiar with (either through experience or second-hand).
Likewise you can get the same high from snorting ritalin (powder it first unless you have biiig nostrils) as you can from speed, and you can get addicted to it too. Both are also used by students and workers desperate to keep focused on a project in that final night of panic. It's just the same as speed for practical purposes. Ritalin doesn't come in huge dosages (per pill), but then they are prescribing it to children.
You don't find your supposals/accusations against employers in general as ad hominem ?
You're making a large sweeping statement about employers in general, and painting them all as despotic slave drivers.
ad hominem attack is where you dismiss someone's argument not with logic, but by attacking the person who presents it. If an employer said something and I said he was wrong because he was an employer, then that would likely be an ad hominem attack. No employer put forward any argument and if they did, I would address it with logic, not with prejudice.
I don't believe that I have made a sweeping generalisation either. I've gone back to my original post and what I wrote was this:
I can see bosses coming along and expecting employees to just pop one of these in order to pull off a 48 hour overtime to meet a deadline.
I think the normal interpretation of this is that I can see it happening, not that all bosses will be doing this routinely. I believe that the situation may well become common enough that it is a problem, but I never described "all as despotic slave drivers," as you say. That incidentally, is a straw man attack (on your part).
What I see is an acceptance of these drugs to the degree where a boss can get away with this pressure. This may seem odd to you, but my position is not that employers are at fault if they put this pressure on people, but that the employees are at fault for opening the door to that sort of pressure by working too hard or using these themselves in the first place.
I don't think you'll ever be able to register a justifiable complaint against someone because they didn't provide you with performance enhancing (because that's essentially what this is) drugs in any situation.
This is a performance enhancing drug, no need to qualify it. But people don't have to lodge a successful court case to get it legalised. The situation is a big pharmaceutical company wanting it sold everywhere and a public that will grouse if it isn't. 1 + 1 = 2 much pressure to resist. Short of serious side-effects, this will be a common over-the-counter medicine. By serious side-effects, I mean the medically inevitable things like kidney damage, et al. Not the equally serious but non-blameable-on-a-company side-effects of misuse (i.e. repeated or sustained use).
any company that doesn't want a lawsuit will not recommend or even offer them to their employees.
Company doesn't have to offer these to employees or require them. It'll just become part of the culture.
Taking it to stay competitive is a far cry from being mandatory.
This is my point. It isn't. What we need a cultural change so that it is.
The reasoning wasn't so much that something without a patent must be illegal, but that if it were patented and a big corp could make big bucks from it, then they would find a way of getting it legal. After all, Ritalin is chemically very little different to Speed and it has the same effect. But one is legal and the other is not? Your own hypothesis for that situation would be ?;)
Anyway, it was more of a sly-dig at the pharmaceuticals industry than a fully-researched argument. Still, I think I have basis. Glad you agree that we (the species) should be working less though. I think only a CEO could disagree with that.;)
You misread my comments about use of these drugs at work. My reply to a previous poster will help you.
Regarding my sarcastic aside that cocaine would be legal if one of the big pharmaceuticals had a patent on it? Yeah - I don't think that's so far from the truth. Prozac is more damaging than (reasonable usage of MDMA) and that's legal where the other is not. Ritalin is very little different in effect and chemical structure to the speed you'll get on the street, yet one is legal and the other not. Marijuana is not super for your health, but I can make a strong case that it's less damaging than alcohol and no-one's ever got stoned and then gone out physically aggressive with me like they have when they're drunk. Yet one is legal and the other is not. Whether coke would pass the FDA if it were developed today? Maybe, maybe not. I'd say yes for prescription use.
Don't you think you're exaggerating just a tad? Do you really expect employers to hand out drugs that they require their employees to take?
No, I don't think I'm exagerating, and I'd also expect employees to have to fork out for this from their own pockets.:(
Why do I think my scenario is plausible? Firstly, there is nothing in TFA that suggests that this drug will be a prescription only drug, or in fact anything other than an over-the-counter tablet. Indeed, there would be many complaints if it weren't - "I crashed my car because they wouldn't sell me this at the garage and I fell asleep at the wheel."
Secondly, given it's likely widespread availability, the effect is likely to be one of relegating sleep deprivation to the same level of headaches, et al. Tell many employers that you're taking the day off because of a headache?!?! Unless you get actual migraines, most would expect you to just take some paracetemol if it were really that bad and get on with it. Sleep deprivation is about to become the same. And you know that there will be idiot co-workers who start using this stuff to put in even more hours. And then there will be those who use it to have more late nights without interfering with work the next day. All of which increases its acceptance and leads to that moment when after a 14-hour day and the project still not finished, the use of this stuff is sort of expected.
First it will be the super-star employee who is still fresh when everyone else is starting to type with their noses, then it will be most of the people, then it will be all of them looking at you as you struggle to work saying "Look, why don't you just take one of these? You're letting us down."
I'm happy to be proved wrong on this, but, pending serious side-effects, I don't think I am.
I forget the name of it- But one of the "street drugs" (Maybe Ketamine?) that used to be used by bodybuilders supposidly (sp) allows you to feel rested fully with a few hours of sleep a night
Do NOT take Ketamine as an aid to health! *LOL*.You're probably thinking of GHB. Take a little, you feel relaxed and good, take a bit more and you go Zzzz.
GHB will send you to sleep when you ordinarily wouldn't and do so in a natural (loose definition of the word) way. And when it wears off, you'll be very fine and refreshed. Taking it before bed so you can concentrate the night's sleep into a couple of hours, isn't going to work however.
GHB is considerably less harmful to you than many patented drugs (including some over the counter drugs), but was made illegal in the US and the EU. As you have natural GHB in your brain, being attached to your head can now count as possession.
The criminalization of GHB was a dubious process, with indications that big pharmaceuticals had a hand in the process. More information on the history of this here.
Heck, like one of the replies to your post mentions, the C in this drug could stand for cocaine and it'd probably have the same effect if it WAS just cocaine, except maybe with the downside of addiction.
Except that no-body holds the patent on cocaine so its illegal.
But regarding addiction, at least you can make an argument with cocaine against using it. But this - I can see bosses coming along and expecting employees to just pop one of these in order to pull off a 48 hour overtime to meet a deadline. And you know that some idiot employees will be escalating the standards of company loyalty by using these.
Honestly, we shouldn't be looking at ways of improving our capacity to work. We not only devote more time to work than our ancestors, but 90% of us aren't even working for ourselves. We have modern technology, farming techniques, transport and communication. One person does what would take a hundred a century ago and our hours are going up?
We don't need a pill to help us work harder, we just need to adjust our expectations.
Just wait, though. It won't be long until we bully Canada, the UK and Australia into adopting similar laws for us. And from there manufacturers who want to sell to any of those companys will just implement it in all their products because it is easier that way.
Very possible that they try to get laws shifted in other countries to create a market for this (almost certainly already agrrements made between interested parties). However, unless these other countries are happy for the US to do their spying for them, then the technology will have to incoprorate this - meaning more flexibility and variation in configuration. Meaning, I would guess, greater opportunities for compromise.
I can't wait until they install these routers in Westminster.:)
Also, bear in mind the numerous cases of Government corruption. I'm thinking at present about international corporate espionage such as the numerous cases of US Intelligence services being asked to (and agreeing to) provide secret information on European businesses to US competitors.
Surely something like this wont help the US export market for these gizmos.
Slashdot Mirror
You are male - you use logical deduction. You are female, it is based on intuition.
"Harmony" was taken, by the way.
What the Hell - I'll see your funny and raise you:
http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/
Why are emotions and logical understanding mutually incompatible? Show me the emotion that doesn't have a logical cause? If I'm angry with someone, I have a reason. If I'm afraid of something, then I have a reason. It is not always wise to act on these feelings straight away but that has little to do with whether I can comprehend them or not.
Girls tend to do better at school (statistically shown many times) than boys because girls tend to study more. But I make the case that study, both through learning from others and from excercising the memory and analytical capabilities of the brain, does increase that hard to define thing called intelligence.
But the most important thing to consider when reading this report is that there are over six billion people on this planet and that's a lot of people to generalize over. I'm not going to dispense with the scientific method just because of the subject matter, but if it were the case that men were more intelligent than women on average, then that statistical difference would have to be enormous to justify taking it into consideration in daily life. And it clearly isn't, or people wouldn't be debating this.
We'll have to wait for the actual paper to be published to see what the basis is, since TFA(s) contain nothing except flamebait. But research into this has been going on for a long time so which has come first? The definition of intelligence and the realization that men fit it best? Or the ever finer analysis of the differences between men and women and the definition of intelligence based on that? Surely the latter should be considered as a factor as by this stage in the game, no scientist designing these tests is entering the field without prior knowledge of these differences.
And does it make a difference to how you evaluate this post if you knew whether I was male or female? Because it shouldn't, but this report implies it should.
There are no remaining clinical uses for cocaine that I'm aware of. You mentioned eye surgery, but cocaine was last commonly used for this in the early twentieth century. Tetracaine, proparacaine and others which are all non-abusable and don't cause corneal sloughing have long since replaced cocaine.
So your information is quite some time out of date. Now ordinarily I would say that you are mistaken, but I suppose it's only fair to apply your own standards, which would make you a LIAR, eh?
Regards,
-H.
p.s. I noticed that you posted the exact same reply in three seperate places. Well, I'm happy to deal with trolls for a while, but only for the sake of the audience which is probably dwindling now. I get no satisfaction out of a slanging match for it's own sake, so you can have the last word if you like. You'll probably make a bigger pratt of yourself with it than I ever could anyway. G'night!
If this is true and it remains prescription only, then that would go a long way to countering the situation I'm afraid of.
I don't entirely follow the logic of why it is more profitable for the pharmacy corporations to have it be prescription only though. There may be people who want regular prescriptions of sleep-deprivation cures, but I'd think most demand would be people who just need it occasionally for over-work, a badly timed late-night, etc. For this sort of use, I wouldn't think you'd want to spare the time to see the doctor, explain, get your prescription etc. And if you had to, maybe you'd just not go through it - hence lost sale.
I'm not certain on this, but it sounds plausible. IANAPITUSA (I am not a patient in the USA) and I'm happy to be corrected on this if you have more detail.
-H.
NO dude, you lied. You were very much aware that cocaine isn't illegal
So what makes you so certain about what I do and do not know? I suppose it's reasonable to extrapolote from my wonderful insightful posts that I do in fact know everything, but it's really not the case. From the fact that you get arrested for possessing, selling, puchasing or manufacturing cocaine, combined with the fact that there are no remaining clinical uses for it and any doctor attempting to prescribe it would get an unfriendly visit from the DEA, I made a wild supposition that it's illegal. Seems reasonable to me. IANAL, so perhaps there is a legal technicality, but it seems to be the case that cocaine is effectively illegal so it doesn't change what I said.
yet you chose to continue to spread you drug company conspiracy crap.
I mentioned (in passing), that if there is money in something, the drug companies will try and get it legal and push it on people. Take Prozac for example. Terrible side-effects on some people, still legal and prescribed commonly. Take Aspartame and Acesulfame K, both with probable side-effects, neither with much dietary merit and omnipresent. It's hardly conspiracy theory when you suggest that where there is big money involved, policy can be influenced.
As to why I post where I do, WHY DO YOU CARE?
We were having this discussion further up the thread and you'd recieved a reply. Here I was talking with someone else about the state of employers. You saw a post by me and leapt in where it wasn't connected, to say the same thing you'd said earlier and call me a liar.
I DESPISE LIARS LIKE YOU, who insist on preying on individuals who are easily influenced. Your attempts to misrepresent the current state of drug laws is one example, and it's because of people like you that so much misinformation is around.
Do you honestly think that of every hundred people who read this thread and see the discussion between us, that more than one will favour CAPTAIN CAPITALISATION over the one who presents calm and reasoned debate? It's not a competition to see who can type loudest, you know. It's by discussion that we reduce misinformation. I've learnt a couple of things in this discussion, and a couple of people presented good criticisms of what I've said. You were not one of them, however.
I repeat, I have not lied in this discussion and you should apologise.
In the lion situation, pain doesn't stop you "scooping up your intestines and running" as it were. The body can still do what it needs to even in immense agony. Read this.
A doctor friend of mine described for me in detail what was actually involved in this. He had to cut through each of the nerves one by one with a blunt knife. Twang...twang... twang....
Shudder!
Heh! I was more thinking work less, actually.
That the other is prescription drug controlled by medical experts who have the necessary knowledge about it's effects and dosage, and the other is substance of unsure purity and blending sold by random crooks with no medical background whatsoever?
I agree. But the downside has relatively little to do with the drug itself and rather its legality. But that was your point too, so perhaps we're just agreeing with each other loudly.
Regarding this discrepancy between the two drugs' similarity yet their differing legal status, I think it happened something like this:
In the early sixties, Speed was outlawed and the police cracked down on it. This was accompanied by all the usual propaganda and hoo-ha, demonising Speed as a terrible evil. Later however, drug companies saw an opportunity to make money from speed but you can't suddenly turn round and say "You know that terrible stuff that will destroy your children, well it's okay if we give it to them." People would smell a rat.
So something that has a very similar effect is patented, marketed and in comes the money. But you know, Ritalin is spelt differently to Speed, so nobody panics about their children being fed it.
I normally avoid using any personal information in a discussion on
My £0.02.
-H.
You've already commented on this further up (and recieved a reply). Why do you leap in to a different branch of the discussion (the ratio of nice:nasty employers) and make the same comment where it has no relevance to what is being discussed?
Oh, wait you're right, that's not a sweeping generalization, it's just a LIE.
I don't lie. I sometimes make mistakes, but if so, please point out the flaws in my logic, rather than get excited and start throwing accusations like that about.
Sorry, my bad.
I forgive you.
-H.
They ARE NOT however, even remotely similar to cocaine, and by making such a statement, you show how little understanding you have of the chemistry involved.
Actually, I think the parent poster has a much stronger grasp of the argument than you do. You are under the impression that someone has declared cocaine to be chemically similar to ritalin. I've no idea if they are or not, but nobody has said that they were.
The case made was that the legality of drugs is influenced by whether some big pharmacy company has a patent on it and can milk it for money or not. Hence the highlighting of chemical similarities between ritalin and speed (not cocaine), one of which is patented, the other not.
No company can make big money out of cocaine, so it's currently illegal.
I've seen you repeat this several times now - in what way does Ritalin "have the same effects" as speed?
Both Ritalin (called Methylphenidate in its non-brand name) and Speed (phenylisopropylamine) operate in a similar manner - both prevent the reabsorbtion of monoamine transporters for dopamine and norepinephrine which results in increased amounts of dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain. This promotes nerve impulse transmission in neurons that have those receptors. The effect is something you're probably familiar with (either through experience or second-hand).
Likewise you can get the same high from snorting ritalin (powder it first unless you have biiig nostrils) as you can from speed, and you can get addicted to it too. Both are also used by students and workers desperate to keep focused on a project in that final night of panic. It's just the same as speed for practical purposes. Ritalin doesn't come in huge dosages (per pill), but then they are prescribing it to children.
You don't find your supposals/accusations against employers in general as ad hominem ? You're making a large sweeping statement about employers in general, and painting them all as despotic slave drivers.
ad hominem attack is where you dismiss someone's argument not with logic, but by attacking the person who presents it. If an employer said something and I said he was wrong because he was an employer, then that would likely be an ad hominem attack. No employer put forward any argument and if they did, I would address it with logic, not with prejudice.
I don't believe that I have made a sweeping generalisation either. I've gone back to my original post and what I wrote was this: I think the normal interpretation of this is that I can see it happening, not that all bosses will be doing this routinely. I believe that the situation may well become common enough that it is a problem, but I never described "all as despotic slave drivers," as you say. That incidentally, is a straw man attack (on your part).
What I see is an acceptance of these drugs to the degree where a boss can get away with this pressure. This may seem odd to you, but my position is not that employers are at fault if they put this pressure on people, but that the employees are at fault for opening the door to that sort of pressure by working too hard or using these themselves in the first place.
I don't think you'll ever be able to register a justifiable complaint against someone because they didn't provide you with performance enhancing (because that's essentially what this is) drugs in any situation.
This is a performance enhancing drug, no need to qualify it. But people don't have to lodge a successful court case to get it legalised. The situation is a big pharmaceutical company wanting it sold everywhere and a public that will grouse if it isn't. 1 + 1 = 2 much pressure to resist. Short of serious side-effects, this will be a common over-the-counter medicine. By serious side-effects, I mean the medically inevitable things like kidney damage, et al. Not the equally serious but non-blameable-on-a-company side-effects of misuse (i.e. repeated or sustained use).
any company that doesn't want a lawsuit will not recommend or even offer them to their employees.
Company doesn't have to offer these to employees or require them. It'll just become part of the culture.
Taking it to stay competitive is a far cry from being mandatory.
This is my point. It isn't. What we need a cultural change so that it is.
Hi,
The reasoning wasn't so much that something without a patent must be illegal, but that if it were patented and a big corp could make big bucks from it, then they would find a way of getting it legal. After all, Ritalin is chemically very little different to Speed and it has the same effect. But one is legal and the other is not? Your own hypothesis for that situation would be ?
Anyway, it was more of a sly-dig at the pharmaceuticals industry than a fully-researched argument. Still, I think I have basis. Glad you agree that we (the species) should be working less though. I think only a CEO could disagree with that.
Out entire programming team was threatened with the sack unless we got eye tests.
They need to check that you're short-sighted. If your eyesight is good, you're not working long-enough hours.
Your tin-foil hat is showing again.
Your ad hominem attacks are crude and blatant.
You misread my comments about use of these drugs at work. My reply to a previous poster will help you.
Regarding my sarcastic aside that cocaine would be legal if one of the big pharmaceuticals had a patent on it? Yeah - I don't think that's so far from the truth. Prozac is more damaging than (reasonable usage of MDMA) and that's legal where the other is not. Ritalin is very little different in effect and chemical structure to the speed you'll get on the street, yet one is legal and the other not. Marijuana is not super for your health, but I can make a strong case that it's less damaging than alcohol and no-one's ever got stoned and then gone out physically aggressive with me like they have when they're drunk. Yet one is legal and the other is not. Whether coke would pass the FDA if it were developed today? Maybe, maybe not. I'd say yes for prescription use.
Don't you think you're exaggerating just a tad? Do you really expect employers to hand out drugs that they require their employees to take?
No, I don't think I'm exagerating, and I'd also expect employees to have to fork out for this from their own pockets.
Why do I think my scenario is plausible? Firstly, there is nothing in TFA that suggests that this drug will be a prescription only drug, or in fact anything other than an over-the-counter tablet. Indeed, there would be many complaints if it weren't - "I crashed my car because they wouldn't sell me this at the garage and I fell asleep at the wheel."
Secondly, given it's likely widespread availability, the effect is likely to be one of relegating sleep deprivation to the same level of headaches, et al. Tell many employers that you're taking the day off because of a headache?!?! Unless you get actual migraines, most would expect you to just take some paracetemol if it were really that bad and get on with it. Sleep deprivation is about to become the same. And you know that there will be idiot co-workers who start using this stuff to put in even more hours. And then there will be those who use it to have more late nights without interfering with work the next day. All of which increases its acceptance and leads to that moment when after a 14-hour day and the project still not finished, the use of this stuff is sort of expected.
First it will be the super-star employee who is still fresh when everyone else is starting to type with their noses, then it will be most of the people, then it will be all of them looking at you as you struggle to work saying "Look, why don't you just take one of these? You're letting us down."
I'm happy to be proved wrong on this, but, pending serious side-effects, I don't think I am.
I forget the name of it- But one of the "street drugs" (Maybe Ketamine?) that used to be used by bodybuilders supposidly (sp) allows you to feel rested fully with a few hours of sleep a night
Do NOT take Ketamine as an aid to health! *LOL*
GHB will send you to sleep when you ordinarily wouldn't and do so in a natural (loose definition of the word) way. And when it wears off, you'll be very fine and refreshed. Taking it before bed so you can concentrate the night's sleep into a couple of hours, isn't going to work however.
GHB is considerably less harmful to you than many patented drugs (including some over the counter drugs), but was made illegal in the US and the EU. As you have natural GHB in your brain, being attached to your head can now count as possession.
The criminalization of GHB was a dubious process, with indications that big pharmaceuticals had a hand in the process. More information on the history of this here.
Heck, like one of the replies to your post mentions, the C in this drug could stand for cocaine and it'd probably have the same effect if it WAS just cocaine, except maybe with the downside of addiction.
Except that no-body holds the patent on cocaine so its illegal.
But regarding addiction, at least you can make an argument with cocaine against using it. But this - I can see bosses coming along and expecting employees to just pop one of these in order to pull off a 48 hour overtime to meet a deadline. And you know that some idiot employees will be escalating the standards of company loyalty by using these.
Honestly, we shouldn't be looking at ways of improving our capacity to work. We not only devote more time to work than our ancestors, but 90% of us aren't even working for ourselves. We have modern technology, farming techniques, transport and communication. One person does what would take a hundred a century ago and our hours are going up?
We don't need a pill to help us work harder, we just need to adjust our expectations.
Just wait, though. It won't be long until we bully Canada, the UK and Australia into adopting similar laws for us. And from there manufacturers who want to sell to any of those companys will just implement it in all their products because it is easier that way.
Very possible that they try to get laws shifted in other countries to create a market for this (almost certainly already agrrements made between interested parties). However, unless these other countries are happy for the US to do their spying for them, then the technology will have to incoprorate this - meaning more flexibility and variation in configuration. Meaning, I would guess, greater opportunities for compromise.
I can't wait until they install these routers in Westminster.
Also, bear in mind the numerous cases of Government corruption. I'm thinking at present about international corporate espionage such as the numerous cases of US Intelligence services being asked to (and agreeing to) provide secret information on European businesses to US competitors.
Surely something like this wont help the US export market for these gizmos.
But when everyone is a criminal, then what do we do?
Realize we're in the majority and organize.
And then when all that is completed, they will say that "Happiness is Mandatory."
It was meant as satire once. It looks more like the future every day.
Hoods have been banned in some "privately owned" places such as shopping centres in the UK.
Gist of it is that young people wear hoodies, affluent grown-ups don't (except me sometimes). Therefore, they get banned.