Comment · Sun, March 13, 2016 · Ceretropic & Nootropics Depot
How is the nootropic laws in the US going to change?
Original post in this thread
Plasticperson32 · 11 points
Already seeing problems with tianeptine and maybe some peptides. Would love to hear so insight from vendors.
What they were answering
norepinephrinex · 8 points
You know, I'm not sure if I buy this argument. If you look on Usenet archives going back to the early 90's, people were making the exact same arguments , and that era was near the peak of the drug war ("Just Say No!"). If anything, things have gotten more lax since than as issues that used to be political suicide, e.g., marijuana legalization, have now passed in many states and are undergoing the most serious consideration at the federal level as they have since the drug was outlawed.
Moreover, a majority of what is used here would be strictly under the purview of generic pharmas if it were to come to market, and that ultimately wouldn't be that bad from given guaranteed safety, reliable access and inexpensive prices due to the commodity nature of the product. (For example, I can get a generic script for Adderall IR for ~30 cents a tab.)
People were up in arms about NSI-189, for example. There's a huge difference between that and piracetam, economically - the latter went off-patent years ago, whereas if the company that produced the former fails to bring it to market, they literally risk sudden bankruptcy.
The one danger I would take seriously, though, is the commingling of traditional nootropics with research chemicals. The last thing the community would want would be the two being inadvertently lumped together by a legislative bill; I can't say anything for certain ab…
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic & Nootropics Depot
The more untested and research-oriented compounds are such a minuscule part of the industry as a whole. It's not a risk comparatively.
Just look at the same search trend graphs with Piracetam and Modafinil added to it: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=sunifiram%2C%20nsi-189%2C%20prl-853%2C%20piracetam%2C%20Modafinil&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B8
It's not really a craze when put into perspective, and sales of the more research side of things pale in comparison to things like Piracetam and Modafinil. I actually don't think the more research-oriented things (NSI, PRL, IDRA, Nefiracetam, etc.) are a danger to regulation. The real risks are the more common and popular ones. As for the risk of government involvement becoming an issue in the US, I give it 50/50. It really can go either way at this point. Only time will tell.
Moreover, a majority of what is used here would be strictly under the purview of generic pharmas if it were to come to market, and that ultimately wouldn't be that bad from given guaranteed safety, reliable access and inexpensive prices due to the commodity nature of the product. (For example, I can get a generic script for Adderall IR for ~30 cents a tab.)
This I do disagree with. Adderall XR was crazy high priced, when it was on-patent. If pharma companies could keep justifying that price, you know damn well they would. Look how they purposely patented racemic cetirizine, so that when the patent ran out, they could patent levocetirizine, and jack the price back up, even though they sold racemic at 10mg, and now the new levocetirizine at 5mg. It's asinine, and not in any way best for the consumer. UCB pharmaceutical doesn't give a shit about bringing out the most effective drug for people, otherwise they would have led with levocetirizine from the get go. They care about how best to maximize profit on blockbuster drugs, while minimizing R&D cost. All the other big pharma companies do the same thing.
Many of these Nootropics would not be patentable, so the FDA approvals are never going to happen. Until we make some massive changes to our drug approval and patent system, most Nootropics are not going to be brought to a larger market. Arguments could be made about general safety and reliable access. Although I'd like to think that is becoming less of a concern for people in the Nootropics market, due to actions by the reliable suppliers. However, you can be sure that if Nootropics were suddenly relegated to big pharma, the costs would balloon through the roof. Neuralstem is only currently valued at what it is, because investors think they might make huge money down the line. Even so, their stock price has tanked recently. It would not be worth anything, unless they thought they were going to charge crazy amounts for NSI-189 for the term of the patent. They have not made any revenue, and may never if NSI-189 tanks, or investors pull out too soon. This is not a system that promotes human advancement... This is a system that rewards financial risk taking and prevention of competition, and they use the limitations created by US government regulations to do it. It's a great system for investors and money making, though. The biotech bubble is making a lot of gamblers a lot of cash. This is not what Nootropics are about, and certainly would be a huge blow if it became relegated to that.