(Page 2 of 2)
TR: Do you think it's possible to avoid making people feeling obligated to take these drugs to keep up? Especially given the huge amount of money spent on pharmaceutical advertising and the broad impact it has been shown to have?
MG: Rates of off-label drug use will stabilize. I think they will stay low. One could easily obtain Ritalin now for afternoon lassitude but the vast majority of people don't. The afternoon cup of tea or coffee sustains and seems to do the trick for most of us.
TR: Really? What about in high-pressure situations, like academia?
MG: Remember, these drugs don't make you smarter. They keep you awake so you can study so you can be smarter. While there are always fads of use with such products, usage will settle down to a base rate. That base rate may be higher than some people like, but it will be established no matter what the external drug policy might be.
TR: What about the potential for abuse and dependence? How would you ensure they are used responsibly?
MG: Education is the only tool that works. As we have learned from illicit drug use, it is virtually impossible to keep drugs out of a community. The rate of demand for any given drug, whether illicit or off-label legal, is set by the local social context. One can't ensure drug products will always be used responsibly. It is up to each community to teach about the hazards of inappropriate drug use and, by doing so, control the base rate of use. It is not a perfect world!
TR: One of the major arguments against widespread use of cognitive-enhancing drugs is that it's "the easy way out." Why do you disagree?
MG: Most of these drugs are used in spurts when huge mental demands are called for. They are not for everyday mental routines. Having said that, I think it is a fair concern to make sure people don't become dependent on them as a way of life. Working above one's pay grade in the end has tremendous costs.
TR: What are some of the safety concerns? When giving drugs to healthy people, tolerance for risk is low.
MG: As it should be. Remember, do no harm. I think the concerns are on the mental states if misused. Images might be too vivid, for example. Careful tests and analysis should be run.
TR: Why do you think the idea of using drugs to enhance cognitive function makes people so uncomfortable?
MG: Messing around with the mind is a dangerous and delicate matter. None of this should be taken lightly.
Researchers find that giving rats the common stimulant Ritalin can revive them during general anesthesia.
Research hints that electrically stimulating the brain can speed learning.
I am torn about this issue between two paths. One is the path of performance at any cost. Our lives are short, and we should be able to make the most of them. The other is that with discipline and mental conditioning, we can achieve the same sorts of focus and energy that can be reached with the use of chemicals. It just takes time and a methodology, which our educational system completely ignores in favor of rote regurgitation. I think the human condition would very much be improved more by teaching meditation in school, instead of compulsory drug abuse.
I think meditation is great, but there's no reason you can't take drugs too, if they're safe and helpful. Why does it have to be one or the other?
As a Disabled Veteran, I suffer from TBI & ADHD.
I have to take Ritalin just to function at a nominal mental capacity.
I agree with the comment "Burning the Candle at both ends" and I feel that this drug is indeed too dangerous for the general public to use everyday.
It seems to have a very negative effect on my cognitive abilities, for several days, if I don't take it. I have talked with other people who use this drug daily and they express the same concerns.
You might think that this would be a normal effect on my cognitive abilities, since my brain has been damaged. But I feel anytime we push the body past it's normal limits, for an extended period of time, our body will be damaged in some way.
Is it worth it?
You choose to take Ritalin to boost your cognitive function. Is it worth it? If it is not - STOP taking it!
As for others - let them decide if they need boost or not. Plain and simple.
Anybody remember Cylert? Magnesium Pemoline used for the same thing back in the late 60's.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
phoenix
172 Comments
candle candle burning bright
The potential for overmedicating such cognitive enhancers like Ritalin and Adderall to jump start the brains ability to perform over and above its normal capacity, has been grossly underestimated. We only have to look at documented cases that the negative effects of long term steroid abuse has had on some professional athletes. If you really want to increase your capacity to think, set out a progressively difficult set of mathematical problems to solve, and work your way up to the point where you can find the solutions mentally without having to figure them out with pen and paper. The problem with synthetic enhancers is that while the desired results are probably quite minimal, and could simply be exhibiting a common placebo effect, they only work, if they actually work at all, for the short term. The old saying, 'The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long,' certainly applies itself well to this situation.
Reply
josefski
8 Comments
Re: candle candle burning bright
Isn't it nice that you have a brain that operates such that this approach works for you? Some of us are not born so lucky, and despite what you may believe about your cognitive abilities being the result of hard work, some people need assistance in order to focus and effectively do what needs to be done.
Most of your cognitive ability is inborn, not the result of hard work.
Reply
Melchizedek
2 Comments
Re: candle candle burning bright
How does the effect of steroids on athletes tell us anything about the effects of "brain boosters" on their users? Your claim that the danger "has been grossly underestimated" is but a bald assertion.
Reply