The Morality, Pitfalls, and Questions of Neuro-Enhancing Drugs


Trent Wolbe:

Evolution is a nice, big idea. It connotes the glacial pace of an unmeditated act unfolding upon species, concepts, and ecosystems. It certainly doesn’t usually get branded as a feeling. But a couple months ago I felt this thing. Maybe a little like what a mommy feels when her fetus kicks the wall crossed with how the baby feels when it gets its pre-K diploma, and the best word I can come up with for it is evolution. Not the glacial kind, but the real-time, Matrix-flavored kind. I was too busy barreling through the wicked pipe of a 30-milligram Adderall to think about it much when it happened, though. Half an hour into my sunrise dose, I logged into, the extraordinarily put-together training site used by corporate operations to keep their employees up on hot software trends. As an avid Monday Night Football chyron fan, I had promised myself for years that I would learn After Effects as soon as I had the free time; the chemical wave pushed me through an especially potent laziness that has always kept me from becoming the motion graphics expert I knew I wanted to be.

In many respects, the evidently widespread fascination with Adderall (and neuro-enhancers in general) stems from the indication that current chemicals can be mixed in such a fashion that induces a state of consciousness in which productivity is honed to a bleeding-edge of capability. Feeling unproductive, tired, and distracted? Take thirty milligrams of Adderall and watch mountains of work dissolve before your pin-pointed eyes.

The experience is nothing short of revelatory. Previously encumbered by the bounds of your fallible human brain, Adderall highlights the scientific potential to unlock and whittle the human experience into whatever shape a person may desire. And yet, for all of the possibility, there are questions of endless importance that require answering: what side-effects might such enhancement pose for growing minds? What disruption might occur to our evolutionary process if the population becomes increasingly chemical-dependent? Are the benefits truly deserving of the cost — both financial and physiological?

In my eyes, the rise of Adderall poses many of the same troubles as the introduction of calculators into the classroom. With the ubiquity of tools capable of solving complex mathematic equations with little human intervention, the learning mind foregoes the historically necessary process of logical discernment. Without careful regulation, the learning mind can become dependent upon such tools — their minds incapable of contending with such complexity without help. Such is the concern with Adderall, insofar as its usage enables far greater human capability for intellectual work.

Although built for sufferers of A.D.H.D., Adderall — in my opinion — warrants sincere and balanced discussion. Technology enhancing the tangible human experience is becoming the primary goal of the industry, and I doubt it’s long before such experiential enhancements extend to the brain itself. Beyond the questions of morality, the scientific potential for human improvement is truly boundless. Just as we encourage the process of rapid innovation in the consumer and medical spheres, it’s fair to ask why this process should not extend to the human mind. Equally, it’s fair to recognize and discuss the evident human penchant toward cheating our environment.

Raising a great many of these important questions regarding the state of our digitally-distracted society, the morality of chemical performance enhancing drugs, and the potential danger such substances may pose to our evolutionary processes, Wolbe’s personal treatise into his Adderall addiction provides for an utterly riveting read. Equally, I would suggest Margaret Talbot’s 2009 piece for the New Yorker entitled, ‘The underground world of “neuro-enhancing” drugs.’

Pablo Escobar's Drug Cartel Spent $2,500 Per Month on Rubber Bands for Bricks of Cash

Image: Rubber band ball, a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (2.0) image

Erik Sass:

The profits were astronomical at every step. In 1978 each kilo probably cost Escobar $2,000 but sold to Lehder and Jung for $22,000, clearing Escobar $20,000 per kilo. In the next stage they transported an average of 400 kilos to south Florida (incurring some additional expenses in hush money for local airport authorities) where mid-level dealers paid a wholesale price of $60,000 per kilo; thus in 1978 each 400-kilo load earned Escobar $8 million and Lehder, Ochoa, and Jung $5 million each in profits. Of course the mid-level dealers did just fine: after cutting the drug with baking soda each shipment retailed on the street for $210 million, almost ten times what they paid for it.

Soon Lehder was hiring American pilots to fly a steady stream of cocaine into the U.S., paying them $400,000 per trip. At one trip per week, in 1978 this translated into wholesale revenues of $1.3 billion and profits of $1 billion.

Posted for no particularly good reason.

(Via BoingBoing)