The Search for the Antidote to Cocaine Addiction | Hacker News Reader

The Search for the Antidote to Cocaine Addiction

buzzfeed.com

22 pointsbenbreen17 comments

So, I really like cocaine.

I grew up smoking weed, and at some point in my life, I stopped completely. I, personally, suffered from the paranoid and laziness traits that effect certain users. It was a few years later that I tried cocaine.

Now, I always err on the side of safety, so when dealing with a drug that can kill with overuse, I tread carefully. I do way less than the normal user, and I do it only once a week. When I do do it, it's great. I get a LOT of work done. It's like coffee x2.

I don't want to argue with anybody about the substance, but I believe, for me, its positives outweigh its negatives. I hope one day the quality available to the public increases, and one day, that it is decriminalized.

Something like MC-18 will probably help extreme cases of addiction, but, it sounds like a very intense drug.

you are crazy...

wow when did hard drugs become okay here? have fun while it lasts cuz it never does.

I think he needs to try out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8439952 -> http://brutalhonesty.io/

add .io

profit

> its positives outweigh its negatives.

Until it doesnt.that's why cocaine is REALLY tricky.Because you can actually have a "normal" life with it,for a long time,unlike weed where you know you cant have a deep intellectual activity high on THC.

Well put about when it doesn't. It can be tricky, and it definitely depends on how well the user can manage their vices. I'm able to, so it works out. I eat very well and exercise tons, so I'm very healthy otherwise. It's dangerous to exercise on the drug, which is just one of the many reasons I don't do it often.

I do know some people who smoke a lot of weed, and are super productive and sharper than ever on the high. Unfortunately, that's not me.

His context was "For me, its positives outweigh its negatives."

I think he stressed its dangers, but for him at least now, there is not a problem.

> I always err on the side of safety

Evidently!

FWIIW, this research is not new. As the article noted, the drug is a relative of Ibogaine, which people have noticed has some "anti-addiction" properties for ... oh, I don't know; at least 50 years now (probably it was used for this purpose by the pygmies who actually discovered it). The article didn't note that one of the early therapeutic uses of LSD and other psychedelics: treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction. It was reasonably successful; there is no reason to believe the Ibogaine has any special properties that make it work better.

While I haven't examined the literature in detail, it's pretty obvious (from my youthful indiscretions, and observations of others) that tripping balls might give you a sort of "come to Jesus" moment that makes drinking and smoking crack seem like kind of a bad idea. Or, perhaps it temporarily blows out your dopamine system. Either way, if this substance works like the other psychedelic treatments, it should be obvious it isn't a long term effective treatment for drug addiction, since plenty of psychedelic users end up addicted to other drugs, and nobody talks about dropping acid and deciding to quit snorting coke (despite similar clinical successes in the 50s).

Not that I think the FDA should block this; even if it is psychedelic snake oil, they shouldn't be in the business of blocking research on such topics.

"The FDA requires drugs like 18-MC to produce absolute abstinence in cocaine users in clinical trials, a standard that many believe is impossibly stringent."

This is insane, who at the FDA comes up with this stuff?

If it kills them, that would result in absolute abstinence. That's the only way I could see absolute abstinence provided from only a drug.

Is that actually true? There are plenty of addiction treatments in the form of drugs that have been approved by the FDA, but don't come anywhere close to "absolute abstinence".

Let's say it's John at the FDA coming up with this stuff. But John is really a victim of the system set up around him. He's following orders. He's just doing his job. He has already rationalized his guilt away from this deed.

Instead, how about we let the FDA continue with their silliness of approving or not approving drugs based on whatever criteria they want, while still allowing non-FDA approved drugs to be sold?

That way we can all decide, at point of sale, if we are going to trust FDA's opinion or not. They can put big warning labels if they want (the retailers, not the government).

The problem here is the FDA has a monopoly on deciding which drugs two people can exchange for money. They can keep judging drugs all they want, but their control of what hits the shelves is unconstitutional and immoral.

EDIT: to downvote this is to be against personal responsibility; the UK has a great nanny state you might want to partake in.

John at the FDA could be the most rational drug policy wonk imaginable, but that's not going to help him during Congressional oversight hearings if lawmakers decide there is political capital to be made out of attacking him. For all its flaws, the FDA (like other agencies) has to follow rules of administrative process which are subject to challenge, and which aim to bring about iterative improvement. Legislative process is a lot more haphazard, and I'm not sure that the introduction of TV cameras has done anything to improve it.

> The UK has a great nanny state you might want to partake in.

The UK (well, England) is actually dismantling its "nanny state" extremely quickly, selling off public services to private corporations with the medium-term goal of removing all public funding for them, under a Conservative regime that shows no signs of stopping even when it makes absolutely no sense to privatise services. Pick on someone it makes more sense to.

"Drug experts say alcohol worse than crack or heroin" (2010)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/01/us-drugs-alcohol-i...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com