> sourceless claims
Excuse me? There's roughly 60 years of research into the effectiveness of stimulants as a treatment for ADHD. It is probably the single best researched psychiatric drug.
While it's always useful to discuss a proven treatments relevance in the light of newly discovered alternatives, there really is no (significant) doubt in the scientific community about the effectiveness of stimulants. Given the body of evidence, I would say it's more fair to ask you to add some citations to your comments.
> These are literally two identical substances
Yes, they are. That doesn't mean that in patients with a dopamine dysregulation they don't have great therapeutic effect. One could call the euphoria nothing but an unfortunate side-effect leading to abuse in the general population.
> numbers of amphetamine addicts
So, there are addicts. That has nothing to do with therapeutic use.
> Yes, they should be cautions in my opinion.
Since they aren't prescribed to self-diagnosed ADHD patients, there should always be a doctor involved. And I can tell you the titration and monitoring is taken quite seriously, at least where I'm from.
> Using crutches can make physical rehabilitation impossible.
If you're missing a leg, that rehabilitation is going to take a long long time. As will be the case with ADHD. You might learn to cope better, but your symptoms aren’t going anywhere. ADHD isn’t something that generally gets better with age, although better coping skills may mean some people don’t experience as much of an impact on life.
And yes, stimulants are a crutch, but they do help people function better despite their disability.