New drug - stay awake longer, no more worries about sleep.

[Yorick]

Anyway i'll just breed a new generation of workaholics.

Good thing about sleep is, you HAVE to stop working to sleep.
The drug may rmove the physical need for sleep, but what about the mental need for less stress by relaxing.

Worst period I'v gone without sleep was back in 1998 when I was finishing an album I was producing. Over 5 days I had maybe 6 hours sleep? (two nights of 3 hours shuteye, 3 days going straight through). Was extraordinarily difficult.

But had I taken these drugs, the mental toll still would have been crazy, yet I'd probably have done it again, instead of saying "never again" and getting rid of my workaholism.

[Bozos of Bones]

If you're smoking for 7 years, trust me, you'll have lots of symptoms appearing over all kinds of check overs.

[Iron Greasel]

Luvian and Bozos:
Seven years isn't that much, really. It took several decades to discover the harmful effects of asbestos. It took several decades to discover the harmful effects of radium. Some are just starting to speculate on the long-term effects of contraceptive pills. Even the most obvious stuff, for example the fact that stronger pesticides produce stronger pests, took time to find out.

After that stuff has been used a lot for about 30 years, I'll believe that long term human use has no side effects.

After 60 years I'll accept that the chemicals used have no ecological effects.

After 200 years I might just come to terms with the fact that it has no unforeseen sociological effects.

I might be paranoid but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be.

[Yorick]

I like your thinking Iron Greasel [img]smile.gif[/img]

You should check out Brian Eno's long term thinking ideas too. He's part of a group called I believe: "The society for the long now" which has reacted against the current short term awareness trend (not helped by govts. changing every 2, 4 or 8 years in democratic societies I might add) by doing things with longer term implications.

One included building a clock with second hands movg every year, and hour hands every ten years? (or was it every hundred??) and creating an audio warning in the Nevada desert, in every known language, warning of radioactive waste in the area.

Hmmm. just did a google search and found it, and hyperlinked it. Interesting reading.

[Yorick]

Funny thing Eno developed the name after being in New York, where "here and now" means in this room, in the last five minutes, as opposed to a longer definition used in Europe.

I noticed when I was in Singapore, "just now" meant any time today, and "last time" could mean any time in human history, and I've pondered how much has to do with the connection to Chinese culture - unbroken for thousands of years - or in the case of "last time" was just a misappropriated linguistic term.

[Rikard T'Aranaxz]

be afraid of those who dont sleep
remember fight club!

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: Trust me, the consequential side-effects will come to the surface soon enough with this. And since it deals with a thing as serious as sleep it would probabaly be something like brain damage or death after prolonged use. There is no fooling the body and mind, there just isn't. Stick with caffeine and vitamin B for now. Also, if you don't dream, you dont just get in a bad mood, you die.

It's been in use for 7 years, so I'd say if it was going to kill for lack of sleep it would have happened by now.

And I wouldn't do such sweeping statements if I was you. No one really know how the brain work. Yes your brain damage itself from use, which is the effect we associate with fatigue, and when you sleep the brain repair itself, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way to prevent it from damaging itself, of repairing itself faster. I also have yet to see mentioned anywhere that dreams were part of the repair process. All I heard is that they help with memory by processing what you went trough in the day. [/QUOTE]7 years is nothing in terms of medical side-effects. It is hardly "long term". A lifetime is adequate IMHO. But no company wants to wait that long on their cash so they push stuff out faster and we hear it on the news a year or two later about how bad X drug is because of Y.

As for sweeping statements that's open to interpretation. I like to think I know how my body works regardless of the fact that many don't. Just look at the state of Americas health for example, and the crap they put in their bodies.

Experiment with that lack of dreaming if you will but I must warn you that you may not be around long enough to tell the tale [img]smile.gif[/img] . I've read a few papers on the above statement, odd that you found nothing on this. I'll have a mosey 'round for 'em when I have time.

[ZFR]

Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: 7 years is nothing in terms of medical side-effects. It is hardly "long term". A lifetime is adequate IMHO. But no company wants to wait that long on their cash so they push stuff out faster and we hear it on the news a year or two later about how bad X drug is because of Y.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally posted by ZFR: quote: Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: 7 years is nothing in terms of medical side-effects. It is hardly "long term". A lifetime is adequate IMHO. But no company wants to wait that long on their cash so they push stuff out faster and we hear it on the news a year or two later about how bad X drug is because of Y.

[/QUOTE]Well articulated but no [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Legolas]

Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: 7 years is nothing in terms of medical side-effects. It is hardly "long term". A lifetime is adequate IMHO. But no company wants to wait that long on their cash so they push stuff out faster and we hear it on the news a year or two later about how bad X drug is because of Y.

True, but not quite fair towards said companies (it's a bit more responsible than the game industry after all, having more severe consequences). Not only do they want their cash now, but when current drugs have shortcomings the patients also desire better drugs now rather than later. One more extreme example is the vaccine that would protect people from the bird flu if it should go pandemic, another might be any experimental therapy aimed at terminal cancer. If nothing else really works for you, or the drug is needed now, there's no opportunity for twenty years of testing and the risks involved become a lot less unacceptable.
Another aspect is that even with those twenty years, you are not going to get a lot of useful information unless you are using a large test group made up of a variety of individuals. That kind of research is extremely expensive to set up and maintain under controlled conditions, and so can only result in extremely expensive drugs.
Sure, companies want a profit and have about eight years to make it in, but they don't want scandals, patients and governments want reasonable prices and in cases waiting to be sure is worse than taking a chance.
Also, the practice of not actively testing drugs for unforseen long-term effects, but rather researching and comparing data gained from post-marketing experience, is accepted and applied to all 'new' drugs and drug uses in western medicine. There is a wealth of information and testing required for a drug to be approved in the first place, but this is not part of it.
Of course there are times when people suffer because of it, but generally it's considered an acceptable risk. Where it goes wrong is typically when a drug with such an adverse effect is being prescribed regardless of whether older medicine does the job just as well (thereby affecting many people), and doubly so when it's a drug used for extended periods of time (greater exposure, and more interaction with the body).