Search results

Life in the Fast Lane: The author on the CHE Uppers. Crank. Bennies. Dexies. Greenies. Black Beauties. Purple Hearts. Crystal. Ice. And, of course, Speed. Whatever their street names at the moment, amphetamines have been an insistent force in American life since they were marketed as the original antidepressants in the 1930s. On Speed tells the remarkable story of their rise, their fall, and their surprising resurgence. Along the way, it discusses the influence of pharmaceutical marketing on medicine, the evolving scientific understanding of how the human brain works, the role of drugs in maintaining the social order, and the centrality of pills in American life. Above all, however, this is a highly readable biography of a very popular drug. And it is a riveting story. Incorporating extensive new research, On Speed describes the ups and downs (fittingly, there are mostly ups) in the history of amphetamines, and their remarkable pervasiveness. For example, at the same time that amphetamines were becoming part of the diet of many GIs in World War II, an amphetamine-abusing counterculture began to flourish among civilians. In the 1950s, psychiatrists and family doctors alike prescribed amphetamines for a wide variety of ailments, from mental disorders to obesity to emotional distress. By the late 1960s, speed had become a fixture in everyday life: up to ten percent of Americans were thought to be using amphetamines at least occasionally.Although their use was regulated in the 1970s, it didn't take long for amphetamines to make a major comeback, with the discovery of Attention Deficit Disorder and the role that one drug in the amphetamine family-Ritalin-could play in treating it. Today's most popular diet-assistance drugs differ little from the diet pills of years gone by, still speed at their core. And some of our most popular recreational drugs-including the "mellow" drug, Ecstasy-are also amphetamines. Whether we want to admit it or not, writes Rasmussen, we're still a nation on speed

Life in the Fast Lane: The author on the CHE. Uppers. Crank. Bennies. Dexies. Greenies. Black Beauties. Purple Hearts. Crystal. Ice. And, of course, Speed. Whatever their street names at the moment, amphetamines have been an insistent force in American life since they were marketed as the original antidepressants in the 1930s. On Speed tells the remarkable story of their rise, their fall, and their surprising resurgence. Along the way, it discusses the influence of pharmaceutical marketing on medicine, the evolving scientific understanding of how the human brain works, the role of drugs in mai

AbstractObesity and overweight are today recognised as subject to harmful stigma. Through an analysis of discussions of obesity in major American newspapers, the medical literature, and pharmaceutical advertising in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, I document a significant shift in medical thinking about overweight and obesity based in psychiatry, and explore the relationship of that shift to changes in popular understandings of fatness after the Second World War. I argue that the psychiatrically‐oriented postwar medical thinking about obesity was more stigmatising as compared with the endocrinologically‐oriented thinking of the interwar period, in that the newer biomedical theory linked fatness to the already stigmatised condition of addiction and authorised attribution of moral blame to the fat. I further argue that the pharmaceutical industry cannot be assigned the lead role in medicalisation in this period that some authors attributed to it. These events cast doubt on the received view of fatness as subject to decreasing stigma and increasing medicalisation over the course of the twentieth century, and call for exploration of the social factors influencing specific forms of medicalisation.

This paper explores the exchange relationships underlying collaborations between pharmaceutical companies and preclinical (laboratory-based) researchers, in universities and similar contexts, during the interwar period. It also examines the arguments advanced to justify such collaborations in particular contexts as a way of investigating the perceived costs and benefits, especially among the academic parties in these collaborations, and the way these collaborations were regarded in the US biomedical research community.