Why aren't any medical drug companies creating recreational drugs?

[MadImmortalMan]

I guess it's a bit of a silly question, but I would think that anyone who can create a recreational drug that has little or no bad side effects would do pretty well with it. Is there no method for the FDA to approve recreational substances?

[Monoriu]

Isn't Viagra recreational?

[Ideologue]

I guess it's a bit of a silly question, but I would think that anyone who can create a recreational drug that has little or no bad side effects would do pretty well with it. Is there no method for the FDA to approve recreational substances?

Iirc, after the designer drug scare of the 1980s and 1990s, the law was changed so that the DEA could clamp down immediately on pretty much anything they chose.  Meanwhile, pharma companies do indeed produce small amounts of scheduled drugs: there are commercially available brands of MDMA and methamphetamine, which are used for research purposes and very occasionally are also prescribed for certain conditions, under heavily-scrutinized medical supervision.

The real question, I imagine, is why pharma companies haven't leaned on the regulators to permit the opening of a enormous, trillion-dollar market.  Well, for one thing, I bet that a 100% (or 99.99%) harmless recreational drug is harder to make than you'd think, and no pharma company wants to contemplate liability for jokers crashing cars while on Super Meth, or whatever.  For another, drug approval depends on the balance of efficacy in fighting a disease when set against side effects, and "boredom" isn't a recognized condition.  Of course, the DEA is also not subject to same level of pharma regulatory capture as the FDA, and their existence depends upon the flow of contraband drugs.  Plus, Congress would probably step on any attempt to market recreational drugs.  We do remain a pretty prohibitionist culture.

Altogether, it adds up to a lot of institutional inertia.  Plus, changing things would probably open the door to, for example, legal MDMA (does MDMA even have very bad side effects?) or various analogues of it, and nobody could patent it and make any real money off of it.

[DGuller]

I guess it's a bit of a silly question, but I would think that anyone who can create a recreational drug that has little or no bad side effects would do pretty well with it. Is there no method for the FDA to approve recreational substances?

What about Oxycodone?

[Hamilcar]

I guess it's a bit of a silly question, but I would think that anyone who can create a recreational drug that has little or no bad side effects would do pretty well with it. Is there no method for the FDA to approve recreational substances?

Dan Carlin had a great episode on this a while back. His argument was that the moment such a perfect drug (no side effects, antidote etc.) was developed, it would be banned under the "no new drugs" policy.

[Admiral Yi]

Altogether, it adds up to a lot of institutional inertia.  Plus, changing things would probably open the door to, for example, legal MDMA (does MDMA even have very bad side effects?) or various analogues of it, and nobody could patent it and make any real money off of it.

I once had a bunkie who was in med school.  During a lecture on recreational drugs the prof said one of the drugs you really, really should stay away from is X, because it burns holes in your brain.

I agree with Ide re liability.

[DGuller]

Which drug is X?

[Admiral Yi]

Which drug is X?

Ecstasy, aka MDMA (I think).  The rave drug.

[DGuller]

Which drug is X?

Ecstasy, aka MDMA (I think).  The rave drug.

Whew.

[Valmy]

Isn't Viagra recreational?

Well the recreation is not the taking of the drug itself and it does treat a medical condition.

[Barrister]

Which drug is X?

MDMA.

The side effects of which don't sound particularly good:

MDMA users may encounter problems similar to those experienced by amphetamine and cocaine users, including addiction. MDMA damages brain serotonin neurons. Serotonin is thought to play a role in regulating mood, memory, sleep, and appetite. Research indicates heavy MDMA may cause persistent memory problems in humans; however, a 2011 study has reported limited cognitive decline in users of MDMA.1

Psychological effects can include confusion, depression, sleep problems, anxiety, and paranoia, sometimes lasting for weeks after taking the drug. Physical effects can include muscle tension, involuntary teeth-clenching, nausea, blurred vision, faintness, and chills or sweating. Increases in heart rate and blood pressure are a special risk for people with circulatory or heart disease.

http://www.drugs.com/illicit/mdma.html

[Capetan Mihali]

Methamphetamine can be prescribed for ADHD: brand name Desoxyn.

And I believe the Ecstasy-holes-in-brain notion has not held up over the years. (Not to say it's harmless by any means. I had a roommate who was a self-admitted "E-tard" from overuse in high school.) Most of the stuff on the street today is actually based around methylone, not MDMA; hence the growth of the word "Molly" to distinguish real MDMA.