Nootropics


#3138405 Posted on: 04/12/12 at 4:39pm
Dacrygelosis


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

13
64

I was just wondering if anyone on here has an interest in nootropics. First off, for those who are unaware, nootropics "are drugs, supplements, nutraceuticals, and functional foods that improve mental functions such as cognition, memory, intelligence, motivation, attention, and concentration." according to wikipedia.

Ever since I cured my sleeplessness with 5-htp and valerian root I've had a vested interest in the subject, I now consume a large variety of natural nootropics on a daily basis.

I'll wait to see if anyone's interested before I start rambling though... =P



Explicit leuctotem; da mihi potum?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

#3138385 Posted on: 04/12/12 at 8:08pm
VOLGA
is shady


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

505
5,835

@Dacrygelosis
I've had an interest in them, due to their low toxicity and the studies showing their effectiveness in patients with memory problems... but I've only tried Piracetam and there were no noticeable effects, even at 'attack doses' alongside a choline source.

I know the effects are supposed to be subtle, but I noticed no improved concentration, memory, etc. at all when completing university work on the drug. I still have some left, so I might try again at higher doses, given that exams are coming up :P

Oxiracetam sounds interesting, as it's more potent than piracetam and supposedly has a slight anti-anxiety effect. But it's bit pricier and harder to find, so I was put off trying it.



#3138392 Posted on: 04/13/12 at 2:38pm
Dacrygelosis


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

13
64

The evidence for Piracetam/Oxiracetam increasing mental capacity in healthy individuals, as I understand it, is pretty much all anecdotal at this point. It increases blood flow and oxygen consumption in the brain and compliments your acetylcholine neurotransmitter though, which in theory should functionally increase your memory, but I wouldn't expect you to notice a difference in your performance, I haven't. Have never done oxiracetam.

Before you start getting into the exotics like Piracetam though I suggest you check out l-Tyrosine and acetyl-l-carnitine as well as the choline you mentioned. An Omega 3-6-9 and B-complex never hurt anyone either. And maybe some Yerba Mate? xD All that stuff will do your brain a lot of good, believe me. But obviously I suggest you research any chemical yourself before adding it to your diet, so actually don't believe me.

Oh, and how long did you take piracetam for? I'm not quite sure about piracetam specifically, but a lot of nootropics take a few months to actually start affecting your brain function, you may just have given up too soon. I tried Bacopa for a month and have never done it again, about 6 months ago my buddy started taking Bacopa daily, and apparently after a few months he could recognize a difference in himself, now he swears by the stuff. I'm thinking of getting back on it soon, he sent me a study on it and it said the same thing--people who only took it for a month or two didn't notice anything but after a few months most people had noticeably improved memory and test scores(I think). I'll go find that study and link it up.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/act.2011.17106
(you have to download it as a pdf if you want to read it. It's the only link I could find that you don't have to register for the forum to read.)


Lumosity.com <---brain games. A few people I know use that to try to measure results of nootropics. Personally I'm too lazy to try to keep track like that, but I still use the website when I feel like flexin' my brain.

iherb.com <---buy nootropics and other supp's relatively cheap.


Oh, and as you mentioned anti-anxiety, the tyrosine I already mentioned+5-htp is my solution to that. 5-htp is a precursor to Serotonin. Check it out.



Explicit leuctotem; da mihi potum?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

#3138412 Posted on: 04/13/12 at 3:23pm
VOLGA
is shady


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

505
5,835

Yeah - I tend to have problems with memory (short- and long-term it seems), so I was expecting a little more. I'd only been on piracetam for about a month, so perhaps longer usage would give better results.

Thanks very much for the info and links! I'll check out your suggestions. They sound interesting, particularly l-tyrosine and 5-htp.



#3138394 Posted on: 04/29/12 at 10:54pm
LilMissChibi
is a SUPER USER!!!


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

273
3,099

I have heard of them, and in fact am going to try Insulite's PCOS system
http://pcos.insulitelabs.com/



#3138413 Posted on: 06/10/12 at 10:29am
Tilcara
is a sun worshipper


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

698
2,002

I take modafinil on a daily basis to cope with narcolepsy and I am strongly against "normals" using medicines that were made to cure people's illness.

If I take modafinil, it is to live a life as close to normal as possible, to have a job, not to be in perpetual danger of falling asleep in the middle of a road when I go out, to be able to talk to people without getting asleep in the middle, to be able to take exams without spending most of the time sleeping. I barely pass my exams thanks to it, because it does nothing to me except keeping me awake. But (in rare cases luckily) on some "normal" people, it enhances a lot their concentration, they can focus a lot more, they don't need to sleep, they feel like their brain is working at 100%. It's like the LZT in Limitless. It's so unfair. Some people who have no disorder buy modafinil on the internet and take it for exams and I find that disgusting. Because while I struggle to be normal, they struggle to be more than they are when they just had to study normally to pass, and thus I'm necessarily left behind in spite of the medical help.

So please keep the medicines to people who really need it. (not talking about issues of buying these kinds of meds online which are often at better placebos at worst counterfeits that cause side effects)

I have absolutely nothing against traditional herbs, vitamins, supplements, etc. I tried a lot of them before I got diagnosed and they had no effect on me, but it's not that strange given that I have to take 4 times the dose of modafinil compared to someone that isn't ill to have some effect. I have nothing against brain games either. Using "natural" ways to improve brain function from time to time is something I understand, after all it's an organ like the others, it's like taking supplements to have a better circulation.

But in a society promoting performance, I think taking drugs to become more competitive is entering a vicious circle, things can only become worse. Because of the pressure, one will take more and more powerful drugs. Messing with the brain is a serious business, even if there is no side effect at short-term/mid-term, there is no assurance there won't be long or very long-term effects. After all medicine students used to take coca�ne thinking it was OK. Now some still do, but more are using amphetamines. What next ?



#3138397 Posted on: 07/2/12 at 8:16am
Dacrygelosis


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

13
64

@Tilcara Lol, yeah, eh?

And people who aren't obese shouldn't exercise because it just causes a "vicious circle, things can only become worse" amiright?

Struggle to be the most that you can be, in all things. That is a part of my philosophy. Many nootropics allow you to become a more mentally capable person safely, perhaps a person more able to create/discover something never before conceived of.

Also, many nootropics provide real health benefits, most notably a reduction of stress which may help you remain 'normal'--lol, I also can't believe you just inferred that I'm normal. Not sure whether that's a compliment or an insult but my reply is "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu" Many nootropics help prevent or even reverse issues with cognitive decline. Alzheimer's runs in my family D= is that un-normal enough?

Live your life and stop worrying about how other people live theirs. If you feel bad because someone else is doing better than you, you deserve to feel badly for making the mistake of comparing yourself to others. Worry about your test scores and stop focusing on the next guy in line... This is why capitalism is so easily perpetuated, we're just obsessed with competition. Imo all the 'normal' people need a hell of a lot more medicating than I do, and this crap ain't strong enough. Lol, I've never met a nootropic enthusiast I could consider 'normal', to be quite honest.

"After all medicine students used to take coca�ne thinking it was OK. Now some still do, but more are using amphetamines. What next ?"

Lol, I started out with LSD and nicotine and now I'm onto 5-HTP and l-tyrosine, IT CAN ONLY GET WORSE!!!! Hide yo's childrun. There is a difference between l-tyrosine and cocaine, if you want to claim a drug=a drug, go ahead, but reality is a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

Also, many of the nootropics I take--5-htp, for example--are present in everyday foods. 5-htp is a precursor to serotonin, it converts from tryptophan->5-hydroxytryptophan->serotonin. Now tryptophan is available in a wide variety of foods such as turkey and eggs, but the problem with using diet as your sole source of tryptophan is that serotonin is synthesized in your gut. In our society food is filled with things like high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils--things that wreak havoc on your gut! the result is that you are less able to synthesize serotonin than humans would have been throughout most of history. This, in my opinion, is one of the main causes of the predominance of psychological disorders in our society--an unhealthy gut! So by supplementing with 5-htp, a more direct route of synthesis, you are able to more easily affect the serotonin levels in your brain and--with a little foresight and knowledge--maybe make yourself a little more psychologically sound. Your body is one of the most complex machines in existence. It's easy to simplify it to: 'put in gas, get power.' but there are thousands of chemicals in foods, some of which may make your body run better or more healthily, and some that might make your body run worse or less healthily. It is your right as a rationally thinking entity to distinguish the difference instead of just eating whatever tastes good, and in-so-doing increase the quality of your life. A huge portion of the fats I intake are from fish oils and extra virgin olive oil. nomnomnom.

I feel grate. If that makes you feel bad, you have a horrible perspective.



Explicit leuctotem; da mihi potum?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

#3138416 Posted on: 07/2/12 at 10:57am
Tilcara
is a sun worshipper


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

698
2,002

Quote By @Dacrygelosis:

This is why capitalism is so easily perpetuated, we're just obsessed with competition.


I totally agree with that but apart from that I think you totally misunderstood what I meant.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I am not against nootropics at all. What I'm against is people who are not ill getting medicine that is normally for people who are ill through illegal means. Some nootropics listed in the wikipedia article happen to enter in this category. I could have simply said "it's illegal they shouldn't do it", I admit. I tried to add a bit of a reflection in order to have something to debate over.

Your comparison isn't valid. Exercise isn't a medicine that is given by prescription only to obese people so it has nothing to do with what I meant.

When I said "normal" I meant physiologically normal, like in "a normal blood test". I can't see how you can think of it as an insult. How being normal is a bad thing ? English isn't my first language, so maybe the concept of normal isn't what I think it is, in that case please accept my apologies.

Quote By Dacrygelosis:
"After all medicine students used to take coca�ne thinking it was OK. Now some still do, but more are using amphetamines. What next ?"

Lol, I started out with LSD and nicotine and now I'm onto 5-HTP and l-tyrosine, IT CAN ONLY GET WORSE!!!! Hide yo's childrun. There is a difference between l-tyrosine and cocaine, if you want to claim a drug=a drug, go ahead, but reality is a hell of a lot more complicated than that.


I wasn't talking about l-tyrosine nor drugs, but of medicines given on prescription. I'm sure you know coca�ne used to be used as a medicine for a particular purpose. Now amphetamines are said to be more efficient so people switch to that. And when another molecule is found, if it is more efficient people will switch to it. All this because of that stupid obsession with competition. If there wasn't such competition, they would just take l-tyrosine. Of course it's not all about the molecules, if a nootropic is designed from amphetamines in little concentration that is available legally without prescription, I would have nothing against it.

I'm quoting again.

Quote By Dacrygelosis:
Live your life and stop worrying about how other people live theirs. If you feel bad because someone else is doing better than you, you deserve to feel badly for making the mistake of comparing yourself to others. Worry about your test scores and stop focusing on the next guy in line... This is why capitalism is so easily perpetuated, we're just obsessed with competition.


That's totally what I meant, except not directed to the same person. People who don't have a disease shouldn't take medicines that are aimed at people who are ill, just because they want to get a raise/have the best grades of the class.

I can't believe you're telling me I deserve to feel badly because I don't want to be limited by a disease. I don't feel bad because someone is doing better than me, that I don't care. I feel bad because what used to be acknowledged as "good results" get downgraded to "average results" because everybody is using drugs they normally shouldn't take, which causes me to inevitably fail because the "average results" I managed to get because I have a treatment to compensate my illness are downgraded to "bad results". I don't want to be the best in my class, I just want a chance to live at least a little like I would have if I didn't have a disability (I have a hard time calling that a disability, because I'm not accepting it, but it is a disability).

I'll take another example. In competitive exams one has to pass to enter in agronomy schools I met a girl who had severe motor issues. She couldn't write with a pen so she had a derogation to take the exam with a computer and have an extra time because it took her a longer time to type. She eventually passed. Barely but she passed. Some people in my class (who are not disabled) said it was unfair because she had more time than they had, and demanded an extra time too. If for any reason someone had thought they were right and given them that extra time, many people would have had better grades (obviously since these exams are conceived so that almost nobody is able to finish them). As a consequence, the admission limit would have been raised too (the number of people admitted to the school is limited so they have to find a way to select people, which could be another debate). The girl who took a long time to type would have had no chance to pass the exam (given that she only passed barely with the original admission limit). It wouldn't have been because of not having the necessary intellectual capacities, she is clearly a smart girl as she doesn't write a lot but everything she writes is correct.
It would have only been because she is disabled. And that would have been truly unfair.

That would make me feel bad. If that would make you feel great, you have a horrible perspective.



#3138399 Posted on: 07/3/12 at 8:10am
The Doctor
stijn


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

763
13,400

from what i see there's loads of drugs that can help you function that are illegal, we get stuck with the kitty stuff unless you're lucky enough to have a doctor prescribe something for you. but doctors only give you goods to cure your defects with, not to help improve a normal person.


@Tilcara


I completely disagree with you. If people can enhance their performance using (safe!) drugs, why should they not? I haven't really felt the need to do research into performance-enhancing drugs (I perform pretty well.), but if a miracle drug would enter the market that would help us all I'd be on that crap in a second.

That said, "medicine should stay for the sick" holds true if we're talking about antibiotics. That's about it, though.

In your second post you talk about a disabled girl getting more time to take her test. I think this is the same everywhere and I've never given it much thought because generally the time limit for a test is good enough for normal people who have studied. But if a disabled person needs more time to take a knowledge test because they're physically incapable of doing something fast, that gives them an unfair amount of extra thinking time. That shouldn't be acceptable. I suppose it is because we can't let disabled people suffer more because of their disability, but by giving them help you shouldn't be disadvantaging normal people either.


join #stijn

#3138386 Posted on: 07/3/12 at 7:05pm
Tilcara
is a sun worshipper


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

698
2,002

@stijn
Quote By stijn:


from what i see there's loads of drugs that can help you function that are illegal, we get stuck with the kitty stuff unless you're lucky enough to have a doctor prescribe something for you. but doctors only give you goods to cure your defects with, not to help improve a normal person.

Of course, that's what they are here for... isn't it ? That's an interesting question.

Quote By stijn:

If people can enhance their performance using (safe!) drugs, why should they not? I haven't really felt the need to do research into performance-enhancing drugs (I perform pretty well.), but if a miracle drug would enter the market that would help us all I'd be on that crap in a second.


Oh but I totally agree ! What I don't agree is using drugs that are only given by prescription to a certain category of people. Because that's illegal, because tests weren't intended for use on people who aren't sick so there is no way to be absolutely certain they are safe and because of ethical consideration on which it seems we can only agree to disagree. There is a reason research has been made on some of these drugs for more than 10 years to adapt the doses and they still aren't available on the market in spite of the huge potential profits(soldiers, businessmen and students would be the first in line to buy them, and the molecules are pricey).

Quote By stijn:

That said, "medicine should stay for the sick" holds true if we're talking about antibiotics. That's about it, though.

On the contrary, with the disasters caused by the abuse of antibiotics, I would think it's logical to limit the use of medicines people who really need them (would it be for diagnosis, prevention or treatment), there is a reason they are not available to people who don't have a prescription.

Quote By stijn:

In your second post you talk about a disabled girl getting more time to take her test. I think this is the same everywhere and I've never given it much thought because generally the time limit for a test is good enough for normal people who have studied. But if a disabled person needs more time to take a knowledge test because they're physically incapable of doing something fast, that gives them an unfair amount of extra thinking time. That shouldn't be acceptable. I suppose it is because we can't let disabled people suffer more because of their disability, but by giving them help you shouldn't be disadvantaging normal people either.


It's not a simple knowledge test. It's a competitive exam, with 3000 people taking it and 30% who pass (for the vet one the acceptance rate is 20%). It is very uncommon to finish the exams, and even less to have good grades. They are made so that most of the students get around 10/20 after two years of hard-work. The aim isn't to test if one has studied enough, everybody studied like mad because of the competition, most gave up hobbies and going out with friends to pass, the aim is to make 70% of them fail the exam. The extra-time derogation is established by the specialist in charge of the patient, the administration of the competitive examination and a governmental commission as part of the law for equal opportunities. Getting the appropriate measure is discussed so that it does not result in an unfair advantage to the others (as a consequence there are very few people who get this extra time, so people train their two year without extra time in case it's denied). In that particular case, I don't see where she has an advantage. She uses all the extra time to write, not to think. There is no use in wasting that extra time thinking if she can't write down the answers.

The average human being hand-writes at 22 words per minute by copying. Let's say 14 for composition (which makes 840 words an hour). While typing on a computer, the average is 19 words by minute for a composition. Let's say she writes 10, it makes 600 words an hour. The maximum extra time given is a third of the original time, so if she gets the maximum extra time, that makes 20 extra minutes, that is to say 200 words. In the end she would have written 800 words. So she isn't advantaged compared to the others who wrote an average of 840 words.

Of course there are lots of approximations, in reality they would have better data than me and adapt the extra time according to that.



#3138387 Posted on: 07/3/12 at 9:03pm
Fortami


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

17
47

I have no problems with someone taking them as long as they do it legally. If someone is taking someone else's prescription than .no. Some drugs with they may improve healthy individuals with their concentration , but may hurt them elsewhere. Prescription drugs often have side effects that make them wholly unsuitable for healthy individuals.



#3138420 Posted on: 07/4/12 at 10:56am
Dacrygelosis


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

13
64

@Tilcara
Oh. Well, I still could not disagree more. Personally I think making substances illegal is ridiculous, and I certainly don't judge the safety or efficacy of drugs based on their legality. I'm a believer of Jeffersonian liberty. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." I think all drugs should be legalized and regulated, you know, take a billion-dollar industry out of the hands of violent criminals and instead use it to pick up the economy a little. This would make drugs safer by getting rid of all of the 'cut', and hard drug abusers can be better educated on the side effects of their drug of choice. Plus instead of spending tax money to punish drug-abusers, maybe we can use the money they used to buy their drugs to actually help them? My morals don't come from the laws of man, I just do what I think is right or, more aptly, what I think is best.

I drink marihuana-infused milk for nootropical purposes--it's medicinal maaaaaaaaaaan. xD For reals though.

"[T]he illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."
"I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, unavailable to us without such drugs. Such a remark applies not only to self-awareness and to intellectual pursuits, but also to perceptions of real people, a vastly enhanced sensitivity to facial expression, intonations, and choice of words which sometimes yields a rapport so close it's as if two people are reading each other's minds."

If Carl Sagan hadn't explained all of my beliefs so concisely I wouldn't quote him so often =P My point is that some things are great, legal or illegal. Arbitrary law=/=truth, but this is probably another debate entirely.

Quote:

Your comparison isn't valid. Exercise isn't a medicine that is given by prescription only to obese people so it has nothing to do with what I meant.


If exercise plans were kept secret and outlawed by the government, only available with a prescription, it would be the exact same. Now, ofcourse, that doesn't make sense, right? Just because some government officials and judges with no medical background decided that you shouldn't be allowed to put certain things into your body doesn't mean they have a good reason, or that their reasons are based on logic. This is why personal decisions should be made by each individual and not by the government. You may not think the comparison is valid, but it's the exact same as if certain foods were outlawed because they're bad for you.

Yeah, some nootropics have negative effects, like cocaine. But if people want to live fast and die young, I see no logical reason to keep them from it. Personally I try to make informed, healthy decisions--but some people don't /want/ to live to be 60.

Again, in my opinion you should just live your life and let other people live theirs. Do the best that you can, finding excuses in others for why you didn't do as good as you 'could have' is counter-productive to progress.

"That's totally what I meant, except not directed to the same person. People who don't have a disease shouldn't take medicines that are aimed at people who are ill, just because they want to get a raise/have the best grades of the class."

It's like you're assuming specific drugs exist for a singular purpose--to treat a certain illness. But that is simply not the case. Drugs are. What we do with them decides their purpose, they have no objective duty. If something makes you do better and you don't mind dealing with the side-effects... well, I don't know what else to say. Why does someone else get to decide what we're allowed to do with our bodies? You can smoke cigarettes, one of the biggest killers in the world, but not marijuana... because it's bad for you? lolwuuut

I didn't say you deserve to feel bad for not wanting to be limited by a disease. Not at all. What I said was that you should feel bad for comparing yourself to others. Do as good as you can--that's all you can do. Blaming other people--even if they're straight-up cheating--is not going to help you.

I agree with Stijn about the disabled girl. It sounds like she isn't mentally handicapped, so giving her a time extension is kind of unfair. A more fair alternative, in my opinion, would be to have her do the test orally, if possible. If that's not possible, maybe the time extension is the best way to go about it, I certainly wouldn't complain. If someone who wasn't disabled got a time extension I wouldn't even care. I'd just do what I had to do, complaining is mental capacity wasted.

I don't know how you came up with the assumption that disabled people failing makes me feel great. Nootropics make me feel grate. You can't fairly claim that nootropics are responsible for you--or anyone else--failing, is all I'm saying. Remember, it's medicine maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

Sorry about that crass post last time. I always do that, I type up replies when I'm all tired and frustrated and post them without re-reading them, then when I read them the next day I realize how pissy it makes me sound. It's not that I disagree with any of the things I've said, I'm just really genitalsy about it sometimes. This one's probably just as bad, I dunno. It's too long to re-read now so sorry in advance xD

@Fortami
Do you really think it's your job(or the government's) to stop someone from intaking harmful substances? Coronary heart disease kills a hell of a lot more people than prescription drugs, you better stop people from eating hydrogenated oils next. Because thinking for yourself is danjrus.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Robert H. Jackson(1950)



Explicit leuctotem; da mihi potum?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

#3138423 Posted on: 07/4/12 at 12:01pm
Tilcara
is a sun worshipper


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

698
2,002

@Dacrygelosis
We will have to agree to disagree then.

What I said has nothing to do with legalization of drugs, so I will simply neglect these parts of your post. I'm only talking about medicines given on prescription. I didn't want to say "it's illegal to take these medicines without prescription, end of the story", because precisely I knew you were the kind of person to say they don't care about laws (and also because I've debated many times with a jurist who would always bring the debates on the ground of law and quote texts of laws so of course it often killed the debate).

Quote:


If exercise plans were kept secret and outlawed by the government, only available with a prescription, it would be the exact same. Now, ofcourse, that doesn't make sense, right?


Of course it doesn't make sense, drug prescription has nothing with exercise being outlawed by the government. Exercise isn't a molecule synthesised in labs with a dosage form one has to determine. We well know how exercise works and individuals know how to dose exercise so that it doesn't present a risk to their health (their not applying or not their knowledge is another thing).

Quote:

It's like you're assuming specific drugs exist for a singular purpose--to treat a certain illness. But that is simply not the case. Drugs are. What we do with them decides their purpose, they have no objective duty.

Of course they do. They are synthesised for a purpose, and to be on the market the labs have to fill a file with the role of the medicine, how it works, the dosage, the formulation, known sides-effect etc. For each different property, a different file has to be made. And all this is made and controlled by people who have a medical background. I admit I don't know how it works in your country, so maybe it's different. It's not like "oh today I had fun and synthesised a new molecule, let's just put it on the market and let people have fun with it" with the bad government saying "no we don't want people to have fun, we will forbid that drug". The reality would be closer to big labs trying to bribe the government into dissolving these commissions so that they can sell their products however they want.

Quote:

Yeah, some nootropics have negative effects, like cocaine. But if people want to live fast and die young, I see no logical reason to keep them from it. Personally I try to make informed, healthy decisions--but some people don't /want/ to live to be 60.

Misuse. That seems like a logical reason. I don't take GHB because modafinil works fine enough, but it was considered an option. I loved the face of my parents when I told them I was going to be treated with a attack drug.
After all, let's make all the medicines possible available to anybody, in the quantity they want. Don't think of the mess it will cause with healthcare (I don't know how it works for you but here we have universal healthcare financed by government national health insurance, and prescribed medicine are reimbursed from 35 to 100%) and have fun watching people kill each other with pills rather than using guns or knives. And let's remove anti-poisoning centres, after all people take their decisions themselves, if they have issue it's because they are not informed enough. Oh and let's remove doctors and all health professionals too, people will take decisions by themselves.

Quote:

I agree with Stijn about the disabled girl. It sounds like she isn't mentally handicapped, so giving her a time extension is kind of unfair. A more fair alternative, in my opinion, would be to have her do the test orally, if possible. If that's not possible, maybe the time extension is the best way to go about it, I certainly wouldn't complain.

I used some figures in my precedent post to show that in the end she doesn't have an advantage. The exams can't be made orally, really. There is an oral exam after the written exam and they look nothing in common.

Quote:
If someone who wasn't disabled got a time extension I wouldn't even care. I'd just do what I had to do, complaining is mental capacity wasted.

I understand you don't care about others, but you complain about the government yet complaining is mental capacity wasted ?

Quote:

Sorry about that crass post last time. I always do that, I type up replies when I'm all tired and frustrated and post them without re-reading them, then when I read them the next day I realize how pissy it makes me sound. It's not that I disagree with any of the things I've said, I'm just really genitalsy about it sometimes. This one's probably just as bad, I dunno. It's too long to re-read now so sorry in advance xD

Well maybe you should reread because each time you answer to something I wasn't telling. How can one debate with that ? And if it's too long for you, why would it be not too long for us to read ? And if your post is too long for you to read... now I guess I understand some things.



#3138403 Posted on: 07/9/12 at 1:08pm
Dacrygelosis


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

13
64

@Tilcara
"Exercise isn't a molecule synthesised in labs with a dosage form one has to determine. We well know how exercise works and individuals know how to dose exercise so that it doesn't present a risk to their health (their not applying or not their knowledge is another thing)."

Imo exercise is every bit as dangerous as drugs--I'd be willing to bet that more people develop chronic problems through improper exercise than improper use of drugs. That part in parentheses applies equally to drugs... just because some people fail to do a little research before they intake a chemical(or exercise!), no one should be allowed to intake that chemical?(or exercise!) Have you ever heard of kettlebells? A very dangerous form of exercise, but when done correctly it is one of the best. Thousands of people have irreparably harmed themselves through ignorant use of this simple piece of equipment. Explain to me, please, why we should be allowed to harm ourselves with steel, but not with other combinations of elements?

"Of course they do. They are synthesised for a purpose, and to be on the market the labs have to fill a file with the role of the medicine, how it works, the dosage, the formulation, known sides-effect etc."

Humans synthesize it for an intended purpose, yes, but that doesn't mean the intended purpose is all that efficient, or that their isn't another better use for it. Did you read that quote I put in the animal testing thread about how all of the biggest scientific breakthroughs(medical included) were made by accident, actually attempting to do something different? We find out we had been wrong about medications all the time and sometimes millions of people's lives are ruined because of it. Doctor's should have the right to do this to people, but people shouldn't have the right to do it to themselves? Lindane and Lithium are two prime examples. Lithium was used for years to cure gout--turns out the levels of lithium needed to dissolve urate in the body is toxic; and then we used it to cure hypertension and heart disease--killing thousands; and then John Cade(Australia) discovered that it could be used to treat manic disorders such as Bipolar. And yeah, Lindane gives you cancer... but it gets rid of lice! Thank you very much doctor, you certainly should be the sole authority on what I put into my body. Those are just two examples found by looking up "li" in a medical dictionary, although I was actually looking for lindane and just happened to remember the lithium fiasco, which I learned of through Lester Grinspoon, a genius of a doctor(and a marihuana advocate) who made the first lithium prescription for a bipolar patient in north america.

"It's not like "oh today I had fun and synthesised a new molecule, let's just put it on the market and let people have fun with it" with the bad government saying "no we don't want people to have fun, we will forbid that drug". The reality would be closer to big labs trying to bribe the government into dissolving these commissions so that they can sell their products however they want."

That sounds like it makes sense. But, as always, reality is much simpler, and therefore much more complicated than it first appears. Big Pharma thrives off drug prohibition because it enables them to charge as much as they want for drugs--because there is no competition! Prohibition ensures that anyone competing with big pharma is labled a criminal and, moreover, a despot. If anything, and there is no shortage of 'evidence' for this, big pharma bribes the government into upholding these commissions. Big Pharma actually slandered the use of lithium because they were unable to patent it--being natural. Huh. Maybe there is something similar with marihuana, and possibly other natural substances which have been made illegal? Big pharma is a north american problem, but I am sure there are fairly symmetrical institutions throughout Europe.

"Misuse. That seems like a logical reason."

Alright, well I'm just gonna' go ahead and quote Cho Hogan here. "You can jump off a bridge, should bridges be illegal? You can take a fork and jam it into your Loving eye, should we outlaw forks? Let's nerf the world!" lololol

I thought you were going to neglect these parts of my post? I guess those parts make up the brunt of it, being that you based your argument on legality, atleast for confirmation.


"After all, let's make all the medicines possible available to anybody, in the quantity they want. Don't think of the mess it will cause with healthcare (I don't know how it works for you but here we have universal healthcare financed by government national health insurance, and prescribed medicine are reimbursed from 35 to 100%)"

Yes. Let's. But let's think of the mess it will make with healthcare. You can still keep prescriptions and only reimburse those who are buying their medication on prescription, can't you?

How it works here(Canada, I also live in 'murica sometimes, but that's another story entirely) is that substances that cause major health problems, such as alcohol and tobacco, are heavily taxed--so the people who are abusing their bodies to the point of needing medical attention are the ones PAYING for their medical attention. Alcohol in America costs about 40% of what it does here, if not less. But that sounds fair to me. Let's do some testing and the more of a health concern posed by a substance, the more taxes we'll stamp on it=no mess with universal healthcare. If you can see any other mess it would make, I'd like to hear about it. Portugal decriminalized all drugs a year or two ago and have seen vast improvements in virtually all drug-related problems.

"and have fun watching people kill each other with pills rather than using guns or knives."

Lol... dead is dead. If someone purposely kills someone, the method is something of a non-issue.

"And let's remove anti-poisoning centres, after all people take their decisions themselves, if they have issue it's because they are not informed enough. Oh and let's remove doctors and all health professionals too, people will take decisions by themselves."

How does this make sense to you? Nothing I said is in any way relevant to those things. I said people should be able to make their own decisions, I didn't say they shouldn't be helped if they make a bad decision and end up hurt.

"I used some figures in my precedent post to show that in the end she doesn't have an advantage."

Well, if 'some figures'=saying that people can't simultaneously type and think, than alright. But judging from personal experience I do not believe this to be the case. But, as I said, I would never complain about someone getting a time-extension, I'd just do my best. What's that horse in George Orwell's Animal Farm whose response to any hardship was 'I will work harder'? That horse was awesome.

"I understand you don't care about others, but you complain about the government yet complaining is mental capacity wasted?"

Hey, I care about others. The fact that I don't want to illegalize personal choices means that I don't care about people? Don't you think that might be a little unfair? Would you say that Thomas Jefferson didn't care about others, given that his opinion was the same as mine on this topic? I know you aren't American, so you might not know much about him, but what about Thomas Paine? Ever hear of him? Damn man was partially responsible for both the American and French revolutions, and he tried to do it in Britain too, so they threw him in jail! His views were the same as mine on this topic, and I think it is incredibly unfair to say that he didn't care about others, he dedicated his life to helping people remove themselves from the shackles of tyranny, and in-so-doing pretty much destroyed his own life. Something like six people attended his funeral--one of the most compassionate men in history!

But anyway, the government is supposed to be the voice of the people(I am a people), so I am complaining about something that I can possibly help change. This is not anything like complaining about people taking drugs. You are never going to be able to change that. Complaining about the choices of individuals is mental capacity wasted. Better?

"Well maybe you should reread because each time you answer to something I wasn't telling. How can one debate with that?"

When you figure it out let me know, because all you've done is dodge my main points and attack with semantics.

"And if it's too long for you, why would it be not too long for us to read ? And if your post is too long for you to read... now I guess I understand some things."

Well, I read it atleast once while I was writing it. It's too long to re-read while I have Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov sitting on my nightstand half-read and Czeslaw Milosz' The Captive Mind sitting underneath. I've read The Brothers Karamazov once a year since I first read it, and I've been wanting to read the Captive Mind for quite some time... nothing I write on Subeta is comparable to Dostoevsky, and therefore certainly not worth re-reading. Also, I haven't asked you to read anything I've written, that's your prerogative, and I'd like to remind you that you're the one who came into my topic for a debate--I didn't exactly approach you.

If you're going to go through my long-windedness again and answer my questions, I'd also like you to respond to what I said to Fortami last time, particularly I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that quote. Do you think it is the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error?



Explicit leuctotem; da mihi potum?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

#3138389 Posted on: 07/9/12 at 8:07pm
Fortami


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

17
47

Quote By @Dacrygelosis:


@Fortami
Do you really think it's your job(or the government's) to stop someone from intaking harmful substances? Coronary heart disease kills a hell of a lot more people than prescription drugs, you better stop people from eating hydrogenated oils next. Because thinking for yourself is danjrus.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Robert H. Jackson(1950)

I love the fact you just threw a quote at me. But if you just threw out prescription drugs and everything was over the counter.. then there would be less power to doctors. Sorry but some government is needed. Not a lot but some is needed. This is not the same as sugar and oils. Some drugs are not needed nor should be used for people who do not have certain medical conditions. Some are highly addicting and a person needs to have a doctor prescribe them. Medications are not simple things. There is more to a drug then what is written on a bottle. Your doctor knows more than you do.

According to your logic, lets take away food safety laws and allow diseased and unsanitary meat be on the market. Since having them is so nanny. Seriously some governmental regulation is not bad.



#3138436 Posted on: 07/9/12 at 8:54pm
Tilcara
is a sun worshipper


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

698
2,002

@Dacrygelosis
My main issue is that drugs given on prescription are given by people who have a medical background. It's not like everybody had made medicine studies. I wish it was as simple as getting the right information. But unfortunately it isn't. I'm only a student and I've seen already seen too many times the result of people thinking they could diagnose and treat a disease, but turned out to be wrong. For me, medicines whose use is restricted to people who are ill should keep this restriction. That's all I wanted to say. We will never agree on that, but I'll still answer some of your (rhetorical) questions, because I wasn't dodging points and attacking on semantics, rather focusing on a minor issue of a minority of nootropics while trying to understand your point of view.

Quote:

just because some people fail to do a little research before they intake a chemical(or exercise!), no one should be allowed to intake that chemical?

Taking a chemical necessitate more than "a little bit of research", that's why people have to undergo long studies before prescribing medicines. Relying only on the indications of the "big book of medicines" (here it's called "Vidal", I don't know in the US nor in Canada) is certainly not enough (and can even lead to severe mistakes). Knowing how the molecule works, how it's done, the pKa, dilution and dosage form are part of what enables one to have the right judgement while taking into account the patient, and give an appropriate prescription. The law acknowledges these competences. But it's far from perfect, that I can agree (so many drugs being misused, I can't imagine what it would be if anybody could buy anything they wanted).

Quote:
Explain to me, please, why we should be allowed to harm ourselves with steel, but not with other combinations of elements?

Because people don't risk to be forced to use kettlebells. People have the right not to be forced to take a medicine. I'm thinking of veterinary medicine and the issue of remnants in meat here. If there weren't legislations for that, one would still be eating antibiotics when eating meat (well one still do in some places I guess, I don't know the legislation everywhere). If these medicines were available to everybody, there would be no way for vets to regulate the use of medicines that leave remnants in meat or milk. Of course one could argue the solution would be to be vegan, but there is still the issue of remnants in feces, that can reach water. It's not really something one can control easily.

Quote:
Did you read that quote I put in the animal testing thread about how all of the biggest scientific breakthroughs(medical included) were made by accident, actually attempting to do something different?

Yes and that doesn't mean most of the molecules synthesised nowadays are made by accident. On the contrary, most of the research is based on finding new applications of existing molecules.

Quote:
We find out we had been wrong about medications all the time and sometimes millions of people's lives are ruined because of it. Doctor's should have the right to do this to people, but people shouldn't have the right to do it to themselves?

It would have been worse without doctors. Imagine thalidomide. With an average of 90 000 medicine boxes sold per month in Germany when it was available without prescription. Then the use was restricted and it was only available on prescription (and in some countries such as Austria it was on prescription only). It was advertised as a miracle drug. At the time people didn't know of teratological effects. If it had been available in the same countries it was available, but without prescription, I can't imagine the number of victims. It wouldn't have been their fault. People would have had no mean of knowing what was inconceivable at the time. Now people know that when pregnant one has to be careful.

Quote:
Prohibition ensures that anyone competing with big pharma is labled a criminal and, moreover, a despot.

That's a very sad thing indeed. Lobbying isn't such a big thing here as in the states, it's not really part of our culture, but I don't think it prevents some things of existing. They are certainly less obvious and at a smaller scale though. The pharmaceutical industry is not very liked here and many denounce it. Competitors against the pharmaceutical industry aren't labeled as criminals here, on the contrary, they are encouraged. On TV it's forbidden to make ads for prescribed medicines, and most of the ads you'll see are ads for herbal or homeopathic products without prescription.Acupuncture and homeopathy are recognized as medical professions here and more than a half of the population use homeopathy here. I didn't know about lithium, here lithium is used in oligotherapy and I've never hear anything against it so it's interesting to read. Alternative medicine is very present here, maybe because we have a long tradition of bonesetters that is still vivid and which people tend to trust more than doctors, I don't know. Funnily I think France is the country with the highest consumption of psychoactive drugs in Europe, so maybe that's why our equivalent of "Big Pharma" does nothing against alternative medicine, there are already many people buying drugs.
Cultural differences. I always forget to take them into account.

Quote:
"You can jump off a bridge, should bridges be illegal? You can take a fork and jam it into your Loving eye, should we outlaw forks? Let's nerf the world!"

I'd rather quote "let's make a law to forbid people to be morons" (popular quote whose origin is lost). Well some people would be able to sue the bridge architect and the fork designer so one must be cautious.

Quote:
I thought you were going to neglect these parts of my post? I guess those parts make up the brunt of it, being that you based your argument on legality, atleast for confirmation.

On the contrary, I didn't want to base my argument on legality. I find this a bit dull, that's why I only evoked it. Then you brought the issue of legalization of drugs when I only intended to talk about prescription medicines listed in the wikipedia article (whose use is very strict, modafinil can only be prescribed by neurologists and psychiatrists here). Drug legalization is a whole debate in itself, which I'm not fond of to be honest. I had it too many times, had to play the devil's advocate too many times (I've never understood why language teachers would want to debate about it when everybody advocated it), and watched it too many times.

Quote:
You can still keep prescriptions and only reimburse those who are buying their medication on prescription, can't you?

The whole point of medicine without prescription is to buy it without prescription. With the healthcare deficit here nobody would allow reimbursement of drugs without prescription. I think the only time I got reimbursed medicine without a prescription was because I was going to use it for an allergy test (otherwise I wouldn't have bought it).

Quote:
Let's do some testing and the more of a health concern posed by a substance, the more taxes we'll stamp on it=no mess with universal healthcare. If you can see any other mess it would make, I'd like to hear about it.

Who will do the testing ? Who will supervise that ? Who will pay that ? How people with health problems necessitating the most expensive meds will do ? What if health concerns are discovered later ? What about getting the meds from another country for cheaper ? What about mandatory vaccines ? Also, people are already paying for healthcare, I doubt they will accept more taxes.

Quote:
How does this make sense to you?

The same way some of what you said made sense to you I guess.

Quote:
What's that horse in George Orwell's Animal Farm whose response to any hardship was 'I will work harder'? That horse was awesome.

We both know how he ends though.
Funny that you say that, because that's what I answered when I was told I would never make it to the school I wanted to go in.

Quote:
Hey, I care about others. The fact that I don't want to illegalize personal choices means that I don't care about people?

I was only referring to this :
Quote:
I wouldn't even care. I'd just do what I had to do, complaining is mental capacity wasted.


Quote:
Complaining about the choices of individuals is mental capacity wasted. Better?

Yes much better. Involving Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine wasn't necessary. (I know a bit about them, we had history classes at school).

Quote:
This is not anything like complaining about people taking drugs. You are never going to be able to change that.

Little currents make rivers. I believe the evolution of mentalities is more efficient than any law can be. People reduce the quantity of antibiotics they take after all. Of course I will do next to nothing, but I'll still try.

Quote:
nothing I write on Subeta is comparable to Dostoevsky

Nothing I write either. I'm happy you took the time to read my answer. As for me, I'm in the middle of Shakespeare's Henry VI and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. Popular, I know, but that's not something that distracts me from the writing. The Captive Mind is on my list, I've postponed it far too much.

Quote:
I'd like to remind you that you're the one who came into my topic for a debate

Oh I know. I didn't see what was the debate about so I raised an aspect of the question that seemed debatable.

Quote:
Do you think it is the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error?

Whoah, again a debate within the debate (that is already a debate within the debate).
How should I reply, my post is already lengthy... I'll answers with some quotes (maybe not 100% accurate because of translation) that summarize my position.

"Law must have authority on men, and not men on law." Pausanias.
"It's forbidden to forbid." Motto from may 1968 protests.
"The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation." Article 3 from the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.



#3138390 Posted on: 07/9/12 at 9:28pm
Dacrygelosis


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

13
64

@Fortami
No, what I said has nothing to do with quality regulations--in fact, if you re-read my posts(LOL, do it.), you'll see that somewhere in that mess, I actually said that with government regulation of drugs, they would be a lot less dangerous--entirely BECAUSE I agree with quality regulations.

Less power to doctors is a bad thing in which way, exactly?

"Sorry but some government is needed. Not a lot but some is needed."
I agree with this entirely and not a bit more. Jeffersonian government is needed. Again. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."

"Some drugs are not needed nor should be used for people who do not have certain medical conditions."
Alright, if that's your opinion, how do you rectify that with my other point about hydrogenated oils? Hydrogenated oils are responsible for FAR more deaths than ALL drugs combined--legal and illegal--and should not be used by ANYONE.

But that is better than the use of drugs because...? What? I don't know. Because it doesn't give you a feeling of euphoria before you die from all your arteries being clogged? nice.

Doctors know more about certain drugs than some certain people do, but you can't logically assert "Your doctor knows more than you do." For one thing, you know neither me nor my doctor, and about which specific drug are we talking? Do you have the false notion that every(or even any) doctor knows about every drug in existence? Thousands of people are denied the medication they require because their specific doctor had never heard of it, or had neglected to think of it because he hadn't had any patients who needed it before. I follow a few genius doctors in their writings, and they all preach the ignorance of doctors and the need to do your own research instead of simply trusting what your doctor tells you. Look up some facts about misdiagnoses and improper prescriptions given--the numbers are almost unbelievable.

My mother has Celiac's disease--little more than an allergy--she suffered for 7 years, being violently sick every single day, seeing literally hundreds of doctor's and none of them knew what was wrong with her, most of them thought she had diabetes, if memory serves. My older brother(who was 17 at the time) did some research on the internet and found a lot of stuff about people with Celiac's disease failing to be diagnosed by their doctors for years, and suffering similarly. My mother went to her doctor, without much faith, and asked to be tested for Celiac's disease. She started on the proper diet and has been pretty much fine since. But, because it was allowed to go for so long before she found out the problem, irreparable damage was done to her stomach. Doctors are not these all-knowing entities which you apparently assume them to be. A quote from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov--"People, even the most vicious, are always more ignorant and simple-minded than we believe them to be. And this is also true of ourselves." intuitive 17 year old plus internet does what a hundred doctors can't. huhhhhhhhhhhh.

I mentioned to my doctor who, in my opinion is a very good doctor, that I was taking tyrosine and he initially thought tyrosine required a prescription... I explained to him that it was just an amino acid and his recollection immediately kicked in and he explained to me how it worked, although I already knew quite well. Drugs are not simple things(=D), and there is not a human on the earth capable of remembering even the names of each one, never mind the complexities of each!

Bottom line: The health of the intelligent individual is the responsibility of the intelligent individual. To seek help is rational. To rely on help completely is folly.



Explicit leuctotem; da mihi potum?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

#3138438 Posted on: 09/8/12 at 6:20pm
peachleaf
is a survivor


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

137
833

ALPHABRAIN



#3138441 Posted on: 09/10/12 at 11:49pm
Dacrygelosis


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

13
64

@ColorlessRainbow

Fleshlight(plastic vagina)->Alphanails(nail polish for badass men)->Alphabrain(wonder drug for your brain)

That Aubrey fellow sure knows how to evolve his products. I wonder what geniuses invested in his 'labs' after the creation of the fleshlight. Such foresight do I not have.

seriously though, you take alphabrain?
What kind of review do you give it, and how long have you used it?

Have you tried any of his other products? I mean the other nootropics he sells, not the fleshlight/alphanails. Although I'm thinking of getting some alphanails too. Because I'm just that alpha.



Explicit leuctotem; da mihi potum?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

#3138443 Posted on: 12/2/12 at 2:44pm
Psilocin


Hover
Avatar
Post (0)

27
50

The effectiveness of 5-htp has been continually doubted. It MAY help with depression, but it doesn't cure insomnia (higher serotonin levels, which 5-htp is purported to cause, actually promote wakefulness), and it certainly doesn't enhance your cognitive performance at all. It's not a nootropic by any means, just an intermediary metabolite between tryptophan and serotonin that could potentially increase your serotonin levels. If you want to increase serotonin levels, you'd probably be better off taking l-tryptophan instead, which would be more easily converted to serotonin in the brain, IIRC.

The problem with 5-htp is that most of it can't cross the blood-brain barrier and is simply excreted or turned into serotonin for your digestive system, which is pretty useless, as it were. I've taken it on many occasions, to help with MDMA comedowns and just to see if it did anything, and I didn't experience anything that couldn't have been a placebo effect.

But really, all this modulation of our neurotransmitter levels is kind of silly, because our knowledge of neuroscience at this point is still insufficient to establish exactly what serotonin does and how serotonin levels affect us. To this day, there is no set "amount" of serotonin that a "healthy" person is supposed to have. In fact, the theory (largely propagated by pharmaceutical companies to market SSRIs) that lower serotonin levels are associated with depression is just that -- a theory -- and there isn't any evidence to support that low serotonin levels cause depression. There have been scientific studies where rats were administered large doses of l-tryptophan (to increase serotonin levels) to see if it cured depression with no results. There have also been scientific studies where lab animals were drained of their serotonin to produce a state of depression, also with no results. More on that here if you're interested -- http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392

Anyway, I've wanted to experiment with nootropics for quite awhile. My boyfriend takes piracetam and says he gets results from it. I'm not sure if what he's experiencing is more than a placebo effect, but I've certainly noticed his mood was way 'up' after taking a few grams of the stuff. I tried DMAE, supposedly an acetylcholine-related cognitive enhancer, with little effect, maybe slightly better memory but again nothing that I could distinguish from placebo. I'm interested in trying piracetam at some point though, and possibly other nootropics like vinpocetine.

Overall though, I think nootropics are fascinating. After all, if we have drugs that can readily destroy brain cells and retard intellectual abilities, it's more than feasible to think that there are drugs that can greatly enhance our intellectual abilities. I don't think the research is really there yet, though, and who's to say when it will be.