The effect of amphetamines on kids without ADHD is to improve school performance.
The effect of amphetamines on kids without ADHD but who've been diagnosed with ADHD because they're not getting enough exercise is... to improve school performance.
The "young unruly boys without enough PE" is a well-known trope, and modern school is very much kid torture - but I'm not willing to say yet that we're medicating children too much, when the world is only slowly waking up to the fact that we've been underdiagnosing ADHD by at least factor of 2 - this stereotype of unruly boys means the Primarily Inattentive subtype of ADHD is being frequently ignored (vs. the Primarily Hyperactive that creates all the stereotypes), that girls suffering from ADHD are not being diagnosed, not to mention adults.
Either 1. we are medicate children too much and schooling is very screwed up or 2. 20% of boys defective to extent that they require amphetamines. I am not see third option. I am not believe 20% of boys defective to such extent. So I believe we are medicate children too much.
[0]: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a32858/drugging-of-the...
How about 3: schooling is increasingly good at exacerbating symptoms of a problem that's considered to be strongly genetic[0] (a point curiously omitted in the article you linked) and widespread in the population. And the numbers seem less surprising if you consider that adult life is also good at making the symptoms apparent - except we brush them away with labels like "lazy", "unorganized", "chronic procrastinator", "rude", etc. and let people figure out coping mechanisms on their own, which often include substance abuse, or on the lighter end, self-medicating with coffee and cigarettes.
--
[0] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3245028/#__sec1... points to "strong genetic influence on ADHD with estimated heritability ranging from 75% to 91%".
Almost 40% of boys that age need vision correction.[2]
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2017.1...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6644a12.htm?s_cid=m...
> 84% of total world wide ADHD meds are eaten in the USA.
That's of course because US is ahead of the curve in medicine.
> Just like in Europe the medical consensus is that people have to learn to live with pain rather eating oxy's.
This isn't a medical consensus. We just don't push opioids for everything so early. We start with paracetamol and ibuprofen, upgrade to ketoprofen and other NSAIDs in more specialized or severe cases, and continue as needed. But living with pain is not an acceptable answer here either.
Stimulant meds work very well on ADHD and are very safe, both short and long-term; it's a much better story than say SSRIs and depression. The main problem here is the combination of stigma (oh no, amphetamines!) and fears of abuse by people not suffering from ADHD (oh yes, amphetamines!) - both of which are in large part fueled by the US War on Drugs, the unending source of pathologies and suffering worldwide.
It seems crazy that we've made it this far as a species without medication; so why should it be required now? Maybe the issue isn't the children, but the environment they are in?
- teachers had a lot more options when it came to disciplining kids
- many left school for work at age 15 - 16
Do you want the good old times back?
(Another thing is many countries have changed the curriculum to be even more heavy on theory than it used to be. That I would like to change, both for the kids and for future employers: broad practical experience probably increases someones chances in engineering and probably other disciplines as well.)
The United States most definitely has a unique illness. It’s convinced the masses freedom is being tethered to corporatism.
We need a less militaristic and autocratic 1984
“40 hours a week for deflated earnings is freedom. Quarterly gains for the aristocracy is how we beat ‘them’.”
I was under the impression that this "it works differently on people with ADHD" thing was essentially a pleasant myth. If you've got solid citations that stimulants do somehow work differently on people with ADHD I'd be interested in reading them. My understanding was that the effect is broadly similar, with the only meaningful distinction being that ADHD-diagnosed individuals have been judged as needing those effects, and others have not.
For those who need it it makes mind-numbingly boring stuff such as homework (as opposed to reading history books or creating elaborate formulas etc etc) less painful.
I don't know about you but I personally have seen some examples that have gotten significantly improved lives because of it.
If you don't know this stuff first hand, please refrain from making broad statements about it.
BTW, I'll give you this: one of the most interesting explanations I saw was that ADHD is very overdiagnosed - and at the same time underdiagnosed.
Some people get ADHD meds that shouldn't have, others struggle for years because some people have irrational fear against stimulats.
Can we try to avoid moving that needle and instead try to lower the errors on both sides?
Unless all the kids illegally buying ADHD meds to do better in school when they have not been diagnosed with ADHD (and adults doing the same, for that matter, to do better at work) are doing that for no reason, I'm pretty sure I'm correct that amphetamines improve performance for most everyone, and that distinguishing between ADHD-and-improved-on-meds and not-ADHD-and-improved-on-meds is not trivial.
I was replying to a post that read:
> If they're on stims in particular, and the meds actually improve their behavior, then the cause most likely isn't insufficient PE time.
I object to that being proof of much other than amphetamines making most people perform better in school, without commenting on whether ADHD is a "real" thing (I'm not even sure what it would even mean for it not to be "real", given the state of our understanding and diagnosis of mental disorders). "We gave the kid amphetamines and they improved, must have had ADHD" is dangerously misguided.